The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1995

  • Mr Major’s Briefing to Journalists on Northern Ireland – 21 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing on Northern Ireland to journalists, held on Thursday 21st September 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me firstly welcome you here this afternoon and I hope we can have a useful exchange.

    Let me just say a few words at the outset about where we are in the process, how we led up to where we are, and I suppose most importantly, where we go from the present situation. And I have no doubt that you will have questions certainly about the third of those points and maybe the others as well.

    Let me give you some personal thoughts about the pursuit of what we have come to know as peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. We are pretty close now to the second anniversary of the Joint Declaration. I don’t think many people would dissent from the view that we have travelled a good deal further on the road towards peace since that Joint Declaration than most people imagined at the time.

    A lot of people didn’t believe that Albert Reynolds and I would reach agreement on it. When we did reach agreement on it they didn’t think it would move forward any further and thanks to the cooperation between the governments and others we have, and I think that is a considerable advance.

    When I first came into Downing Street in 1990, I remember very vividly sitting here and listing in front of me a small number of priorities for the future. One of those priorities on the first occasion I came in here was Northern Ireland. At the time I think it is probably fair to say that wasn’t universally welcomed as a wise move. The history, as told by the cynical, was that the burden of history was too great, that age-old animosities were too deeply ingrained for there to be any practical and worthwhile move forward. Too many people had come to grief on the Irish question, was the familiar refrain from very many quarters.

    I didn’t agree with that. I didn’t agree with that then, I haven’t agreed with that on the good days we have had since then and I certainly haven’t agreed with it on the days when things have been difficult either. It was repugnant to me then that people were killing one another in Northern Ireland and beating one another up in Northern Ireland, and it was as repugnant to me in Northern Ireland as it would have been if it was happening locally in Westminster, in Surrey or in Durham or anywhere else. So I felt that it was worthwhile making a fresh and original effort to see how far we could get with a peace process.

    If I ever needed any reinforcing in the belief that that was the right thing to do, I have to say that every single visit that I have made to Ulster over the last five years, and there have now been rather a lot of visits to Ulster, has reinforced me in the view that it was beyond any doubt the right thing to do.

    It is quite striking if you go into Northern Ireland, and one has seen before the external image of the disputes in Northern Ireland, to actually then go into Northern Ireland in the streets and feel the atmosphere and meet the people, whether Catholic or Protestant. And what struck me very forcibly in those early visits was the clear willingness of the ordinary decent people of Northern Ireland, whatever their religion might be, to give their support to a peace effort that they believed was based on fairness, transparency and democracy. I have found that to be a consistent theme whenever I have gone there, whether I have spoken to special interest groups or people with no particular special interest other than being a citizen of Northern Ireland.

    And when things have run into difficulties from time to time, you might perhaps be surprised by the weight of letters and messages that have come here from Northern Ireland from people who by and large in their own different ways have had the same simple straightforward message – stick with the process and don’t be put off by the setbacks.

    If anybody believed that we could move from where we were to a final agreement in Northern Ireland without setbacks, then they are an incurable romantic and a dreamer. It was never going to be that way, it hasn’t been that way and there may yet be setbacks as well as advances in the future.

    One of those setbacks was just a few days ago when we postponed the summit that John Bruton and I were to have had at Chequers. But I think we need to put this in context. It was a setback, it was not a crisis. And those people, whenever there is a setback, who talk as though it were a crisis and the peace process itself were doomed are doing no good to the process and simply talking up their own negotiating position. Setback is one thing, crisis is another. What we have had is a setback and it is a setback I hope and believe that we will overcome.

    Progress is going to be uneven. We are not suddenly going to wake up one morning, rub our eyes and find the whole thing is finally sealed and settled. That is not I believe the way it is remotely likely to be. It will evolve, this settlement, just as it has been evolving since the Downing Street declaration.

    In the year after the Downing Street declaration we made pretty dramatic strides in a whole series of fronts. That will not always be the case, though I think that we will be able to carry this process a good deal forward.

    At the moment, for the last few weeks, we have been in a bit of a pause period. But with patience, a degree of imagination and I think perhaps from time to time steady nerves as well, I think we will be able to move this process forward. If we are going to do that, as I believe we can, one absolutely indispensable element will be the continued close cooperation between London and Dublin. I have found it a very good working relationship, first with Albert Reynolds and subsequently with John Bruton. We haven’t always agreed on everything, we haven’t always approached things entirely from the same angle, but it has been a good working relationship and it remains so with John Bruton as the present Taoiseach.

    Let me add just a couple of points about the future. Firstly, all-party round table talks – the sooner that I can convene all-party round table talks on a constitutional settlement the better, the happier I will be when we can get there. I would be perfectly happy to do so this afternoon if that were feasible. But in the reality of politics, there is no purpose whatsoever in calling all-party talks unless there is a pretty good chance that all the parties are going to be there if we were to do so, and if parties began to absent themselves, perhaps permanently, perhaps in large numbers, then we would have made a mistake in our move forward.

    I can’t force people to the conference table, I can’t coerce them to the conference table, I can encourage them to go to the conference table. The principle of consent, which I think we one stage was not universally accepted, is and must remain at the heart of the efforts of London and Dublin combined. And it applies to all-party talks, just as much as it applies to anything else in the peace process.

    Let me just say a word about decommissioning. Decommissioning is raised from time to time because it is an extremely important issue. What it is not is a British obsession, it is emphatically not a new condition cooked up by Perfidious Albion after the IRA ceasefire, and I think a cursory glance at your cuttings will confirm that that is so. If anybody doesn’t have the cuttings to hand I think it is quite probable that I might be able to find them for you. So it is not something that we have suddenly cooked up and I very much welcome the editorials in some of your newspapers recently which have emphatically made that point.

    As far as decommissioning is concerned, well frankly I don’t care how it is done so long as it is credible and verifiable. I am not looking for surrenders, I am not looking for people coming out, throwing their weapons down at the feet of the British. That is not remotely what I have in mind. All I am concerned about is getting those arms out of commission because that is the key point in getting people to the all-party round table talks that are so essential, and ultimately getting people to accept an agreement that will be willingly accepted by all the people concerned.

    The principle of decommissioning comes smack out of the core of the Joint Declaration. And the plain truth is just simply this. The majority parties in Northern Ireland, representing the majority of the people in Northern Ireland, just will not come to the conference table until Sinn Fein / IRA have begun the process of actual decommissioning.

    Now I can see no other way of generating the confidence necessary to draw the relevant parties into substantive talks. And neither is it just stubbornness by the UIster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists political parties, that is not the situation in the North. I daresay everyone present will have seen the poll in the Irish News recently, I think it was late August, which showed that 90% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, believe that the decommissioning of IRA arms should be a precondition for the inclusion of Sinn Fein in all-party talks. And when you broke that down into party allegiance, not only did you find perhaps unsurprisingly that that was over 90% of the DUP and Ulster Unionist support, but it was I think 73% of Alliance Party support and a substantial figure, I think 33%, of SDLP and Nationalist support. So it runs right across the North, it isn’t simply a fresh condition generated and invented by Unionist leaders in the North.

    The Irish Times I think made that point very forcibly and I don’t generally quote newspapers editorials so perhaps it is a bad principle to start, it wouldn’t always work in my favour. But on this occasion the Irish Times set it out very clearly in April earlier this year.

    So what next from the present situation? I continue to believe that the twin track approach – preparatory talks involving all the parties on one hand, and an international commission on decommissioning on the other hand – offers the best way forward from where we are at present. Now I don’t know, I can’t know whether this approach will get off the ground because the answer to that depends on other people. What I can say is that I will continue to work patiently to try and ensure that it does get off the ground, off the ground with the constitutional parties. I saw David Trimble and John Taylor earlier this week, I will be seeing John Hume and Ian Paisley – separately, not together – some time next week, and I hope to see John Alderice as soon as we can agree a mutually convenient date.

    We will continue to work also with the paramilitaries on both sides in exploratory dialogue, and with our colleagues in America with whom we have remained in the closest touch for a very long time. And of course with John Bruton whom I will be seeing tomorrow and on Saturday in Majorca. We mustn’t expect great announcements at the end of these discussions. John and I talk a great deal on the telephone, privately, in the sidelines of international meetings that we attend. Our points of contact are not just on the great setpiece summits, it is a regular and continuing dialogue, and frankly it is a dialogue on a scale that I don’t believe has existed between London and Dublin at any stage before, I don’t believe that has ever been anything like that. And my office and his office are in direct contact, I think it is fair to say if you add in the contacts between offices, on a daily basis and have been for a long time. So the contact is very close. There will be differences of approach but we try and work them out when we can and the working relationship with John Bruton is one of the reasons for encouragement that we will be able to carry this process forward.

    I am sorry to burden you with that lengthy introduction but I thought it might put one of two things in content before we turn to your questions. I am happy to take your questions, we will see what you have to ask and where I think it is prudent for the process to answer the question, I will answer the question, if I don’t think it is prudent I will tell you it is not prudent and not answer the question.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Irish Independent):

    Prime Minister, you referred to your hope that the international commission might get of the ground. Earlier today Mr Ancram remarked that it was not envisaged that the commission would actually oversee the decommissioning of arms. To whom do you envisage that arms would actually be handed up to?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the things that the decommissioning commission will look at will be questions like that. The commission will look at the modalities, the mechanism for actually determining how arms are decommissioned. We can consider late further matters on the basis of their recommendation. We need to take this one step at a time. What I am conscious of, I do understand, perhaps better than people will sometimes give the British government credit for, some of the inhibitions and difficulties that face Sinn Fein as well. I do sit here and try and put myself forward into Mr Adams’s head to see the difficulties that he faces in order to determine what he is going to do. So I understand those difficulties. We are not seeking to pile embarrassment and difficulty upon Sinn Fein. What we are seeking to do is to find a way in which they are able to come forward and accept the decommissioning of arms. I think if we proposed how that was going to be done, that would be less likely to be accepted than if it were done by an independent commission. It was out of that thought that the concept of an independent commission, very probably chaired by a distinguished American, I think that is overwhelmingly likely and a name has been in circulation, I think that is the best way to proceed and I think that we will continue to go down that route.

    QUESTION (Sunday Independent):

    You said in your remarks that progress is going to be uneven, and I think we would all accept that. But winding up the debate in the British/Irish Interparliamentary Union yesterday afternoon, Michael Mates said, “We might even have to contemplate a short term return to violence to break the impasse, otherwise appeasement goes on”. Is that British government policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me say, I haven’t seen the transcript of what Michael said and long experience has taught me to be very careful about responding to things that I have not myself seen in black and white or heard. Subject to that, let me set out what the British government’s position is.

    Of course no-one wants a return to violence, no-one wants a return to violence in any circumstances or for any reason. What we do want is a lasting peace. That can’t be a peace at any price because that is the sort of peace that isn’t going to last. And from the moment Albert Reynolds and I first decided that we would go down this route, we were looking not for a ceasefire, welcome though a ceasefire is, but a peace that was going to be enduring. And the reason we need that is self-evident. Look at what has happened in Northern Ireland in the last year. You have seen huge economic changes in Northern Ireland. What we have not yet seen in Northern Ireland is a degree of international investment that can come from abroad, into the north and into the south in my judgement, once it is clear we have got over the arms problem and we are moving towards a proper settlement. That is why a short term peace settlement is no good, the prize is much bigger than that. But we don’t want to return to violence under any circumstances and I don’t really think I need say very much more than that, that is the British Government’s position.

    QUESTION:

    Do you then believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are bluffing when they say that they cannot contemplate handing over arms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I find their position, I have my own judgement of what is bluff and what is negotiating tactics and what isn’t, but I don’t think it would be helpful to anyone if I was to unburden that thought to you. What I do say is that we do get conflicting noises from Sinn Fein publicly. It is very difficult on one hand to accept that their comments about them being dedicated to look for peace, this is a permanent peace, there is absolutely no doubt that they are determined to have peace, and all the other statements that have been made by Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness, and their view that that represents the view of their movement, and then to find them so resistant to beginning the decommissioning of arms. If they are permanently committed to a democratic future then they do not need an armed army at their back. I can understand that they do not want embarrassment or humiliation, as they would see it, of handing over their arms to the British. I do understand that, and that is why we moved down the route of an independent commission.

    But if what they say about entering the democratic process fully and being permanently committed to peace is truly their position, then I think it is hard for any dispassionate observer to understand why they wouldn’t begin the surrender of their arms to an independent body. I won’t repeat the point about understanding the pride of their movement, I think I do, but that doesn’t stand up when they are not being asked to hand their arms over to the British but they are being asked to hand them over to an independent commission.

    QUESTION:

    Michael Ancram, speaking to journalists this morning, seemed to be suggesting that both governments are now looking at the issue of decommissioning [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think almost however you answer that question you would be apt to give someone a misleading impression. There is no hidden depth in our examination of decommissioning, it is actually a very straightforward concept. We are interested in decommissioning because without decommissioning we cannot convene successfully the all-party talks that will enable us to reach a proper settlement and put that settlement, agreed by the constitutional parties, including Sinn Fein and including the Loyalist paramilitaries, to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum and then legislate for it. I daresay one can keep approaching this from a different angle but it is really rather straightforward, it is as simple as that.

    QUESTION:

    One supplementary. Kevin McNamara yesterday said that he felt it would eventually come to a form of words.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Kevin McNamara has always taken that view. I don’t think that is the view of his party any more and I don’t think that is the view of any – or hardly any – of the mainstream democratic parties in Northern Ireland either. It is, I fear, an uncomfortable reality for some people that the people of Northern Ireland – and I quote again the figures I used in the poll a moment or so ago, it is not just the politicians – do appear to feel very strongly that there is a need for decommissioning of arms if they are going to feel secure in agreements that have been reached and if I may personalise the matter a little, if you were entering into constitutional negotiations with someone would you not wish to know in those constitutional negotiations that they were not going to stamp out of the negotiations themselves and then return to an armed struggle having kept arms for the purpose? I think you would have a certain reserve about that. I think you would want to see some evidence that they were in the business of staying in constitutional politics for good, which is what we wish.

    I have said to Sinn Fein: “the door is open to you as constitutional politicians; you can march through that door as a constitutional party properly recognised and treated in the same way as the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists, the Alliance Party and the SDLP but if that is to be the case, then you must operate on the same basis as those other parties and you must not have an armed force at your back in the case of dispute!” and I do not think that that is anything other than a statement of plain common sense that most people in the north – almost everybody in the north and outside the north – will accept.

    QUESTION (OTE News, Belfast):

    On the one hand we have your Ministers in Northern Ireland saying that nobody wants a surrender and indeed if I am not mistaken consciously avoiding the use of the word “surrender” in any interviews or speeches and yet you say that you can’t understand why the IRA won’t begin the surrender of their arms to an independent body.

    I live in Northern Ireland, for my part I think it highly unlikely that there will be any surrender. I think there could be some movement on the general principle of decommissioning but why has your Government stopped on the concept of arms actually being handed over, being surrendered?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me correct it. If I used “surrender”, let me make it clear what I mean.

    I don’t care if they are not handed over providing they are destroyed, they are decommissioned. As I tried to indicate vividly, I don’t expect them to come out and throw their arms down at the feet of other people. That has never been my position. All I am concerned about is that the arms are removed from possible use, from circulation. I don’t mind, frankly, whether they decide that they would wish to hand their arms over to an independent body; I don’t mind whether their arms are destroyed in their presence by an independent body or by themselves in the presence of an independent body.

    All that matters to me is that the arms are taken out of use. It isn’t a question of surrendering. If I used that it was an inadequate term and a slip of the tongue. What I am concerned about is to make sure that the arms are not available for use. I am not seeking to embarrass or humiliate Sinn Fein in that fashion, that wouldn’t be a productive or sensible thing to do. I just want the arms taken out of use.

    QUESTION:

    And what the about the argument that you are not prepared to talk to Sinn Fein if they have 100% of their munitions? 95%?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We need to show that they are prepared for the principle of decommissioning. If they are prepared for the principle of decommissioning, then they will begin to decommission. Once they have done that, then I think it is reasonable to ask the other political parties to sit down with them and I think some of the other political parties have said that once they begin to do that there is no reason not to sit down with all the political parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Fein and the Loyalist paramilitaries, to begin to discuss how we move forward. That is what we are working for but I repeat pedantically the substantive point, there is no point in my pretending that they don’t need to move down that route of taking arms out because even if I were to take that position, which I am not, the other parties would not and there would be nobody sitting at the table at all and that is useless for the process.

    QUESTION:

    Are you persuaded from your recent conversations with David Trimble that if Sinn Fein began the process of decommissioning as outlined by the British Government and particularly by Sir Patrick Mayhew in Washington, that if they did that and if they began the process of decommissioning their arms and explosives, that the Ulster Unionist Party would sit down to all-party talks with Sinn Fein?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, Emily, that is a question you must ask David Trimble. I can’t definitely answer for David Trimble or John Hume or any of the others.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    That was central to your discussion with him presumably?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a whole range of things. I wouldn’t say that any individual thing was central to the discussion. We ran across the whole field in the hour and a half we had and we will have a good deal more meetings in the future to run across more so I don’t think I am prepared to put my words into Mr Trimble’s mouth or anybody else’s mouth. What I can say is once there is clear evidence that Sinn Fein are beginning to decommission, then the probability of all-party talks will be accelerated beyond belief and I think myself that we would get all-party talks.

    QUESTION:

    You don’t think that the official Unionists or indeed the DUP would put further road blocks in the way of all-party talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope nobody is going to put further road blocks. I understand the suspicions that have existed on both sides. There has been a long legacy of one political party having a mistrust of another political party, it operates on both sides of the divide.

    In local government a few years ago we would have found it incredible that they would have worked together; they are working together in local government. What has been done as local government can be done at leader level in the parties in Northern Ireland as well and the sooner we are able to get in that position, the better it will be for Northern Ireland and by the “better it will be for Northern Ireland”, I don’t only mean that they will have a more secure reason for believing there will be no more violence though that certainly would be true but that I believe once you have got to that position it is actually going to unlock that avalanche of investment that I think is waiting abroad to come into the whole of Ireland once they are certain this process is going to be irreversible and the difference that is going to make to the living standards of people north and south is going to very remarkable, and one great gain we have had in the last year is that people have seen in the last year the speed with which ordinary circumstances can change as a result of the ceasefire. It is as nothing in my judgement to what will happen when there is a universal conviction that that ceasefire is going to become a permanent end to violence.

    QUESTION (John Cooney, Dublin Correspondent of the Glasgow Herald):

    In your ongoing talks with Mr Bruton, do you believe that both of you can convince Sinn Fein, the IRA, of the principle of decommissioning or do you think you will need the pressure from Washington and the Clinton Administration to effect that end?

    Secondly, just to clarify a point earlier, when you said you are having greater cooperation and contact with Dublin, is your relationship with John Bruton now more intimate than it was with Albert Reynolds?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not quite sure of the way you expressed the question! We had a very close political relationship and that was true with Albert and it was true with John Bruton as well. To give you a very practical illustration, I was in very regular contact with Albert Reynolds as well. To be brutally honest, you cannot conduct this sort of exercise at arms length. You can’t do it through interlocutors; there is a certain amount that can be done but at the end of the day you are going to have to do a certain amount of it yourself so I had very regular contact with Albert Reynolds on the telephone and directly. When Albert first came here, we agreed that we would institute the proposition of six-monthly summits alternating not rigidly but broadly alternating between London and Dublin but with Albert it still wasn’t just every six months.

    We meet regularly in any event at what seems to be an interminable number of European Union meetings and beyond that we have very close telephone contact so it has been very close in both instances, it really has. With Albert we had to sit down and negotiate bits of the Joint Declaration together, to call it a haggle I think would not be an unfair description and similarly with John Bruton with parts of the framework document. I don’t want to give you the impression we wrote all of it ourselves sitting in conclave just the two of us waiting for white smoke to come out. A huge amount of work of course was done by many other people.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it will require American intervention to get Sinn Fein to accept the principle of decommissioning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know the answer to that. There is no doubt that President Clinton is clear about the need for decommissioning, he has said so repeatedly. I think the Americans have made that point directly to Sinn Fein, they have said so publicly on a number of occasions as has John Bruton, as have an awful lot of other people, as has Dick Spring and many others.

    QUESTION (Irish Times):

    On the three-stranded relationship, the position of your Government was that nothing should be agreed until everything was agreed under that formula. Is that still the position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, that is still the position.

    QUESTION:

    Can I take you one step back to Emily O’Reilly’s question, if Sinn Fein accept the commission…

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Back to or back from?

    QUESTION:

    Back one step beyond where she… If Sinn Fein accept the commission and the terms are agreed, are you in a position to guarantee that the Unionists would at least participate in the exploratory bilateral and trilateral talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the misconceptions there has always been in Sinn Fein’s mind and in many other people’s minds is that the British Government can guarantee the particular position of the Ulster Unionist and the Democratic Unionists parties and the Alliance parties and others; that has never been the position.

    I cannot guarantee that they are going to respond. I can encourage them to enter into the talks, I can point out the advantage of entering into the talks and all these things but it just is not the case, as Sinn Fein so often think, that all I have to do is to say to the Unionists in Northern Ireland: “I would like you to do this!” they would do it. That isn’t the case so I am not in the position of being able to offer guarantees any more than John Bruton can offer me guarantees about the way Sinn Fein or the IRA behave. That isn’t the case.

    What I am seeking is to bring both sides together, to have the talks bilateral, trilateral, more if they wish it on the one hand and to have the decommissioning commission operate. We just talked about Sinn Fein but of course they would be looking at the surrender of arms from the Protestant paramilitaries as well so I am not in a position to give guarantees, I am not the leader of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland. I will use my best auspices to persuade them to do so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you make of the change in the Unionist leadership, the Unionists have a new leader? Do you think that is a good sign for the future, do you think that Mr Trimble is somebody who can come and sit round the table and do a deal eventually?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Any Unionist leader is going to have to carry the Unionist parties with him. Mr Trimble has been duly elected by the Unionist parties; he is therefore in a good position if he reaches an agreement, to carry his party with him in that agreement. I have to persuade him if I can that there is an agreement that it is possible to do and I will endeavour to do that. If I am able to persuade him, then I think that he will be able to bring his parties with him. He is an intelligent and an able man. Much of what I read about David Trimble in the last few weeks in the paper I don’t entirely recognise from the David Trimble I know in the House of Commons. He is a very shrewd and forthright politician. I don’t mind dealing with shrewd and forthright politicians, it is part of the way of life in Downing Street!

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if it is so difficult to form the conditions to allow people to get around the table, is it not going to be impossible to form the conditions for any agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may say so without wishing to produce a smart-alec answer, that is what people said to me when we tried to get the Joint Declaration and it is what people said to me when we tried to form the framework documents. None of this is easy. If it had been easy, it would have been done a very long time ago. That is why I said to you it isn’t going to suddenly come together as a single solution signed, sealed and delivered overnight in a series of dramatic meetings. It is going to be a continuing process of confidence-building and edging forward so that people being to trust those with whom they are dealing more and more.

    The answer to your question is yes, I believe we can. If I did not believe that we could carry this process from beginning to end, then I would not have embarked upon this process in the beginning. It has not always been easy, it has not always been friction-free, but I think it can be carried from beginning to end and I think although people tend to look at the impasse when it suddenly seems to be created between one political bloc and another, there is an undercurrent which people would be very ill-advised to ignore and the undercurrent is the pressure of opinion in the north and in the south that compels the politicians, all of them, me included, to move on towards a settlement. Whomsoever stops this progress in its tracks now will have a lot to answer for to history and will have a lot to answer for to their contemporaries, so the answer is yes, yes, yes, I believe we can carry it forward.

    QUESTION:

    Given that the answer is yes, have you any vision of what that settlement could be or is that a mystery?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it isn’t a mystery, but if this settlement is going to stick it is not a settlement that is going to come out of the mouth of the British Prime Minister. It has got to be a settlement that is going to come out after discussion with the political parties. Of course I can see where I think they will end, but I think we must have their discussions, we have their inputs, we must consider that, we must see what they have to produce. At the end of the day it is going to be their settlement approved by the people in Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    What time-scale do you envisage or when do you think the parties will get down to [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know. I don’t wish to put a time-scale on it. The sooner the better. I do not wish to see any undue delay but I do not think it prudent at the moment to put a short-term time-frame to something. I don’t think that would be productive at the moment. That is not to suggest that I am expecting a long delay, simply that I think it would be counter-productive for me to suggest short-term time-frames by which certain things needed to be done. What we need now is coaxing and persuasion and encouragement, not the constraint of a short time-frame.

    QUESTION:

    You have been talking a lot about how good the relationship is between the two governments. At a certain point in the week when the summit was cancelled it seemed anything but that; there was a lot of misunderstanding and certainly the spin that came from the British officials and the British media was that John Bruton is running scared of Sinn Fein and that it was the IRA who had effectively vetoed the summit. Would that have been your view of what happened given the British Government seemed determined [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I read a lot of that in the press, certainly in the Irish press as well if I may say so. I am not even sure, Emily, that you didn’t write it! [Laughter]. There you are, you see the interest I take in your writing!

    I think John Bruton is a brave and forthright politician. I like doing business with him and I am not going to say anything that going to lead you to believe anything to the contrary.

    QUESTION (Bernard Persil, Irish Independent):

    Are you confident that you can deliver all of your party with this settlement because as you are aware a lot of people haven’t really come this far before, they are quite nervous about that it may entail, there is an awful lot of misrepresentation of positions not least within your own party, not least amongst some of your own backbenchers. Will that be a particular obstacle?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may fall back on parliamentary tradition, I refer you to the answer I gave to the gentleman here just a moment or so ago! [Laughter]. If I can move it forward satisfactorily, I think I will be able to carry on.

    QUESTION:

    Sir Patrick, in his speech last night, said that if the international commission brought forward proposals for an alternative approach on decommissioning the Government would look at those proposals and judge them by their merits. Could that be taken to mean that if the commission proposed that you scrap Part 3 of the Washington test that you would do so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Sir Patrick said “on their merits” and we will look at things on their merits.

    I emphasise again that this “Washington 3” condition is not a condition invented by the Government after the ceasefire. I just emphasise that point again. It is a statement of the political reality and one thing we cannot do in these negotiations is avoid political reality and I think Patrick was emphasising that point again yesterday.

    I think unless there is anything terribly fresh and original or anyone is burning with something…..

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you….

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Twenty-five years in politics suggests to me it is always a mistake to take the last question! [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    Sir Patrick has also said that he is very worried and very conscious of the fact that the IRA allegedly are recruiting and restructuring all the time. Presumably, that would give you pause for thought and would not be too hopeful?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course we are concerned about the IRA’s activities. We are concerned about the punishment beatings that go on. One thing that the ceasefire has done is draw the veil up so that people have actually looked at the punishment beatings that have gone on as well and they have continued during this period and of course we are concerned about activities like that, of course we are.

    I think we had better call a halt. Thank you very much for coming. I hope as events proceed that we have the opportunity of another meeting discuss further progress. I will look forward to that.

  • Mr Major’s Speech Launching UK Conference on Small Firms – 18 September 1995

    Below is the text of the 10 Downing Street press release covering Mr Major’s speech launching UK Conference on Small Firms, held on 18th September 1995.

    10 DOWNING STREET:

    The Prime Minister held a three hour seminar at No 10 Downing Street today to launch “Your Business Matters”, the UK conference programme on small firms.

    With him was a group of 40 people, including senior members of his cabinet, representatives of the leading business organisations and of the clearing banks. The meeting discussed the issues facing small firms and the plans for the conference programme.

    At the seminar the Prime Minister said:

    “When you see a meeting involving the IoD, the CBI, the Chambers and TECs and the leading small business bodies, then you know the matter is important. And so it is. Small business growth is vital – for jobs, for exports and for prosperity. And when the initiative is sponsored by the banks, you also know it is viable – I am grateful to them for that.

    This morning we are talking about the spirit of enterprise that is vital for our prosperity. Our objective is to renew the impetus for enterprise in Britain today.

    These conferences will play a part in that. I see them as a catalyst, bringing the small business sector together in a constructive dialogue and prompting action from the government. It is the biggest, most concerted consultation exercise with small businesses that I can remember. And the point of it is to help small firms in the long term. We are not looking for snippets of policy over the next eighteen months, but policies for small firms going into the next century.

    Small firms now employ over half the private sector labour force. They have created 2 million new jobs in the last 15 years. They will be the job creators in the future and their share of the economy will continue to grow. But they also have a broader value. Small firms embody the society of opportunity I want to see in Britain, where people can make better lives for themselves by their own efforts; where people take responsibility for themselves, for their families and for their employees.

    So, I want to use this opportunity to set out the four basic elements of the government’s approach to fostering enterprise.

    The greatest gift that government can give business is a stable economic environment. This is vital if businesses are to plan and invest for the future with confidence. I know that many firms suffered severely in the last recession. But now we are faced with the best economic prospects for a generation: low inflation and steady export-led growth. I want to be sure that we make the most of it.

    The second component is to free-up markets. We have opened swathes of the economy by privatisation and sub-contracting. We have fought to bring down trade barriers for British exports. And we have secured the most flexible labour markets in Europe.

    Deregulation is a central part of this. Trying to cut red tape is like wrestling with a greasy pig. The Deregulation Act has given us the tools for dealing with red tape more quickly than ever before. I hope these conferences will tell us where the regulations are really pinching.

    The third part of the strategy is to lift the burden of government. The greatest barrier to enterprise is the weight of government itself. We have to rein in spending, cut the tax rates that kill incentives and simplify administration wherever possible: particularly PAYE/NICs and VAT. We have made some progress, taking nearly 100,000 firms out of VAT by raising the threshold. But there is more to do.

    The last component is for the government to give practical assistance to small firms where it can, to help businesses help themselves. This is the thinking behind the network of TECs and Business Links. Our approach is to work with the private sector, in partnership, to deliver schemes in local areas. In total, the government must spend over £250m a year on schemes specifically for small firms. And that does not count programmes to assist businesses in general or revenue foregone by the lower rate of corporation tax for small firms. I hope these conferences will help us use this money to best effect.

    These four elements of our strategy – a stable economy, free markets, reigning in the public sector and practical government assistance – are the essence of our approach to fostering the enterprise culture.

    I would like to close by wishing all those involved in “Your Business Matters” every possible success in this initiative. You have the full backing of the government. We want to listen to the ideas of small business people and to see what can be done to give the spirit of enterprise a new momentum in the United Kingdom today. The government will consider the outcome of the conferences in drafting the next competitiveness white paper next year. We will not necessarily agree with all your ideas. But we will take action where we can.”

  • Mr Major’s Statement Following Political Cabinet – 14 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement following a political cabinet, held on Thursday 14th September 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As part of the policy review I set in progress earlier this year the Cabinet met today in political session to review future priorities.

    The meeting took place against the background of the most promising economic possibilities for years. Inflation remains low, unemployment is falling and the economy is growing steadily. The Chancellor and I are determined to preserve the disciplined control over the economy that now offers us the most exciting prospect for the future.

    The Chancellor is now conducting the traditional review of public expenditure that is an essential component of the Budget judgement. The discussion today underlined our determination to deliver effective and well managed public services – intensifying our efforts to limit waste and prune unnecessary expenditure as we pursue our continuing objective of lower taxes.

    We have been examining further policy options today looking particularly at education, welfare, the economy and law and order. In recent months we have continued to bring forward new initiatives, for example:

    – bringing high technology into the fight against crime with a national DNA and fingerprint register

    – bringing nursery education to all 4-year olds through a voucher system which offers real parental choice

    – focusing on the real needs of tomorrow’s workforce by merging the Employment and Education Departments

    – improving the targeting of welfare benefits by introducing the new incapacity benefit and legislating for the job seekers’ allowance

    As a result of today’s discussions, we have put in hand more work prior to coming forward with a number of detailed announcements over the next few weeks and months.

    I cannot overstate the priority that I attach to the education of our young people. Much progress has been made as a result of our reforms. I am particularly grateful to the headteachers, teachers and parents that have done so much to achieve the recent record examination results. We intend to continue to make progress. I announced several developments earlier this week and we shall return to this topic with further announcements on teacher training and continuing the improvement of standards and discipline in the classroom.

    The Cabinet share the public concern about crime. The Government has increased the resources available to the police, whose manpower now is at historically high levels, with more being recruited this year. We have also put new technology in their hands and given them new powers to fight the criminals. The police have responded to this opportunity and crime rates have now fallen faster than for 40 years.

    But there is no ground for complacency and the Home Secretary and I will be announcing other measures during the autumn which will build on our achievements. These will include further action to catch and convict criminals, to develop new forms of youth custody and pursue the war against organised crime.

    Another critical area we discussed was welfare. Against the background of expenditure which now totals £15 per day for each working person, we looked at how to plan the future development of our welfare system. This provision must be designed to help people in the most difficult and stressful circumstances in our society. But as the balance of those in work and those in retirement continues to shift we must look forward to encouraging an increasing element of self-provision.

    We also looked at current problems in welfare where there is growing evidence that the system is being abused through fraud and, in some cases, systematic criminal activity. This will not be tolerated. I have asked my colleagues to give a further boost to our rigorous programme to tackle this abuse of the nation’s social provision.

    We also looked at policies to generate further growth in jobs – most particularly by encouraging enterprise and developing the small business sector.

    There are now some 1 million more small businesses today than there were when this government was first elected. Despite the recession this number is now once again increasing. The climate is right. Next month will see the national launch of the most comprehensive system of support for our companies that we have ever seen – Business Links.

    We are determined to go further. A national programme of conferences will draw the voice of the small entrepreneur into the heart of government. Their ideas gathered from every part of the country will help to ensure that this Government continues to nurture the bedrock of job creation and economic growth.

    Yesterday we saw unemployment fall again. It has now fallen for 24 months in a row and is 680,000 less than its peak in the recession three years ago. For the last 6 months it has reduced by 400 people a day. This is excellent news. No other major European country has proved more effective in generating the jobs to overcome the problem of unemployment. We are demonstrating that the most effective way to achieve this lies in the proper management of the economy, tight control of inflation, deregulation, and the improved competitiveness of the nation’s industrial base and business sector.

    Over the next year, alongside other measures to help the unemployed, we will be introducing the job seekers’ allowance, conducting Workstart pilots and looking at other possibilities to bring about a major shift in opportunities and incentives for the long term unemployed.

    Conservative Governments have transformed the performance and esteem of this country over the last 16 years. On the basis of these achievements the plans we have discussed today relate not simply to the short term but to our direction for the longer term through to the 21st century.

    The simple fact is that the ideas pioneered and developed in this country under the Conservatives have been amongst the most influential in the practice of politics across the world in the 1980s and 1990s. Drawing on our discussions today and the extensive grass roots consultation programme that the party is now conducting, I am determined that our record of success is carried forward up to and through the next election, as we lead this country into the next century.

    It was a good day and we are looking forward to the future with confidence and determination.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Birmingham – 12 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on education, held in Birmingham on Tuesday 12th September 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be here today and particularly pleased to have Gill Shephard with me, who has worked so closely with me on education matters and will, I hope, for many years to come. But I am also delighted to see you here today, because without your presence and without the work that you have done in recent years we would not have seen the advances and opportunities that are now opened by the grant maintained sector.

    I promised five years ago, when I first became Prime Minister, that we would put education at the top of our priorities. Since then a great deal has been done. We have brought in national tests; we have published performance tables; we have introduced new vocational qualifications; we have given nearly one in three of young people the chance of a university education and soon we will begin to offer universal nursery education for four year olds. And that is by no means an inclusive list. But these are the building blocks of a revolution, they are the milestones on the road to making British children the best educated in the world, and that is our intention.

    This morning I want to share with you just a few of the next moves forward. It won’t be a comprehensive list, there will be more to come in the weeks and in the months ahead. But I do have today a number of quite specific announcements to make, and I will come to those in a few moments. But I want to say a word first about some of the philosophy behind these changes.

    I am a Conservative by instinct. And what I mean by that is that I seek to conserve the best of what we have and then to build upon it. So I emphatically do not seek changes in education for their own sake. I am only interested in changes which improve the quality of education, provide new opportunity for children and expand choice for parents and pupils. Quality, opportunity, choice – those are the measures against which we must assess our changes.

    If we want what I once called the best for every child and the best from every child – and we do – then we have to banish the second rate and the slipshod from the system. It is not acceptable to live with it, we need to seek to change it. And nothing less will do because I believe we have both an economic and a social imperative to provide the best education we can.

    Economically – economically the case is self-evident. If children in our schools in the United Kingdom aren’t learning the fundamentals as well as children elsewhere, then this country will slip behind, and that is true not only of academic education but it is true of the vocational education as well. And no-one should doubt the commitment I feel to reversing this country’s historic weakness in vocational education, nor the determination which Gill and I share to make the new vocational qualifications work, not by glossing over the problems which do exist in some areas, but by rooting them out, by rooting them out and instilling high quality courses with more rigorous testing and external marking which will help young children build this country’s strength.

    We, and I speak of Gill and I, but the government as a whole, see education as much, much more than an apprenticeship to domestic, industrial and commercial life. It is, in its generality, about full lives for our people, lives whose course is so often plotted by what they learn, or fail to learn, during their years at school.

    And that is why I believe there is a social imperative to education as well. It is about awaking curiosity in young minds, it is about the joy of learning that affords security in a shifting world, that opens up life long interests and hobbies, as well as careers. We may live these days in a pretty cynical world, at least it sometimes seems that way. But there is a great deal of idealism in the young. They want to make their mark on that world and they want to make it a better place.

    I believe we should help them to achieve that. A broad education isn’t, and must not ever become, the private property of a social elite. I believe it is the birthright of every small bewildered child that walks into school with a shiny morning face to have the opportunity to have their horizons stretched, whether they come from inner city or from leafy suburb. Our children are made of the same clay, they have the same hopes, the same potential, the same rights to be challenged and to be inspired. And it is for those reasons that I believe in the importance of good education. And now I want to turn to some – some – of what we propose to do about it.

    Let me turn firstly to standards. At the moment there is a lively and healthy debate about educational standards. Raising standards requires three things: first, a consistent body of knowledge, fixed points against which young people can be tested; second, high quality instruction because so much depends upon the leadership provided by the individual Head and upon the classroom skills of the individual teacher; and third, the right mechanisms to help good teachers do their job to the very best of their ability.

    I want to deal with each of those in turn. The single most important of fixed points for our children is the integrity of our public examinations. Our children and their teachers work immensely hard to get good results. I believe it must be hugely demoralising for them to be told, as year after year they so often are told, that marking standards, or the rigour of the exam papers, are not what once they were. So we must find the truth of this. I, for one, warmly welcome the beady eye that Gillian has asked the Chief Inspector and Ron Dearing to cast over exam board results and GCE and A’ Level standards over time. The quality and the reputation of our education is important. I have fought against inflation in prices, I will fight with equal vigour any inflation in examination grades. If our reviews of exam results show that any standard has slipped, we will take action to require SCA to deal with that and to require the examining board to restore it.

    Media attention has focused, as usual, on the results achieved by the million pupils who sat GCSE and A’ Levels this year. But in fact a far larger test also took place this summer. Nearly 2 million pupils took part in the statutory tests at 7, 11 and 14 in maths, English and science. For many of those children it will have been the first formal test they have sat. For many teachers as well, these would have been the first statutory tests that they have administered. It was a huge operation. Some commentators predicted that it would be chaos, but it wasn’t. The fact that it took place so smoothly is a big achievement and I would like to express my thanks to all those teachers, those here and the many not here today, who made that possible.

    We now expect these tests to bed down as a routine part of school education, running right the way through from the early stages of reading, writing and sums, to the tests which begin to prepare our young people for GCSE. Our plans for nursery education will give those early stages of literacy and numeracy a big push. Universal provision of pre-school education for 4 year olds, with a clear statement of what we aim for children to have learnt, will for the first time give us a clear basis of measuring the child’s progress in the key skills of literacy and numeracy as they go through school.

    The Schools Curriculum Authority yesterday launched their consultation on this. When it is in place we will at last have a sensible basis for simple base-line testing at the start of primary school which will put in place the foundation stone I wish to see for testing at all the key stages in school life. Tests and performance tables will measure standards, help force those standards up. They will also provide information for parents who are being allowed back into the secret garden that I fear had grown up in all too many of our schools.

    The national results that we will publish this winter will, for the first time, enable all parents to see how well their child, and their child’s school, is doing against the national average. And those whose child is about to start school can compare how different primaries perform.

    Those tests are the raw data that tell us about standards. But they need to be backed up. Inspection is a key element in ensuring that they are acted upon, and I am determined that they will be. So I am very pleased to say today that OFSTED will, this autumn, be inspecting the teaching of reading in the three boroughs which get some of the poorest results at the end of compulsory schooling. And from now on inspections will increasingly focus on those authorities or schools where standards are poor. Those responsible need not be surprised if an Inspector calls.

    Raising standards, raising quality in County schools is, or should be, one of the main functions of a Local Education Authority. I can tell you today that the Inspectorate will, over the coming year, be reporting on what LEAs are actually doing about this and how effective they are at it.

    The nature of school inspections is also changing. Too often in the past inspections were the occasion for foisting a particular, often progressive, dogma on teachers. Those schools which cleave to academic standards and dared to use whole class teaching were too often branded as reactionary. Now it would be very easy to swing back completely the other way. I think that would be wrong. Done well, group work, even topic work, have their place in education. But so do whole class teaching and hard edged single subject teaching from 7 or 8 years old onwards. What matters is helping teachers to use the right mix at the right time.

    So let me make clear today the policy that the Chief Inspector will be following. Inspections will in future focus more sharply and rigorously on what really matters to parents, the standard of pupil achievement and the quality of education provided. They will be less bureaucratic and less burdensome on the school. And the language in which the reports will be written will be good plain English, shorn of unintelligible educational jargon.

    There is one other aspect of inspections that I can announce today. The performance of a school, or a subject department within a school, depends on the quality of each individual teacher within it. And yet until now Inspectors Reports cover only the performance of a school or a department as a whole. In future, they will be able to report direct to the Head where they have seen particularly good or bad teaching during an inspection. The Head has a right to this information. In future he or she will get this information after the inspection.

    The second crucial element in raising standards is teachers themselves and I want an alliance with those people who teach. I know that many of the changes we have made have been challenging. We have asked a lot of teachers and we have not always got things right. The curriculum, for example, was overloaded, partly because of the zeal of the educators we put in charge. But we ought not to have let that happen. But we have now, with the help of teachers, largely put that right. So too with tests, we are now closer to what both of us want.

    In those areas teachers are delivering. In return, they need to know that they have the support and backing of government. In ensuring discipline in schools, for example. Good classroom discipline is in the interests of every child. Most parents want to work with teachers to help their children become in turn polite, tolerant but enquiring adults. But some don’t. A small minority seem neither to know nor care about the harm their children do to themselves or to others around them. That is unfair on the rest. I know that many teachers are concerned at the uncertainty about their powers to impose sanctions on unruly behaviour if the child’s parents are indifferent, or even hostile, to what their child is doing. Schools are unsure that if they have a disruptive child in the class that they will get the help they need, when they need it, to sort the problem out. They fear that hard edged decisions to expel a wholly unmanageable, possibly violent, pupil could too easily be overturned on appeal.

    Gillian Shephard and her officials are now engaged in discussions with teachers representatives about these real concerns on classroom discipline. Everyone here knows that none of these issues is straightforward. But I am determined that we will work with teachers to overcome these problems and as soon as we are able, which I expect to be soon, we will announce our plans for dealing with this problem.

    Let me add one more thing on this subject. For those children who can’t, without disrupting their own and others’ education, stay in mainstream schools, there are special units operated by local authorities. The jury remains out on whether these are all effective. Personally, I believe that grant maintained schools could be empowered to run similar arrangements. At present there are practical and legal constraints which prevent you doing this, and I want to deal with that. Later this month Gillian will be inviting you in to agree with you what needs to be cleared out of the way and how it needs to be cleared out of the way. And if your good ideas need new legislative powers, we will ask Parliament to provide those powers for you.

    Let me now turn to the third key element in raising the quality of Britain’s education. Last month I set out my ambition to press forward with self-government, independence for more and more state schools. Some criticised, saying standards mattered but not this narrow structural issue. Well I agree about standards. But standards can’t be raised in a vacuum, can’t be raised by rhetoric alone. I have set out this afternoon some practical steps to raise standards, but the right mechanisms are also a crucial means to that end. They are what enable Heads and classroom teachers to give of their best. And the liberating effect of independence within the state sector affects the whole atmosphere of the school. Better motivated staff mean better motivated pupils, and that means better results. And those of you who run self-governing schools know that.

    As for others, they need look no further than the school I will be visiting this afternoon. Schoolheath is an inner city school. Many of its pupils come from less well off families. The proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals is nearly twice the average for Birmingham secondary schools. But one thing the parents do have in common is a passionate desire for good education for their children. And the proportion of those children achieving 5 or more top grades at GCSE has trebled since the school became self-governing. The proportion of pupils passing 5 or more GCSEs has risen from well below the Birmingham average to well above the Birmingham average.

    The self-governing sector continues to grow. Twenty-six more schools became GM this month, including 3 special schools and the first independent schools to opt into the state sector. We promised that self-governing schools would be able to expand their provision if there were demand. That is now happening. Six new nursery classes at GM primary schools and 12 new Sixth Forms at secondary schools opened this month.

    And it is against that background of success and expansion that I set out last month my ambition that all state schools should gain the benefits of becoming self-governing independent schools free to parents. That is no distant aspiration. Gillian Shephard and her department are now looking at the detail of the implications of this policy and the practical options for how we might bring it about. Work on this is proceeding rapidly and you can expect to hear more of this as soon as we are ready.

    But in education of all areas we need to make sure we get it right. You were impatient for change, for freedom. We knew you would make a success of it in your schools. I am impatient for change as well, but we want that change to be with the minimum of disruption. In the interests of the current generation of children going through school, we must move forward at a measured pace.

    Our opponents run too mutually exclusive arguments against self-government in schools. First, that this will destroy the wonderful services that LEAs provide; second, that since County schools get 85 percent of the budget delegated to them it is all a lot of fuss about nothing. Let me deal with each of those in turn.

    Self-governing schools get from the taxpayer a grant that enables them to buy the services that LEAs get from the taxpayer to provide free to County schools. They are perfectly at liberty to continue to take all their services from the Local Education Authority. But they are also at liberty to shop around for the best deal and to invest what they save in extra teachers, more books, better facilities.

    Let me give you one small example from a grant maintained primary school in Sussex which in its first year saved 10,000 pounds on pay-roll and administrative services from what the Council had charged. In a primary school in the first year, 10,000 pounds buys a fair few books for their pupils.

    In short, where. LEA services are the best, self-governing schools will use them. If they are not the best, why should they be required to use them?

    As for the argument that County schools get most of their budget anyway, this is at best a half truth. Last year LEAs took anything up to 15 percent off the top for central services before the school’s budget was even set. They then held back up to 15 percent more from individual schools for more central services. Many of those services are important and some are services which LEAs are required to fund themselves. But don’t let’s pretend that when LEAS hold back several hundred pounds per pupil, that self-governing status doesn’t make a difference to a grant maintained school.

    So I want to do more now to make that difference for more and more of our children. Slowly, grudgingly, the Labour Party who voted and manoeuvred against every step of our reforms in the last 7 years, now say they accept much of our agenda. I welcome that, so far as it is true. They opposed testing – now they are in favour.

    They opposed our curriculum – now they are in favour. They opposed inspections – now they are in favour. There is even a wild rumour that they might be warming up to the idea of streaming in schools. Well I hope in due course that they will abandon their hostility to wider parental choice to self-government in schools. But for the present, despite taking advantage of the education GM schools offer their children, they are still determined to deny those advantages to others. At heart, Labour are still hostile to the devolution of responsibility.

    That same itch leads them to threaten the autonomy enjoyed by the church schools. They would break the mutual respect and historic partnership between Church and State in education. Out would go the majority of Church Governors, in would come Town Hall meddling in admission arrangements. I believe this is not just misguided but fundamentally wrong. Church schools should have a wide autonomy. Grant maintained status is the logical choice for many church schools, it enables them to enjoy every single advantage of being a church school with the benefits of self-government on top. Self-government is also a shorter step for church schools, as indeed for other voluntary aided schools. Their governing bodies already employ staff and have extensive responsibility for premises.

    The process of gaining self-government is certainly thorough, but it is also complex, time consuming and, sadly, still at risk of black propaganda or worse on the part of some Councils. I don’t see why any school should have to face that, but least of all Church schools. They represent some of the oldest and best schools in the land. Their trustees and governors have huge and valued experience and parents already make a conscious choice to send their children there.

    Many Church schools have already become grant maintained. More wish to. So Gillian will next month be consulting about the option of a fast track route to full self-governing status. If a school’s governors, with the prime interests of parents at heart, and the trustees representing the Church’s interest, agree on moving to self-government, then they should be able to take that step simply and speedily. Subject to consultation, we will introduce legislation to enable that in the next year.

    When last month I spoke of independent self-governing schools, I meant precisely that. Over the years, we have allowed too much regulation to creep back in. Well we propose to change that. Let me tell you how Gillian and I propose to start. First, that collection of rules on finance, monitoring and reporting that you know as the Rainbow Pack. I can see you are familiar with it. I can see you have no great affection for it. Too much of this is drafted as if the weakest and least experienced self-governing schools were the norm. Wrong. If a school is inexperienced then special attention should be given to that school. But it should not be used as an excuse to prescribe in minute, mind-boggling detail how all self-governing schools should conduct themselves. We are now focusing on just two things: a proper set of audited accounts annually; and just enough information quarterly for the funding agency to meet its accountability to Parliament that public money is being used for the purposes for which it has been voted. In short, two primary colours, not the whole spectrum of the rainbow. And if there is any further simplification you think we can do, I am very ready to listen and if you persuade me I am very ready to introduce it, with Gillian’s full backing.

    I also want you to have greater freedom to expand and provide new facilities to meet demand. I can confirm to you today that we will shortly introduce legislation to enable you to undertake commercial borrowing, bringing you into line with colleges and universities. At present you can sell also surplus assets, with the expectation of keeping one-half of the proceeds. That is fine as far as it goes. But if a self-governing school wants to sell scattered properties to concentrate on one site, it is not much use if you have to surrender half the proceeds before you start. So that will change. I can tell you today that as from next April you will be able to retain the full proceeds of any such disposals.

    Next, admissions policy. I know you are concerned about the way in which your admission arrangements are scrutinised. Some of you have found that when you applied for grant maintained status, admission arrangements that you had operated successfully in the local educational sector were then called into question when you became a grant maintained school. And I also understand your irritation as self-governing schools at having to apply to the DFE for any change, however minor, in your admission arrangements and then sometimes being invited to make changes that you did not yourselves ask for when you applied. You have made your schools the success they are. You have made more parents wish to send their children to your schools. I see no reason why self-governing schools should not decide their own policy on over subscription, nor about how you maintain the ethos of your school.

    The current rules fossilise the character of schools instead of allowing them freedom to develop and change to meet new demands. I am therefore announcing a review of these procedures today, along with related aspects of the circular which sets out the current arrangements. I want to ensure that we end up with a substantial expansion of your freedom to make sensible choices between pupils in the way that you believe is best for your school.

    Moreover, if a school and parents conclude, for example, that it would be better going towards single sex rather than co-educational, then I can tell you today that Gill Shephard will look sympathetically at that request. we both, Gill and I, want that review completed quickly so that you can take advantage of the changes as soon as possible.

    Last but not least, there is the issue of the funding formula. I know that some among you are worried that the present arrangements allow Local Authorities to manipulate the formula to your disadvantage. We have a common funding formula for grant maintained schools in 22 areas which frees them from financial ties to the local authority. It is not perfect and no funding formula ever is. The answer in the longer term is a national funding formula, but that merits a PhD thesis in its own right. Gill Shephard’s department and the Funding Agency for Schools are now working upon it. We want to arrive at a formula which is fair, simple and as clear as possible. It will need careful thought and we are very ready to listen to your views and to individual representations, but that work has begun and that work will be carried through.

    Let me summarise. Improving standards, extending choice, opening opportunity for all – these are our priorities as we continually seek to improve the quality of Britain’s education.

    Let me summarise the steps I have set out today towards that. Rigorous public examinations whose integrity will remain the gold standard in education. Testing throughout school life in the essentials that children will need as adults. Inspection which ensures that test results are acted upon, that focuses on where results most need to improve and on what really happens in the individual classroom. A teaching profession that is confident of government support to secure orderly well mannered schools. Real freedom for schools to run themselves, to expand and to meet the wishes of parents as they think best.

    I have dealt today with only some of the issues that effect our schools. There are other important areas – teacher training; homework; the expansion of popular schools; and beyond schools, standards in our universities. On all of these, further announcements will come in the weeks and months ahead. Nor is today’s instalment anything like the final word in the move towards full self-government for our schools.

    Much of what I have covered today is the nitty gritty of standards and of self-government. These are important because it is in such detail that the daily lives of our children are shaped. But detail should never cloud from our eyes the vision of what we are trying to achieve. Our children will make the world in which we grow old. Our contract with them is a contract between the generations and our obligation is to provide them with the best education we can. I promise you, it is an obligation we intend to fulfil.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Weapons Decommissioning in Northern Ireland – 8 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments made in Northern Ireland on 8th September 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we are asking of Sinn Fein and of the Loyalist paramilitaries as well, both of them, is that they agree a method of taking the gun out of politics. That they agree decommissioning, the removal of weapons from Northern Ireland politics, and then that they begin to move down that decommissioning path because the other political parties will not sit in round-table talks with them until that happens.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Lancaster House – 21 July 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech held at Lancaster House in London, on the International Meeting on Bosnia, held on Friday 21st July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me first welcome you and thank you all for coming.

    I called this conference a week ago because I did not believe that the international effort in Bosnia could continue as it has done in recent months.

    Over the past fortnight, we’ve seen the capture of Srebrenica and, it appears, Zepa enclaves by Bosnian Serb forces. Those forces attacked lightly-armed peacekeepers, flouted UN decisions, and abused human rights. Their behaviour towards the local population was barbaric. New reports of atrocities are coming in daily. As a result, international aid agencies are having to cope with a new flood of homeless and frightened refugees.

    The recent cycle of attack and counter-attack has threatened our ability to continue peacekeeping and humanitarian work. There is a clear risk that Gorazde and Sarajevo will be the next targets of Serb aggression.

    Nor is the crisis confined to the Eastern enclaves. In many parts of Bosnia today, UN troops are unable to carry out their tasks. They have been fired at and threatened by all sides, taken hostage, and blockaded in their compounds. Bangladeshi troops in Bihac, for example, have seen some of the worst fighting rage around them.

    UNPROFOR’s mission is being whittled away progressively by the hostility of the parties.

    I believe we’ve reached a turning point for the United Nations’ mission. I invited you here because I believe new, collective decisions are needed urgently. We cannot afford different noises from different capitals.

    What is at stake goes wider than Bosnia. We face a fundamental challenge to our ability to work together effectively to cope with chaos and disorder.

    Objectives

    It is vital today to come to a united view on the way ahead, and set clear guidelines for future decisions.

    By deciding to meet, we have provided a focus for fresh thinking. That needs to be translated into joint action.

    I see four specific objectives for our meeting:

    – first, I believe UNPROFOR should remain in Bosnia, so long as it can carry out a useful task without unacceptable risks. But we must establish the conditions under which UNPROFOR can stay. We cannot go on as we are;

    – second, we must agree a way of deterring further brutal aggression, and in particular the imminent threat to Gorazde.

    – third, we must think afresh about diplomatic efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement. We need urgency here. We must give more support to the, negotiators;

    – fourth, we should review the work of the humanitarian organisations, and address their problems.

    UNPROFOR and Aid Agencies

    Let me turn now to UNPROFOR. Its role has been widely misunderstood and misrepresented.

    The United Nations did not send UNPROFOR to Bosnia to enforce peace or fight a war. Its purpose has been to help the humanitarian efforts, and to keep peace where peace has been established – as it has been in much of Central Bosnia.

    In 1992, before UNPROFOR was deployed, up to 400 people died in an average day in Bosnia.

    By last year, that figure had fallen to 7.

    UNPROFOR and the aid agencies have brought help to millions: food for the starving, shelter for the homeless, care for the sick.

    They have rebuilt schools, cleared mines, opened up roads.

    These achievements will be jeopardised or lost if UNPROFOR is forced to withdraw.

    But UNPROFOR cannot stay if its personnel are to be attacked, captured, threatened and humiliated. It cannot stay simply to be abused as a shelter behind which the armies attack each other. It cannot stay if its movements are impeded. It cannot operate if the parties do not provide the necessary level of consent and cooperation.

    So, if we wanted to stay, as I do, we must seek to agree realistic objectives. Then we must provide the means to achieve them. In the past, where UNPROFOR has failed, it has often been because it was given inadequate means or set unattainable tasks.

    Deterring aggression and achieving diplomatic progress

    Today we must spell out in unmistakable terms the consequences of further attacks – against UNPROFOR and against areas designated by the United Nations.

    And we must mean what we say and be determined to carry it out.

    In particular, we must face up to the threats to Gorazde and to supply routes.

    Bosnian Serb leaders have threatened Gorazde directly. I believe we should decide today that they would pay a very high price if they tried to carry out those threats. Our response to an attack on Gorazde should be very severe. United Nations Resolutions already provide for action. Air power is available. We need to decide how it could best be used to support our objectives.

    Likewise, we must consider how the United Nations Protection Force can defend itself more robustly on the ground, for example in protecting supply lines.

    There are some 25,000 troops from 18 nations now under UN command in Bosnia. The United Kingdom, France and other countries have reacted to the crisis of the past few weeks by sending a large number of additional troops. We should discuss today with the Secretary General and his commanders how these extra and robust assets should be used to best effect.

    Let me finally turn to the diplomatic track. It is an essential part of our strategy.

    More than three years of war have shown that the Bosnian problem will not be settled by military means.

    If the war now escalates, it will still not bring a settlement. It will only bring deeper suffering and greater danger to the region.

    The progress made when the Bosniac/Croat Federation was established has been followed by immense frustration. Sustained effort by the Contact Group, by David Owen, Carl Bildt and Thorvaldt Stoltenberg, has brought little reward. The peace process is in danger of collapsing under the weight of military pressure.

    We must use this crisis to regenerate diplomacy. Together we must provide more help to the UN and EU negotiators. I hope they will soon be able to secure the recognition of Bosnia by Belgrade.

    This would be an important but we need to go further. We must think how best to confront the parties with the alternatives to war, and with the consequences of ignoring a negotiated settlement.

    Conclusion

    As I said earlier, Bosnia is at a turning point.

    It is closer than ever before to all-out, unrestrained war.

    If we cannot deter aggression, if we cannot secure the consent of the parties and their willingness to negotiate rather than to fight, the prospects for UNPROFOR’s continuation will be bleak.

    If UNPROFOR were forced out of Bosnia – and that is possible – it would not end our involvement.

    It would change it – but not end it. We all know that.

    Our present involvement – saving lives and seeking a political settlement – remains the best way forward.

    Today I hope we can give that a new impetus.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 July 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Michael John Smith

    Mr. Blair: To ask the Prime Minister if he has received the report of the Security Commission on the case of Michael John Smith.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Lord President announced on 11 January 1994 that after consultation with the late leader of the Opposition, I had asked the Security Commission to investigate the circumstances in which breaches of security had, or might have, occurred arising out of the case of Michael John Smith, who was convicted on 18 November 1993 of offences under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911; and to advise in the light of that investigation whether any change in security arrangements was necessary or desirable.

    An appeal by Smith against his conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on 8 June 1995, but his appeal against sentence was allowed and the sentence was reduced from 25 years to 20 years. The Commission has now submitted its report to me and it is being published this afternoon as a Command Paper, with the exception of some technical and procedural details which it would not be in the public interest to publish on national security grounds. I am most grateful to the Chairman, Lord Lloyd, and to Sir John Blelloch, Sir Derek Boorman and Lord Tombs.

    The Commission has fully examined the period of Smith’s career in defence-related work. The Commission was critical of the initial failure by the Security Service to match Smith’s record as a communist with his application for security clearance at EMI in 1976. The Commission felt that there was an unwarranted delay between Smith’s identification as a potential threat and these facts being communicated to the Ministry of Defence and Smith’s employer. It was concerned about the Security Service’s eventual decision to relax its recommendations about Smith when he was put forward for clearance for work at GEC in 1986. It was also unhappy with the way in which the Ministry of Defence agreed to Smith having access to confidential information at GEC.

    However, the Commission recognises that much has changed since these events took place. The threat from subversive organisations is much lower. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact no longer exist. In addition, the Commission has been called upon to investigate a number of other security breaches since 1978 when Smith’s clearance was withdrawn and its recommendations have led to significant improvements in the areas of vetting, and more widely, in the field of protective security. Over the same period, Government Departments have also taken initiatives to improve protective security practices. In the light of all this, the Commission has made a number of recommendations. These, in summary, are:

    (a) that the Security Service should continue to keep its organisation and internal lines of communication under review;

    (b) that in cases where candidates lie during the security clearance procedure there should be a very strong presumption against the granting or reinstatement of a clearance;

    (c) that an interview with a subject should be used where appropriate to resolve doubts about a security clearance;

    (d) that the written levels of assessment of an individual should be unambiguous and that all relevant information should be made available to the relevant Government Department before a decision is made on an individual clearance;

    (e) that decisions on the clearance of individuals working on contracts involving access to protectively marked assets in an industrial concern should be taken by Government Departments only after appropriate consultation with the employer;

    (f) that levels of access granted to individuals in industry should be clear and capable of effective implementation;

    (g) that in any case where a security clearance is subject to any limitation, that individual’s behaviour and performance should be monitored and reviewed regularly by the Security Service with the employing company;

    (h) that judgements based on experience should not be given excessive credence in work of the Security Service; and

    (i) that appeal arrangements against a decision to withhold or limit clearance both in the civil service and in industry may need to be strengthened.

    The recommendations of the Security Commission have been accepted in principle by the Government subject to further consideration of some detailed points: and work is now in hand to ensure that they are effectively implemented within government and in industry. I announced to the House on 15 December 1994 that following a comprehensive review of protective security arrangements generally, a new system for the security vetting of Government employees and contractors would be introduced from 1 January 1995. This will provide the opportunity to consider how best to implement the recommendations of the Security Commission.

     

    Exchange Rate Mechanism

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what considerations led to the policy he adopted towards the ERM in October 1990.

    The Prime Minister: The decision to participate in the ERM from October 1990 was taken in order to reinforce the Government’s counter-inflationary policy at that time.

     

    Consultants

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his department and agencies for which it is responsible to (a) Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries, (b) Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries, (c) Ernst and Young and its subsidiaries, (d) Arthur Andersen and its subsidiaries, (e) Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries, (f) Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries, (g) Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries (h) Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993-94 and 1994-95.

    The Prime Minister: None.

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Department by (a) number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available; (2) how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has a been the total cost in each of the last five years.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 18 July.

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 July 1995]: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on Monday 17 July, Official Report, column 903.

     

    Small Businesses

    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the results of (a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

    The Prime Minister: The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy and aim to help them by providing sound economic conditions–keeping inflation and interest rates low; reducing legislative, administrative and taxation burdens; and where appropriate provide direct assistance in the forms of specialist advice and support and easing access to finance.

    The recently announced White Paper “Forging Ahead” outlines a programme of measures to assist the growth and competitiveness of the small firms sector.

    Specific measures to assist small firms are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales. For details of specific programmes, I refer the hon. Member to their replies today.

     

    Mr. Ghanzanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will urge the Government of Azad-Kashmir to release from Mirpur district prison Mr. Ghanzanfer Ali to obtain medical treatment in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister: Ghanzanfer Ali was admitted to a civil hospital in Mirpur 10 days ago. Our High Commission in Islamabad is obtaining details of his medical condition.

     

    Millennium Commission

    Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Prime Minister in what capacity the membership of the First Secretary of State of the Millennium Commission has now been confirmed.

    The Prime Minister: There has been no change in the status of the First Secretary of State as a member of the Millennium Commission since his appointment by HM the Queen on 17 February 1994.

     

    Scottish Education Department

    Mr. John McFall: To ask the Prime Minister what consideration was given to the role of the Scottish Office Education Department during the merger of the Department of Employment and the Department for Education.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has ensured that ministerial responsibility for education and training in the Scottish office are combined. In addition, he has agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment arrangements to ensure close consultation on labour market issues, including agreement of the annual performance targets for the Employment Service and new initiatives to help unemployed people.

     

    Advertising of Government Posts

    Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if it is his Government’s policy to advertise posts in its employ on the basis of offering a salary but inviting applications from those willing to work on a volunteer, unpaid basis.

    The Prime Minister: I have asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to write to the hon. Member.

     

    Single Currency

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlie his decision to hold open the possibility of the United Kingdom accepting a single currency in the future.

    The Prime Minister: I believe that we should judge whether or not to join a single currency on the basis of our national interest, given the circumstances of the time. We do not know what those future circumstances might be. It is therefore too early for us to make a decision one way or the other. Furthermore, as I told the House on 28 June, Official Report, columns 893-94 , I believe that it is essential for this country to participate fully in the debate over economic and monetary union, to make our practical views count and to stand up for our interests in Europe. We would forfeit our influence over the debate if we exercised our opt-out now. That would not be in our interests.

     

    Computer Equipment and Consultancies

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received;

    (2) which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department or its agencies over the last five years, indicating the number of contracts per firm;

    (3) how much his Department or its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years.

    The Prime Minister [holding answers Wednesday 12 July and Friday 14 July]: For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 18 July.

     

    Honours (Civil Service Secretaries)

    Mr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many honours in the birthday list were awarded to personal secretaries in the civil list;

    (2) how many honours in the birthday list were awarded to (a) civil servants, (b) local government officials, (c) local authority councillors and (d) police officers.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer Monday 17 July 1995]: My recommendations for the birthday honours list contained 1,055 names. Of these 434 were given specifically for their voluntary service, and many others had also given voluntary service which supported their other claims. The list included 10 personal secretaries in the civil service out of a total of 171 civil servants at all grades, including many working for agencies. The list also included 11 local government officials, 13 local authority councillors and 28 police officers.

     

    Arms Sales (Iraq and Iran)

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister if any United Kingdom bank involved in the sale of arms to Iran or Iraq during the Scott inquiry acted during that time in the service of Her Majesty’s Government; and in what capacity.

    The Prime Minister: [holding answer Friday 14 July 1995]: I am not aware of any such involvement. If the right hon. Member has any relevant information on this subject he will wish to make it available to the appropriate authorities.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 July 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Celebration (4 July)

    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds for the celebrations held on the evening of 4 July at No. 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister: Any additional costs to the public purse were de minimis and, in accordance with long-standing practice, no charge will be levied.

     

    Sir Peter Levene

    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister whether there will be any changes in the responsibilities of his efficiency adviser, Sir Peter Levene, following the recent reallocation of certain ministerial responsibilities.

    The Prime Minister: Sir Peter Levene will continue to fulfil his responsibilities as efficiency adviser to the Prime Minister. In addition to this role, Sir Peter will also advise the Deputy Prime Minister on his responsibilities for the working of government and the competitiveness agenda.

     

    French Nuclear Testing

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister on what dates he was contacted by President Chirac of France concerning the French proposed resumption of nuclear testing at Mururoa atoll; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The details of these discussions with President Chirac are confidential.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

     

    Exchange Rate Mechanism

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if it is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to advise the House and seek its advice before a decision is made to act as though sterling was in a fixed exchange rate arrangement under the EMU arrangements set out in the Maastricht treaty; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry gave him on 18 April, Official Report, column 41.

  • PMQT – 18 July 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Hill: Does the Prime Minister share– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I must hear the question. Hon. Members must stop shouting.

    Mr. Hill: Does the Prime Minister share the public’s concern about hon. Members who peddle political influence for private gain? If so, why is he rejecting Lord Nolan’s plan that earnings from such activities should be declared? Where does he stand on the matter? Why, for once, does not he give a lead?

    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman began, I thought that he was going to comment on the rail strike. The fact that he is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers might explain why he did not. The House will have an opportunity to discuss the matter that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I look forward to that.

     

    Q2. Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Sumberg: Now that we have seen the quite ridiculous spectacle of the Labour leader travelling around Australia passing himself off as Margaret Thatcher, is it not time that my right hon. Friend reminded the House that while he was actively working in support of Margaret Thatcher’s policies of low taxation, a strong national defence and moderate trade unionism, that very same Labour leader was actively and consistently opposing every single one of those policies?

    The Prime Minister: It seems to be the case that the Labour party in opposition today supports the policies that it opposed so vigorously in the 1980s. I have no doubt that the Labour party in opposition in the future will support the policies that it so vigorously opposes today.

    Mr. Blair rose — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: I would have slightly more respect for Conservative Members who say how shameful it is to have dealings with the Murdoch press if they had said that at the time of the 1992 general election.

    I have given the Prime Minister notice of this question on Bosnia. After the appalling events in Srebrenica and Zepa, does the Prime Minister agree, first, that rather than talk of withdrawal, having designated safe areas and encouraged people to enter them, it is our duty to pursue all practical means to uphold the United Nations mandate and prevent further ethnic cleansing; secondly, that we should use UNPROFOR to open up the supply road to Sarajevo; thirdly, that we must impress on our American colleagues the absolute necessity of practical support for our actions rather than just rhetoric; and, finally, that, as threat after threat has been made to the Bosnian Serbs but not carried out, over the next few days we must work out our bottom line and this time stick to it, otherwise the consequences for the United Nations and for the resolution of conflicts everywhere will be lasting and disastrous?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman and I spoke at length about Bosnia earlier this morning and I am grateful to him for saying at that time that he would raise the general question this afternoon.

    Let me say to the House on the back of the right hon. Gentleman’s question that there are, in reality, only three options for the future in Bosnia. The first is to see events escalate from the present circumstances into full-scale war, which would need a huge NATO force, including American ground troops, if that were remotely practical. The second option is to try to continue the United Nations humanitarian and peacekeeping work. That is becoming more dangerous and hazardous as day succeeds day, and carrying on that work does not guarantee prevention of the sort of attacks that we have seen at Srebrenica and are seeing at Zepa at the moment. Against that, however, the activities of the United Nations are still saving a great number of lives and the activities of British troops in central Bosnia in particular have brought peace to an area where we saw bloodshed and carnage on a massive scale only two years ago. The third option is to withdraw UNPROFOR and then lift the arms embargo. It is possible that events will head in that direction but I believe that, if that were to happen, it would be a course that we would regret, and that the Bosnians would come to regret as well.

    There are no magic answers. What is clear–we need to be entirely clear about it–is that it is not practical to mix war fighting with peacekeeping. Of those difficult options, I am sure that the right way is to go on trying to keep the peace, trying to provide help and trying to promote negotiations, until or unless that becomes impossible.

    It is to deal with matters such as the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman raised that we have taken the lead this week in international efforts, including the meeting of chiefs of defence staff on Sunday, the visit of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary to Bosnia, the visit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to Washington, and the conference that we have called for Friday this week to try to deal specifically with questions such as those raised by the right hon. Gentleman and to determine a viable way forward for the protection forces and the diplomatic process. I hope that such a way can be found because, if it cannot, the alternatives for Bosnia and the whole region are potentially catastrophic.

    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, thanks to the Government, the police and the courts, crime has been falling throughout the country for the past two years? In Staffordshire, crime has fallen by 14.5 per cent. and in the City of London it has halved. Does that not show that we are the party of law and order? As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) would say, by opposing every toughening measure that we have introduced, that lot over there are nothing but wind and soundbites.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I agree with his analysis and the accuracy of pointing out that the crime statistics are indeed falling and have been falling for some time. Neither the Government nor the police are complacent about the task that lies ahead and I commend a number of police constabularies for the innovative moves that they have made–Operation Bumblebee is but one example–to target particular types of crime. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary believes that it is important to continue in that fashion. We intend to do so, and to continue to give top priority to the battle against crime.

    Mr. Beith: If there is not to be a total and irreversible humiliation of the United Nations and all that it stands for in this desperate situation, do not clear and achievable objectives have to be identified and followed through? Would not one of those objectives be the maintenance and defence of a clear humanitarian route over Mount Igman to Sarajevo to relieve and supply that city?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be right about that. It is one of the matters that is being examined at the moment with the commanders on the ground. A route over Mount Igman would be suitable in the summer but perhaps less suitable in the winter. What is necessary for Sarajevo is an access and egress route in both summer and winter, but I do not deny the importance of having proper access and egress over Mount Igman.

    The right hon. Gentleman and others should appreciate that it is necessary to look at the wider question as well as individual snippets of policy, such as the proposed route, in order to get a proper view of what is practicable and what it is possible to ask the forces to do and to maintain. I repeat that one cannot mix war fighting with peacekeeping. It is important for the safety of our troops and protection forces for that to be recognised. There is an element of action that can be taken, but we must leave it to the commanders on the ground to determine precisely where that line is drawn, unless the western democracies are prepared to cross that line entirely towards a war-fighting role. I see no indication that those powers are prepared to do that.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra and its management on the completion of a highly successful summer pops concert programme that has given pleasure and enjoyment to 25,000 people? Will my right hon. Friend also reflect on the fact that it was held in the Merseyside development corporation area, which represents a continuing commitment to the Government’s wish to regenerate the inner-city areas?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate everyone concerned on what was clearly an attractive and worthwhile event. My hon. Friend is right to point out the proposals that we have carried out for some years to regenerate the inner-city areas. There is a good deal more to come, and I believe that people up and down the country will welcome it.

     

    Q3. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Winnick: Do the Prime Minister and the leaders of other western democracies understand how deeply betrayed the people of Bosnia feel? They live, or did live, in so-called safe areas, but they have been given no protection in the face of Serbian aggression. If it was right, as I believe that it was, for the House to pass legislation about alleged Nazi war criminals living in Britain, what are we and the international community going to do about those war criminals in Bosnia today who are ethnic cleansing, mass murdering, raping and committing other such war crimes? Will any action be taken to bring those war criminals to justice?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that because it has been given in the House on a number of occasions–he knows that the answer is yes. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply about this matter, but he should not underestimate the work done by the aid agencies and United Nations troops, who have aided those agencies to carry out work that otherwise would have been impossible to complete. Many people are alive today who would not have been but for that action, which was largely led by this country and British troops.

    Mr. Churchill: I fully appreciate the difficulties confronting my right hon. Friend in the decisions that he must take with his fellow national leaders over Bosnia. Is he aware, however, that the honour of Britain is engaged in the defence of the safe haven of Gorazde, which the Government established, and which is guarded by 200 Royal Welch Fusiliers? Is it not now incumbent on us to ensure the safety of those tens of thousands of the civilian population who have flocked there? Will he make sure that we and our allies, together with the United States, do all in our power to ensure that Gorazde does not fall?

    The Prime Minister: I am conscious of that, but my hon. Friend would be the first to realise that it would not be appropriate for me to expand on that matter.

     

    Q4. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Illsley: Does the Prime Minister realise that the recommendations of the Greenbury committee will do nothing to curb the obscene pay rises that have been awarded to the directors and chief executives of privatised utilities? Does he further realise that the announcement yesterday about taxation will affect the half a million ordinary employees who have share options? Is it not time that the Prime Minister took action to curb excessive pay awards in major companies rather than increasing the tax burden on ordinary employees?

    The Prime Minister: I know that it is coming to the end of term, but that is pretty rich from the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party has been calling for share options to be taxed as income for some time. Just as some Members now appear to be calling for a 50 per cent. tax rate on earnings, here is the hon. Gentleman talking about reducing taxes. There seems to be a lack of conjunction between the Front Bench and the Back Bench.

    As far as other matters are concerned, I believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said yesterday, some way away,

    “There is, believe it or not, still prejudice against success”.

    Well, there sits the prejudice–right along the Labour Benches.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Institute of Civil Engineers – 17 July 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Institute of Civil Engineers, made in London on Monday 17th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well Nick, thank you very much indeed and thank you for inviting me this evening. I apologise for being a few moments late and for leaving pretty rapidly when I have finished speaking to you. I am afraid other events some way beyond our shores have been capturing my attention today, and will do later on this evening and I am sure you will understand that.

    Nonetheless, I wanted to take the opportunity of coning here this evening to talk to an audience both concerned with, and involved in, manufacturing and construction. And I do that for the reason that Nick set out. There is no doubt in my mind that Britain’s prosperity depends upon the success of our industries today and in particular our manufacturing industries.

    I don’t take the view prevalent in some quarters that manufacturing is of secondary importance, I think it is of primary importance. I dislike it intensely when I pick up things in the shops that say made somewhere else, when I believe it should be made here, and I dislike intensely being abroad and finding things not with a Made in Britain label. Nothing has given me greatest pleasure in the last few months than the truly remarkable performance of our exporting industries, not least our manufacturing exporting industries.

    So I will turn to some of the points that Charles Gallagher made on housing in a short while, but what I would like to do is to start by saying a word or two about how wider economic policy impacts upon manufacturing, and then of course upon home building, road building and the other sections of the construction industry.

    I know that the last few years have not been very easy for many people in industry. Some were hit by the roller coaster on which the British economy rode in the late 1980s and at the beginning of the early 1990s. A roller coaster, if I may say, is something that we have seen all too often in the period since the Second World War. And I know the difficulties that many people have faced.

    But I would like to test upon you an instinct that I have. Ever since I was a small boy growing up, I have seen the British economy in boom and bust, boom and bust, boom and bust, as it has ridden that sort of roller coaster. And I have to say to you that I don’t believe during those years we have gained as a result of that, I don’t believe we have gained because of artificial stimulus and then coming out of the boom and into a low.

    What I wish to see, and what economic policy is geared to, and this is partly why things have been held so steady after the last few years, with the reward still to come, is a position in where we have low inflation and steady growth, not for 1 or 2 or 3 years, but as a continuum year, after year, after year, to [indistinct] the right sort of backcloth against which we can get the right sort of investment to ensure that British manufacturing industry is profitable, not just in cycles but continually. So my overriding economic concern has been to put an end to the sort of boom and bust cycle which in my judgment has bedevilled our country for decades. And it is because of that, it is now I think widely acknowledged, that hidden behind the pain of the recession and the turmoil of politics, the underlying health of the British economy has made very remarkable strides over the last few years.

    And I think it is just worthwhile setting out some of those changes. We hear so much, we read so much, about the things that are wrong and the things that need to be done. It isn’t a bad idea occasionally just to take an audit of the things that have been done and the things that are going right.

    We now have the fastest growing economy of all the major companies in Europe and there is every sign that that is likely to continue – the highest growth last year, perhaps this year, and continued growth at trend or above trend rate in the year after that. Total industrial production up by more than 3.5 percent in the last year and is now at record levels, above the levels at the height of the boom in the late 1980s. Not, I know, a perception, but in fact the reality.

    Unemployment in this country has fallen by two-thirds of a million since 1992. No other country in Europe has begun to approach that level of reduction in unemployment and we now have one of the lowest unemployment rates anywhere in Europe and in many countries beyond it.

    Manufacturing productivity has grown steadily throughout the 1990s, up a further 3 percent in the last year. The CBI report showed that export orders were at their highest levels for 18 years. And about 9 months out of the last 14 or so we have seen new record levels set for exports. Exports in the three months to April were no less than 9.5 percent higher than the year before, and in the same period imports grew just by 2.5 percent.

    There aren’t many people sitting in this room who can remember when last we had that set of economic circumstances. It may just sound like a statistic to say that exports are up, but it means manufactures are up, it means people are in work, it means the cotton mills are spinning, it means we are actually making things that people are prepared to buy at the price at which we are selling them. And we are now in the United Kingdom hugely competitive.

    And that hasn’t happened by magic, it hasn’t happened by the government retreating and saying well we will just wait and see what happens. It has happened because we have taken decisions, a lot of them very unpopular, some of them Charles mentioned, but decisions that were necessary to close the fiscal gap and make sure that we had a disinflationary economic scenario.

    Manufacturing investment rising, up by another 8 percent in the last year. Research and development, crucial in the 1990s and the next decade to make sure that we stay ahead of all of our competitors, research and development spending by companies grew faster here in the United Kingdom last year than it did in the United States, in Germany or in Japan. And again I ask the question – who last can remember when we had that set of circumstances to improve our prospects for the future. And this improvement in the fundamentals is only now just beginning to feed through into living standards. The average household will probably be around 5 pounds a week better off this year, a modest beginning, but it is now beginning to feed through.

    And the biggest thing I believe that bothers the housing market that Charles was talking about are not individual measures but the impact upon confidence generally as a result of a world recession that impacted particularly badly in the south and east of the United Kingdom where people were most heavily borrowed. And that will take time to settle down but it is crucial that that returns both for the short term and the medium term.

    But what is most important about the fact that living standards are starting to rise and that consumer spending is starting to rise, is the result that that will have in economic growth. Because the fact is that the rise in living standards and the rise in consumer spending, which is likely to follow, if on this occasion the result of economic growth and not the cause of economic growth. Time after time in the past we poured out resources in order to create the economic growth artificially by spending, instead of letting the economy grow and generate the resources for growth. But because we have done it that way round on this occasion we have the best possible prospect of sustained low inflation growth for years to come that we have had for any time that I can remember.

    Now all of the industries, not just the relatively wide span of industries represented here, all industries now face the best economic climate that we have seen in this country for three decades, and I think that is something that should make us both optimistic and proud of what has been achieved.

    Let me say something about a core part of that – getting inflation down. Yes, it was painful. There were many who argued against the high interest rates that were vital if we were to conquer rising prices. But I thought they were right, the government stood their ground, and as a result both inflation and interest rates are now down to levels that we haven’t seen for very many years. In the short term both those in industry and home owners may feel that they benefit from rising inflation, debt can be paid off more quickly and house prices soar. And industrialists and home owners, both almost by definition large borrowers couldn’t be expected to welcome the higher interest rates needed to bring inflation down.

    But they are essentially short term views. On any longer term view they are precisely the groups who actually have most to gain from a continuing low inflation world. Companies need a predictable economic environment if they are to plan ahead with any confidence. Inflation undermines that right across the board, it erodes competitiveness with low inflation countries overseas. If we had let inflation run we wouldn’t have had these record exports, not a chance that we would have had those record exports. And it also of course confuses market signals so that companies can’t tell whether a rise in prices reflects an increasing demand or simply an excessive growth in the money supply. And it encourages wage demands which bear no relationship whatsoever to productivity improvements. And how many times in the last 50 years did we pass through that cycle to the damage overall of our future prospects?

    We are not going to go through that again. I know it has been painful to get inflation down but we have got it down, and we are keeping it down. And I would suggest to you this evening that industry has a real interest in keeping inflation under lock and key.

    And the prospect of long term economic stability also offers a very great deal to those who are investing a large proportion of their lifetime’s savings over 20 years or more in one asset, namely their house. Because keeping inflation low is the only means of ensuring that interest rates stay low as well. And they of course are an important component part of the housing market. If you were to look today at that vital nexus between interest rates, net disposable income and house prices, you would find that it was more favourable to buy a home at the moment than it has been at any time for the last 20 or 30 years.

    So the problem is not the capacity to buy, the problem is the confidence factor that people are waiting to be certain that unemployment is on a downward trend and that the prospects for the future are rosier than many people feared after the recession through which we have passed.

    If you took, for example, a home owner on an average mortgage, payments are now over 130 pounds a month less than they were when interest rates peaked just over 5 years ago, and that dwarfs any other changes in the capacity for people to buy that people normally talk about.

    Let me say a word about competitiveness. We need to ensure sustained growth, and there is only one way we can be certain of doing that, and that is by improving our competitiveness as a nation. That will deliver better living standards to all, it will increase employment and it will encourage [inaudible]. And to set out our determination to do that by setting out two White Papers in the last couple of years, not talking in generalities but talking specifically about what we seek to do and measuring what we need to do to improve the competitiveness of British industry. We made more than 300 detailed commitments in the first of those and now we are making dramatic progress in delivering them.

    Let me turn to the construction industry particularly. The key elements, as I have sought to set out, of the best economic outlook are now in place. But the element that I return to that is missing, is confidence, and I want to return to the way we are tackling that in a moment. But let me turn next to some broader issues affecting the future of the construction industry.

    That industry is beyond a doubt one of the great industrial sectors of our country, it provides nearly half of all our industrial investment, it is the biggest employer in Britain and it is crucial to our export prospects. In a quite literal sense, Britain’s future is being built by your industry day after day. So I don’t need any persuading whatsoever of the importance of the construction industry to UK plc. And I share the disappointment that you will have had that figures published in recent days show that many of the difficulties of the recession haven’t yet been put as firmly behind that industry as they have in other sectors of the economy.

    And let me add that whatever may have been the perceptions of some in the 1980s, we have a very strong commitment to make sure that British industry succeeds both here and around the world. To put it at its bluntest, when it comes to exports, I am less interested in laissez faire than in winning the contracts abroad, and we have changed government policy both in the Department of Trade and Industry, and in the Foreign Office, to make sure that that happens and it has made a material difference to Britain’s capacity to win orders in some of the toughest markets of the world. And that is a permanent change, that is going to continue. I want to see British exporting industry win markets overseas and we will take the detailed government decisions to make sure that we assist them in doing so.

    So what in practical terms can the government do, in addition to what is already being done, to help ensure that happens? Let me turn to some of those areas. Certainly we can help with education and training, so vital to an industry that has long since moved away from the idea that workers can be recruited off the nearest street corner.

    Earlier this month – to the dismay of our political components – I merged together the Department of Education and the Department of Employment. Some people said well it just shows that the wicked Tories don’t care about the unemployed. It actually shows precisely the reverse, it shows that we are more concerned than anybody else to make sure that those people who are unemployed have the opportunity and the training, not just once but right the way through life, to get themselves back into permanent employment.

    The aim of that merger was to give Britain a head start in the field that will determine competitiveness in the next millennium, and that field is lifetime learning for people who are unemployed. We cannot any longer afford to think that people stop learning in their teens or their early 20s, we need to make sure that they have access to the right skills right across their adult lifetime. At the specific request of this industry we have retained the statutory underpinning of the Construction Industry Training Board, and that is playing a full part in training and enterprise councils.

    And it is also playing a part, I am delighted to say, in the development of the new modern apprenticeships that we have been floating over the last couple of years or so. And we are determined to make sure that the needs of industry are not just an optional extra in our education system, but are increasingly the driving force that underpins our education system. It is not good enough for us to say that our education system is as good as this country or that country or some other country, what we need to make sure is that our education system and our training system is as good as any other country, not just a random selection of countries.

    Neither is it any good for us just to say well we can compete with France or Germany. Indeed we can, we complete hugely successfully with France and Germany at the moment. But only half our market is in the European Union, the other half is in the wider world and we have to compete with the United States, with Japan, with the Pacific Basin and with Latin America as well. And so those points on education and training are even more valid in every aspect.

    Then of course we can deal with an ugly word, but a real concept – deregulation. We can strip some of the burden of red tape from industry’s shoulders. In 1991 we changed the building regulations to make them less detailed and prescriptive. The introduction of development plans which will be in place in most areas by the end of year should produce more consistent quicker planning decisions and fewer appeals, both I think are of particular importance to the construction industry.

    I have no doubt that there is a great deal more that can be done in that direction, we are seeking to do it and I am open to hear from industrialists such as you precisely the areas where it is most important for us to look at and to make changes. Because the intention is to make sure that government helps, and not hinders, the competitiveness of British industry.

    In the Government changes a few days ago, Michael Heseltine took with him responsibility for competitiveness and deregulation, responsibility he had before and took with him to his new position, so I can tell you that both the Prime Minister and the First Secretary are determined to see those issues at the top of the Government’s agenda and we do not intend that any jobsworth official will be able to defend a piece of unnecessary red tape that we believe can usefully go, so I offer you tonight this invitation through your industry representatives.

    If you see areas that you think are unnecessary, that we can get rid of because they cause a great deal of hindrance and very little help, the offer is there: tell us where it is and we will examine whether we can do anything about it. I can’t offer you a blanket promise that we will but if you have got a good case, then you have got a very realistic chance of seeing that burden removed.

    Let me say a word about capital expenditure because I am well aware of the importance of Government expenditure to the construction industry.

    There will be people who will say that the best help the Government can provide is through plenty of public sector construction work and of course for some people, however much of your money we spend on construction projects, it will never be enough but we have what by any standards is a pretty substantial capital spending programme under way. In the next three years, we will spend over £5,000 million on road-building, a programme doubled in real terms – a dreadful jargon phrase but we all understand what it means in this room – since 1979. £4 billion a year through the Housing Corporation, a figure which rises to £6.5 billion if you include private finance. Housing Corporation spending support has risen by 40% over the last five years. Overall this year, net public sector capital spending is expected to be around £22,000 million and in addition to that of course there is the Private Finance Initiative which has now sunk roots and is beginning to expand and that offers the private sector in general and certainly the construction industry in particular dramatic new opportunities. It should mean that year after year more capital projects begin than would ever previously have been affordable under the old Treasury rules.

    We are now beginning to see some progress being made: the international passenger station at Ashford and the Heathrow Express are already under construction; competition for the Channel Tunnel rail link is well under way; contracts are in the final stage of negotiation for the construction of two new prisons; and private finance is already contributing over £1.8 billion a year to housing associations.

    That, of course, is the Private Finance Initiative still in its infancy. I know that some people have been concerned that it has been slow to get off the ground and I certainly would have preferred it to have moved more speedily myself. I suspect that is inevitable with any significant departure from previous policy but it is nonetheless important to me and I know to you that the benefits of the Private Finance Initiative should be felt as rapidly as possible. I can certainly tell you today that we are looking at the Private Finance Initiative, it is under constant review and I am open to examine any suggestions that further measures may be needed to accelerate projects brought forward under the new rules.

    There is also, of course, a new source of spending, one that had perhaps been underestimated and that is the tremendous sums now being released by the national lottery for good causes, a large proportion of which will end up on construction projects. When the lottery is in full flood, as it will be very shortly, in a year or so, it will be spending something like £1.8 billion a year and a very significant part of that will also be on construction and whether that is a small-scale scheme such as the construction of new village halls and community facilities or large prestige projects such as new sports stadiums or national monuments to mark the millennium, I expect that lottery funds will keep a sizeable slice of the British construction industry in work for some years to come. Those funds, like the Private Finance Initiative, are only now beginning to come on-stream but by the end of this decade I expect they will be a very significant part of the construction scene as a whole.

    Let me say a word about the report by Michael Latham. I think it was a splendid report. Government can help the industry I think by throwing our support behind the programme of change for the construction industry that Michael Latham identified a year or so ago. When I read his report, it seemed to me that his prescriptions rested upon one very profound truth: the success of this industry, like all others, ultimately depends upon satisfying the customer and the culture of conflict, claim, counter-claim which has been ingrained for so long will not give the client what he wants nor encourage him to build more often.

    Michael Latham addressed that point and he offered a new vision for the construction industry based on teamwork but he also gave us a vision for the future, not a magic wand for the present. His suggestions will require determination and commitment from the industry to change on the scale that the car industry has already changed. It is of course important that they do so and it is of course for the industry to consider such changes, not for the Government to impose them but I don’t have very much doubt that the industry will take up the challenge of improving its performance that Michael Latham threw down and we know from survey upon survey that there is a wide spread of capability in British industry.

    It is vital that the best practice be spread more widely and that can be influenced directly by setting higher quality standards in supply chains. Michael Latham asked the Government to do two things: the first was to become best-practice clients of the industry; I accept that goal. I have asked the Efficiency Unit under Peter Levine to carry out a scrutiny of our construction procurement to that end and I expect to see the results of that very soon. In the meantime, we published a White Paper called “Setting New Standards” which spells out what we see as best practice and the principles which will guide us in our construction procurement.

    Secondly, Michael Latham asked us to legislate to deal with abuses of current contractual arrangements, to provide for quicker dispute resolution and greater security of payments. I am certainly prepared in principle to do that but in order to do so we need to find practical options which command broad support within the industry and its clients. With your help we will get that and then I will be prepared to take action.

    Let me return for a few moments to support for exports. We can provide support in the area of export promotion. Last year, the construction industry alone reported export orders totalling around £7 billion. During this year, Department of Environment ministers will lead ten trade missions to fifteen countries, Russia to Lebanon, from Vietnam to South America. We set up an Export Promotion Initiative; under this, 124 secondees from British industry, including a number from the construction industry, have been drafted into the Government and their aim is to make sure that we are as effective as possible to both fostering and promoting British exports.

    You know better than I do from day-to-day experience that world markets are fiercely competitive at present. It is important that our exporters should know that the Government will help them as vigorously as they can and I am determined to ensure that that is precisely what we do.

    Let me add a word about one of the highest-profile aspects of industrial investment going on in Britain today. I spoke of it in private to the Conservative 1922 Committee of back-benchers last week and I am happy to speak about it publicly today and that is the development of the information super highway.

    I say “high profile” because you can hardly walk down a street in Britain today without tripping over some member of the construction industry installing new cables. We are now in a different age, an information age. It is quite literally a third Industrial Revolution; it affects every business. Exploiting its potential is vital for the maintenance of our competitiveness both short-term and long-term and because Britain was one of the first countries in the world to privatise and liberalise its information and telecommunications industries, we are now one of the world’s leaders in the field. The cable industry alone is in investing £10 billion and every penny of this £10 billion is private money, every penny is a vote of confidence in the future of this country and of its industries and increasingly, major commercial and industrial developments will expect and require built-in cabling facilities just as automatically as they would expect to be connected up to the electricity and the water supplies. Our political opponents, who opposed deregulation every step of the way, have recently stumbled across the idea of the information super highway, they even claim to have embraced high technology.

    Well I have to say it is not evident in what they do. Their approach remains as mired in the steam age as ever as we move forward to the information super highway age.

    Let me illustrate why I say that. They want state direction of this development, they want Government guidance for investment, they want to create a monopoly. I only have to ask you what would have happened in the past in those circumstances. What would have happened if investment in building up the railways during the first industrial revolution had had to wait for Government guidance? We wouldn’t have had an Industrial Revolution and I very much doubt that we would have had any railways either. And what would happened if the state had imposed a monopoly at the time on the invention of the printing press? We might have had one newspaper so I suppose it wouldn’t have been wholly bad! It certainly has a modicum of appeal after the last two or three years, dependent of course upon which particular newspaper it is that would have survived but it would of course like most monopolies have stifled creativity, limited access and as ever driven up prices, no good for the country, no good for competitiveness and of course, the same thought applies today. The route forward for new industries, as for old, is not for Government to dictate, still less to permit monopolies. Our job is to create the conditions for private enterprise to flourish and then to let private enterprise get on with it and that is the role and the ambition that I have for the private sector.

    Let me turn back to the housing market and home ownership, a subject as Charles Gallagher said, of some concern to this audience but let me make it immediately clear in the light of what Charles said that the Conservative Party is and as far as I am concerned always will be the party of home ownership and what is more, the only party that cares truly about home ownership in this country.

    Over the past sixteen years, I think we have given evident illustration of that. It was the Conservative Party that promoted home ownership, the Conservative Party that actually sold off local authority houses, the Conservative Party that was opposed by both our main political opponents on each and every occasion that we developed those particular policies. That was the position in the past and however the surface oratory might have changed elsewhere, the gut instincts most certainly haven’t and so for us a strong and steady expansion in home ownership isn’t simply a welcome offshoot of rising living standards; it is at the very core of what the Conservative Party is about and of our vision of the sort of society that we wish to create. That has always been our position. We believe in ownership, we believe in security, we believe particularly in home ownership for the security and freedom of choice that it actually offers to the individuals and that is why we have consistently promoted it. Since 1979, the number of home-owners has increased by four million and more than 1.5 million of those were council house tenants exercising the right to buy so there shouldn’t be a shred of doubt about the overall commitment of the Conservative Party to home ownership both in the short-term or the long-term, it is [indistinct] of our bone and sunk deep in our marrow and that is not going to change.

    58% of households in this country are now owner-occupied, one of the highest proportions in Europe and we have made pretty dramatic progress but I agree with the survey that Charles referred to there that still remains a great untapped demand for home ownership. Surveys show four out of five would want to own their own homes; perhaps in ten years’ time, that may have gone up but certainly in all age groups the desire instinctively of young people today is not to go and live in a house owned by someone else but to be able to purchase a house that they own themselves, that they can decorate themselves, that they can live in and know that it is theirs both for the short- and the long-term and that is intrinsic and that was why in our White Paper last month we sat out a clear target, a further 1.5 million home-owners within the next ten years.

    Many of the ways of achieving that will simply come from the stability of economic circumstances, from that nexus I spoke of earlier of keeping interest rates down low so that people actually find themselves in a position to be able to buy. If we hadn’t closed the fiscal gap, including the painful decision of reducing mortgage interest relief a little, what do you think would have happened to interest rates? Would we have managed to get them to come down or would they have gone back up towards 15%, the lingering impact of which is one of the things that have caused most concern to the housing market?

    What I am seeking to do is deliver the circumstances not just to generate a little extra housing activity in the short-term but provide the right sort of circumstances for the housing market to return to being what it always has been, a central aspiration for people in this country and moreover with the right economic circumstances, an affordable central aspiration for the people in this country.

    There are some things we can do to give it a push. For example, the new housing association properties will automatically be available for sale to tenants on request and the resources will be available to put back into new construction in terms of it being recycled. One gets two bonuses for the price of one – the home-owner actually begins to own his own home and the housing associations have resources that would not otherwise be available for reinvestment in bricks and mortar and new building.

    We are looking at new options to bring private finance and owner occupation right into the heart of those great big social housing estates, areas that would benefit enormously from the initiative and dynamism of the private sector and also the social stability that would come from mixed occupation.

    There are a range of options that we are looking at because I care not just for the wider economic reasons but for the philosophical reason I set out a few moments ago to ensure that those people in this country who wish to become home-owners have the opportunity of becoming home-owners.

    Of course, the general condition of the housing market is of concern to people, it is of concern to me but I doubt there is anyone here who would want to go back to the unsustainable and frankly illusory world of rampant house price inflation which we saw briefly in the late 1980s. I remember very well those circumstances and I remember meeting audiences like this audience which said to me on that occasion: “House prices are going up so fast that at the bottom end of the market young people can no longer afford to get into the market and that will have a ripple effect up the market over a period of time!”.

    Let us not forget the problem that is being solved by keeping down inflation and the right sort of economic judgements for the future because it is, as I indicated earlier, more favourable now to purchase a home than it has been for a very long time but on the other hand, aside from that rampant and rather absurd circumstance that existed briefly in the 1980s, a strong but not overexcited housing market is an important part of a balanced economy, as Charles indicated earlier.

    We have been giving serious consideration in Government to a wide variety of proposals that have been put to us on how we can halt the housing market grow. The proposal that Charles made is one of the proposals that we are looking at along with others. We haven’t yet decided which action would be appropriate from Central Government or what action could be effective and that is the judgement that we have to make. I am not interested in a judgement that will achieve short-term applause in the press and the media and elsewhere but bring long-term problems. I am not interested in something that will bring short-term applause but actually will have no real practical effect on what happens. I want to decide what is going to be effective before I decide what it is the Government might be able to do so you cannot expect me to go into detail about what options might or might not come to be in the future but perhaps I can set out for you some of the principles which are guiding us as we examine this matter.

    First, we have to recognise that the main issue is confidence about future capital values, not current affordability. I have no doubt whatever that houses are a very good buy at present levels of prices and interest rates; with the number of households continuing to grow, houses will be a sound investment over a five or a ten-year time-scale but confidence in that is not reflected in the market and nothing will induce people to commit their capital until that perception is changed and so we need to test any proposal against whether it is likely to change that perception and so stimulate the housing market. That is the acid test that we will have to provide in Government.

    Second, let me say we are not an interventionist government by instinct or by philosophy, we are not permanently searching for excuses to interfere in the private sector. The case for a specific intervention would therefore need to be very powerful in order to persuade us.

    Thirdly, we believe that the best help we can provide to the housing market is by keeping interest rates as low as possible and once people have confidence in that they will not have the lack of confidence that comes from believing their mortgage is going to be at some level this year but half as high again eighteen months on and so they are discouraged from taking on the commitment so keeping stability and interest rates at a low level is an important component in restoring confidence to the housing market and that means we must stick to our fiscal target of continuing to reduce Government borrowing. We are not therefore in the business of taking any action which could only be afforded by jeopardising our attainment of that target.

    Let me say a word about the housing market as a whole. Britain’s housing market is worth about £750 billion pounds. That is around two-and-a-half times the total amount of money which Government spends each and every year so there are, to say the least, serious limits on the amount of leverage which Government action can exercise over the housing market. We would need to be persuaded that any resources we did commit would have an appreciable effect.

    Let me stress again that we are looking at options but that no final decisions have yet been taken on them but I would be misleading you if I gave you the impression that I thought there was an easy way. I think anyone would be misleading you if they gave you the impression there was an easy way for the Government co change perceptions about long-term housing values. There isn’t. It will change I am confident because of that innate desire for home ownership but it cannot easily be changed by a single fiscal amendment.

    Let me, however, mention one particular issue in conclusion, one that Charles touches upon. Some people assume that the reductions we made in mortgage interest relief in 1993 indicated that we had a long-term objective to eliminate mortgage interest relief altogether so let me make the position about that entirely clear.

    The reductions in MIRAS were a necessary part of an overall package of tax increases needed to bring Government borrowing back under control. Without those tax increases, Britain’s fiscal position would have deteriorated, driving interest rates and of course mortgage rates far higher than they went so my attitude towards every part of those tax increases was the same: all of them were necessary and none of them were desirable and we have made clear that we will not further reduce MIRAS though it is too soon to make binding pledges up or down beyond that. That is a matter for budgets and manifestos but certainly there will be no further change in the present Parliament.

    Let me add something to that. I am very well aware of the symbolic value of mortgage interest relief at source. I know there are a number of groups, including I dare say this audience tonight, who support it and I can tell you tonight we don’t have any present plans to eliminate it as I tried to set out for you over the last few moments.

    Our philosophical aim is clear: instinctively and by training we are committed to private ownership. No part of private ownership is more important to the individual and his or her family than the ownership of his or her home. The commitment therefore to home ownership is rock solid and central to the philosophy of my party, to my instincts and that will remain so both in the short-term and the long-term.

    Let me just summarise something about some of the things I have been saying to you:

    It is ultimately the imagination, the creativity and the dynamism of the private sector – not the public sector – that will determine the future prosperity of this nation and in that dynamism and in that future prosperity a vital role will be played by the manufacturing and the construction industries. That will not just be true this year and next year; it will be true when we go right through into the next millennium and far beyond it. I am sometimes accused of being a romantic in some respects, certainly in terms of seeing the “Made in Britain” label – I would agree with that; certainly in terms of believing that we are entering into a new Industrial Revolution and the construction industry and manufacturing industry have a key role to play in that revolution. Again, I would admit to that particular label. Unless we succeed in those industries, the economy as a whole will not succeed; unless we succeed in the economy as a whole, we will not lever up the increased living standards that I believe are imperative for this country.

    The economic policy that we have embarked upon and the stability and economic growth that it looks as though we have established will do nothing less than double the living standards of every British family in the next twenty years. Twenty years – if I may say with respect looking round the audience – many of you can remember back twenty years without a great degree of difficulty. What I invite you to do tonight is to bear in mind that this stability of economic growth that we have put in train will double from its present position living standards over the next twenty years. That is going to have its implications not just in a narrow sense but in a wide sense – on the country as a whole, on the manufacturing industry, on the construction industry and on each and every family. That is what we are committed to and I can promise you we shall continue with those policies. I want your industries to succeed and as far as we are able to – for we will not always be able to deliver precisely what you would ask of us – we will give to you full, active and continuing support in your endeavours in those industries; they are vital to us. You deserve our support and you will have it.