Category: 1993

  • PMQT – 20 April 1993

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Parry : Will the Prime Minister today decide when he intends to visit Liverpool, where he can meet local trade union leaders to discuss the very high level of unemployment? Incidentally, he might visit Liverpool, Riverside, which has the highest level of unemployment in England, Scotland and Wales–32 per cent. Will he also consider visiting Liverpool next month for the commemoration of the battle of the Atlantic and western approaches? Her Majesty the Queen is coming and, in 1940, Mr. Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister, came several times, as did King George VI. Will the Prime Minister consider coming there?

    The Prime Minister : I have indeed received an invitation to attend the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, in which Liverpool and its people played such a significant part. I have accepted that invitation and I look forward to that event very much indeed.

    I am aware of the very high level of unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It has fallen over recent years, but it is still far higher than in many areas in the United Kingdom and is one of the worst pockets of unemployment anywhere in the country. I will not be able to visit Riverside on this occasion, but I understand the particular problems faced by the hon. Gentleman and if he, with a small delegation of his constituents, wishes to come to see me to discuss the problem, I will be happy to meet them.

    Mr. Ottaway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of Norway’s largest ship owners, Gearbulk, has recently decided to relocate to London, giving as its reason that it wants to be at the centre of things? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that Britain, with a low corporate tax structure and a Conservative Government, remains the best place in the world in which to do business?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of that piece of welcome news and I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has said. We very much welcome inward investment from both within and beyond the European Community. We are determined to maintain in this country the economic circumstances and the relatively low on-costs to employment which will continue to attract inward investment.

    Mr. John Smith : While it is essential that the sanctions against Serbia be intensified and properly enforced, as indeed they should have been months ago, is it not now necessary for a clear ultimatum to be issued to the Serbs that they will not be allowed to continue their aggression unchecked and that, if they continue that aggression, their lines of supply within Bosnia will be subject to air attack?

    The Prime Minister : We had a lengthy statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday in which he set out the present position and the discussions we are having with our partners in the United Nations. The House recognised yesterday that the road to further action, particularly if it leads to military action, which is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question implied, is fraught with peril. Once one goes down it, there is no turning back. We must first be confident that that is the right direction.

    Mr. John Smith : While there are risks in any course of action, and I would not seek to minimise them, do not they have to be weighed carefully against the possibly greater risks of non-action? Surely what is badly needed is a demonstration of United Nations determination. How will the Government respond, for example, if the Serbs proceed to take the crucial towns of Gorazde and Zepa? Should not they be warned now that such action on their part will not be tolerated?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend say again yesterday, we are not excluding those options ; we are considering them seriously and discussing them with our allies. I have spoken recently with both the French and American Presidents, but we have not yet reached a decision about the balance of advantage in those particular courses. They could cause fighting to escalate, civilian casualties to rise and an end to the humanitarian operation.

    On that last point, I remind the House that it was the expectation in the House some months ago that over the winter hundreds of thousands of Bosnians would die of starvation and lack of medicine. That has not happened because we have managed to sustain the humanitarian operation. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I would willingly throw that away.

    Mr. Dickens : Following the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of many British citizens who were members of a cult in the United States of America, will my right hon. Friend have conversations with the Home Secretary with a view to setting up a working party to see how we can best limit the recruitment of British citizens into those evil cults?

    The Prime Minister : There are a number of undesirable cults and I share my hon. Friend’s concern. It would be difficult to focus legislation to restrict the establishment of cults or religious movements because it would be difficult to determine what groups should be included in the legislation and what groups should be excluded. However, we have powers under the criminal law and we are prepared and willing to use them to regulate the behaviour of individuals when they may infringe the rights of other people. We also have powers under the immigration laws to prohibit the entry of people who may wish to establish such cults, if it is thought that they would be damaging to our interests.

    Mr. Ashdown : In the Prime Minister’s previous answer, he rightly referred to the importance of humanitarian aid. Has he noticed that today the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has called for the establishment of a United Nations protected safe haven in Zepa and Gorazde? How will he respond to that question?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will know that the UNHCR wants to set up safe areas by agreement with the parties in those areas and does not want the United Nations to be an active participant in the conflict. To that extent, it differs quite radically from the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to me about some days ago.

    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there has to be further military intervention in Bosnia, it should be done under NATO command with American participation, backed by United Nations resolutions supported by Russia?

    The Prime Minister : I see no other circumstances in which it would be practicable to expect any military authority to be there and to succeed. Anything short of action in the circumstances set out by my hon. Friend would be unacceptable and would be unlikely to be agreed. Those are only the circumstances, but I stress that that would be a very grave step and it is not yet the policy of any of the major Governments in the United Nations.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Ross : Has the Prime Minister had a chance to study the public sector borrowing requirement figure announced today? Does he realise that £9.5 billion is the highest recorded figure of any Government for any one month? It is £1 million more than the Chancellor announced in his Budget last month. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many forecasters, who believe that that points to a real underlying problem about our economy? What is he going to do about it?

    The Prime Minister : It is an interesting question from the hon. Gentleman. I hope I can assume from it that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about borrowing that he will support our new controls on public spending. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in imposing limits on public sector pay and on keeping caps on council spending. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why he supported the Delors proposals for Community spending which would have cost us millions. He might explain why his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said that he was prepared to debate with the Community over our rebate. All those matters relate to our borrowing requirement ; upon none of them have we ever had the support of the hon. Gentleman or any right hon. or hon. Member in his party. Words from him about restraints on public spending are very hollow indeed.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers have a moral duty to do their very best for their pupils and that that means carrying out testing this summer? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Britain spends a higher percentage of its GDP on education than Germany and Japan, but that in Germany children are taught and tested over 1,260 hours per year, whereas children in Britain are taught for as little as 850 hours per year and would remain untested if some teacher unions have their way, supported by the disruptive attitude of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : As a former head teacher, my hon. Friend speaks with particular authority on this matter. A boycott of testing would certainly not be in the interests of our children. We need tests–and need them this year–as Sir Ron Dearing, among others, has made clear. My hon. Friend is right that our principal competitors have national curricula and regular testing. Any attempt to sabotage our reforms could damage our long- term ability to compete and damage the education of our children.

     

    Q5. Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Llwyd : The Prime Minister will be aware of the recent integrated administration control system forms which have been issued at the behest of the European Community. These are a great headache to the farming community because they are time limited ; they have to be in by 15 May. Farmers also have to have plans mapped out in hectares. In my constituency, for example, only two thirds of land has been surveyed for that purpose. I urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues to ask the EC to extend the time limit and to consider defraying the expenses of those who have spent on survey fees privately for this purpose.

    The Prime Minister : There are difficulties with this and I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Although I doubt whether it is feasible to extend the time limit, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture is seeking to help farmers in that situation within the rules of the terms of the scheme. Maps that can be used are available, but we have always recognised that some farmers may have difficulty getting maps of the right scale. Where maps cannot be obtained, farmers should provide the best alternative that they can.

     

    South Africa

    Q6. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has recently made to, or received from, the South African Government regarding political change in South Africa.

    The Prime Minister : We are in regular contact at all levels with the South African Government and other parties involved in the current constitutional negotiations. I shall be seeing Mr. Mandela and Chief Buthelezi in the next few weeks. I am also in touch with President de Klerk.

    Mr. Hunter : As the tragedy of South Africa unfolds and, for the time being, the men of violence have their way, will my right hon. Friend urge President de Klerk not to give ground to the enemies of democracy or mob rule, but, rather, to continue negotiations, especially with moderate black leaders, so that the new South Africa may be better than the old?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend knows South Africa well and I agree with him that negotiations are the only way to reach the goal of a non-racial, democratic South Africa. The concessions that the ANC is seeking, covering both the election date and the establishment of a transitional executive council, are matters for the constitutional negotiations. I urge all parties to address issues in that forum.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Connarty : Has the Prime Minister had, as I have, the shared joy of being present at the birth of his children? Does he share with me and the Royal College of Midwives deep concern at the massive increase in the use of Caesarian sections in all parts of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that I have been told in parliamentary replies that the rate has risen from 5.3 to 13 per cent. in England and to 14 per cent. in Scotland and that women are now threatened in one out of eight cases with surgery in what should be the pleasant experience of childbirth? Does he think that it is time that we had a childbirth charter to protect women from the scalpel when they should have a normal childbirth?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of the question is yes, on two occasions. The second part is essentially a matter for the individual mother and her surgeon and doctor. I confess that I was not aware of the growth of Caesarian section births and it is a matter which, in the light of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Honours System

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister how many individuals have written to him since his statement of 8 March proposing themselves as recipients of honours.

    The Prime Minister : Over 1,600 names have been put forward to the honours nominations unit since I made my statement to the House on changes to the honours system. Based on a check of a sample of the nominations, it is likely that about a dozen are self-nominations.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister how many staff were employed at No. 10 Downing Street to administer the honours system in 1992 : and what increase in their number is planned.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 15 April 1993] : The honours section in 10 Downing Street consisted of six staff in 1992. Numbers will be kept under review in the normal way to reflect changes in the work load.

     

    Sir John Cuckney

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what Government tasks are currently carried out by Sir John Cuckney.

    The Prime Minister : Sir John Cuckney is currently chairman of the Maxwell Pensioners Trust and adviser to the Department of Social Security’s Maxwell pensions unit. Both appointments were made by the Secretary of State for Social Security. In addition, Sir John serves as a trustee of the Royal Air Force museum, an appointment made by the Secretary of State for Defence.

     

    Pakistan

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Pakistan.

    The Prime Minister : I am keen to take up an invitation from the Pakistan Prime Minister to visit Pakistan, and will do so when time permits.

     

    Political Parties (Donations)

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to prevent the use of bank loans from offshore tax havens to political parties in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 18 March, at column 357.

     

    BCCI

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received concerning compensation for the victims of BCCI.

    The Prime Minister : I have received numerous representations.

     

    Royal Bank of Scotland

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what Government Departments hold bank accounts with the Royal Bank of Scotland; and which of those accounts are at Drummonds branch.

    The Prime Minister : No central records are maintained showing which Departments use which banks. Government Departments may use the services of clearing banks without reference to the Treasury when the arrangements offer good value for money.

     

    India

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Indian High Commissioner following the bomb blasts in Bombay in March.

    The Prime Minister : I expressed my personal sympathy to the Indian high commissioner as soon as I heard of the explosions and loss of life in Bombay, and also sent messages to the Indian Prime Minister and the Governor of Bombay conveying condolences and offering practical help.

     

    Local Authorities (Private Capital)

    Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to lift restrictions governing the use of private capital by local authorities, laid down in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

    The Prime Minister : We have no such plans. However, it is already open to local authorities to enter into partnerships with the private sector and draw upon private finance.

     

    Mr. Salman Rushdie

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister when he now expects to meet Mr. Salman Rushdie.

    The Prime Minister : I expect to meet Mr. Rushdie shortly.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 April 1993

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if the costs of legal and other advisers attending the Scott inquiry will be covered by the resources made available by Her Majesty’s Government to support Lord Justice Scott’s investigation;

    (2) what criteria will govern the repayment of costs for witnesses at the Scott inquiry; and what expenses will be regarded as reasonable.

    The Prime Minister : The inquiry will meet the expenses of a witness or adviser necessarily incurred in attending to give evidence to the inquiry. Legal costs will be met by the inquiry if Lord Justice Scott decides that they were necessary in the interests of justice. They will be assessed by the costs branch of the Treasury Solicitor’s Department on the standard basis (as defined in order 62, r.12(1) of the rules of the Supreme Court). The legal costs of Government witnesses or advisers will be met by the Department in which they were serving at the relevant time.

  • PMQT – 15 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 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. Cousins : Does the Prime Minister agree first, that the supply of weapons to the states of the former Yugoslavia should be choked off and not increased and secondly, that arms and equipment dealers who may wish to dabble there, and their friends, no matter how well connected, will not find a safe haven in Great Britain?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House views with dismay and despair the slaughter in the whole of Bosnia which we see daily on our television screens. For that reason, we have sought over the past few months, not least at the London conference and in a variety of other ways, to play our part in the international community in trying to bring an end to that particular conflict. I share the hon. Gentleman’s view about the need to damp down and not to increase the supply of arms.

     

    Q2. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Staff for calling a strike for tomorrow and on other days which will be damaging to passengers, especially my constituents, and which could put in danger other people’s jobs? What would my right hon. Friend do if his transport spokesman backed the strike? Would he back him or sack him?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the latest strike by the RMT will cause further hardship to the travelling public and that it will damage British Rail’s finances. That does not safeguard jobs in rail or elsewhere ; it actually puts jobs in rail and elsewhere at risk. It is an utterly pointless strike. It is a throwback to the 1960s and it deserves the support of no one. It certainly does not have my support and it does not have the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I regret that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) supports the strike. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition does not and I hope that he will take appropriate action.

    Mr. John Smith : The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that just before Easter, he assured me during Prime Minister’s Question Time that the Government were prepared to widen and to intensify sanctions against Serbia. In view of the appalling slaughter at Srebrenica, will the Prime Minister tell us what action the Government have taken since then?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly stand by the remark I made to the House before Easter. We are keen both to widen and to deepen the sanctions against Serbia. To do that we need the complete support of our allies in the Security Council and elsewhere. I expect that a suitable resolution will be passed in the United Nations this month, but I cannot guarantee in advance of that the support of all other members, which is necessary to ensure that we have that resolution. The British position is clear. We wish to have that resolution as speedily as possible. We should have welcomed it today.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister recognise that even the existing sanctions are not being enforced adequately so that there is no real let or hindrance put upon the Serbs and their present barbarous behaviour? Instead of the Security Council resolution being delayed until towards the end of the month, ought not the British Government be urging that it be brought forward so that the international community can take effective action?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated delicately to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that is the position of the British Government, but we would not get it through the Security Council at this moment for reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can well understand. One of the permanent members would not be likely to support it now, but will be later this month. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows who and why.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that there is really deep anger and concern in Britain about the fact that the slaughter at Srebrenica is a daily affair? Ought there not to be more urgency than this leisurely diplomatic pace?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that neither he nor anyone else has a monopoly of concern or conscience about the matter. His concern is shared throughout the House and the country. No one doubts that. The question at issue is what we can do, how best we can do it and what options will most successfully help to bring an end to the slaughter. In achieving that, we need the support of the other members of the Security Council and the international community. We have been seeking to obtain it for a variety of measures and we shall continue to do so. In the meantime, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will need no reminding of the leading role that Britain has taken in providing humanitarian aid and in the search for a diplomatic settlement. We were the first nation to put a substantial number of troops into Bosnia and to help people facing great difficulties through the winter.

    Mr. Matthew Banks : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the advice of the armchair generals and pseudo-defence experts, all suggestions of substantial military action in the Bosnian region should be totally resisted as in that terrain it would lead to guerrilla warfare and substantial loss of life among British service men and women and those of other countries, and would make no contribution whatsoever towards an early resumption of peace talks and a settlement of the problem?

    The Prime Minister : I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and agree with him. We are seeking a diplomatic means of ending the fighting. That is the only credible way forward for the international community. Other issues have been considered and discussed, but they involve substantial disadvantages. Many of them were cogently set out to the House yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

    Mr. Ashdown : The key question is whether Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to see Srebrenica fall into the hands of the Bosnian Serbs.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has shared for a long time the concern that everyone in the House feels about the issue. What he has never done is suggest a way– [Hon. Members :– “Answer.”]–I will answer the question in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman has never suggested a way in which we could physically prevent military action. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should put British troops on the ground in Bosnia, will he please say so directly or stop implying it?

    Mr. Roger Evans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the respect of the public and parents for the teaching profession was not enhanced by the conduct of certain people at the National Union of Teachers conference last week, and that the proper way to restore public confidence in the education system and testing is the Government’s review and not a campaign of sabotage?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The concern that we have in education policy is to improve the quality of education and the success of all our children as they go through their schooling. I believe that the remark of the president of the NUT that the union’s aim was “to annihilate the tests” was a disgrace. I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member in the House will give any houseroom to that sort of attitude.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jim Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Marshall : Is the Prime Minister aware of the increasing concern among the lower paid and many other people about the proposed increase in domestic fuel prices from April 1994? If so, what advice would he offer to those people who face massive bill increases in the winters of 1994 and 1995? Would he advise them to leave the heat on, turn it down or switch it off?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will provide substantial extra help for people in particular need ; we will announce the details of that in good time and the increases will take effect before any increases in the fuel charges. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might give me a straight answer at some stage as to whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) when he called for an increase in value added tax.

     

    Q4. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Oppenheim : Bearing in mind the importance attributed to manufacturing by many, if not all, people, does my right hon. Friend recollect that manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government, whereas, during the 1980s, Britain enjoyed the fastest growth in manufacturing output of any major European country and that manufacturing productivity in Britain during the 1980s rose faster than in any other major industrial country in the world? Do recent figures show that conditions are now in place to resume and build on that progress in the 1990s?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend clearly knows, the figures released yesterday show manufacturing output sharply up. They underline the fact that our manufacturers are taking advantage of the present opportunities. I very much welcome that. We need a strong and successful manufacturing industry. What we need to see is an industrial renaissance, not the propping up of lame ducks. The fact that we now have the lowest interest rates in the Community, very low inflation and a competitive exchange rate gives our industries and our exporters in particular every opportunity of growing, investing, expanding, and seeking and achieving success in the 1990s.

    Mr. Hardy : The Prime Minister mentioned tests. Does he accept that the testing of English proposed for this year is so outrageously flawed that not only the test should be withdrawn but the present direction of the Department for Education should be withdrawn as well?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the principle behind the hon. Gentleman’s question. I think that there is no doubt that the tests are the key to raising standards, as our main competitors around the world have shown. It is a straightforward matter of common sense. Without tests, teachers cannot identify pupils’ weaknesses and cannot tackle them, parents cannot hold schools to account for their children’s progress and the Government would not know what was happening in the schools. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members do not find the importance of education and tests a matter for seriousness.

    The National Institute for Economic and Social Research found that, at middle and lower ability, pupils in England learnt less than their contemporaries in France, Germany and Japan. That cannot be satisfactory to us and it cannot be satisfactory to teachers. It is vital that we have those tests so that we can identify those weaknesses, find out what the children have not understood and have not learnt and then take action to put it right. Hiding those tests and the results of them is no way to help our children in schools.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert B. Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Jones : Against the background of the scandals surrounding the European bank for reconstruction and development, and persistent reports of fraud involving the common agricultural policy and other European funds, is it not a matter for congratulation that the British Government, at any rate, have made a high priority of proper discussion of, and attention to, the reports of the European Court of Auditors? Will my right hon. Friend read up on his efforts in that direction? In particular, when he has a chance to have a word with Chancellor Kohl will he ask him why the Germans are not so keen as we are on discussing this sort of fraud?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that the United Kingdom has taken the lead in action against fraud both in the agreements that we reached at Maastricht and on other occasions when European leaders have met. We have done that in the past and we will continue to do that in future.

     

    Q6. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Hoyle : Despite the Prime Minister’s boasting about the engineering industry, has he not seen the Engineering Employers Federation report published today which suggests that engineering imports will rise twice as fast as exports? How will that balance of payments crisis help the country? Does it not once more show how far engineering manufacturing industry has declined due to the mismanagement of the economy by his Government?

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. He needs to concentrate, as we are concentrating, on the opportunity that we have to expand and improve the industrial and manufacturing base as a result of the policies that we put in place, which are now clearly becoming successful. I regret that Opposition Members do not like that success, but it is becoming more evident week after week.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Green Minister

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister how many times the green Ministers nominated from each Government Department have met as a group during the past year.

    The Prime Minister : It is a fundamental principle of our approach to green issues that environmental considerations are taken into account in all policies and at every level. Green Ministers are charged with integrating environmental considerations into the strategy and policies of their own Departments. They have met once in the past year. Mechanisms for co-ordinating policies between Departments include the annual White Paper process and official networks. There is a separate Ministerial Committee on the Environment, EDE, to handle major cross-departmental issues.

     

    Irish Republic

    Mr. Beggs : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he plans to make to the Irish Government regarding the present policy in the Irish Republic of bail for terrorists, following the murder of Special Constable Glenn Goodman and the attempted murder of Police Constable Sandy Kelly.

    The Prime Minister : We have made clear to the Irish Government the very serious implications of judicial decisions in extradition cases in which bail has been granted. The Irish Government have informed us that, while decisions on bail applications in individual cases are a matter for the courts, Irish law relating to bail is governed by the provisions of the constitution. We will continue to express our concerns on this subject, with a view to a wider area of discretionary judgment being afforded to the judiciary in such cases, for the greater protection of the public.

    Mr. Beggs : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of security co-operation with the Irish Republic following the murder of Special Constable Glenn Goodman and the attempted murder of Police Constable Sandy Kelly; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Security co-operation between the RUC and Garda Siochana is at a high level. British and Irish Ministers are determined to maximise the effectiveness of co-operation and will continue to seek ways to enhance it.

     

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Mr. Churchill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that all files relevant to the claim for compensation by United Kingdom nuclear test veterans will be released; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Much information about the British nuclear test programme is already in the public domain and further files are being reviewed for possible release in due course. Dose records and medical data on each participant are available to the individual concerned. Successive Governments have confirmed that appropriate safety precautions were taken at the time of the tests to protect the participants from harm.

     

    Service Pensions

    Mr. Harvey : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to amend levels of service pensions to take account of the effect of pay restrictions in force from 1976 to 1978.

    The Prime Minister : The retired pay or pensions awarded to personnel of the armed forces whose service ended during the period of pay restraint from 1976 to 1978 were calculated in accordance with the rules of the armed forces pension scheme in force at the time. We have no plans to modify the awards that were made.

     

    Market Testing

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister which businesses have been identified for market testing by more than four Government Departments since January 1992; and what percentage of the work force in each Department is (a) female, (b) part-time and (c) clerical or administrative grade.

    The Prime Minister : Departments are responsible for their own market testing programmes and definitive information is not held in the form requested. However, the information available centrally indicates that the following broad areas are included in the programmes of more than four Departments.

    Accountancy

    Estate and Building Management

    Information Technology

    Hardware Maintenance

    Software Design and Maintenance

    Internal Audit

    Legal

    Conveyancing

    Library Services

    Office Services

    Payroll

    Record Storage and Retrieval

    Recruitment

    Reprographic

    Security Guarding

    Statistical Surveys

    Training

    Typing

    The information on staff numbers cannot be given except at disproportionate cost, but statistics on staff, including breakdowns by gender, grade and department, are contained in “Civil Service Statistics 1992 Edition”, published by Her Majesty’s Treasury.

     

    Egypt

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he took during his recent discussions with President Mubarak, of Egypt to raise the issue of human rights abuses and curtailment of religious practices among Coptic Christians in Egypt.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 April 1993] : I discussed a wide range of subjects with President Mubarak, including the situation in Egypt. He is determined to maintain law and order in Egypt in the interests of all Egyptians. The position of the Copts was discussed with the Egyptian Foreign Minister who accompanied President Mubarak.

    Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to President Mubarak about the Egyptian authorities’ refusal to redress the grievances of the United Kingdom company WENA Hotels.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 April 1993] : The Foreign Secretary raised the question of WENA Hotels with the Egyptian Foreign Minister during President Mubarak’s recent visit to London, urging the Egyptian authorities to encourage the Egyptian party to the dispute to go to arbitration as soon as possible. Our embassy in Cairo is following this up.

     

    Bosnia-Herzegovina

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister what recent communications he has received from Dr. Radovan Karadzic regarding the current situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 April 1993] : Dr. Karadzic wrote to me on 31 March about the peace process under the international conference on the former Yugoslavia and about the ban on flights in the airspace of Bosnia-Herzegovina. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is replying to Dr. Karadzic, stressing the urgent need for a peaceful settlement and the importance of the Bosnian Serbs signing the peace package. He is also emphasising the further pressure which will be put on the Serbs if they refuse to sign.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Opening of Strabane Police Station – 7 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the opening of a new police station at Strabane, made on Wednesday 7th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say how pleased I am to be here today and to see this remarkable station opened. It is nice to have had the opportunity of being a small part of it and I am very grateful to Tom and to Paddy Mayhew for making sure that that was possible.

    I am grateful to all of you for being here as well today at a time where I believe a lot is happening in Northern Ireland. I spend a great deal of my time, perhaps more I suspect than many of you realise, thinking and talking and wondering about the particular problems and the particular opportunities, for I do not always believe we should talk about problems, that actually exist in Northern Ireland.

    Let me just say a word or two about that that I profoundly believe. For more than 20 years now, far too long a period, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered violence. That is a very long time indeed and after so long I think there are some dangers that we need to guard against. We need to guard in particular against the danger that violence will become to be accepted as a natural way of life, we ought never to accept that. There is a danger that people will give up struggling against it, that they will lose hope in their efforts to stop it, that they will cease to believe that we can solve Northern Ireland’s problems by constitutional means.

    If people did believe that, if there were people who for a millisecond were tempted to believe that, I suspect the events of the last three weeks must have shaken that feeling. The tragedies we have seen here and the tragedies we have seen on the mainland in England I believe have shocked people into thinking afresh about the situation. Those tragedies have sunk into the national consciousness in a way that many other events perhaps sometimes do not. They fuelled a demand for an end to what most people perceive as the defenceless slaughter that you have had to endure in Northern Ireland for too long.

    Moods can be transitory. There have been times in the past when people have come together, only then to fall apart, times when they have made very determined efforts which for one reason or another have not yet then succeeded. I do not believe we should be discouraged by that. I do not believe we can afford to be the prisoner of past failures. Surely, in the light of the progress made in the talks over recent months, in the light of the events of recent weeks, surely now is the time for everyone who is concerned about Northern Ireland to think again about its future, its prospects and the way in which we secure a firm, peaceful future for all the people who live here.

    Let me set out for you what that means for the British government. It means several things. It means absolutely no reduction whatsoever in our willingness to confront terrorism. Our opposition to terrorism remains implacable and will do so for as long as terrorism exists. Bringing it to an end is our first priority in Northern Ireland and we will continue to be totally unrelenting in pursuit of those who plant bombs, who maim, who intimidate, who trade sectarian murders or who attack the security forces.

    Nor does it mean that the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland can ever be overridden. We have given our guarantee and no-one should doubt that guarantee. Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for so long as that remains the wish of the majority of people who live here. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that reflects the will of its people, we support that and we will continue to defend it.

    Those are not casual points, they are fundamental points of principle for the British government, they are widely supported, they do not stand in the way of progress. What they do, I believe, is to define how we move forward.

    So how do we move forward? Where does progress lie at present? I believe the way ahead is clearer than many people may imagine. Self-evidently, the people of Northern Ireland want tranquillity, they want peace, the people of the Republic of Ireland want peace, the people of Britain want peace, they are calling for it, they are demonstrating for it and no-one should doubt the depth of the feeling that exists in every part of the United Kingdom.

    We have heard some very fine words, moving words, over the past three weeks and they are very welcome. But let me say something about that. I think that people in Northern Ireland want, expect and deserve more than moving words from their political leaders. They surely want their leaders, all of us, to take action, to assume responsibility, to have the courage to show flexibility. We already have a vehicle for dialogue. Much was achieved in the talks initiated by Peter Brooke and carried forward by Paddy Mayhew. But the participants to those talks have not met since last November. I have to say to you today, that delay has been far too long. The dialogue between the constitutional parties and the British and the Irish governments must be resumed and the sooner it is resumed the better it will be.

    And when it is resumed, when people talk again, the participants must be prepared to move away from entrenched positions, there must be a greater willingness on all sides to show flexibility in return for flexibility. And in this context I have been encouraged by recent statements about Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution and I welcome, without reservation, such readiness to contemplate constitutional change in the context of an overall settlement.

    I spoke, and I spoke deliberately, over the last few minutes of the constitutional parties. There are those who stand in the way of that progress and our position on them has not changed at all. Those who use violence for political aims exclude themselves by their own actions. And if they wish to be taken into account, the choice lies entirely in their own hands. They must demonstrate, they must demonstrate to the satisfaction of people who are rightly sceptical that they have turned their backs on violence clearly, unequivocally and irrevocably. They can do that, but only they can do that, and I hope that they will.

    I have spoken also in the last few minutes of what I believe the people want. But there is I believe another vital element to peace and it is this. Steadily, without great fanfares, significant progress is being made to heal divisions in the community. Far too little acknowledgement has been given to the remarkable amount of work that has been done by many people, often unknown, often unsung, over the period of the last few years. But that work is valuable, it is changing the hearts and minds of people who live in every part of the Province and it is affecting the instincts and feelings of people who live in other parts of the United Kingdom.

    The government has played its part, it has legislated to remove discrimination for example in employment matters. It has adopted the toughest such law in Europe and I can promise you today that it will continue by all the means at its disposal to seek to develop greater trust between the two parts of the community to lay the widest possible foundation for progress at the constitutional level.

    I want the dialogue, the dialogue between the constitutional parties and the two governments, to be resumed as soon as possible. So, I know, does the Irish government. So, I believe, do the overwhelming majority of the people of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland. The Secretary of State and I will therefore be proposing an early start to further talks, involving the four parties and the two governments. When they talk we will put proposals before the participants. We must press ahead.

    There are, I believe, grounds for hope. People are repelled by violence and I believe also that they are frustrated, deeply frustrated, by political stalemate. There is an opportunity at the moment to catch the mood, to achieve a political accommodation. We must ask today for everyone involved potentially in those talks, for everyone in the community to have the courage to take the opportunity that may exist in the hope that those talks can move forward and end the political stalemate and the difficulties that people have faced in this province for so long.

    Let me just end with this thought. Every time I come here to Northern Ireland and I have the opportunity to meet people, not just the opinion-formers, but often people who express just their own personal private view when I meet them, I am struck by several things. I am struck by their optimism about the future for this part of the United Kingdom, I am struck by their courage, I am struck by the determination that they have to safeguard the things of value to themselves, to safeguard the matters of interest to themselves. Those family matters – education, health – all those things that affect families in every part of the United Kingdom, they want to sweep aside these troubles that have laid so many difficulties upon the people of Northern Ireland and have distracted so much from the opportunities that exist in Northern Ireland over the last 20 – 25 years.

    I said a moment or so ago there was an opportunity, it is an opportunity for the people, for the people to make it clear to the politicians that they want progress and an opportunity for the politicians to listen to what they are saying, perhaps to take the risks that are necessary, to have the courage to show the flexibility that is necessary to see if we can move from the past impasse that existed for so long and build on the success of the talks over the past two years or so.

    Do not under-estimate what has already been achieved, but what has already been achieved is a beginning, it is a springboard to what still can be achieved for the people of Northern Ireland and all Ireland. Those are the opportunities that lie ahead for us. If we look at those opportunities I hope we will have the courage to take them.

    Being here today, looking at this remarkable building, and I congratulate without reservation those who conceived it, those who have built it and those who work in it protecting from ordinary crime and extraordinary crime the people who live in this area.

    When one sees this one sees the changing circumstances of Northern Ireland and the opportunities that exist for the future, I would simply say this. I am pleased to be here today, I am proud to be here today and I look forward to coming back again at some stage in the future when I talk to you just about the domestic problems that you face and no longer have to talk to you about that dark shadow of terrorism that has hung over this province for so long. When I come back on that occasion that will be an especially sweet visit and I hope it will not be too long delayed. Thank you for your hospitality today.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Opening of Strabane Police Station – 7 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the opening of a new police station at Strabane, made on Wednesday 7th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say how pleased I am to be here today and to see this remarkable station opened. It is nice to have had the opportunity of being a small part of it and I am very grateful to Tom and to Paddy Mayhew for making sure that that was possible.

    I am grateful to all of you for being here as well today at a time where I believe a lot is happening in Northern Ireland. I spend a great deal of my time, perhaps more I suspect than many of you realise, thinking and talking and wondering about the particular problems and the particular opportunities, for I do not always believe we should talk about problems, that actually exist in Northern Ireland.

    Let me just say a word or two about that that I profoundly believe. For more than 20 years now, far too long a period, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered violence. That is a very long time indeed and after so long I think there are some dangers that we need to guard against. We need to guard in particular against the danger that violence will become to be accepted as a natural way of life, we ought never to accept that. There is a danger that people will give up struggling against it, that they will lose hope in their efforts to stop it, that they will cease to believe that we can solve Northern Ireland’s problems by constitutional means.

    If people did believe that, if there were people who for a millisecond were tempted to believe that, I suspect the events of the last three weeks must have shaken that feeling. The tragedies we have seen here and the tragedies we have seen on the mainland in England I believe have shocked people into thinking afresh about the situation. Those tragedies have sunk into the national consciousness in a way that many other events perhaps sometimes do not. They fuelled a demand for an end to what most people perceive as the defenceless slaughter that you have had to endure in Northern Ireland for too long.

    Moods can be transitory. There have been times in the past when people have come together, only then to fall apart, times when they have made very determined efforts which for one reason or another have not yet then succeeded. I do not believe we should be discouraged by that. I do not believe we can afford to be the prisoner of past failures. Surely, in the light of the progress made in the talks over recent months, in the light of the events of recent weeks, surely now is the time for everyone who is concerned about Northern Ireland to think again about its future, its prospects and the way in which we secure a firm, peaceful future for all the people who live here.

    Let me set out for you what that means for the British government. It means several things. It means absolutely no reduction whatsoever in our willingness to confront terrorism. Our opposition to terrorism remains implacable and will do so for as long as terrorism exists. Bringing it to an end is our first priority in Northern Ireland and we will continue to be totally unrelenting in pursuit of those who plant bombs, who maim, who intimidate, who trade sectarian murders or who attack the security forces.

    Nor does it mean that the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland can ever be overridden. We have given our guarantee and no-one should doubt that guarantee. Northern

    Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for so long as that remains the wish of the majority of people who live here. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that reflects the will of its people, we support that and we will continue to defend it.

    Those are not casual points, they are fundamental points of principle for the British government, they are widely supported, they do not stand in the way of progress. What they do, I believe, is to define how we move forward.

    So how do we move forward? Where does progress lie at present? I believe the way ahead is clearer than many people may imagine. Self-evidently, the people of Northern Ireland want tranquillity, they want peace, the people of the Republic of Ireland want peace, the people of Britain want peace, they are calling for it, they are demonstrating for it and no-one should doubt the depth of the feeling that exists in every part of the United Kingdom.

    We have heard some very fine words, moving words, over the past three weeks and they are very welcome. But let me say something about that. I think that people in Northern Ireland want, expect and deserve more than moving words from their political leaders. They surely want their leaders, all of us, to take action, to assume responsibility, to have the courage to show flexibility. We already have a vehicle for dialogue. Much was achieved in the talks initiated by Peter Brooke and carried forward by Paddy Mayhew. But the participants to those talks have not met since last November. I have to say to you today, that delay has been far too long. The dialogue between the constitutional parties and the British and the Irish governments must be resumed and the sooner it is resumed the better it will be.

    And when it is resumed, when people talk again, the participants must be prepared to move away from entrenched positions, there must be a greater willingness on all sides to show flexibility in return for flexibility. And in this context I have been encouraged by recent statements about Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution and I welcome, without reservation, such readiness to contemplate constitutional change in the context of an overall settlement.

    I spoke, and I spoke deliberately, over the last few minutes of the constitutional parties. There are those who stand in the way of that progress and our position on them has not changed at all. Those who use violence for political aims exclude themselves by their own actions. And if they wish to be taken into account, the choice lies entirely in their own hands. They must demonstrate, they must demonstrate to the satisfaction of people who are rightly sceptical that they have turned their backs on violence clearly, unequivocally and irrevocably. They can do that, but only they can do that, and I hope that they will.

    I have spoken also in the last few minutes of what I believe the people want. But there is I believe another vital element to peace and it is this. Steadily, without great fanfares, significant progress is being made to heal divisions in the community. Far too little acknowledgement has been given to the remarkable amount of work that has been done by many people, often unknown, often unsung, over the period of the last few years. But that work is valuable, it is changing the hearts and minds of people who live in every part of the Province and it is affecting the instincts and feelings of people who live in other parts of the United Kingdom.

    The government has played its part, it has legislated to remove discrimination for example in employment matters. It has adopted the toughest such law in Europe and I can promise you today that it will continue by all the means at its disposal to seek to develop greater trust between the two parts of the community to lay the widest possible foundation for progress at the constitutional level.

    I want the dialogue, the dialogue between the constitutional parties and the two governments, to be resumed as soon as possible. So, I know, does the Irish government. So, I believe, do the overwhelming majority of the people of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland. The Secretary of State and I will therefore be proposing an early start to further talks, involving the four parties and the two governments. When they talk we will put proposals before the participants. We must press ahead.

    There are, I believe, grounds for hope. People are repelled by violence and I believe also that they are frustrated, deeply frustrated, by political stalemate. There is an opportunity at the moment to catch the mood, to achieve a political accommodation. We must ask today for everyone involved potentially in those talks, for everyone in the community to have the courage to take the opportunity that may exist in the hope that those talks can move forward and end the political stalemate and the difficulties that people have faced in this province for so long.

    Let me just end with this thought. Every time I come here to Northern Ireland and I have the opportunity to meet people, not just the opinion-formers, but often people who express just their own personal private view when I meet them, I am struck by several things. I am struck by their optimism about the future for this part of the United Kingdom, I am struck by their courage, I am struck by the determination that they have to safeguard the things of value to themselves, to safeguard the matters of interest to themselves. Those family matters – education, health – all those things that affect families in every part of the United Kingdom, they want to sweep aside these troubles that have laid so many difficulties upon the people of Northern Ireland and have distracted so much from the opportunities that exist in Northern Ireland over the last 20 – 25 years.

    I said a moment or so ago there was an opportunity, it is an opportunity for the people, for the people to make it clear to the politicians that they want progress and an opportunity for the politicians to listen to what they are saying, perhaps to take the risks that are necessary, to have the courage to show the flexibility that is necessary to see if we can move from the past impasse that existed for so long and build on the success of the talks over the past two years or so.

    Do not under-estimate what has already been achieved, but what has already been achieved is a beginning, it is a springboard to what still can be achieved for the people of Northern Ireland and all Ireland. Those are the opportunities that lie ahead for us. If we look at those opportunities I hope we will have the courage to take them.

    Being here today, looking at this remarkable building, and I congratulate without reservation those who conceived it, those who have built it and those who work in it protecting from ordinary crime and extraordinary crime the people who live in this area.

    When one sees this one sees the changing circumstances of Northern Ireland and the opportunities that exist for the future, I would simply say this. I am pleased to be here today, I am proud to be here today and I look forward to coming back again at some stage in the future when I talk to you just about the domestic problems that you face and no longer have to talk to you about that dark shadow of terrorism that has hung over this province for so long. When I come back on that occasion that will be an especially sweet visit and I hope it will not be too long delayed. Thank you for your hospitality today.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Manchester Chamber of Commerce – 2 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, held on 2nd April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you for your warm welcome. I am delighted to be here. 250 years ago Daniel Defoe called Manchester “the greatest village in the country”.

    Today it is a great city of Europe. That is not politician’s wholesale civility. This is the city of English commerce. This is Brindley and Crompton country: where faster transport met an eightfold increase in yarn and cloth production. Together that sparked the Industrial Revolution and sold shirts to the world!

    But why is it a great city? Because leading not following, Manchester has changed with the times. We all face a similar challenge. “The times, they are a’ changing”. In our interests we must lead that change and fast.

    The captive market is an inscription on a headstone. And the lordly assumption that it is a privilege to buy from the British has passed into history. Japan and the countries of the Pacific rim are giant manufacturing powers. China is set to become a huge industrial power. That’s the competition; so let’s not flinch, let’s not run. Our job is to beat the competition.

    So we must not make the mistake of falling for the alternative to complacency, the British gift for graceful despair. We can compete brilliantly and we are now well placed to win in the world’s market place. Step back a moment from the painful necessities of the last two years and consider the position today. Listen, please, to the scores Britain chalks up and you don’t hear enough about:

    – we have inflation below 2%, better than most of the European Community and most of the G7;

    – we have a highly competitive exchange rate;

    – interest rates are the lowest in the European Community and the lowest for 15 years

    We have not seen that combination for nearly 40 years. I believe industry and commerce have recognised that reality better than many others:

    – manufacturing output is up, so is investment;

    – productivity is rising fast;

    – you have kept wage costs competitive – doing better than Germany or Japan, better than any time for a generation.

    As the Chancellor said earlier this week, Britain is set for two years or solid growth, growth that is the fastest in the European Community big league. We have every reason to be confident about our economic prospects.

    We said low inflation would bring recovery. We brought inflation down. Recovery is now following as we said 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 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.

    The recovery will benefit every bit of Manchester’s increasingly broad-based economy. A diversified and successful base that is represented here so well tonight. 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. 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 we will need for tomorrow. Three universities, a world-renowned business school, UMIST, you name it.

    That’s 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. I applaud that. If the recovery is to last and prosperity to grow, we have to win and continue to win right across the market place. Vital though services are to our prosperity, we cannot depend on them alone. We need a vibrant, thriving manufacturing base.

    So, Mr President, I want to say a few words about the importance of manufacturing and just a bit about our export success.

    The British have managed a fanfare without trumpets. We are exporting more now than at any time in our history. But in the export market we operate like Jeeves – we just shimmer silently! We export discreetly. We don’t tell anyone; it might give offence. But I think we should.

    We British export £400 per person per year more than the Japanese: £1,800 for every man, woman and child, compared with £1,400 for the Japanese. What are we to do with the Gordon Glooms who always say British industry is crumbling? Listen, in financial services, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, the water industry, power generation, areas of food processing, the drinks industry, garments, aerospace and defence equipment, the oil and gas industry, mining equipment, biotechnology and international construction, we lead the pack.

    British companies account for ten out of the top European twenty companies by profitability and eleven out of the top twenty by size. And though the trade gap is still too 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 which would have delighted Richard Arkwright, we sell pizzas to Italy! 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!

    What about the future? Well, I’m a fairly tolerant soul. But I’ll tell you one thing I don’t like. I don’t like to see British manufacturers retreating from the field. I don’t like to see imports monopolising markets. I don’t like to hear defeatists say that radios or kitchen equipment just can’t be made in Britain. Some people said Britain couldn’t stay in computers. Yet today, more than one in every ten PCs made around the world is actually manufactured in this country. We sell £400 million worth of computers a year to the USA; and our software businesses are recognised everywhere. Britain’s car industry has turned retreat into triumph.

    Other industries can do the same. And retailers can help them – by looking for good British products and offering them to consumers. Not in rejection of good imported products – but in proper competition with them. Defeatism is most damaging when buyers and retailers won’t even look for a good British source of supply. Now British industry is becoming ever more competitive, there is every good business reason to seek out the home talent.

    And why is it so many people have such a low view of manufacturing? I think part of this comes from the outdated 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 hammer works! That’s not a low view of manufacturing, it’s a low understanding. 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 American and selling to the world. These are great symbols but we want more than symbols. We want fast-breeder replication – more, more, more!

    The Need for Competitiveness

    Improving competitiveness is the key to expanding our manufacturing base. We know that when we’ve 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 price they want to buy.

    There is one other danger waiting. Time and again since the war exports have gone up in recession but when the recovery came companies abandoned the export drive for the warm, debilitating huddle of the home market. Well that must not happen this time. We’re determined to build on our export success. That is why, in the Autumn Statement and the Budget, the Chancellor increased export credit and cut its cost to business. You keep exporting. We’ll keep supporting.

    Success requires continuous effort, continuous improvement. We cannot let up. Manchester knows something about 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, very nearly destroyed Lancashire. Let us remember them in order not to be like them. Chance not decay must be our creed.

    Let me make it clear. I believe that the Government has a duty to work with industry to help industry meet the 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’s why we’re 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 is a very real example. So is the Channel tunnel rail link, so is the Forth crossing in Edinburgh.

    It’s why we were reforming education. That’s what tests in schools are about: to find out what the children know and what they don’t. Because we need to know what they don’t know so we can teach them what they should know. They deserve the best, they need the test. You need the best, working for you.

    That’s why we’re 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’s why science is a Cabinet job and why we are overhauling what we do on science and innovation to ensure Britain’s effort and brainpower backs industrial success.

    It’s why in the Budget we’re given extra help to Britain’s exporters, why we’ve cut businesses’ rate burden and cut ACT to boost business cash flow by £2 billion.

    And when we have winners we support them everywhere. I did it recently in India and in the Gulf. British firms had done the work. Government helped unlock the contracts. £5 billion worth of orders and 20,000 jobs safeguarded for years to come. I saw the fruits of the partnership earlier today when I met the Gulf Tornado builders at BAe, Warton. I and my colleagues will give that backing. So must all our Embassies throughout the world. Graceful manners and an elegant understanding are surprisingly well suited to the indispensable arts of trade. Pour them out the gins and tonics by all means, but then sell them both bottles.

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

    Making a Success of Europe

    Mr President, over recent months there has been a tiny frisson of controversy over our European policy. 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 terminal at Charles de Gaulle is work done in Bolton.

    The cocktail chatter is that the Government is too obsessed ith Maastricht, when we should be concentrating on jobs. In what world are such people living? Jobs and sales are what being in the heart of Europe is about. 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? In Europe, overwhelmingly. An example: 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 Europe is perfect. But that story tells why we are there. Since we joined, our exports to it have grown nearly 50 per cent faster than those of our old EFTA partners. That is almost £20 billion last year, 20 exports billions worth 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 bought raw wool in the Cotswold in 1370 should contemplate holding back from the richest free trade market of them all.

    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 recent specifically to support what we are doing. Let me quote:

    “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 – between the eyes! That is the message business should give to doubters about our commitment to Europe. Maastricht opens the way to the sort of Community we want. Taking that essential step away from centralisation, we gain the benefits of the single market without the drawbacks. At the end of the inky labyrinth of Treaty sub-clauses is a trading Europe. First and last and especially here in Manchester, that is what we want, a trading Europe.

    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.

    One Stop Shops

    Let me say a word about the Chambers of Commerce movement. It is already helping its members win markets. But I think it can do more. I would welcome a bigger billing for the Chambers. It can only help for businessmen to swap ideas and learn from each other. I would like Government to develop the same relationship with the Chambers as with the CBI. The One Stop Shop Initiative is a tangible sign. And naturally, Manchester has won the bid to be one of the pilots.

    Manchester’s Olympic Opportunity

    Here in Manchester this evening one other issue 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 8th in the European league of Best Cities in which to locate a business. But it can move up. I know, and everyone here knows, 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 enduring 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, in Manchester?

    I am honoured to play my part. Together with Craig Reedie of the BOA and Bob Scott – who has done wonderful things for Manchester – I pressed the city’s case to the President of the IOC just a couple of weeks ago. No-one can be sure what will lie in the minds of the IOC when they vote to decide the location. Because of what has already been done, Manchester is one of the three hot favourites. Beijing and Sydney will make their pitch, but nothing that can be done for Manchester will be left undone.

    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 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 knows what must be done. So does the Government. United, we can do it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Environment

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister in how many instances papers for Cabinet and for ministerial committees have included a note of significant costs or benefits to the environment, during the course of the past year.

    The Prime Minister : “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”, published in May 1992, states that memoranda circulated to Cabinet or a ministerial committee should, where appropriate, cover any significant costs or benefits to the environment–paragraph 1.2. I do not propose to give details of papers considered by Cabinet or Cabinet Committees.

     

    Nuclear Proliferation

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to the control of nuclear proliferation were discussed at his meeting with the President of Turkmenistan on 29 March.

    The Prime Minister : During our discussions President Niyazov confirmed to me that all nuclear weapons had been withdrawn from Turkmenistan, in accordance with an agreement between Turkemenistan and Russia.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed (a) the prospects of Pakistan joining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and (b) the risks of nuclear proliferation in Asia during his meeting with his Pakistani counterpart on 29 March.

    The Prime Minister : Nawaz Sharif and I discussed these matters briefly. The Pakistan Government are well aware of our views.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 29 March, Official Report, column 46, if he will set out the reasons underlying the assessment of the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty as being in the interests of all signatories.

    The Prime Minister : The prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is vital to the security of the whole world. We believe that the non-proliferation treaty represents the best available means of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and that therefore it is in the interests of all states parties to secure the indefinite extension of the treaty in 1995.

     

    Question Time

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy when announcing his engagements to Parliament in Question Time to give details of the persons he has met and plans to meet and the meetings he has attended and plans to attend that day.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Public Appointments

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister how many of the appointments made by him as listed in “Public Bodies 1992” came within the categories set out in paragraphs 49 and 50 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”.

    The Prime Minister : Paragraphs 49 and 50 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” cannot concern such appointments as they cover the need for Ministers to consult me on appointments which they make.

     

    Egypt

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister what levels of United Kingdom aid Egypt will receive during 1993-94; what account, in allocating this aid, is taken of the Egyptian Government’s human rights record; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Current commitments for 1993-94 are some £5.3 million. We are working with the Egyptian Government to develop new projects in support of economic reform, the environment and education. Human rights and good government are factors which the Government take into account in determining their aid policy.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Regional Government

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards regional government for England.

    The Prime Minister : We see no case for setting up regional authorities in England. Our aim is to simplify and streamline local government, not to impose an additional layer of bureaucracy on local taxpayers.

     

    Liverpool

    Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has visited Liverpool since he became Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I have visited the north-west on a number of occasions since becoming Prime Minister.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 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.

     

    European Court

    Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 March, Official Report, column 283, what was the average length of time that elapsed between the European Court of Justice finding that Her Majesty’s Government were in breach of its obligations under EC directives and the necessary steps being taken to rectify matters; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 31 March 1993] : Four cases were referred to in my previous reply in which the United Kingdom was held by the European Court of Justice to be in breach of EC directives. Three of these cases required legislative action to give full effect to the judgment of the Court ; this took between six and 14 months to complete. In the fourth case, concerning a breach of directive 80/788–drinking water– when judgment was delivered on 25 November 1992 the UK had already complied on two of the points on which it was found to be in breach. Action on the remaining two points is in hand.

     

    Prime Minister’s Office

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister

    (1) if he will give figures for (a) the number of staff and (b) the cost of the Prime Minister’s office for each year since 1979;

    (2) why the cost and size of the Prime Minister’s office are not separately identified in Cm 2218 the “Government’s Expenditure Plans, 1993-94 to 1995- 96”; and if he will provide figures for its cost and size.

    The Prime Minister : It has not been the general practice to identify the cost of Ministers’ offices separately in departmental reports. The cost and size of my office are freely available in the form of parliamentary answers. The information for each year since 1979-80 is as follows :

    |Staff<1> |Cost<2><3>

    ——————————————–

    1979-80 |68 |1,409

    1980-81 |68 |1,745

    1981-82 |70 |2,415

    1982-83 |64 |2,700

    1983-84 |66 |3,026

    1984-85 |67 |3,787

    1985-86 |66 |4,406

    1986-87 |66 |4,963

    1987-88 |67 |5,418

    1988-89 |67 |6,554

    1989-90 |68 |7,669

    1990-91 |71 |8,226

    1991-92 |73 |8,664

    1992-93 |95 |<4>9,136

    <1> The staffing levels relate to the beginning of each financial year. For the years 1979 to 1989 the figures relate to the number of actual staff employed in No.10. From 1990 onwards the figures are on the basis of staff in post (ie expressed in terms of full time equivalents). It should be noted that the increase in staff numbers from 1 April 1992 is due to the transfer of office service support grades, already working in No. 10, to the No. 10 complement from the Cabinet Office establishment officer’s group.

    <2> The monetary figures represent the cost of 10 Downing Street and Chequers borne on the Votes of the Cabinet Office (OPSS) and its predecessors. Over the period, the following changes have occurred to the basis of the costs:

    in 1981-82 the Ministry of Defence introduced charges for the use of its aircraft;

    in 1983-84 the then Property Services Agency introduced charges for buildings and services;

    in 1984-85 charges were introduced for the Government Car Service and the Service Personnel at Chequers; and

    in 1986-87 the cost of office services was included for the first time.

    <3> Costs are shown in the year in which the expenditure was made. Because of billing delays this is not always in financial year in which the goods or services were provided.

    <4> Estimate.