The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy – 18 September 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held at Chequers on Wednesday 18th September 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he planned to spend less money and where cuts would come from].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are two elements, as you say: firstly, expansion of the economy; and second, saving money and spending it more effectively. And that is what we have been doing. If you look at the relative comparisons, most of our partners in Western Europe, in the same economic space, would spend between 47-50 per cent of national income. We are down to 41 per cent, we are continuing to see that drop. As the economy grows, we will ensure that the growth in the economy is not wholly used by the state, that predominantly it is used to reduce the state’s role in terms of taxation. But in addition to that there are savings. It is hard to get savings, no-one should pretend that that is easy. We have been chipping away at elements of waste for 17 years and will continue to do so.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he could get below 40 per cent when it had been higher than that for most of the last 17 years].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set a target for the moment of 40 per cent, just as originally when we wanted to cut tax we set a target of 25, when we got to 25 per cent for the basic rate, we set a new target. So our first objective is to get it below 40 per cent.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how much lower].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we will get it below 40 per cent first and then we will set a further target. I am not going to set a long distance target at the moment. Let us reach the target we have set ourselves for the moment and then see how much further we can take it. That is what we have been doing and is it the only sensible way in which to proceed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would make cuts or believe the economy would grow at a sufficient pace to make cuts unnecessary].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been saving public expenditure for some years. Let me take the most practical example – the welfare state and in particular social security. Social security since the war has been growing at a faster rate than the growth of the economy. Because of changes that we have made, widely supported I think by most people in this country, the growth of the social security budget is now about 1 per cent a year. That has never been achieved before. It opens up options for government either to spend that money elsewhere, on health or education for example, or to spend it partly to reduce taxes.

    The question – is there a single simple way in which you could massively save money? If there were that would have been done by governments a long time ago. It is a steady accretion of cutting out unnecessary expenditure and there are still areas where the government spend money unnecessarily.

    Let me give you a practical illustration. Suppose in the last few years we had not privatised all the utilities – gas, electricity and other matters – they were heavily subsidised when they were in the public sector. Heaven alone knows what the standard rate of tax today would be if we had not shrunk the state in that fashion. And we have to continually look to see where we can extend that thought.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Annual Focus on Scotland Dinner – 3 September 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Annual Focus on Scotland Dinner, held at the Hilton Hotel in Glasgow on the 3rd September 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I’m delighted to be back in Scotland and back here in Glasgow.

    The last time we were due to meet was, of course, postponed after the awful events in Dunblane. No one who was in Dunblane at the time or who, like me, visited it shortly afterwards will ever forget what happened there.

    The Secretary of State asked Lord Cullen to inquire into the events, report and make recommendations.

    He is doing so. As soon as we have his report we will decide on it and act on it speedily. If legislation is necessary we have already reserved a place in our programme for it. There will be swift decisions and swift action.

    Events like those in Dunblane put politics into perspective.

    I love politics but I don’t love it to distraction.

    Frankly, there’s just too much of it.

    But the substance of politics – the hard political policy choices – are important.

    Because politics does change people’s lives.

    Take Scotland, for example.

    Think back to what life was like almost 20 years ago.

    Loss making, subsidised industries. Shrinking markets. Growing dole queues.

    Some 20 years on, things are better. Immensely better. The economy is growing. It’s dynamic and diverse – with exporters who are the envy of the world.

    The transformation has been breathtaking.

    Since 1981, inward investment of over £5 billion – protecting or creating over 80,000 jobs.

    A faster annual rate of economic growth than England over the last five years.

    Record breaking levels of manufactured exports – growing at twice the rate of the rest of the United Kingdom.

    And that success backed by low inflation, lower taxes, low costs.

    These didn’t appear by magic. Getting here meant taking tough decisions, some of them politically unpopular. It meant standing up to the heat of the day and fighting for what we believe in.

    But these hard won achievements – and they were hard won – are easy to lose. They can be thrown away if Britain takes the wrong turning. If it’s lulled into believing the soft sell that many politicians love to peddle.

    It’s always tempting for politicians to sing the tune people want to hear. To promise people new rights, new conditions at work, new minimum wages.

    It’s easy – but dangerous.

    Because these all early a price tag. And the price would be paid in investment and jobs.

    Many of you here tonight are businessmen. You take hard-headed decisions, aiming to get the best for your company, your workers, your shareholders, every day. You know the importance of keeping costs down so the profit on the bottom line goes up.

    I’m in no doubt that Britain’s success – Scotland’s success – at attracting record levels of foreign investment is partly due to our determination to keep costs low.

    Lanarkshire, once the pulse of the first industrial revolution, is now the cradle of today’s technological revolution. After the steel works at Ravenscraig closed, we said we’d help find new jobs. We’ve done precisely that: three projects will offer 4,500 new jobs in Lanarkshire alone.

    Those companies enjoy Britain’s sharp competitive edge. For every £100 spent on wages in Germany, an employer spends another £32 on costs. In Spain, it’s an extra £34. In France £41, in Italy £44, But in Britain, it’s only £18. We must hang on to that edge. I’m not prepared to put it at risk by signing up to the Social Chapter. To open the floodgates to a whole raft of expensive burdens on business.

    Labour like the Social Chapter because they believe it will deliver what the trade unions want by the backdoor.

    It’s no use people claiming that if we gave away our opt out, we could pick and choose what to accept and when to implement it. They obviously haven’t read the Social Chapter’s small print. I have, and I can tell you that once in, there’s no way out. For much of it, there’s no picking and choosing. No saying have that bit, but not that. That’s why I fought for our opt out, and why I won’t give it away. To me, British jobs and business come first.

    Then there’s that seductive little phrase, the minimum wage. Yes, it sounds seductive. It’s meant to. But people can only earn a wage if they have a job in the first place. And if you force an employer to pay a wage he can’t afford, then he won’t employ because he can’t. And if a junior employee is suddenly paid more simply because the Social Chapter or the government says so, everyone else in the company could well demand the same pay increase.

    So a minimum wage spells inflation. A minimum wage spells job losses. And it hinders youngsters looking for work. France has a minimum wage. It also has youth unemployment of over 26%. Spain has a minimum wage. It also has youth unemployment of over 41%.

    Those who argue for the Social Chapter and minimum wage may well have good intentions. I’m sure they have. But they’d be hurting the very people they want to help.

    And, of course, here in Scotland they’d be knocked for six by Labour’s plans for devolution.

    Devolution

    Some may believe devolution would help Scotland.

    How? Would it help create new jobs? Build more homes? Attract new investment?

    The last time people hurtled into the constitutional chaos of devolution it took them four years to produce an unworkable and defective Scotland Act. That futile exercise involved producing a White Paper, revised not once but three times; introducing a Scotland and Wales Bill to Parliament and then withdrawing it; and then introducing the Scotland Bill, which pushed Parliament into a legislative quicksand.

    No wonder it all fell apart. But the rocky road to devolution in 1979 looks like a fast track compared to this steeplechase of stupidity Labour has set up for itself now.

    First, they have to win a General Election. So far as I’m concerned, they won’t get past that first fence. But, supposing they did, they would then have to publish a White Paper on a Referendum; get a Referendum Bill through both Houses of Parliament; fight a referendum campaign; and get ‘Yes’ answers to two questions.

    If they succeeded – and it is a very big IF – only then would they reach Beecher’s Brook: the Devolution White Paper; the Devolution Bill, to be fought through both Houses of Parliament; and eventual elections for a Scottish parliament.

    Then – and this is a further punishment self-inflicted last Saturday – there would have to be a second referendum, asking the Scottish people to impale themselves, their jobs, their standard of living, their inward investment and their competitiveness on the stake of the Tartan Tax.

    That is the stake Tony Blair holds for Scotland: discriminatory income tax starting – but who believes finishing? – at 15 per cent higher than the rest of the United Kingdom,

    This policy has now turned into farce. It’s more suitable for London’s West End, not Westminster.

    It is an absurdity. A nonsense.

    Only a few months ago the Shadow Scottish Secretary dismissed a referendum as a ‘delaying tactic’. Now he’s supporting not just one, but two of them.

    Even pro-devolution commentators are now damning Labour’s botched scheme as ludicrous. And so it is. It wouldn’t help create a job, attract investment, or build more homes.

    Some might think that it would be worth the pain of Parliamentary paralysis to get devolution. That edging towards the break up of the United Kingdom would be a price worth paying.

    I profoundly disagree.

    I believe the Union benefits everyone, irrespective of income, both north and south of the border,

    But those living north of the border, people with hopes and ambitions for a better and brighter future, have most to lose and least to gain from a tax-raising Scottish parliament.

    Ask yourself how it would help them if Scotland had a parliament that could put an extra 3p in the pound on income tax. For starters. More later.

    That increase – the Tartan Tax – would cost many families an extra £6.50 a week.

    Over £330 a year.

    That’s the starting price of devolution. The price Scotland would pay for the privilege of becoming the most heavily taxed part of the United Kingdom. Scotland’s prosperity would be going, going, gone.

    And there’s another thing. People who are forced to pay higher taxes have a habit of demanding higher wages.

    Would it help attract companies from overseas to Scotland if they faced the prospect of wages spiraling up and up? Do you want to send jobs back across the border to England?

    Of course, I know some might argue that the Scottish parliament would actually cut taxes.

    Imagine that it chose to do so.

    At the moment, the government spends a quarter more in Scotland than in England. That’s over £17 more per person per week. Spending per head on health is almost a quarter higher. On education, almost a third higher.

    Overall public spending in Scotland exceeds the amount raised in Scotland by over £8 billion. So why do people want to alter a system that so obviously works in Scotland’s favour?

    So how could a Scottish parliament realistically cut taxes? I have yet to hear how English MPs might be persuaded to continue spending more cash in Scotland than on their own constituents, only to see it spent subsidising tax cuts north of the border. It’s a laughable proposition.

    But what if English MPs proposed to cut Scottish spending? A Tartan Tax would raise only a fraction of the current transfer – a mere £390 million. Where would the shortfall come from: higher taxes or fewer public services?

    These questions haunt the quagmire of the constitutional debate. No one has answered them because they either don’t know the answers, or don’t dare give them.

    Instead, we’re told by our opponents, as they wriggle on the hook, that they have no plans to raise the Tartan Tax at all. If that’s the case, why hold two referendums to give a parliament the power to raise it? Why have these plans at all?

    But suppose the Scottish people were wise enough to vote against this tax-raising power. Suppose they chose not to become the most heavily taxed part of Britain.

    Without that power to raise taxes, a Scottish parliament would have less power than the present Scottish Grand Committee. Scotland would be left with less influence but more bureaucracy – a toothless assembly our opponents have fought against long and hard.

    Jobs, Incomes. Investment. A record of success and a bright future. That’s what these plans put at risk. New taxes and no Britain. That’s no bargain for Scotland.

    Peroration

    Ladies and gentlemen, these issues are at the heart of political debate. They are matters of substance.

    They need to be debated – and they will be. We will return to them again and again and again. That I promise you.

    Change, something different, something new, might sound tempting,

    But new things, untried, untested, have a habit of going wrong.

    Today, life in Scotland is better. People need to ask themselves if it makes sense to risk the opportunities that lie ahead in favour of the most reckless and ill-thought out package of change this country has ever seen.

    You’ll hear it said that a change would be ‘good for democracy’.

    Good for democracy? Unhinging the Union? Setting up a Scottish parliament, half unelected? Sprinkling assemblies across England? Risking the chaos PR would bring? Dismantling Parliament itself?

    That wouldn’t be good for British democracy – a system that’s envied around the world. It could destroy democracy.

    Britain is one nation. Our policies are for one nation. For people who live in Govan and Guildford, in Bournemouth and Belfast, in Carlisle and Cardiff. North of the border and south of the border.

    We need to focus on Scotland’s success. On the bright future that lies before her, And on a United Kingdom that has served this island for centuries, and that we can turn into the envy of Europe in the years to come.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Ceremony marking the end of Polaris – 28 August 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at a ceremony to mark the decommissioning of HMS Repulse and the end of the Polaris programme, held on 28th August 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Secretary of State for Defence, First Sea Lord, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    We are here today to pay tribute to the work of the Polaris Force.

    The debt we owe is very large. For the last 28 years this Force has mounted continuous patrols that have been vital to ensure this country’s peace and security. Because of these patrols any possible aggressor has known that to attack the UK would provoke a terrible response.

    In particular, we are here today to pay tribute to the last of the four Polaris submarines, HMS Repulse, which returned from her sixtieth and final deployment in May.

    But not only Repulse, of course. I pay tribute, too, to the other three boats and their crews in her Class: the Resolution herself, Renown and Revenge. Each has made its own unique and invaluable contribution to the remarkable record of maintaining a Polaris submarine at sea, on deterrent patrol, undetected by friend or foe, every day, of every year, from 1969 until May this year.

    To those of you who have served aboard any of these submarines, past and present, I offer you the thanks not just of those others of us here but of people throughout the country.

    The years of the Polaris Force have seen some dramatic changes. In 1968, when Resolution began her first patrol, east/west tension was running high. The Soviet Union had invaded Czechoslovakia. and the Vietnam War raged. And yet, in 1994, I signed an accord with President Yeltsin agreeing no longer to target our nuclear forces at each other’s territory. Today, the West enjoys a co-operative relationship with Russia unthinkable even 10 years ago.

    But throughout the turbulent years. the Polaris force has always been there, always ready, always prepared, always the ultimate guarantee of this country’s security.

    As I said, the debt is very great.

    No tribute to those of you in the SSBN force, however, would be complete without a special mention of the contribution of your families at home. They, as well as you, have borne the continual strain of enforced separation. They have had to maintain the family while you were gone, relying for communication only on the forty words of the weekly “familygram”. None of the achievements of the Polaris fleet would have been possible without their forbearance and their understanding. To them, too, I offer a very special thank you. and I am glad that so many are here today.

    I would like to thank, too, all those who maintain the submarine and its deterrent away from the boat itself, whether at the base here, in Coulport supporting the weapons system, on the tugs moving these massive submarines in and out of port, at the headquarters at Northwood, or in the design and support organisations further afield. Each of you has played your part.

    Throughout the Polaris programme we have enjoyed very close co-operation with the United States. This will continue with Trident. Our two Navies have a very special trust and understanding. I am delighted that so many representatives of the United States Strategic Systems Programme are with us today, together with the officers and crew of the USS West Virginia.

    There is naturally a tinge of sadness today. But it is the ending of a chapter only. As Trident takes over from Polaris and Chevaline, so the Vanguard Class takes on the torch from Resolution and her sisters.

    Let me say a word about our deterrent.

    I have no doubt that we are right to maintain a minimum credible strategic nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom. We will continue to do so for as long as our security needs require. It would be folly for us not to do so. Vanguard and Victorious are already fully operational and meeting all our expectations. I look forward to seeing them joined, in 1998, by Vigilant and, around the turn of the century, by Vengeance. Together, these four submarines will carry the UK’s strategic and sub-strategic deterrent well into the 21st century.

    In a few moments I shall unveil this plaque marking the proud achievements of the Polaris Force. And, as I unveil it here, so, at the entrance to this facility a little way away, a small stone monument is also being unveiled. This monument is to serve as a quiet and dignified reminder of the unique contribution made to peace and security by these submarines and the men who served in them.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Scotland – 28 August 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Scotland, made during an interview held on 28th August 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Tony Blair’s policies for Scotland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think it tells us that after 20 years the Labour Party still haven’t sorted out their policy on devolution. I think one has to realise why they’re following this policy. The real reason they are following this policy is that they wish to outflank the Scottish Nationalists. They believe the Scottish Nationalists are eating into their vote and thereafter they are trying to outflank them. And they frankly have not thought through their policy. Now I am not opposed to constitutional innovation. I have brought in a number in the last five or six years, not least the tremendous extra powers given to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the innovation of the Scottish Grand Committee. I am not opposed to constitutional innovation. But what the Labour Party is trying to do is primarily for their own partisan party benefit and they have not thought it through. And it has now become apparent that they have not thought it through.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about a referendum in Scotland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you should ask the Labour Party. They are in favour of that. Not me. I think the whole policy is misconceived. And I believe that for several reasons. Some practical and some constitutional. The practical reason is that I believe that a tax raising power given to a Scottish Parliament which would be used initially perhaps only for three pence in the pound, but later I believe it would be a good deal more, will mean that Scotland is taxed more highly than England or Northern Ireland or Wales. That is bound to move investment from Scotland, investment and jobs from Scotland elsewhere. So I think it is bad for Scotland from that point of view. I think it is constitutionally damaging because once you establish a tax-raising Scottish Assembly at some stage in the years that lie ahead there will be conflict between the tax raising Scottish Assembly and in Westminster, and there is every chance, every risk that the forces that don’t want devolution but want separation would then win the argument, and then you’d be going down a separatist route which would be bad for the UK. I believe it would be bad for Scotland as well. And it is because I passionately believe that, that I have taken a stance that I know has been unpopular with many in Scotland. But I believe that what is proposed has short-term synthetic appeal that will be damaging to Scotland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the tartan tax].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe that Labour’s plans are beginning to fall apart. There is beginning to be division within the Labour Party between those that really want separation and those who really want devolution and those who frankly would rather have nothing but have been swept along in the general enthusiasm to win votes for Labour in Scotland and outflank the Scottish Nationalists.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he been out-flanked by Tony Blair in Scotland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I believe he’s wrong. But I don’t see this primarily as a short term party matter. If I was concerned with short-term party politics I might have gone down the route of devolution which seems in the short-term to be popular. But I am taking a long term view for what I judge to be right for Scotland, and I believe that is my responsibility. Because I judge it to be wrong for Scotland to go down the route that the SNP would go and the route that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party would go. And I have set that out clearly.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about a Scottish Parliament].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not against constitutional innovation. I am not against giving more powers to the Scots in one form or another. But what could a Scottish Parliament do that the Grand Committee cannot do? Only one thing. Just one thing. The only thing a Scottish Parliament could do that a Grand Committee cannot do is to raise taxes and make Scotland the most highly taxed part of the UK. Only that. And I doubt upon that issue that Scotland would like the result, not necessarily just in the short-term but in the long-term, when it dries up the investment, dries up jobs and dries up the increasing prosperity which Scotland has begun to see in recent years. I would like that to continue. I believe Labour’s plans put it at risk.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview – 28 August 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held on 28th August 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the value of Polaris].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t have any doubt that we need Trident. Over the 28 years of Polaris, it has played a very important part in keeping peace. It is a deterrent. And it has deterred. And as a result of that we’ve been far more secure than otherwise we would have been. Now Polaris has become outdated, we have updated it with Trident. We have the four subs. I am confident we need four, and I think that will maintain the peace for us in the future. So I think for the sake of peace and security and stability it is an excellent investment.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the formal ending of the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I am very sad of course at the ending of the marriage. It’s very sad both for Princess Diana and for Prince Charles and their children. I think everyone is very sad at the ending of the marriage. It has ended. I think people think that was the right thing to happen. But I see no prospect of any remarriage at this stage.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be difficult constitutional issues arising].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think it’s a purely hypothetical question. There is no proposition of Prince Charles marrying again at the moment. Maybe at some stage in the future. But that may be some years ahead.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the hijacking].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think we have to look at the circumstances. The prosecuting authorities will have to decide whether there is a prosecution to be mounted. If there is, the prosecution will be mounted in this country, and I expect that would be the first thing that would happen. Thereafter, other matters would be looked at.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct, but Mr Major was asked about the Dunblane Inquiry led by Lord Cullen].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I share those concerns. It is because we share those concerns that we asked Lord Cullen to report and to advise us after having taken a lot of evidence from the police and many other people as to how we should deal with the problem. We will look very carefully at Lord Cullen’s report, and we have made it clear in the past if Lord Cullen’s report requires legislation we have provisionally reserved a legislative slot in the next Parliamentary session beginning in November. But I think we must wait and see what Lord Cullen says. We asked him to report. We will look at his report very seriously indeed.

    I think we’d better look at his report first. I don’t want to anticipate what he will say or what he will not say. It’s such a complex issue that we have invited him to report. He has done so. He’s taken evidence from all sorts of people. I think he is a man who carries very great respect in Scotland. I think his report will carry very great support in Scotland. We will look at it. But I don’t want to anticipate what Lord Cullen will say. When he has reported, we will look at it speedily. If having looked at it it then requires legislation, we have reserved a legislative spot. But I can’t go further than that at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct, but Mr Major was asked about prison policy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well of course the Labour party have their own axe to grind. I don’t think it was handled very satisfactorily. An apology has been made by the Director General of the Prison Service to the Home Secretary. And it was clear that the Home Secretary should have been given information that was not given to him. When he was given that information he acted upon that information. I think that’s what people would expect the Home Secretary to do. He has now seen the Director General and made clear what is going to happen in the future. That is the end of the matter.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Manchester (II) – 30 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview after leaving the Arndale Shopping Centre in Manchester, held on 30th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he thought of his visit].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have seen an area which is beginning to recovery and which is very resilient.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had seen a positive city].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, a very positive city, good gracious of course it’s a positive city. It was the city that tried to get the Olympics not very long ago. It’s one of the most positive cities there is.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Manchester (I) – 30 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview at the Arndale Shopping Centre in Manchester, held on 30th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about lottery announcements for Manchester].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There will be something over three million pounds to help re-build the theatre that will be announced today and there will be some more money from the Government for the Lord Mayor’s Hardship Fund. But I’m principally here not to make those announcements but to have a look at what has happened in Manchester and what needs to be done to rebuild it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the 15 million pound football transfer of Alan Shearer].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He’s a very good footballer.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the South East – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the South East, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he would be doing to end the tube strikes in London].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is remarkable the way so many Londoners have found their way to work in these difficulties and I warmly congratulate them on doing so. I don’t think this tube strike is justified under any criterion one can think of. The unions on strike have not honoured an agreement they reached last year, they won’t go to arbitration, and frankly the strike weapon, and the way they are using it against the interests of people not involved in the dispute – the passengers – I think is disgraceful. The best thing I believe that we can do for Londoners, both in the short and the long term, is to stand firm and resist this industrial blackmail.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether it was useful to condemn the strike and asked if the management were to blame].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If it is the management who have reneged, why are they prepared to go arbitration, and not the union? If it is the management who have reneged, why is it that the union have not honoured their agreement of last year? The fact of the matter is that it is the union that has decided to have the strike and withdrawn its labour and I think it should be condemned. Of course they should go to arbitration, and not only go to arbitration, I think they are justifiably condemned for not doing so.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if strikes which affected public services should be stopped].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you look at what has happened over the past five or six years strikes, as an industrial weapon, have been dying out. They are not quite as extinct as the dinosaur, as we have seen with this unfortunate dispute, but they are falling away. And I believe increasingly people will come to see them as something that is just old-fashioned, out-moded and simply a weapon that should not be used. I think to let them fade away in this way is more likely to ensure that we have industrial harmony.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if some Conservative MPs would find such a ban electorally useful].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will look at manifesto pledges at a later stage. For the moment I would like to see this strike settled. I think it would help – you spoke of condemnation – if we had some condemnation from the other political parties. Thus far they seem to have been on a sponsored silence when it comes to condemning a strike that is damaging the interests of Londoners, damaging the interests of the underground and in the long-term damaging the interests of the workforce themselves. But not a word of leadership or condemnation of this particular issue has there been. I think there should be. Now we may have to look at other measures but at the moment I think the first thing is to get this strike settled and to make it clear to those on strike that this is just not a tolerable way to treat Londoners.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would consider legislation to end such strikes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not ruling anything in or out at the present moment. What I am saying is that the industrial relations legislation that we put on the statute book in the last 15 years or so has cut strikes to a level below anything we have seen before.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the strike numbers were increasing again now].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Then there ought to be some condemnation from the opposition parties. Perhaps they believe the opinion polls, perhaps they believe there might be a Labour government, perhaps they noticed the silence of the Labour Party in condemning the strikes, perhaps they think the strike weapon is one that can come back into force. Well if that is the position, I think they gravely mis-judge the people who are being abused by this strike – the Londoners finding it difficult to get to work today – and the way that they will feel about that. I repeat, strikes are old-fashioned, out-moiled and this is not a way, in the mid-1990s, that industrial relations should be conducted, where the passenger is put at risk, inconvenience and expense and the economy is harmed because of a strike that ought never to have taken place.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he might intervene to stop the strikes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have ruled nothing out.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the strike was good for the Conservatives].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We didn’t call this strike. I don’t want this strike. I have called for this strike to be ended. I wish the Labour Leader would call for this strike to be ended and condemn the people who have called it unnecessarily. But so many of their members are sponsored by the RMT, the Deputy Leader is sponsored by the RMT. Where is he speaking up for passengers today? He is nowhere to be seen, still as I said a moment ago on a sponsored silence. No, it is not convenient for the government. We have delivered over the last few years industrial harmony on a scale we have not previously seen in this century. Now I would like that industrial harmony to continue. The economy is improving, inflation is falling, unemployment is falling, we are beginning to see a rapid degree of investment both externally and internally. That is what is going to improve people’s livelihoods and the re-emergence of the strike weapon is not convenient. What does it say to countries abroad who invest in this country? It says are the old problems coming back? That is not in my interest and it is not in the interests of London either.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the North West – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the North West, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when he would be visiting Manchester, as Michael Heseltine had already visited twice to monitor the repairs following the bomb damage].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I expect to be at Manchester within the next few days, I am looking forward to coming and I think Michael will probably be with me. I would like to see for myself the damage that was created and the way it is now being handled and I think there is no substitute – even having the Deputy Prime Minister there – for seeing it yourself and that is what I propose to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would be offering financial assistance for Manchester].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the first thing I want to do is to see what is happening. What we are clearly going to have to do is to look at a tripartite system, you may even say a quadripartite system – the Government, the European Union, the private sector itself and of course the insurance money – all of which will come together and we really need to see how we can produce the best possible use of those resources for the redevelopment of those parts of Manchester that have been damaged.

    It was a dreadful event, it was an attempt to terrorise Manchester and predictably of course it failed, Mancunians would have nothing to do with that. Now we must see what we can do to correct the damage that was done and perhaps improve on what was there.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Government should be doing more for Manchester].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European money is British money, let us not deceive ourselves, it is British money that goes to the European Union and is then redirected back and that is why we have such a very large net contribution to Europe so don’t let us fool ourselves about that, it is British money that is coming into Manchester.

    We need to see precisely what needs to be done, precisely what resources are required and precisely what are available. There will be a great deal of money of course that will come in from the direct insurance, there will be a great deal of money that will come in from the private sector to renovate it. What we need to do is to find out what needs to be done. At the moment we don’t know that. Just pledging a sum of money is neither here nor there. We need to see and then assess and then discuss with Manchester City Council and others what actually needs to be done to ensure that we cannot just replace what was there but improve upon it so this is going to be quite a lengthy business, it isn’t a question of a quick gesture of a few million here or there. We need to look at what can be done in the interests of Manchester, that may take some time but we will do it thoroughly.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the Government paid for bomb damage in Northern Ireland, but not in Manchester].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You don’t accurately describe what happens in Northern Ireland but I want to come and see for myself what the position is. Let me see for myself and then we can assess what the position is. That is the purpose of my coming, it is why Michael Heseltine has been not two, I think perhaps three times by now and there may well be more visits.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why half a billion pounds had been paid by the tax-payer to businesses in Northern Ireland which have suffered bomb damage].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is over a very long period and in very different circumstances. I don’t want to draw a comparison between Northern Ireland and Manchester. There is help for Manchester, there has been help for Manchester, there will be help for Manchester but what we need to do is to find out how best that help can be directed and to bring together all the agencies that can help renovate the areas of Manchester that have been damaged by this terrorist outrage.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why Manchester tax-payers had paid tax which had helped Northern Ireland but weren’t receiving any themselves].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have answered that question three times and I don’t propose to answer it a fourth time. I am coming to see what needs to be done. When we have seen what needs to be done, we can then have a cool assessment of what needs to be done and that is the way think we should approach it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when defence orders for the region would be announced].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You don’t just produce defence orders costing £4 billion without a proper assessment and evaluation of those defence orders. They are very big defence orders. All three of the defence orders announced today will actually benefit the north west, Walton, Chorley, Manchester and other parts of the north west. They are very big orders, they needed a very careful evaluation. These are some of the biggest defence contracts that have ever been awarded. The evaluation has just been concluded, the decisions have just been made and they have been announced so there has been no delay in announcing decisions and they are very welcome news I think for the Armed Forces undoubtedly but also for many parts of the United Kingdom and especially Manchester who, as I indicated, will actually benefit from each of the three orders that have been announced today.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the North – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the North, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the sell off the child benefit centre in Washington and the 2,500 families concerned at the decision].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you need to see why it is being done and what the impact of the policies in the Round are. What we are seeking to do, as the other parties have pledged they will do, though they won’t actually take the decisions, is to save on administration so that we can put the resources into benefits, into job creation or into whatever else seems to be most appropriate for the British economy. And that is what we have been doing.

    You might equally have mentioned, for it is undoubtedly true in the north-east, about the enormous amount of inward investment that has been attracted because we have pursued frugal prudent policies of this sort.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the jobs in Washington were safe].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we are going to look at what is the most efficient way of delivering child benefit. If there is an inefficiency, we will seek to deal with the inefficiency. But what we do need to do is to make sure, in a social security system that spends over 80 billion a year, that we spend the taxpayers’ money – it is not my money, it is not the government’s money, it is your money, the taxpayers’ money – efficiently and effectively. And it is because we spend it efficiently and effectively that we get so much inward investment into this country because people abroad, looking at the way the economy is run, admire what is being done. And the north-east, if I may say so, has probably benefited as much from that inward investment – Siemens, Samsung, Nissan – as any part of the country.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if more private investment was now going to Scotland and Wales].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think that is true, with respect. There are a large number of companies around the world that are still seeking to make international investment for one reason or another and are looking to the United Kingdom. The last two happen to have gone one to Scotland, and one to Wales. But it wasn’t very long ago that I was opening new investments at Burniston in the Midlands. And you know of course, I mentioned a moment ago, of the huge investments there have been in the north-east.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would help companies in the area].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is evident what we are doing to help companies. If you look at what has happened to unemployment across the whole of the United Kingdom, but certainly in the north-east, which traditionally has had a very high structural level of unemployment for a very long time, a very long time indeed, and yet we are now seeing a whole range of new jobs, many of them small investments, many of them internally generated investments, some of them big external investments, which create a wider spread of new jobs for the present generation of people in the north-east than their parents and grandparents could ever have dreamed of. And that is what I very much wish to see.

    To take a single example. If you were to go anywhere around the United Kingdom and see a city that has changed infinitely for the better in the last 15 years or so, I think many people would fasten on Newcastle as a supreme example of a city that has changed infinitely for the better.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the Conservatives were formerly in control of Newcastle City Council, but now had no seats on the Council].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is ironic, isn’t it? If you go back 20 years ago and ask people in the north-east whether the north-east has improved materially, their well-being has improved over the last 20 years, I don’t think any dispassionate observer would deny the fact that that is the case. And yet the government that has delivered those particular improvements seem to be unpopular electorally in the north-east.

    I think the reason for that is because we have had to take a lot of unpopular decisions that are unpopular in themselves but collectively create a better economy. You mentioned the Child Benefit decision, maybe that is a good case in point, but collectively they produce a better economy. The unpopularity of those difficult decisions tends to linger and yet the response to the improved circumstances has not yet begun to filter into the body politic. I believe it is doing so. I think you can begin to see a change in people’s attitude and in the political atmosphere and I am sure that will continue to change in the months ahead.