The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1991

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the National Sporting Club – 19 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the National Sporting Club at the Cafe Royal in London on Thursday 19th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am very grateful for the invitation, I had to come, it was the only way I could keep the job I have got. So I am very grateful to be here, Bob, thank you very much indeed. And I would like to thank you, Lord Porte, and Henderson Financial Management who have sponsored this splendid lunch here today.

    It is a long time since I first saw Bob Willis, he mentions when we first met at what actually did later in the evening turn out to be a Jeffrey Archer book signing session – I buy one every time, I am building an extension, it should help the recovery along just a little.

    I have watched Bob Willis play cricket for many years, in those days when he played for Surrey and later when he moved to pastures new, and he was I think beyond doubt a very great bowler with a very remarkable action. But what I think is less well known about Bob Willis is that he was a very remarkable batsman. He had perfected what wisdom once called the curtain rail defence, it was an interesting proposition, it was an absolutely perfect mid-wicket lunge to an out-swinger. I believe he was taught by the same cricket coach as President Bush, who is taking a very great interest in the game.

    Since Bob invited me to come and join you, what is now I think about 18 months ago, I have had some interesting travels – Headingly, Trent Bridge, Lords, the Oval – and I am very pleased that I was able to find the time to do that and support the very successful England cricket team that we are in the process of developing and they clearly had an absolutely excellent year.

    It was not only me as an amateur watcher of cricket and a lover of it who spotted the great talent of Bob Willis. I remember sitting there one evening in the Oval with a great businessman, a magnet with newspaper and other interests, and we were looking at Bob Willis and I said: “He is a very fine cricketer”, and the magnet agreed with me: “A very fine cricketer indeed” he said “he will go a long way, I think the sky is the limit.” Thank goodness it was.

    Lord Forte of course has had a very long and distinguished connection with the National Sporting Club and just to indicate his sporting interests over lunch he challenged me to a game of golf. Now I do not really want to take up this offer for I suspect I would lose, the last occasion I played golf I think was in 1966 in Nigeria when I gave up when I found a snake in the bunker at a moment when I was two down. And I think after such a gap that I am perfectly prepared to concede to you, Charles, that the game undoubtedly is yours.

    One of the pleasures of being here at the National Sporting Club is what it represents, what it is, it is a place of very great tradition in the sporting world and some of those traditions I think could well be transplanted elsewhere. One of them for example is that they watch rounds of boxing in silence and then have applause at the end and I think Erskine May might well adapt that for Question Time in the House of Commons, but they probably will not do it until we have given up bear knuckle fighting so there may be a while.

    It is also a very attractive tradition, I am not sure whether you are going to follow it today at lunchtime, but money, so-called nobbins, are thrown in the ring to acknowledge a good fight at the end of the contest. I have a note here from Norman Lamont…..

    I explained some of these intricacies to the President when I was in Kennebunkport just after I gave him the cricket bat and I must say he was very fascinated by the cricket bat, he asked me a series of deeply searching questions about it, “Is it a mashie or a niblet?” he said.

    I would like to just take a few moments of your time just to review some of the developments in sport in recent years and perhaps have a look at some of the things that may happen in the future.

    I believe there is a great deal that we can look back on with pleasure over the past year. One event that I take particular satisfaction in is the reopening of sporting links with South Africa. The government has consistently taken the view that sanctions, including sporting sanctions, had a very limited role to play and that those whose regimes we disapprove of must be offered carrots as well as sticks. I think we must show that where changes for the better are made, those who bring about such changes have something to show for it and South Africa have sought to bring about those changes, they have taken political risks domestically to do so and I believe to that extent they are entitled to our support.

    We have seen the dismantling of some of the main legal pillars of apartheid, we are now seeing the emergence of racially integrated sports, each under a single governing body in South Africa. believe it would have been quite wrong of the International sporting organisations and of this country not to have responded to those changes in sport that we are seeing in South Africa and those other changes in policy.

    So I was delighted this year to see South Africa readmitted by the International Olympics Committee and personally delighted to see South Africa come back into international cricket and I look forward to seeing them play at our great cricket grounds before too long.

    The government may have done what it could to bring that about through quiet diplomacy, but cricket itself did a good deal more and I would like to say in his absence here today what a very remarkable job Colin Cowdrey did working so tirelessly with cricket administrators to help achieve the necessary consensus to bring South Africa back into world cricket. He had a good deal of help, he had a good deal of help from the African National Congress in particular which although in other contexts has resisted the lifting of sanctions, in the field of sport played a very positive role indeed.

    And I was delighted just a few weeks ago to have a celebratory drink in Number 10 with Ali Bakher, the current and future Chairman of the new united Cricket Board of South Africa, and Steve Shwepi [phoentic] of the ANC. These I think are very encouraging developments indeed.

    One other encouraging development that to a greater or lesser extent is mirrored elsewhere across the cricket team was the opening at the Oval by Her Majesty The Queen of the Ken Barrington Sporting Centre. I guess most people in this room will have their own memories of Ken Barrington as a cricketer and some of us, Bob Willis perhaps more than any of us, of Ken as a player. He was a very marvellous cricketer, those who knew him and knew him well say he was a marvellous man as well and I think it is a great tribute to his memory that Surrey have created this remarkable cricket facility in a deprived area of central London.

    And it is part of a trend. So many of our county clubs, so many of our football clubs, so many of our rugby clubs, so many of our athletics clubs are increasingly running special schemes to bring out the best in youngsters and to try and give them the sporting encouragement and training that they need in order to turn them, not just into top class performers, important though that is, but to imbue in them the love of sport that most generations in this country have known and that does in my judgment so much good for our national characteristics.

    We had this year a very remarkable roller coaster of a test series. I was in Spain during the final test, which is a tribute to two things, the inefficiency of my personal diary arrangements and the appalling fact that the MCC brought the final test forward from its normal resting place in late August to early August.

    But I did when I was in Spain make certain arrangements to make sure that I was kept up to date with the score at the Oval. In fact I got the score almost on the hour, by the hour, whether I was actually at home in the house I was staying in or whether I was out. The system worked pretty well but it had a wonky moment or two, it was not always entirely smooth. I was in the village of Candeleda, a lovely little village in Spain near the Grados mountains, on the first day of the Oval test match and we had been walking round there for an hour and a half and up ran one of the Garden Room girls who work at Number 10 and she ran up and she said: “I have got the test score, it is 43 for 0”, “Splendid” I said, “Who is batting?” “Ah!” she said. The Civil Service in future, together with their conditions of employment … I do not think I need finish.

    I have not myself played cricket since I injured my leg in a very serious car crash in Nigeria in the 1960s and I have found over the past two or three years that people will sometimes say extraordinary things to me that would not previously have happened. Mystics appear to predict all sorts of strange events in the future and re-write elements of the past, and not all the people writing elements of the past are journalists, and the mystic explained to me apologetically, very apologetically, that my accident had been a mistake – well I could agree with her about that – “No” she said “it was a mistake, the accident should have happened to the car in front”. So I was not quite sure how to reply to that. I said to her: “Well can fate put my leg back together again?” “Much too difficult” said the mystic “leg broken, ligaments torn, kneecap smashed, not a hope of putting it together again. But I can probably give you a wish as a consolation prize.” I thought I would take it, “Excellent” I said, “Please spare us an England middle order collapse in the next test match”. She paused and said: “Well let me have another look at that leg.”

    There are often very odd things that happen in sport and life, England are off soon to New Zealand and then to Australia to play in the World Cup and there was after the team’s selection a certain amount of controversy about Ian Botham combining cricket and pantomime – I do not understand that, I have had no problems in my profession.

    But soccer too has had a marvellous year. A close fought title race, an underdog win in the World Cup, a wonderful FA Cup Final of flowing passing football and only perhaps a smidgen of disappointment that by some malign trick of fate Chelsea yet again failed to win anything. I have spoken to Ken Bates about that, at some length, I then listened to him at even greater length.

    Football of course, and its image I believe, and I am delighted to see it is very much on the upswing, I think its image is improving, it is improving to the extent that football managers can joke in many cases about the problems of football hooliganism that once they had. And one manager I think who had better be un-named for fear it might point the finger at his club and his fans indicated to me in this fashion the way in which things had changed.

    “Some years ago” he said “a band of football fans arrived in an after life at the pearly gates chanting, singing, waving scarves. St Peter, a wise, prudent, cautious man, was in two minds about whether to admit them and decided to go off and consult a higher authority. Being a tolerant man he took the view that they were merely boisterous young men and should be let in. So he returned to the pearly gates, thought again, consulted again, consulted that higher being, and then came rushing back to the Almighty after he saw what had happened to the young men at the gate. And he rushed back and he said: “Lord, Lord, they have gone.” “Then your problem is solved” said the higher being. “No, no” said St Peter, “the pearly gates have gone.” It is why Charlie Forte had swing doors on all his restaurants, most of which survived.

    But happily hooliganism, that scourge of football, now seems to be on the wane and I congratulate the football authorities for the way they have sought to deal with it. Arrests, ejections at League matches, fell very dramatically last year and I hope that we will continue to see them fall.

    I have always held the view myself that the more successful our national teams are, not only is that good for the love of sport in this country, I think it engenders a much greater level of good behaviour amongst those people who watch those sports as well. The English team has improved, they not only do well in Europe but I think last year their fans acquitted themselves well in Europe also.

    And a good deal of the credit for that must go I believe to the Football Trust which has financed amongst other things the installation of closed circuit television. I took the decision in the period I was Chancellor to augment the Trust’s resources by cutting Pools betting duty for 5 years to help finance the programme of conversion from terraces to seats.

    And Norman Lamont, my successor, has taken that a good deal further, he has not only made a further reduction in pools betting duty but the 20 million that that yields, that will make available, will be supplemented by a further 40 million from the pools promoters. And yesterday, just yesterday, saw the formal launch of the foundation under the chairmanship of Tim Rice who, combining a love of sports and the arts, is the modern equivalent of renaissance man. Sports lover though he is I do hear that he has given up driving for a while – bang go my tickets to Evita.

    Of the 60 million a year that will be raised, 20 million will be allocated to the arts, in addition to previous funding, and 40 million will be allocated to sport, again in addition to the previous funding. And the foundation I know is particularly keen to contribute to projects of lasting benefit to local communities.

    But I do not think in our love of sport that we should forget the other sports as well, many of them are very popular, much loved and have a huge number of people who actually play them themselves. I daresay many people felt a sense of disappointment at the performance of our athletes at the world championships last month, but if they did I hope they will think again for I think that disappointment was not justified. We did see some magnificent British performances there, Liz McColgan particularly, the men’s 400 metres runners, and at the end of the tournament we finished fifth in the middle table, far ahead of 155 other nations who competed. And I was delighted to see amongst other performances Steve Backley returning to form after that disappointment in Tokyo.

    And then in terms of participatory sports there is the enormous growth of interest in golf which I have no doubt, snakes apart, will continue in every part of the country. So let us send our very best wishes to our Ryder Cup team and to the European team.

    The best of our sportsmen in the main sports become household names, they become role models, and I hope they always remember that responsibility. But in addition to them, I think we should not forget that it takes as much determination as skill, as many lonely hours in practice to be a world champion in a minority sport as it does in athletics or in golf. And when one looks across that wider vision of sport you can see how successful our country has been, Judy Laydon, the world champion in women’s hang gliding; Penny Way, the world sailboarding champion; and Wilf O’Reilly at ice speed skating – all those great skills, often without the glare of publicity that more famous sports attract but nonetheless tremendously important for the general sporting complexion of the United Kingdom.

    And although we rightly recall those triumphs, although we are rightly pleased about the improvement in behaviour at so many sports, there is I think still room for further improvement which is why the government supported John Wheeler’s Private Members Bill, the Football Offences Act, which introduced new offences of chanting abuse and chanting racialist abuse, throwing missiles and invading the pitch. That is not what the people of our country wish to see when they go out to sporting grounds and I believe we are entirely right to take a very firm hand whenever and wherever it occurs.

    I guess many of you will share my concern about the state of sport in so many of our schools. Much of it is excellent, but in many areas there has been an undoubted decline in competitive sports, in part I think this reflects the priority which education authorities place on sport and games, and it is to counteract that that the government has in very large part accepted the recommendations of the Physical Education Working Group and in future will require all pupils between 5 and 16 to take part in physical education, starting in September next year. This is the first time such a requirement has been placed on our schools and I believe it is entirely right for us to do so in the interests of development. And we have also accepted their recommendation that the national curriculum physical education itself should require all school children to be taught to swim at least 25 meters by the age of 11.

    But I do not think it is just a matter for the government, even though I concede they have a role. Sport itself can help raise the facilities for other people to enjoy sport. I have been involved in the last year in Surrey Cricket Club’s Youth Trust, we have raised getting on for quarter of a million this year and we are now receiving applications from schools for facilities such as cricket nets and artificial pitches which so many of them now lack.

    The problem I think in schools’ cricket, and some other school sports, may well reside in the changing structure of the teaching profession. If teachers feel society is short-changing them, they will understandably feel disinclined to put in extra hours after school or on Saturdays to coach teams and organise matches.

    But I hope that we can, over a number of years, re-establish the status and the esteem and the self-esteem of teachers, perhaps by the establishment of the Review Body which we have set up to determine their pay, just as we have a Review Body for other professions as well. And perhaps when we have fully re-established their esteem they may be more inclined to re-establish school cricket and some other school sports, I certainly hope that will be the case.

    I daresay most people, if not everyone in this room, will know that the British Olympic Association have nominated Manchester as Britain’s bid for the Olympic Games in the year 2000. This country last hosted the Games in 1948 and to host them again in the year 2000 would be a remarkable achievement which would provide a very valuable focus for the millennium.

    With that in mind last week I had a meeting with the Manchester Olympic Bid Committee, the British Olympic Association and Manchester City Council to hear how they are progressing and to discuss what the ingredients of a successful bid would be. One factor I think did emerge clearly, to succeed it should be perceived not just as a Manchester bid or even as a north-west bid but as a national bid to bring the Olympic Games to this country in the year 2000.

    I put to them the specific questions on which I would like a clearer view, including the issues that this bid raises for government itself, and we agreed that as soon as I have their more detailed proposals we would meet again to consider the way forward for this bid. No-one should under-estimate the competition, not least from Berlin in the West and Beijing in the East, but I am sure that those involved with the bid can build on the favourable impression created by their campaign to host the 1996 games and the experience they gained in that bid will be invaluable.

    I look forward to our future discussions, I hope very much it will prove possible to develop a formidable bid for the Olympics 2000. We have the expertise to make the event a success and what a marvellous thing it would be if we could bring it off and have the Olympics here in Manchester in 2000.

    Let me just finally say this. I have spent sometime this year at Trent Bridge, Old Trafford, Lords, quite apart from other cricketing venues like Kennebunkport – not a lot of cricket in Moscow and Peking yet I must say – and I discovered, if I needed to discover it, rediscovered perhaps more accurately I should say that a day’s sport is a wonderful opportunity for reflection and one message I have learned again from those days which I believe is relevant to all of us is that work and play need not be compartmentalised with work taking second best, with a little organisation one can combine the two.

    I hope that is a message we can pass on not just from this generation to the next but from this generation to all succeeding generations and in the meantime I hope it is a message that we might take from this lunch.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Ruud Lubbers – 18 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Ruud Lubbers, held at The Hague on Wednesday 18th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had the opportunity this morning of an exchange of views on a large range of issues, economic and monetary union, political union, the difficult circumstances that exist at the moment in Yugoslavia, the importance of reaching agreement on the Uruguay Round during the course of this year, all these are matters upon which we have had the opportunity of an informal exchange this morning.

    If I can run very briefly through some of those and then I am sure you will have some questions after Ruud has spoken. Progress has self-evidently been made I think in recent months on economic and monetary union and some of the difficulties are becoming smoother and I think increasingly a way through can be seen. There is still a considerable way to go and nobody should assume that there is necessarily going to be an easy agreement well in advance of Maastricht but I have become increasingly confident that we will be able to reach an agreement on economic and monetary union when we reach the conclusion of the intergovernmental conference in December at Maastricht.

    On political union I think it is fair to say that the debate is a good deal less advanced. There are many very formidable and difficult problems still to be discussed, we were able to touch upon some of those today and I know that the Prime Minister, as President, will be conducting a series of negotiations in the months ahead and I have a series of bilaterals with our Community partners as we try and find a way towards an agreement that will be generally satisfactory in December.

    The situation in Yugoslavia is one of very great concern, I do not think anyone underrates the difficulties that there are there and the problems that there will be in seeking a satisfactory solution. I would like to express my congratulations to Hans van den Broek for the way he has handled those matters in recent weeks, I think he has done magnificently, and I am delighted at the way in which Lord Carrington is chairing the peace conference, we must see how these events progress. But clearly it is a very dangerous and difficult situation and it would be very unwise at the moment to determine precisely how that may fall out.

    On GATT, there is a clear conformity of view, we are wholeheartedly of the opinion that it would be very damaging indeed if there were not a very formidable push towards reaching an agreement in the GATT Round by the end of this year, that is our agreed position, has been for some time, and the problems lie elsewhere rather than in Holland or in the United Kingdom.

    MR LUBBERS:

    I have not much to add to what Prime Minister Major said. Tomorrow we will have the Ministerial and the WEU conference on Yugoslavia and of course we discussed that topic but we draw conclusions tomorrow together with our other European partners.

    We had a very good discussion, as was said, about monetary union and political union and this was very timely because it gives us the opportunity to take into consideration the British position and see what we can do to come to agreement in Maastricht.

    About GATT we have still a long way to go to find a good method to bring the Uruguay Round to a success but as you know as well Great Britain and the Netherlands as, if I might say so, the Presidency, have a big interest here that we show that Europe can not only organise itself internally but is also prepared to come to terms with other groups of nations and continents.

    Finally, one word about central and Eastern Europe. As you know, Prime Minister Major is also in charge now of monitoring the efforts of the Group of G7 and also in that responsibility we had a useful talk about the possibilities, [Indistinct] the coming months, to coordinate the action of the European Community and that of the G7 group of countries.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Major, on political union, are you still opposed in principle to any extension of the legislative powers of the European Parliament and Prime Minister Lubbers, has anything that Mr Major told you this morning made it easier for you to complete your internal examination of new proposals for the IGC?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We discussed a great many matters on political union, not just the extension of legislative competence, I think it would be a mistake to think that that is the only matter of difficulty, not just for the United Kingdom but for other countries as one actually moves forward to the debate on political union at Maastricht in December, there are very many areas of difficulty. We are prepared to look constructively at what the role of the European Parliament should be in the future, there are areas where we believe that it should change and I have set those out on a number of occasions in the past. Precise details of where we think their role should change and how it should change, what its reporting mechanisms should be, are matters we are still in discussion with both the Presidency and with our European partners.

    There can be some changes, I think there are areas beyond which we would find it very difficult for the European Parliament to go at this stage, but there are other difficulties as well and we have not dwelled especially upon those this morning.

    MR LUBBERS:

    The answer to your question is yes. To clarify that a little bit, we see Maastricht and the result of the inter-governmental conference on political union not as the final result of one political union immediately and for the full 100 percent at Maastricht. In fact, it will be a first step forward to a political union, defining the process, as I see it, and the different fields and speech in which we can come together to a more common approach will be different. You see that on the one hand in monetary union but there is also the single market and areas related to that in which we can make a step forward but we have to be a little bit more cautious in other areas like foreign policy and defence, not losing the perspective of political union but allowing ourselves time to develop procedures in which gradually Europe will speak more with one voice which is the ultimate aim of course.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] Carrington and London has been frankly pessimistic about the prospects in Yugoslavia, in the light of that could I ask you both what conditions you would set and what prospects you see for the sending of an EC peace-keeping force to Yugoslavia and what implications do you think the different emphasis seems to being put within the Community for that political union?

    MR LUBBERS:

    As we said earlier, this will be discussed tomorrow with our European colleagues which is essential because if we really want a Europe which acts coordinated with one voice we have to come to a common opinion together. It would be very unwise I think as well for the British Prime Minister as for myself just one day before such a Ministerial meeting to dictate already the result of such a meeting. But I can assure you that we had a very thorough and fruitful discussion about the difficult situation and certainly we will do our utmost to support with all means the possibility for a success of what Lord Carrington is doing now in the peace conference here in The Hague.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add something to that. I do not think one wants to necessarily assume all the difficulties of Lord Carrington’s mission will come about, we must hope that he is more successful, I think he is very prudent to be cautious about what can be achieved, it is clearly an extremely difficult circumstance and I think both on substance and in terms of tactics he is entirely right to be cautious about the outcome.

    One of the purposes of tomorrow’s meeting is to determine the extent to which it will be possible to coordinate policy and decide how to deal with the difficult emerging situation that exists in Yugoslavia. But many of the conclusions that we will have to reach will have to depend upon the will of the people in Yugoslavia firstly to create a ceasefire, secondly to seek assistance to make sure that that ceasefire actually continues. I do not think anybody is talking about a peace-making approach in terms of military intervention in Yugoslavia, but we must wait and see what happens in the discussions tomorrow, there are many things to discuss in what is a very rapidly evolving situation.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It means we are going to discuss things tomorrow, I do not have any immediate likelihood of sending a force, no.

    QUESTION:

    Did you outline any British reservations about the sending of a force, any conditions there would have to be on the ground?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As Ruud said a few moments ago, we are going to discuss all these matters tomorrow and we have had the chance of some exchanges today, but I think these are matters that have to be developed in discussion tomorrow.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Every European nation has entirely the right to express its own distinctive views on what is happening in Yugoslavia and seek to discuss those views with its European colleagues, that is the free and easy and open way in which we conduct our affairs. But we will have a meeting tomorrow at which I hope we will get a communal view.

    MR LUBBERS:

    Let me add to that. In our discussion it was very clear, the main point of course is not the common policy, our common policy in this part of Europe, but the necessity that those who are responsible in Yugoslavia are ready to accept the necessity of a ceasefire and of the positive attitude to the efforts of Lord Carrington and only under that condition can we be instrumental in helping and assisting them. And that is the main point of discussion tomorrow, I guess, how we define that necessity of a perspective for the future of Yugoslavia based on their own efforts and then what can we add to help them in that situation.

    QUESTION:

    Are you planning an extra summit?

    MR LUBBERS:

    No, not at this moment.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Nursing Standard / BUPA Nursing Awards – 17 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Nursing Standard/BUPA Nursing Awards dinner, held at the Marriott Hotel in London on 17th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam President, I am delighted to be with you this evening. These awards are very important. Important because they are the result of joint enterprise between the RCN, BUPA and Nursing Standard. There is scope for much more joint enterprise in many areas of health policy. And I hope and expect to see more.

    But important also because they recognise the service ethos which is at the heart of health care. I know already that the award winners all have one thing in common. They are all nurses, midwives or health visitors who are engaged in clinical practice. They have all been nominated for their work in improving the quality of care which they deliver to their patients.

    The delivery of care to patients is at the heart of nursing practice: and nursing practice is at the heart of our Health Service. The NHS is the largest employer in the country. And within it, nurses, midwives and health visitors form the largest professional group. So this is a good occasion for me to set out some objectives for the Service.

    In our country, the National Health Service is almost universally respected. The NHS offers peace of mind to millions of people. I am determined that it will thrive and grow as a truly National Service available to all our citizens. That is what it has done for the past twelve years.

    The facts speak for themselves. More patients have been treated. New treatments have been developed. More staff have been available. Since 1979 expenditure on the NHS has grown at 3 per cent a year over and above inflation: a cumulative increase of 50 per cent in real resources devoted to health care.

    But money is not everything. It is how we use that money that is so important. None of that progress in patient care could have been achieved without the commitment of the skilled professionals who work in the health service. Each and every day there are hundreds of thousands of cases of professional, dedicated, and successful health care.

    Of course, things go wrong from time to time. But everyone here, all of us, are committed to preventing and to solving those problems. The more we work together the more successful we will be. The purpose of tonight’s awards is to recognise individual effort to provide better care. Such effort epitomises all that is best in the National Health Service.

    I have good reason to be personally committed to the NHS. When I was seriously injured it was the NHS that treated me. When my parents were in their final illness, it was the NHS that cared for them. When my children were born it was the NHS that delivered them. In this I share the experience of millions.

    This government is quite clear about its health policy and the future of the NHS. That policy is founded on ten important principles.

    First, the needs of the patient must be paramount in running the NHS.

    Second, health care is free at the point of use in hospitals and in doctors’ surgeries. And it will remain so.

    Third, we will continue to offer free prescription charges, so that only those who can afford to do so will make a contribution to the cost of medicines.

    Fourth, the Government’s priority will be to see the NHS is not just maintained, but improved. Extra resources will continue to be provided for the NHS year after year within the limits the economy can afford.

    Fifth, all money – and I do mean all the money – that is saved by increased efficiency in hospitals will be ploughed back into patient care and not handed back to the Treasury.

    Sixth, the reforms we have introduced in the Health Service will continue to be directed towards improving care for patients, and ensuring that more responsibility for health care is handed down to local levels. That is why we created NHS Trusts and GP Fundholders. To give more responsibility to hospitals and GPs in deciding how best to meet local needs. And let me stress a fundamental truth about NHS Trusts. They are, and will remain an integral part of the National Health Service available to all. None will be privatised now or in the future.

    Seventh, as we have underlined in our Citizen’s Charter, every patient must be treated with proper respect and dignity at all times. And they must receive proper information about all aspects of their illness, treatments and care.

    Eighth, not only must the treatment offered by the NHS be clinically good. The NHS must offer patients certainty about the maximum time they may have to wait for inpatient or out-patient treatment.

    Ninth, families have the right to make private provision if they choose. Doctors and nurses have the right to practise privately. No free society should try to deny either right. As the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe begin to hope and plan for private health care, it is inconceivable that anyone in the UK should still oppose it. And, as it grows, there should be more constructive co-operation between the private and public sectors in health.

    Finally – and I place particular importance on this – nurses, doctors and all the staff who work so hard and with such skill deserve our support. I can assure you that they can count on mine and the wholehearted backing of this Government in the years ahead.

    Those ten principles will guide the way ahead for our policies on health. There will be many challenges. There may be setbacks. Meeting the ever-growing demand for health care is a daunting task, not only for Britain, but for every other country as well.

    But let us be clear why we face such challenges. They are the challenges of success. They came about because:

    – More people live longer.

    – Technical advance makes new treatments possible.

    – New techniques have been developed by professionals in health care.

    – New discoveries have been made by scientists involved in pharmaceutical and diagnostic research.

    Of course, it is reasonable to point to the case for growing resources. That is a legitimate matter for debate, though I regret it is all too often turned into a political football. But the growing pressure for more resources comes not because health care is failing, but because it is advancing – at a greater pace than ever before. And is advancing because of the success of the Service.

    In Britain we now spend over 30 billion pounds a year on the health service. More than on Defence. More than on Education. And as a Government we have a duty to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent effectively. That is true for all public services. But what really matters for NHS spending is getting the best service from the resources available – for the patients and for the community as a whole. And that is what our reforms in the NHS are intended to bring about.

    I know that carrying through these changes has meant some heart-searching, much hard work, and has needed lasting commitment from all those involved. But the benefits are increasingly to be seen. With the principal reforms now in place we can lift our sights to the common goal of all these changes – a better Health Service.

    For I am quite clear where the NHS reforms are taking us.

    – We will see further improvements in the health of the nation – some of them quite dramatic, like the vastly improved prospects for children with leukaemia and reduction in measles, mumps and rubella. In 1990 there was not one death from acute measles – the first year without a death since records began.

    – We will see costs brought down and waste reduced within the NHS. And waste reduced means funds gained for the Service. I say again that every penny saved will stay in the NHS to provide more and better care.

    – We will see people working in the NHS with more confidence in the services they are delivering.

    – And we will see the public at large placing even more value on the NHS. Not just out of affectionate habit, but because it is getting better and better and is responding more directly to their needs.

    Madam President, in July, I launched our Citizen’s Charter. want that Charter and its principles to be a driving force in every part of the public service in the 1990s. The Citizen’s Charter’s key theme is to make public services more responsive to the needs and the wishes of their users and to raise further overall quality. Nowhere are these objectives more important than in health.

    The NHS reforms are already taking us a good way towards achieving the improvements set out in the Citizen’s Charter. In future those responsible for spending public money will be able to set new and demanding standards for those providing services to patients.

    We will be building on the reforms when we publish the Patient’s Charter soon. The Charter will set out in detail what people can expect of the NHS. It will also spell out what Health Authorities and providers are expected to do to ensure that these expectations are met. And what people can do to secure redress if they are not met.

    For example:

    – you can expect your District Health Authority to publish details of all the services it provides, together with an indication of the standards of quality it expects to maintain;

    – as soon as you are put on a waiting list, the hospital will write to let you know how their guaranteed waiting times affect you;

    – you can expect a named nurse or midwife to be responsible for your care from start to finish;

    – if things go wrong, the Patient’s Charter will tell you how to register a complaint about GP or hospital treatment.

    I am delighted to find from your manifesto for health that the Royal College of Nursing is thinking on very similar lines.

    You have argued for:

    – the right for all citizens to have access to good quality services;

    – the need for services to be matched more clearly to need;

    – the need to empower consumers, for example by providing information on the range of services available locally in language people can understand;

    – the need to inform patients about their diagnosis and to secure their consent to treatment and participation in research programmes;

    – the need for patients to be informed of the likely waiting time for treatment and given a guarantee that their wait will not exceed a stated maximum.

    It gives me great confidence to know that the driving force for delivery of service in the NHS does not need persuasion of the merits of the Charter approach. It is already your approach. This makes it much more likely that things will happen.

    It is, at last, becoming properly recognised that nursing as a profession is a key complement to medicine. Highly trained nurses are now the deliverers of care to cancer patients, to diabetics and to many others. In a number of areas nurses are running their own clinics. Nursing is becoming more specialised as nurses develop and extend their roles in both physical and psychological care. All these changes must make for the more effective use both of their skills – and those of doctors. Most important of all, it benefits patients and improves the choice available to them. I thoroughly welcome such developments and look forward to seeing them grow.

    Previous winners of these awards have provided us with examples of how nurses have pushed further their traditional role. They were innovators who had developed, for example:

    – new skills in counselling and support;

    – a programme of higher quality care for elderly patients with mental illness problems;

    – new arrangements for parent support and communications; and

    – a highly effective nurse-led service for those suffering from leg ulcers.

    Just a few examples of nurses carving out a new, improved and distinct role for themselves and raising the quality of care which patients receive. I know that when we hear the achievements of tonight’s winners there will be more excellent examples.

    For its part, the Government has reaffirmed its commitment to the development of nursing practice. William Waldegrave announced at the RCN Congress in May that he was making £3.2m available over the next five years for the development of Nursing Development Units and the concept of patient centred nursing care. I know that Ann Poole here is working closely with the Kings Fund, the NHS and professional organisations to develop this initiative.

    Madam President, Christine Hancock was kind enough to attend my seminar at Chequers where we discussed the then proposed health strategy. As all of you will know, we published the consultative document “The Health of the Nation” in June.

    That document was widely welcomed. The strategy seeks to strike a much better balance between prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. By setting national and local targets, I am confident the strategy will help tackle some of the main health problems of our time, for example reducing the amount of heart disease and cancers.

    But if the strategy is to succeed we need your help. The initiative is directed towards improving health in the widest sense. Not just through better diagnosis and treatments in doctors surgeries and in hospitals, but through preventive measures and more effective rehabilitation. Nurses, midwives and health visitors are also uniquely well-placed to get these messages across. That is why you must be involved in the planning of the strategy. The Department of Health is consulting widely on this initiative until the end of October. I hope that each of you will make your views known.

    So far, I have spoken mainly of the National Health Service of which we are all rightly proud. However, we must not overlook the important contribution which the independent health care sector makes in giving people a choice about how their health care needs are met. Moreover, in recent years we have seen many examples of co-operation and collaboration between the sectors, including some in the field of nurse education. These initiatives flourish through joint commitment. I am delighted with your achievements to date and urge you to continue your efforts.

    I believe that there is much more scope for collaborative ventures between the private health sector and the NHS. Although it is not a new development, the reforms will make this easier. For example, for some time the private sector has been an important supplier of elderly care to the NHS. Such developments provide choice to those buying services, and help to sustain standards. They ensure that we get the best possible value for every pound of taxpayers money spent on health care.

    Madam President, this evening we must thank BUPA and the Nursing Standard for sponsoring and organising these nursing awards. The Nursing Standard is not only run by nurses, it is owned by them through the Royal College.

    I understand that the College is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. I congratulate you, your predecessors, and officers and members of the College, on the many successes which the organisation has had through the past 75 years. You have an enviable reputation as a College and I have no doubt that will grow further in the future.

    This evening I have touched on a wide range of nursing issues in my remarks. But the main theme has been that nurses, midwives and health visitors are at the very heart of health care. They have more direct contact with patients and with their families than any other health profession. Their responsibility for the well-being of the patient and family is critical. Their role in health care is quite unique. No one forgets the nurse who looked after them in hospital; the midwife who delivered their first child; the health visitor who checked mother and child thereafter. I would like to say thank you to all who work so hard and with such skill in the NHS and private sector. I wish you well for the future.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Community – 12 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Community, made in an interview in Paris on Thursday 12th September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether it was possible to widen and deepen the Community].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is possible to combine the two, but we have to ensure in the areas of deepening that in deepening we don’t erect the barriers that prevent subsequent widening; that is really the point.

    We are facing changes at the moment of an absolutely historic nature. There are chances here for creating a new circumstance across the whole of Europe, the whole of geographic Europe, on a scale nobody would have dreamed about even a few months ago. That is a chance that Western Europe and the Community must not let slip so whilst we look at the developments within the Community for deepening, we must do so and have it against the background of the possibility of widening the European Community very substantially in the years ahead.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the process should be slowed down].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it is just a question of slowing it down. There are many matters to be discussed and to be determined on economic and monetary union; we are getting deep into the detail now. The important matter is that as we determine that detail, we do so against a background of what will be possible in the years ahead for the Eastern European nations. We need to make sure that we leave open the possibility for them to meet their ambitions of joining the Community and that what we do does not erect a barrier over which they would never be able to jump.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if a larger Community would fail to agree on issues].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a Community that is coming. I don’t know of very many European leaders within the Community who don’t actually expect that Community to widen. Even here in Paris yesterday, for example, President Mitterrand signed an agreement with the Hungarians and the Poles that presumed in due course their eventual membership of the European Community.

    We have a much wider issue in mind in terms of the general relations within the Community than some of the narrow-minded visions that have sometimes been enacted in the past. It is an opportunity we dare not miss.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if President Mitterrand thought this would take a long time].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No-one is suggesting that it is imminent. The Eastern European countries are going to have to prepare their economies so they can be satisfactory members of the Community. What we have to do to them is say: “It is worthwhile preparing your economies. When that has been done and when you are ready, we will say to you: “You are welcome in the Community!”, not “The barriers are up and we don’t want you”. They will be welcome and we must make that clear to them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there were still big differences of opinion between President Mitterrand and himself].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I think you misjudge this question of a deep gulf. We are in the midst of negotiations. When one is in negotiations, there are differing opinions about which Europe has to reach a conclusion between here and Maastricht. It isn’t just a question of differences that may exist on negotiating positions between the British and the French. There are very many differences amongst all the nations in the Twelve at the present time; that is what the negotiations are about; if they didn’t exist, we would have no need for the negotiations, but we have the negotiations in hand and there is a general expectation that we will reach a satisfactory conclusion by Maastricht. That is what I wish to see and I think it is what every other member of the Community would wish to see as well.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to European Democratic Union Conference – 12 September 1991

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech to the European Democratic Union Conservative Party Leaders’ Conference, given on Thursday 12th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Rt Hon John Major MP Thursday 12 September 1991 533/91

    Extract from a speech by the Rt Hon John Major MP (Huntingdon), Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, to the European Democratic Union Conservative Party Leaders’ Conference:

    Jacques Chirac and I met in London a few weeks ago. We talked, among other things, about the future of our continent. I valued that discussion. But neither of us could then foresee that within a matter of weeks, we would be witnesses to one of the most dramatic revolutions of the 20th Century.

    I do not need to tell an audience in this city about the perils, as well as the opportunities, of revolution. This new revolution brings tremendous opportunities. But it brings uncertainties as well. And risks. They combine into a tremendous challenge, but it is not just to the people of the Soviet Union. It is also to the governments and peoples of the whole of Europe. It is about that challenge that I want to talk today.

    For our parties of the centre right, the sudden and total collapse of Soviet Communism must be a special source of satisfaction. A dark and discredited ideology lies in ruins; rejected by the people it ensnared.

    It was an ideology which promised power to the people; but it drained power from the people. It promised prosperity; but it brought poverty.

    It did not cherish initiative; it did crush all personal economic aspiration. It replaced the inventiveness of the human imagination with the mumbo-jumbo of Marxist doctrine. It lived by tyranny, oppression and lies. And even the failed coup epitomised one of its most striking characteristics: enormous incompetence, even in the pursuit of its own misbegotten objectives.

    Brian Mulroney recently told me a story of a conversation with President Gorbachev during his visit to Canada. President Gorbachev asked: what was the secret of Canada’s success as a wheat producer? What did Canada have that the Soviet Union did not? The answer, Brian Mulroney said, was quite simple: the Canadian farmer worked, not for the party nor for the state but for himself and his family. Like farmers in all our countries, he was prepared to work from first light until after dark knowing that he could improve his lot and pass on something worthwhile to future generations. That was Canada’s ‘secret’.

    It is to the enormous credit of President Gorbachev that he saw clearly the flaws and injustices in the Soviet system. Ultimately, Soviet Communism was doomed to collapse because its foundations were rotten. But it was sustained by repression. It was President Gorbachev’s decision to move from repression to reform which opened the doors to freedom. They have opened first to the people of Eastern and Central Europe and now to the people of the Soviet Union. For this act alone, his place in history is secure.

    Today, there is no longer a Communist Party in the Soviet Union. It is an irony that while the Communist Party is actually banned in Russia, Communist parties survive in most of our countries. So where are they now going to look for their ideological lead? To Cuba, just as Soviet troops are starting to withdraw? Or China?

    I have just returned from China. I made that visit in the interests of the continued freedom and prosperity of Hong Kong. But I had another purpose too: to try to bring the influence of the free world to bear on the leaders of China, and to show the people of China that they are not forgotten by the West.

    Even under the harsh and baleful influence of Communist rule, China is changing. The province of Canton is in a ferment of free enterprise. Take a helicopter and fly over Hong Kong and you will see that, beyond the line of the border with China, the lights of commerce and industry burn almost as brightly. The people there have some of the freedoms of the market place. They can benefit from their own hard work and enterprise. But they do not have personal liberty – the most precious freedom of all. It may take time, but I believe that political and personal freedom must inevitably follow the liberation of market forces.

    In the meantime, we in the West must keep pushing at the door. I raised with Chinese leaders a large number of human rights cases. They did not dismiss them out of hand. They recognised that they had to listen and that they had to respond. They would prefer not to. But they did. A Hong Kong citizen who was in prison in China a week ago is back home in Hong Kong today.

    I believe we must keep up the pressure on them. If every visitor from the West reminds China of their obligations, as a member of the United Nations, and a Permanent Member of the Security Council in particular, then that pressure will produce results.

    The bastions of Communism have crumbled. But it still has its last outposts. No one can rule out desperate rearguard actions. But all the evidence is that we are now opening a new chapter. I am particularly delighted that our friends from the Baltic Republics are opening it with us. They have rejoined the European family – and not a moment too soon. Soon, with Britain’s support, they will become full members of the United Nations.

    None of these changes are easy. Yugoslavia is a vivid example of a country teetering between self-determination and self-destruction. It is a reminder too of our responsibilities as democratic Europeans.

    These are events of world significance. But, first and foremost, they affect our own continent of Europe.

    At the end of the Second World War, Europe was split into two. The countries that emerged from war into freedom and democracy took two great steps to defend their liberties. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed. The European Community was launched. The fact that so many other European countries have since sought to join the Community, or to form associations with it, is the greatest signal of its success. Now the part of our continent that was denied the political and economic renaissance that the rest of us have enjoyed is emerging into freedom and democracy. For the rest of us that poses a unique responsibility. We cannot and must not turn our back on them.

    We have the immediate, urgent duty to throw them a lifeline. We have already done this for the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. Each of our countries individually is helping. We in Britain have, through our ‘Know How’ fund, started to help the countries of Eastern and Central Europe develop the infrastructure of a modern economy. We have helped with privatisation in Poland; with the Stock Exchange in Budapest; with the banking sector in Czechoslovakia. Polish-speaking civil servants from London are today at work in Poland’s Ministry of Labour in Kracow.

    Now we must do the same for the Soviet Union. Already, in July at the Group of Seven Summit, we agreed on:

    (i) Special Association for the Soviet Union with the IMF and the World Bank;

    (ii) Support for the Soviet Union and its republics from all the relevant international organisations;

    (iii) Intensified technical assistance – especially in the fields of energy, the conversion of defence industries, food distribution, nuclear safety and transport.

    (iv) Improved access to western markets.

    The greatest single obstacle to the implementation of that plan was indecision within the Soviet Union. Would the Soviet Union go down the path of reform – genuine reform – or would the Soviet Union still try to combine partial political freedoms with economic centralism? We now know the answer to that question. The coup designed to halt reform has failed. It is now the catalyst to accelerate it. Only the Soviet Union and its republics can determine their future course. But we can help, both in the short term and for the future. First of all:

    (i) We must assess their immediate needs urgently. They may need food aid to get them through this winter. If so, we and our partners will be generous with our help.

    (ii) The Soviet Union and its republics will need an efficient infrastructure for food processing and distribution. In Britain we have assembled a team of our major food producers and distributors. They will go to the Soviet Union in a few days’ time to discover how they can help with food processing and distribution. Other countries of the Group of Seven are sending teams of their own. We have all agreed to pool our assessment by the end of this month.

    (iii) We must speed up the implementation of existing food credits.

    (iv) We must accelerate technical assistance and ‘Know How’ programmes.

    (v) We must get the Soviet Union and the IMF into discussion so that the IMF can assess the Soviet economy and its requirements. I am pleased to say that a team from the IMF is already in the Soviet Union.

    (vi) And we must accelerate the special association of the Soviet Union with the IMF that was agreed at the G7 Summit;

    This will be a massive task. It is not a task for the Group of Seven alone, or the European Community alone. It is a task for all of us who enjoy prosperity and who have a stake in the Soviet Union’s new freedom.

    That is the lifeline approach. But we must look also to the longer term. The people of the Soviet Union will have to decide what political system they want. When I was there ten days ago, one could feel the ground of history shifting beneath one’s feet. There was much uncertainty. Boris Yeltsin told me that the future shape of the Soviet Union would not necessarily be a federation or a confederation but something new and unique. Already, however, certain points were emerging. Many of them were confirmed at last week’s meeting of the Congress of Peoples’ Deputies, notably single armed forces for the Soviet Union; confirmation of the Soviet Union’s adherence to its international obligations and treaties; central control of nuclear weapons.

    I pressed the Soviet leaders particularly on the issue of defence spending. For a country in dire economic straits, to spend 25 per cent of its resources on military expenditure is unsustainable and unacceptable. They must help themselves to be sure of our help. I have assurances from President Gorbachev, President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Silayev that defence spending is being cut – and will be cut further.

    We cannot determine the future of the Soviet Union. But we can help – or we can hinder. We must offer them a new deal – and not a raw deal.

    I would like to set out what I believe should be the basis of our relationship with the newest European democracy, or democracies.

    We want them:

    i) to create a genuinely democratic society;

    ii) to develop a free market economy;

    iii) to secure a stable and just system of government with protection for minorities;

    iv) to play a constructive part in world affairs;

    v) and to become an integral part of democratic Europe.

    The idea of a common European home was once a slogan. Now it can become a reality.

    We cannot allow one artificial division in Europe to be replaced by another. We in the European Community cannot say: ‘Here is our club.

    We have made the rules. And we will make new rules regardless of your interests’.

    Under the Treaty of Rome, any democratic European country can apply for membership of the Community. Eastern and Central European countries have made clear that they see full membership of the Community as their ultimate goal. I believe the Community should welcome them in as soon as they are ready politically and economically. We must be prepared to widen our horizons and widen our membership.

    Already, at British initiative, we are, in the European Community, speeding progress towards Association Agreements for Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. Of course, this involves some sacrifice. Association Agreements mean opening our markets to Eastern and Central European Countries. That means more competition – including in some agricultural products. But it is the right way ahead.

    There is no purpose in giving countries aid and denying them trade access. Such policies would leave them on a drip feed of dependence for ever. It would be absurd and potentially dangerous, to preach the virtues of the free market but to practise old-fashioned protectionism. I think there will now be a real effort in the European Community to reach an agreement by the end of this month on agricultural access for Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

    I have encouraged the Commission to be in urgent discussion with the newly independent Baltic Republics. They too will want a special relationship with the European Community. That may take the form of a Trade and Co-operation agreement leading, in due course, to an Association Agreement. In the longer run they may seek full membership. That possibility should be open to them too. And we should tell them so now.

    I believe the European Community must hold out the hand of friendship and cooperation also to Russia and other republics of the Soviet Union. It is too early to say what form the relationship will take. But we should not close off options. It is no use saying the Community would not be the same if Russia became closely associated with it. It might have to change. But then we do not live in an unchanging world. The Community will have to change with it.

    The Community’s strengths to date has come from its dynamism. We have not stood still. Nor can we now. That does not mean that we should neglect the development of the Community in its present form. But we must ensure that that development opens doors rather than closes them. We should be lowering barriers, not raising hurdles.

    We Europeans must heed the aspirations and choices of 400 million European citizens. There is an unmistakable feeling that our continent is coming together. European union will not be led by politicians. It will be led by people. Politicians must not create barriers for half of Europe to step over.

    In the West we already enjoy fundamental freedoms and human rights. Now we are extending their compass with new opportunities to work, trade and travel. We may have to work out new patterns of co-operation. The Soviet Union has the enormous task of adapting itself. We should be realistic. We should be practical. We should not push it in the direction of unrealisable objectives. Equally, we should not set artificial limits on its development. For years, the objective of a Single Market for the members of the EC was a far off dream. Now, it is becoming a reality. We should not close our mind to the prospect of the European Community embracing many of the newly emerging democracies. One day we shall surely do so.

    That is one side of the openness I am talking about. But there is another kind of openness we in the Community should bear in mind as we work out the shape of the new European union. We must heed the way the world is moving – towards more decentralised, more accountable structures. In our talks on political union, we must enshrine a principle which captures the spirit of the age: it is the principle that decisions should always be taken at the lowest practicable level, close to the people they affect.

    In security too, openness and trust must be our objectives. They are the new key words in the language – some would say jargon – of security. The disintegration of the Warsaw Pact presents new opportunities for confidence-building. The CFE Treaty offers us the prize of a proper verification regime. We should redouble our efforts to secure a ban on chemical weapons. We must strengthen the convention on biological warfare. And we must strive to set up a UN arms register to control the sales of conventional weapons to the Third World.

    These opportunities are there to be taken. And why are they there? They are there because the Atlantic Alliance has held fast. It has provided the security which is the prerequisite for our immense economic progress. Like the European Community, it has provided an outstanding model of co-operation. Like the Community, it offers us a solid framework within which to manage the process of change.

    It would be folly to suppose that the great changes of recent weeks justify neglect of our defence. There is too much uncertainty, too many nuclear weapons, too many countries with nuclear ambitions to allow complacency. Of course we Europeans should do more for our own defence. We have in the Western European Union the means to do it. Let us turn it into a real European pillar for the Atlantic Alliance. Let us use it to meet security threats from outside the NATO area.

    Recent developments make the continued American and Canadian commitment to our continent more necessary, not less. It is not doctrine which holds NATO together, but shared interests and needs. As we develop our growing European defence identity, we must ensure that it is compatible with, not in conflict with, our mutual obligations as members of the North Atlantic Alliance.

    Last, but not least, we should remember that trade is a peace maker – one of the most powerful and persuasive. Countries locked together in trade have mutual interests that prevent them being locked together in conflict.

    Trade is the lifeblood of the international economy. When trade is relatively free, the international economy grows quickly and vigorously and all countries benefit. When trade is restricted, individual economies suffer, even those of the would-be beneficiaries of protectionism.
    Free trade is vital for future world prosperity. It also provides vital underpinning for good political relations.

    The GATT is at the heart of the world trading system. The Uruguay Round is now at a critical stage. The hopes of the developing world as much as the industrialised world rest on a successful outcome. At the G7 Summit in July, we all undertook to make a successful outcome this year a personal priority.

    The EC is now the world’s largest trading entity. Together with the US and Japan it accounts for half the world’s trade. We have a central responsibility for maintaining a strong, open world trading system.

    We are already dismantling barriers inside the Community. That should be part of a wider process of opening up world markets. We should vigorously resist pressures for a Fortress Europe. And we should guard against trading blocs based on Europe, the USA and the Pacific. That would be deeply damaging to world prosperity – and to world stability.

    Openness in trade will be the test of our commitment to a real European union. For many of the countries represented here today, it will make the difference between prosperity and poverty. The Twelve should rise to the challenge, and that includes agriculture. The debate may be technical; but the underlying issues are fundamental. We talk of a new world order. It is fragile and flawed. But the idea is not unrealistic. If we were to fail to reach agreement on how the world is to trade and do business, we would deal a body blow to our hopes of a new world order. And the damage would be entirely self inflicted.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the open society is on the march. Not just in Europe, but in every continent. Different countries will have their own ways of pursuing reform. But the lesson of the 20th Century is filtering through: freedom is the precondition of a happier world – and free markets are the precondition of a more prosperous world. It falls to us Europeans to spread that simple message, and live up to it ourselves. To fail would be unforgivable. To succeed will bring prizes beyond calculation. There is no better place to start than here on our own continent. And no better time to start than now.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Young Engineers Competition – 11 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Young Engineers for Britain Competition, organised by the Engineering Council. The speech was given on 11th September 1991 at the National Westminster Hall in London.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the reasons I am delighted to be here is because of what it actually signifies about the way in which prospects for the future are changing, the opportunities for young people in the future are changing, and the things that we need to do to secure our own prosperity in the future are changing as well.

    The days when young people learned a profession and then stayed in that profession from the time they left school to the time they retired without any fresh learning, fresh innovation or changes have long since gone. That may have been the way of life for generations in the past, but it certainly isn’t for generations today and it is going to be less so for generations in the future.

    The pace of innovation, of technology, the engineering changes that are being brought about are meaning that we are living in a world that is moving more rapidly than anything we have ever known before. And that places a special premium on the skills of those who can make things happen, those who can apply scientific knowledge, those who can make sure that scientific knowledge uses nature’s resources to benefit mankind. And that in the wider application is what engineering is about and it is because of what engineers have done and the fruits of their work that these days we live healthier lives, longer lives, in many ways more comfortable lives than previous generations.

    Maybe politicians occasionally take the credit for it but the reality is that it is the innovation and brilliance of men and women who have been engineers who’ve actually brought about so many of those changes.

    We live also in a time when television and radio have widened our knowledge and horizons. When labour saving devices have freed us, especially women, from the previous generations who faced the endless drudge of household chores. That is rapidly changing, opening the way thank goodness to independent careers for far more people today and tomorrow than has ever been the case in the past.

    And then of course there is the health-care technology aspects of engineering. The technology that has saved countless lives in this country and throughout the world and gives disabled people a great deal more personal freedom than otherwise they would have. Those are two of the fruits of the activities of the best of our engineers. We live in a time when cars and trains and planes give us mobility undreamed of by our ancestors. All those are products, too, of the skills, the resources, mental resources, of our engineers.

    And I believe that there cannot be a shred of doubt that good quality engineers are vital not only to our personal living standards but to our national prosperity. Nearly one tenth of our nation’s wealth is created by engineers.

    Perhaps one clear illustration of the extent to which the financial sector in particular recognises this is the direct link between engineers and prosperity illustrated by putting Faraday and Stephenson on modern bank notes. It’s quite right that they should be there; they have played a significant role in creating that modern prosperity.

    So we live in a changing world and we change with it or we fall behind other people. There can be no doubt I think in our minds, anybody in this country, what we need to do. We need to stay at the leading end of innovation and technology if we are to achieve for this country what it expects of itself and what we wish to see achieved.

    In years gone past, over generations, I feel we have been less good than some of our main competitors at getting enough of the best young people into engineering. And the reason for that is one I feel deeply about myself and have touched upon on many occasions. It is that instinct embedded deep in our culture that previously tended to disdain industry and give more kudos to classical education than to technological education.

    Our aim very clearly my intention, is to change that culture. So that the British engineer enjoys the same status as the German engineer. That is what we need to move towards, both for social reasons and, I think, for economic reasons as well if we are to maximise the opportunities for our country in the future. It will take time. It is a cultural change. It can’t just happen because we pass an Act in Parliament, or because we make a speech or two.

    It will grow, but I believe it is becoming ever-more embedded in the national instinct that people who have the particular skills of technology and engineering are people who are of critical importance to all our futures. And I hope they will not only enjoy the business, but the social status that necessarily should go with that.

    Clearly a part of that is to do with Government and is to do with education. It is for those reasons that we have made many of the changes that one has seen in recent years in the national curriculum. The change that means that every pupil studies maths and science up to the age of 16 to the required level of attainment. And these days far more people are applying to become science and maths teachers and there is no doubt at all in recent years how much we have needed to produce them.

    So we are seeking and finding new ways of meeting the demand for technical education. City technology colleges are proving their popularity, at least three applications for every single place that becomes available. And there could I think be no clearer illustration of two things. First the vast reservoir of people who understand the importance of technology education. And secondly the vast number of our young people who have an aptitude and an interest in that form of education and who wish to pursue it. Their judgement is right, it is going to be critical to our future and their success in that will secure their individual futures as well.

    And so we sought to meet much of those aspirations by increasing the number of engineering places in higher education. By setting in place for the first time a coherent structure of high level vocational qualifications which will raise their status. That is I think frightfully important. It must be understood by employers and others that vocational qualifications are important and that they should enjoy the same status as academic qualifications in the future and we are determined that they will.

    Now the Government of course finds itself in a position where it can do a great deal. But it cannot do it all. We can provide the foundation in Government, but thereafter it is for employers to market engineering. To show the attractions and opportunities of engineering, so young people have a clearer understanding of what engineers do and what a remarkably attractive career it can be for them.

    I know from what I have read about this competition and what I hope to see at the end of this brief ceremony is that the young people in this hall have I illustrated there is no shortage of talent in the engineering sector.

    What we must now do is maximise that talent, utilise it, for them, for us and for the wider country as well. And it is up to employers to demonstrate that engineering can offer satisfying and rewarding careers. The sponsors of today’s competition have recognised that and they have done something practical about it. And John Fairclough, (Chairman of The Engineering Council), who used to be my Scientific Adviser, and never hesitated to speak his mind on these occasions has frequently reminded me of the importance of all that. So let me say to the sponsors how much I appreciate what they have done in the past, are doing, and will I trust do in the future to continue to sponsor engineering. Their help is very much appreciated and we desperately need it.

    Let me also applaud those employers who work with The Engineering Council on the Neighbourhood Engineers scheme, another important scheme that’s doing extremely well. And having engineers working alongside teachers in secondary schools is bound to raise the awareness in those schools of what engineers can offer young pupils, parents and teachers.

    Increasingly technology itself is becoming a subject that young people actually study at school and carry forward. And that is another illustration of the changes that we are seeing in our education system. I mentioned a few moments ago that Carol (Carol Vorderman, the TV and radio presenter on maths and science programmes, who announced the Awards), was an engineer and in that she is amongst a minority and particularly a minority of women. But it is increasingly important to get more women to pursue engineering as a career.

    And I hope that career advisers in schools will throw away these old handbooks of stereotypes of what boys like to do and what girls like to do. Let them actually lift their eyes a bit more. Look at the opportunities that actually exist and encourage people to develop where their natural talents lie irrespective of whether they happen to be a boy or happen to be a girl. There is a fine career in engineering for girls as well as boys.

    And I saw recently a quote from one very high-flying woman engineer. And I think it’s just worth passing it on to you. What she said was this: “The competent woman engineer will have every opportunity to rise in the profession to positions of real responsibility”.
    And what she went on to say was equally important, “Engineering now has as much to do with replacement of hip joints, baby life support systems, and pollution control systems, as it has to do with nuclear power and anti-ballistic missiles. There is room for the woman engineer in all those fields”. And I very strongly agree with that sentiment.

    Not only do I agree with it, I believe that the WISE scheme (the Women into Science and Engineering scheme), that initiative is beginning to change attitudes for the better. The proportion of women engineering students has nearly doubled since WISE started in 1984. And eight, eight of the regional finalists in today’s competition are young women. What we wish to see in the future is to see that rise and very substantially, and I have no doubt that it will.

    So today is an important occasion not just for the innovators who are here amongst whom the prizewinners will be announced very shortly and I have been threatened with the direst results if I leak the results even moments in advance of them being announced. But they are illustrating the changing positions we have in this country.

    There can in a competition like this only be one winner at the end of examining all the entries. But what I have read already of what the entries are, illustrates very clearly to me that there is a dazzling array of skill and talent that the young people have brought here today to this particular competition and I offer them the warmest congratulations for everything they have achieved in getting here today.

    The word “engineering” comes from the same word meaning “ingenious” or “creative”. That applies to everyone who is here in this final. That ingenuity, that creativeness is what we will build on in the years to come if we are to deliver and build the prosperity that I would like to see us achieve in this country. That is why I am pleased to be here, that is why I am pleased you are here, that is why most of all I am pleased these young people are here for without them it would be a fruitless operation and it is my pleasure now simply to ask Carol to announce the names of the award winners.

  • Mr Major’s Comments after Meeting with President Mitterrand – 11 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments after the meeting with President Mitterrand, made in an interview in Paris on Wednesday 11th September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how the talks had progressed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With President Mitterrand, as ever very friendly, very constructive and very worthwhile. We covered a wide range of subjects. As we meet and speak so frequently, much of the background can be pushed aside and we can deal with the matters of immediate important so we dealt at some length with the present circumstances in the Soviet Union, what is happening and we believe will happen. We have a very similar view on the present problems in Yugoslavia and the importance of the peace conference and the arbitration process; we spent a good deal of time on that. We discussed also the Intergovernmental Conference and the need to move forward and try and reach an agreement in Maastricht later on this year. We discussed the Association Agreements with the Eastern European nations and we both believe that a solution to the present difficulties will be found for that within this month, so it was very useful and very constructive and we were able to touch on a number of other matters as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was still division between France wanting to deepen the European Community and him wanting to widen it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a whole series of matters to be considered about both deepening and widening the Community. We are considering deepening in the two Intergovernmental Conferences and I think we will reach satisfactory conclusions on that at Maastricht though precisely what they will be at the moment is unclear. There is a great deal of discussion, a great deal of hard talking, a great deal of negotiation before that occurs but my position for a long time has been that I don’t want a girdle thrown around the Community. Nobody in the Community wants to say: “Here we are, nobody will join us in future!”. That isn’t what the construction of the Community is about; we want to see it widen as well. Half of Europe after the War turned out to be free and that became part of NATO by and large and it became part of the Community; the other half is increasingly free; I think they will want to play an increasing role in the economic process in the West. Over time, I think we would wish to see that.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Grampian – 10 September 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Grampian on Tuesday 10th September 1991. The opening question was not recorded.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t comment in any detail about them, no. I have had a very general briefing about them. I have asked the Home Secretary for a detailed briefing about them. I understand they arose from an incident that occurred the night before; that seems to be the original impression that has been gained. I have asked for a full report but I don’t yet have it, I’m afraid.

    QUESTION:

    Is it a concern that there seems to be a succession of a series of these incidents?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There has been a small run of these incidents; that does occasionally happen and they all seem to have a different genesis and whatever the genesis may be, they are not acceptable. They are not the way for people to behave and there is no need for them, but I think I had better have further facts about them before I comment further. One often gets this copycat effect; it happens in one area and then you get this mini-riot and people feel it is acceptable to behave in that way elsewhere. It isn’t acceptable to behave in that way and they must recognise it; the public don’t want it; the police don’t want it; and it is just not an acceptable way for people to behave. If they have problems and they have concerns, there are other ways of doing it and not the way we have seen once or twice recently, but they do seem to have a separate cause in each incident.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Aberdeen – 9 September 1991

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech in Aberdeen, given on 9th September 1991. [Parts of the transcript were unclear, and are marked with ….]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say thank you for the opportunity of meeting you all here this evening. I have spent the day in Aberdeen and the area and it has been a very worthwhile day. One of the pleasures of being Prime Minister is that you are able to escape from London and I do belong to those species of politicians who do not believe that the world begins and ends in the Greater London area.

    So it has been an intriguing day from the Cardon [phon] distillery, to schools, the Chamber of Commerce, the lunchtime speech to the Aberdeen Press and Journal and also to open Grampian Enterprise’s new building where they are going to produce all these splendid … and other ideas of Scottish enterprise that are going to provide so much training for us in the future.

    So I have had the opportunity of getting a very clear bird’s eye view of much of what is happening up here and from my point of view it has been an immensely worthwhile occasion.

    Let me just say a brief word or two about one or two of the matters that are still to come in the months … the rest of this year. And no I am not going to talk about the general election.

    Let me say a word about the progress of the economy as where I think we now are. Across the United Kingdom as a whole the recession has been quite deep, it has been deeper I think it is fair to say than we anticipated at the start or indeed had anyone anticipated, it has been uneven. Contrary to the pattern in recessions that we have seen almost as far back as you can go, the deepest part of it has been in the south and the east because predominantly that was where the largest borrowing was and that therefore was where the largest impact was with the monetary policy as we sought to end it.

    The way it now happens I think is for a sufficiency of months to be absolutely certain … but I think it has been happening for a sufficient number of months to be absolutely certain about it … is that we are I believe increasingly clear that we are through the worst of the recession and that we can now look forward to the regeneration of confidence in the months ahead.

    There are several things I believe that makes that perfectly clear and the first of those is the direction of inflation and by inflation I do not just mean the Retail Price Index, important though that undoubtedly is, I mean the trend of underlying inflation as well. That has been dropping now for some months and it is clear we have it by the scruff of the neck and it will go on dropping in the months ahead. It is very likely that we will have a lower inflation rate than Germany at some stage between now and the end of the year and we have not had that for very many years indeed.

    The second matter which I think is increasingly impacted upon the business mind if not the public mind is the effect of having joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism. In the last year, since we joined it when I was Chancellor last October – and I am bound to say it seems longer, I cannot think why – but in the year since we joined it last October we have seen interest rates in the United Kingdom come down by 4.5 percent, we have seen them rise in Germany and many other parts of Europe, and yet sterling, despite this dramatic narrowing of interest rate differentials has stayed absolutely stable around its central point of 2.95 deutschmarks.

    Not many people expected that to happen but I believed that it would and thus far at least events have shown that that was the right judgment.

    So we are increasingly getting to the position where we have a stable exchange rate, which is one of the key ingredients that the business sector repeatedly have said to governments that they need, they need to be clear where they are on the exchange markets, increasingly that is the case. We now have inflation coming down as well so we have two key ingredients that are critical to business confidence.

    The third one is where we have had so much problem in the months that have immediately gone past, there has been a decline in consumer confidence and consequently in spending and consequently in the market for your products whether in the retail sector or in many parts of the country though that is so I know in Aberdeen for other reasons in the construction industry.

    But there are signs now that consumer confidence is reviving, this morning’s figures I think tend to indicate that, but there have been other leading indicators as well. And if that is correct, and I think the balance of probability is that it is correct, we will be having another of the ingredients in place that we need to return to sustainable growth and that is the return of consumer and investor confidence.

    Now if those three factors are in place – the stable exchange rate, the falling and thereafter low inflation rate and the return of consumer confidence – we are going to find ourselves very well placed indeed for an upturn in the economy in the year ahead.

    Some people say will it be speedy? Well I would say to you, though it will seem to you I daresay a curious thing for me to say, I hope not too soon because what I do not want to see is the economy coming so speedily out of the recession that we have had that we create that hump and collapse that we have seen so frequently in the past, that boom and stop scenario. I do not want that, I want a gentle and sustainable, sustainable, growth out of recession in the months and the years ahead and that is what we are gearing policy to achieve.

    But apart from the fact that I think that is the most stable way to move the economy out of recession, it is also the most sensible way if we look at what we actually need to achieve in the 1990s. Out there is a more competitive world day by day than we have ever known before in our history as a great trading nation. All over the world people who were tame and happy recipients of our products and expertise years ago are now our principal competitors, all the way across south-east Asia you see the most immense changes in attitude, in producing techniques, in management skills, areas where we had huge markets and now we must fight not only for those markets but against those people for other markets.

    And then you see the changes there have been in Latin America and elsewhere. We are in a world where the most competitive and the most efficient have tremendous horizons and where the uncompetitive and the inefficient have no horizons whatsoever because these days if you are not efficient and you are not competitive and you do not provide what people want then you will not survive let alone thrive in the 1990s. In Europe there is a special point to be made and that is the fact that we will soon have the Single Market completely in operation, we will have an open more liberal market across Europe than we have ever seen before, it will not be perfect but it will be a good deal better than anything that has been in place. And the countries and the businesses that will scoop the pool in that huge and rich market are the efficient ones that a stable economy, sustainable investment, sustainable growth, low inflation and the right business climate in order to have the confidence to go out and seek and win those markets.

    That I believe is a huge prize, it is a prize that I am not prepared to take any risks with and that is the essential reason that I say we must come out of this bitter and nasty recession at a sustainable pace to give industry and commerce the right climate to capitalise on those opportunities in the 1990s.

    It is interesting, is it not, … I gave you some illustrations a moment ago in terms of what is happening in other parts of the world but we have seen politically as well the huge changes that are taking place in Eastern Europe and the great changes in terms of technology, many of the things that people will buy as their everyday consumer durables by the turn of the century, probably the majority of those things that they will buy have not yet been invented in the early 1990s. That is the pace of change and particularly technological and innovative change that we are actually seeking to live with at the moment and the environment in which we have to ….

    So it is an exciting time, it is a time when the opportunities are different and a time when if we get the economic management wrong you will not be able to take advantage of those opportunities, that is why I will be cautious in bringing us, with Norman Lamont, out of the recession. But I do believe we are coming out of it in the right way and I think because of the survey released this morning, added to the earlier evidence we have seen, are the clearest opportunity that that is actually what is happening.

    So 4 percent inflation by the end of the year is a target, a target that now I am confident we will meet and perhaps beat .. and that is I think a very happy and worthwhile development.

    So let me just say in conclusion how pleased I have been to have the opportunity of speaking to some of you and soon to have the opportunity of meeting more of you. I am aware of the work of the Chamber of Commerce out in the area, I know how many companies are members, I know the opportunities that you will have to work with the Chamber of Commerce to exploit the export markets that I have mentioned.

    I would just say to you opportunities are there if we have … and the skill and the enterprise and the courage then we must take those opportunities and build for ourselves in the 1990s a business structure and a prosperity structure for this and the next generation on a scale we previously had not imagined and had not seen. I wish you well.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce – 9 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce Dinner on Monday 9th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introductory remarks.

    It is a great pleasure to be with you this evening. I very much welcome this opportunity to meet representatives of the business community here in North East Scotland.

    This Chamber is well-known as a sturdy champion of local business in Aberdeen and Grampian. Firms in this area benefit substantially from the high standard of service which the Chamber provides for its members. I am particularly impressed by the way that the Chamber has capitalised on the economic opportunities which have come to Grampian in recent years.

    A Chamber of Commerce that makes the most of these opportunities is truly serving the interests of its members and the wider local community.

    But industry in Grampian – even the international oil and gas industries – can only flourish in a strong domestic economy. And a strong domestic economy requires the defeat of inflation. Control of inflation has been and remains the Government’s main economic objective. We promised we would beat inflation. It is a battle we are winning and will go on winning.

    Headline inflation has been virtually halved since last October. It is now down to 5.5 per cent, the lowest figure for 3 years. Moreover, the underlying rate of inflation has also fallen dramatically – down by 2 3/4 percentage points since last autumn. Make no mistake: inflation will continue to fall in the months ahead. We are now firmly on course for inflation of 4 per cent by the end of this year.

    Over the last year, inflation has risen in most other EC countries. In the UK it has fallen significantly. And by the end of this year I expect our inflation rate to be below the EC average. Indeed, our inflation rate may well be lower than that of Germany.

    As inflationary pressures have eased, so interest rates have come down. Not just once or twice. But 8 times since last October. Only last week, the conditions were right for a further 1/2 per cent cut. That took our base rates to 10 1/2 per cent – the lowest level for over 3 years. Even before the latest reduction is passed on these cuts will have been saving business £5 billion a year. And the typical £30,000 mortgage payer is £65 a month better off than last year.

    If the Government had predicted last autumn that inflation would be halved; that sterling would remain strong against the deutschmark; and that domestic interest rates would fall from 15 per cent to 10 1/2 per cent, we might have been accused of excessive optimism. Indeed, our opponents might well have put their scepticism in stronger language. For that remarkable combination of a steady exchange rate, falling interest rates and falling inflation is just what we have achieved.

    Yet the battle against inflation is being won at a time of great economic difficulty for many. The United Kingdom economy has been passing through recession. It has been painful for many individuals and many businesses. That recession is of course by no means confined to the UK – North America, France, Italy, Australia have also seen falling output. Yet, however international its coverage, that is no consolation for all those who have been hit hard here at home.

    We cannot be absolutely sure whether the recovery has started because we only get the figures some time after the event. However, there are some encouraging, if still highly provisional indications, that recovery is now underway. A number of recent press articles have drawn attention to the pick-up in retail sales, the excellent recent growth in exports and to higher than expected sales of cars. And even before the latest reduction in interest rates business and consumer confidence has been steadily improving. I remain confident that we will see a recovery in the second half of this year.

    The Scottish economy is of course closely integrated with that of the United Kingdom as a whole. And it would be surprising if wider trends at United Kingdom level were not observed here in Scotland. Yet the pattern is by no means the same. All the evidence suggests that the current economic downturn will be shorter and shallower in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole.

    Over recent years, the Scottish economy has achieved remarkable success. Between 1986 and 1989, Scotland had a faster rate of economic growth than Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Denmark. Final figures for 1990 are not yet available. But independent forecasters take the view that Scotland out-performed the United Kingdom economy in that year. It is likely to do so again in 1991 – convincing evidence of the strength of the Scottish economy and its resilience in times of difficulty.

    There are many reasons underlying Scotland’s economic success. The calibre of its people. A unique highly-respected education system. Its independent financial sector. A long tradition of skill, innovation and enterprise. But let me focus on just two striking features of recent performance.

    First, inward investment. Two years ago, the value of new projects attracted to Scotland reached an all-time high. Over the last year, Scotland has secured inward investment decisions worth some £400 million and 10,000 jobs. In a year when we were hit by the Gulf War and the slowdown in the world economy that surely speaks volumes about the attractions of Scotland to international mobile industry. I am confident that that proud record will continue in the years ahead.

    Second, the resurgence of offshore oil and gas activity, centred here in the North East.

    The rapid growth in North Sea activity last year set new records. Exploration and appraisal activity on the UK Continental Shelf reached its highest ever level. Spending committed to new projects was also at a new record. And so was the value of new orders placed for goods and services. Despite increasingly intense competition – particularly from Europe – UK companies’ share of that total was also a record. It rose by 50 per cent in a year to £4.78 billion.

    The pace of recent developments and the continued high discovery rate means that a new peak in combined oil and gas output is now expected by the middle of this decade, with welcome implications for Grampian, Scotland, and the wider UK economy.

    Last year, gas production hit a new record [of some 50 billion cubic metres]. Output is now expected to continue to grow strongly for the rest of the decade. With completion of the new gas pipeline tying the Beryl and Brae fields to St. Fergus, and the development of the large gas condensate Bruce field, gas supplies landed through St. Fergus will increase substantially within the next couple of years. The development of central and northern North Sea gas condensate fields like Bruce and East Brae signals a wholly new phase in the development of the UK’s gas resources.

    Oil exploration so far this year remains at very high levels: I am told that the North Sea has now overtaken even the Gulf of Mexico as the highest area of offshore drilling activity anywhere in the world.

    And oil production is expected to pick up again following completion of the outstanding safety work associated with the Cullen Report. The Piper field itself is now expected to be back on stream ahead of schedule by early next summer, with a new platform incorporating all the safety and engineering lessons learned from the Piper Alpha disaster. As other significant new oilfields like Saltire and Scott come on stream, total oil production should climb steadily over the next three to four years towards a second peak very close to the previous record set in the mid-1980s.

    Until comparatively recently it was still widely assumed that Britain’s self-sufficiency from oil production in the North Sea would be lost by the early 1990s, and that production would fall away steadily thereafter.

    These developments provide a clear vindication for our approach to the oil and gas industries. A flexible and attractive tax regime. Non-intervention – leaving the market to make the necessary adjustments to oil price changes. By our approach I believe we have helped ensure that the UK will remain a major oil and gas producer until well into the next century. We helped to create the conditions which have enabled Scotland’s offshore supplies industry to write one of the most remarkable technological success stories in the history of this century.

    But there is of course more to Grampian than oil and gas. Long before oil was discovered in the North Sea, Grampian was justifiably noted for the quality and natural produce from its countryside. The Aberdeen Angus, the golden Glenlivet malts, the fish harvested from the dangerous waters of the North Sea. I have seen some of these products already today when I paid a most useful and enjoyable visit to the Knockando Distillery on Speyside. So interesting was it that my staff are encouraging me to sample (and I choose my words carefully) the distillery again – and again – and again.

    Industries such as these provide crucial employment in rural parts of Grampian and elsewhere in the North of Scotland. We in Government recognise the importance to those areas of the continued success and prosperity of a range of industry.

    Earlier today, I launched formally Grampian Enterprise Limited, the local enterprise company for the North East. I was struck by the feeling of purpose and commitment which I sensed. The calibre and enthusiasm of Ian Wood and his colleagues are impressive. The staff are clearly committed to Grampian too. I am delighted that through the Scottish Enterprise initiative, the Government have provided the opportunity – and the resources – to enable business people to give a grass-roots lead to training and economic development in Scotland in this way.

    The opportunity is indeed immense. It gives business people the chance to shape the provision of economic development and training programmes to suit local needs. But it is potentially much more significant. The initiative puts business in the key position to lead the skills revolution which our economy needs. It provides an opportunity to influence the thinking and the planning – and thus the competitiveness – of the myriads of companies which make up our economy and which determine its performance.
    Governments cannot do that. But we can provide the resources – the Scottish Enterprise budget for this year is £450 million – for business people to deliver the results. I know that those who have given so much of their time to get the enterprise companies off the ground can rely on their colleagues throughout industry and commerce to feed in ideas, support, and fresh perspectives. I am sure that you will play your part in making the initiative a success.

    Mr. President, there is much more that could be said about the economy of Scotland and of Grampian in particular. You may well be relieved to hear I do not plan to say it.

    But there is one strand which sums up the message I would leave with you tonight. It is this; Grampian and Aberdeen have certainly had a great deal going for them – perhaps even more than other parts of Scotland. But their success is not, I believe, due to that alone. It is because they have made the most of their opportunities. The efforts of individual people and individual businesses have been paramount. That is why, Mr. President, I have very much enjoyed being with you and your members this evening. It is precisely the qualities which I see around me here that I want to foster not only in Scotland, but in the rest of the United Kingdom and indeed in Europe.

    I thank you, Mr. President, for your hospitality, and wish you and the members of the Chamber every success for the future.