Tag: Economy

  • PMQT – 20 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Salmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Salmond : When the Prime Minister visits Scotland this weekend, will he be big enough to acknowledge that, sooner rather than later, he will have to bow to the wish of the Scottish people for self-determination? Does he not understand that, at a time when even he is forecasting a Europe of up to 30 member states by the end of the century, it is inevitable that the Scottish nation will demand to be a full part of that process of change?

    The Prime Minister : No, Sir. I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. The Union between England and Scotland is greater than the sum of its parts, and always has been. I understand what activates the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that he is profoundly misleading Scotland and treading a path that is damaging Scotland and the Union.

    Mr. Fishburn : At a time of economic difficulty and rising unemployment across the world, does not this nation–as a great trading nation–need, more than anything else, constant tax policy, the lowest possible income tax and competitive rates of corporation tax? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a disaster to adopt a policy that changed almost from hour to hour under Labour, with no constancy or purpose of any sort?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of clear-cut and low corporate and personal tax rates. I note that the Opposition’s tax plans have gone back to the drawing board ; after five years of careful preparation, they have been ditched in a period of five weeks. I also note that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)–who said, when he took on the job that there would be

    “no more phoney shadow Cabinet Budgets”–

    has now promised that there will be a phoney shadow Cabinet Budget.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister confirm that today’s official figures show that the British economy is in its longest recession for over 60 years? As the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor before it started and has been Prime Minister throughout its course, is it not clear that he is not only the Prime Minister of recession, but the prime cause of recession?

    The Prime Minister : Before the right hon. Gentleman goes into overdrive, perhaps he will confirm that, in the past three months, industrial production has fallen faster in Germany, faster in France, faster in the United States and faster in Japan than it has in this country ; and that, if we take the last year as a whole, industrial production fell more in Japan, and more in Germany, than in the United Kingdom. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that is, if he blames me for everything?

    Mr. Kinnock : To put it into perspective, let me point out that since 1988 the German economy has grown by 10 per cent. The British economy, under the Conservative Government, has not grown at all. Will the Prime Minister recognise that and stop groping round to try to find excuses for his own failure? Does he recall that it is exactly a year since he told us in this House, “Our policies are working”? Does he recall that in that 12 months the British economy has contracted by 2.5 per cent. and that unemployment has gone up by 750,000? Do not today’s figures make it clear that it is official–Majorism isn’t working?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman is now keen to look at a longer period than just the last year, he will also be interested to know that between 1981 and 1991 the British economy grew faster than the German economy, the French economy, the Italian economy or the economy of any other country in Europe. Will he now confirm, since he seems to regard all problems as being entirely domestic, that over the second half of the last year industrial production fell in the United States, in Japan and elsewhere and that Germany’s gross domestic product has now declined for three quarters in succession and Germany is in recession? How can this be if, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, it is all a British problem?

    Mr. Kinnock : In the last 18 months of recession– [Interruption.] British people are not on the dole in Germany ; they are on the dole in Britain.

    In the last 18 months of recession, unemployment in Britain has gone up by 1 million and the British economy has contracted by nearly 4 per cent. The figures speak for themselves. During the course of the time the right hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor and Prime Minister he is convicted by his own record and condemned by his own inaction in the face of the slump that he caused.

    The Prime Minister : The House will have noted that the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the facts and cannot handle the questions. He may recall that in Germany more than 3 million people are unemployed and he may bear it in mind that a higher proportion of people are in work in this country than in Germany or in any other European country except Denmark. Let me try again to help the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the world is in an economic slow-down, as even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has now acknowledged. That makes domestic politics even more important. That is why we have cut interest rates seven times in a year and halved inflation in a year, have the lowest number of strikes for half a century and have cut the basic rate of tax. As a result of our action, real earnings are rising and we have lower interest rates, lower mortgage rates, lower inflation and the right circumstances for recovery. The people of this country will not let the right hon. Gentleman throw that away.

    Mr. Stanbrook : When my right hon. Friend sees the new Irish Prime Minister soon will he tell him that the biggest contribution the Irish Republic can make to peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is to renounce its claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland, as that claim encourages Irish Republican terrorism and gives it legitimacy, as well as being the strongest stumbling block in the way of all-party talks aimed at constitutional progress?

    The Prime Minister : I have already spoken to the new Taoiseach and we have agreed to meet shortly. I think that we must wait and see what his detailed policies will be, but everything that I have seen and heard suggests that he is certainly very understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. Amendment of the Irish constitution is, of course, a matter for the Republic, but I am glad that it continues to be an issue that could be tackled in fresh political talks.

    The Government remain committed to the Anglo -Irish Agreement unless and until agreement can be reached on new and more broadly satisfactory arrangements.

     

    Q2. Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : Has the Prime Minister had time today to study the Department of Trade and Industry’s figures that were released on Tuesday, which showed that over the last five years Chinese quotas for the importation of cashmere garments into the European Community have been exceeded by 500,000 units and that in 1991 the actual importation exceeded the quotas by over 400 per cent? Is the Prime Minister aware that 500,000 cashmere jerseys are worth £75 million to textile communities such as my own in the central borders in Scotland? Will he take a personal interest in stopping this scandalous dumping and make sure that the overshoot is clawed back during the next two years, the time remaining to the EC-Chinese trade agreement?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises, not least because he was courteous enough to give me an indication of what he was going to mention this afternoon. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into the matter and to contact the hon. Gentleman.

    Sir Robert McCrindle : To revert to the Scottish question that was raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has the Prime Minister noted the statement today by the leaders of the financial services industries north of the border that in the event of a measure of devolution or independence, to which the Opposition parties aspire, the likeliest result would be that many of the financial services companies would move south of the border? In his forthcoming visit to Scotland, will the Prime Minister underline the fact that these are matters which the Scottish people should also take into account before moving in the direction Opposition Members would like them to go–in favour of devolution or independence?

    The Prime Minister : I did notice those remarks, which were widely reported this morning. We have made it clear for a long period that we believe that devolution or independence would damage very severely the degree of inward investment into Scotland and the degree of self-generating investment within Scotland as well. The Union has been in the interests of both this country and Scotland for many years, and it remains so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Fatchett : May I also raise a matter with the Prime Minister, of which I have given him prior notice? It concerns the tragic death on 5 February of six-year-old Carley Reavill who died in hospital of meningitis. That is the reason why I gave the Prime Minister prior notice of the question. She died not because, as the Department of Health says, she was too ill to be moved, but because, according to her paediatrician, Dr. Alison Schurtz, no intensive care hospital bed was available at St. Mary’s hospital or Great Ormond Street hospital. Is not that a tragic waste of a life? Does it not provide further evidence for the argument that if money is available it should be spent not on tax cuts but on our health service?

    The Prime Minister : I asked for a report on this tragic case this morning. As the hon. Gentleman has raised it, I reply assuming that he has received the permission of the family for it to be the subject of a public exchange. I am advised that doctors at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital have confirmed that Carley could not have been transferred when the hospital test results showed that she had meningitis and the test results were available within one hour of Carley’s admission. Carley’s decline, I am informed, was sudden and fast. Medical advice is that paediatric intensive care is unlikely to have arrested this.

    The House may wish to know that between 1979 and 1990 the perinatal mortality rate for England and Wales dropped by 45 per cent. It is now at its lowest ever recorded level. As for national health service resources, the hon. Gentleman will know of the very large real-terms increases that have been made–in excess, in fact, of the real-terms increases promised by the Opposition at the last general election.

     

    Q4. Mr. Brazier : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Brazier : Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of those who live on their income from savings are either widows or those who retired early, very often to look after an elderly dependant? Does he further agree that it would be a grave injustice indeed to put swingeing extra taxes on the savings of these people as a result of the profligacy of socialism?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that such people would find it inexplicable if that were to happen. We have sought to encourage savings by abolishing the investment income surcharge and by introducing tax-exempt special savings accounts. It is the Labour party which wants to increase tax by extending national insurance. Its plans would hit more than 1 million people, three quarters of whom pay tax at the basic rate. So much for the Opposition’s promise that no one earning under £20, 000 a year would be hit. That promise is worthless and that pledge by the Opposition illustrates why the promise is worthless.

     

    Q5. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the stabbing to death of the young black schoolboy Rolan Adams and in the year since then 15 black families–council tenants and owner-occupiers–have been driven out of their homes on the Thamesmead estate. The campaign, including a fire-bombing, has been orchestrated by the local headquarters of the British National party. Is there anything that the Government can do to change those events? Will the Prime Minister support the unanimous decision by Greenwich Conservative councillors to support the demonstration called by the Anti-Racist Alliance for Saturday at noon in Plumstead High street to demand the closure of the British National party headquarters?

    The Prime Minister : I have every sympathy for Rolan Adams’s family at this sad time and I wholeheartedly condemn racial attacks and those who commit or incite racial hatred. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me in December and my office subsequently corresponded with the mayor of Bexley. Although the location of the British National party office is a matter for Bexley council, we have drawn the council’s attention to the laws available to deal with racial hatred.

    The local police searched the BNP premises in January and evidence has been submitted to the Crown prosecution service which is considering a prosecution. Rolan Adams’s murder a year ago led to the speedy identification and prosecution of the attackers and the murderer subsequently received a life sentence. I very much hope that in the future that will deter similar attacks which are a blot on our country.

  • PMQT – 18 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

    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. Skinner : With only a few more bribing days left before the general election and in view of the fact that the House has been televised for more than two years, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he is prepared to take part in televised debates during the general election campaign with the Leader of the Opposition–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we hold televised debates in the House twice a week–

    Hon. Members : Frit!

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Robert B. Jones : Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study the statement by the Bundesbank that Germany is now in recession and that it blames the fall in output in Germany on the world recession? Does not that nail the lie being put around that these circumstances are due not to world but to British recession?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend points out, the Bundesbank has said that the German economy is now in recession. That confirms the point that I have been making to the House for some time about the international slow-down and international difficulties. A number of countries are either in recession or experiencing a slow-down in activity. Germany, alas, is the latest country to reach a formal recession.

    Mr. Kinnock : Would the Prime Minister confirm that today’s figures show the biggest rise in long-term unemployment in 10 years, that 1.3 million people in Britain have been without work for more than six months and that 750,000 of those have been without work for more than a year? Against that background, does the Prime Minister still dare to say to those people and their families that their prolonged misery is a price well worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : No one has said that, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. This month’s increase in the numbers unemployed for a year or more is certainly extremely unwelcome, but the long-term unemployment level is about half what it was five years ago and long-term unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds is also half that level. Long-term unemployment among the over-50s has halved over the past four years. These figures are too high, but the only way to get them down permanently is to have the right structure of development in the economy : low inflation and stable exchange rates. That is what we are providing ; there is no easy way.

    Mr. Kinnock : But the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that this unemployment and recession are a price well worth paying. Can the Prime Minister really take any comfort from the fact that, bad as today’s figures are, they are slightly less bad than they were in the last Tory slump? Is he really trying to convince the people of Britain, as they tried to do then, that policies of this kind provide a basis for sustained recovery and sustained growth? British unemployment is rising faster than unemployment in any country in the rest of the European Community. We have a huge increase in long-term unemployed, and more job losses are being announced every week. All this is taking place while the Prime Minister has had his present job and while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is not it now obvious that Majorism is not working?

    The Prime Minister : I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that I have said no such thing, and neither in context has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As I said a moment ago, there is only one way to create long-term stable employment. The right hon. Gentleman implies that nothing is being done. I do not call halving inflation doing nothing. Last month it fell to just over 4 per cent. If that is doing nothing, what were the last Labour Government doing when inflation went up to 27 per cent ?

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister cannot correct the record to the extent of pretending that both he and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) have not said that today’s conditions, with all their misery, are not a price well worth paying. That is the first point. Secondly, the Prime Minister refers to the record over 13 years. In that 13 years manufacturing output under his Government in Britain has gone up less than 6 per cent. It has gone up by four, five and 10 times as much among our competitors, and the right hon. Gentleman is still not doing anything to bring Britain out of recession, to give us recovery. A Tory Government means permanent high unemployment.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman does not listen and he does not understand. I repeat : I have said no such thing and I invite him to withdraw. The House will know that he changed his allegation between his first and third questions. If he is really concerned about unemployment, why does he want to cripple British industry by bringing back flying pickets, by encouraging mass pickets, by returning trade union immunities, with all the difficulties that we saw in the 1960s and 1970s ? That would not produce growth and jobs. That would produce permanent slump, no jobs, no prospects, no hope for the future. Those are the policies that the right hon. Gentleman sets out before this nation.

    Mr. John Marshall : Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the decision to compensate those who contracted HIV as a result of treatment through the national health service is widely welcomed ? I thank him for a speedy and compassionate response. He knows the representation that I made with other colleagues only a fortnight ago.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. We made special provision for those with haemophilia and HIV because of the special circumstances that are apparent and because of the widespread representations that have been made to us. I hope that it will ease the difficulties of people who face such a tragic circumstance.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that there are only two facts that one needs to know to assess the Government’s real commitment to recovery? The first is that unemployment rose by 53,000 last Thursday and the second is that the Government cut their training budget by £171 million last Friday. How does the Prime Minister justify that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that we have the largest training provision that this country has ever seen. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know what circumstances are necessary for long-term prosperity and jobs, and that they are basically low inflation and a stable economy, he ought to learn that speedily.

    Mr. Gorst : When my right hon. Friend is making arrangements for his business in the second week in April, will he please include a visit to Edgware general hospital, where he will find patients, members of staff and doctors highly satisfied with the changes that have taken place in the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : I shall be happy to visit that hospital. I think that the changes in the health service are increasingly being understood to be welcome and to be providing a better health service for the future. That is becoming increasingly understood within the health service–if not, alas, on the Opposition Benches.

     

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

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

    Mr. Patchett : The Government have increased prescription charges 14 times, and they did so just this week by twice the rate of inflation. Will the Prime Minister intervene to stop this disgraceful taxation of the sick- -yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : There are 100 million more free prescriptions this year than there were at the time of the last Labour Government. The number of people who pay for prescriptions has shrunk and shrunk, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He should stop trying to misrepresent policies.

     

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

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

    Mr. Amess : Will my right hon. Friend agree to visit Basildon– [Interruption.]–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Come on.

    Mr. Amess : –the finest and most exciting town in the country? When my right hon. Friend does so, will he tell my constituents that there has been a record reduction in the number of strikes and that we now have the best figures for decades? Does he agree that such improvements are a key component in a strong economy and that they have been achieved through the Government’s industrial relations laws, which the Opposition parties wish to repeal?

    The Prime Minister : I shall be happy to visit my hon. Friend at Basildon either before or after the general election. He makes a good point. Indeed, the figures for 1991 are even better than those for 1990. There were fewer strikes last year than in any year since records began a century ago. That is essentially because of the change in labour relations and the encouragement that has been given for employers and the work force to work together.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Garrett : Has the Prime Minister seen the prospectus from Pathfinders Repossessions plc, which is a company which proposes to buy repossessed homes at auction and then flog them off or rent them at a huge profit? I understand from the promoters that the project cannot fail because it qualifies for tax reliefs under the business expansion scheme. Does the Prime Minister find this proposition just plain squalid?

    The Prime Minister : The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, I have not seen that prospectus. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted a detailed comment on it, he would have invited me to look at it before he asked his question. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Oppenheim : Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to study the document entitled “The Citizen’s Charter”, which was written in 1921 by Herbert Morrison, then secretary of the London Labour party? It states that the best way to improve public services is to increase competition. Does not that show that no amount of tacky red plastic roses, sharp suits and slick public relations can disguise the fact that, far from progressing, Labour is regressing?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it does show that. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the merits of competition. We now have another citizen’s charter that addresses the direct problems faced by the people of this country. The Opposition are so rattled about it that NALGO is spending £2 million to advertise against it.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mrs. Mahon : The Prime Minister does not seem to be aware of what is happening with prescription charges. May I draw to his attention the case of a constituent of mine, a Mr. Russell, who is paid just 6p more than the income support level? From 1 April, he will have to pay £3.75 a week for a prescription out of an income of £60.31. If that is not a tax on the sick, will the Prime Minister tell us what it is?

    The Prime Minister : One in three people are now entitled to free prescriptions, as opposed to one in six.

    There are far more prescriptions than ever before for which people no longer pay, and those who find themselves marginally above income support level have the option of acquiring a season ticket precisely to meet that problem.

     

    Q6. Mr. Moate : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Moate : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is an essential weapon in the battle against terrorism? Does he agree that all parties in the House should support its annual renewal, so that we can send the terrorists the clear message that they can never win?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir–and I believe that recent events reinforce that point. Without the renewal of the Act, the IRA would be free to march, recruit and raise funds anywhere in Great Britain. Its renewal is absolutely essential, not just as a clear message to the terrorists but as a vital part of our ability to safeguard the lives of our citizens. I hope that, in the light of all that has happened, the Opposition will change their policy on this occasion, and will support the renewal of the Act.

  • PMQT – 13 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. Campbell : What advice has the Prime Minister for one of my constituents, Mrs. Logan, who lives in Camlinton new town and is in great pain with an arthritic hip? She has to climb the stairs with the aid of her husband and has to lie in bed in agony most nights. She has been told by the local hospital that she cannot have an appointment until June 1993. Is that the Prime Minister’s way of keeping waiting lists low?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of the particular case that he has mentioned, I will certainly have it examined. What he should acknowledge, however, is that spending is up by more than 50 per cent. in real terms, 25 per cent. more patients are treated, there are far more doctors and nurses, and they are far better paid, and treatments that were rare in 1979 are now commonplace. I wish that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would stop running down the improvements that have been made in the national health service.

    Mr. Aitken : On a constitutional point, does my right hon. Friend agree that if an assembly were set up in Scotland with responsibility for health, trade and industry, and taxation north of the border– [Hon. Members :– “Reading.”] In such circumstances, would not it be impossible thereafter for Members of Parliament with Scottish constituencies to sit in Departments as Ministers, administering those Departments– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Get it out, please.

    Mr. Aitken : I know that this is painful. Would not it be impossible for Ministers to be in charge of Government Departments administering those matters for England and Wales? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be right to set up a retraining scheme for soon-to-be-redundant members of the shadow Cabinet?

    Mr. Speaker : I think that that is enough.

    The Prime Minister : I should be happy to add that training scheme to the many other excellent training schemes we have at present. The point that my hon. Friend has made was graphically illustrated by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who is reported as having said that if Labour were to introduce its devolution plans he could not act as Secretary of State for Health for England and Wales. Presumably the same principle would apply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). I look forward to their confirming that. If the Labour party were then to show some affection for devolution in Wales, perhaps the same principle would apply to an even more eminent right hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Kinnock rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The Leader of the Opposition must have a chance to answer.

    Mr. Kinnock : Not until we have a Question Time for the Leader of the Opposition, but within a couple of months I shall be answering from the Government side of the House.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that in the 15 months since he got his job 840,000 people have lost their jobs? In this 22nd consecutive month of rising unemployment does he still cling to the pretence that the recovery has already started?

    The Prime Minister : I accept that the unemployment figures this month are disappointing–no one can deny that–but what we are seeking to do is to put people back into permanent jobs, and not temporary jobs. That can be done only by putting in place the right conditions to create long- term, permanent jobs, long-term growth and secure jobs. That is why we have been working to reduce inflation–with success ; to bring down interest rates–with success ; and to cut direct tax rates–with success. Of those people who have lost their jobs, more than 250,000 are this year in well worth while and excellent training schemes. That is the right way to help people, it is the right way to achieve long-term prosperity for this country and it is the way in which we have been developing our policies.

    Mr. Kinnock : For 2.6 million of our fellow citizens the unemployment figures are not disappointing–they are absolutely devastating. Why does the Prime Minister ignore the evidence of employers, who tell us that unless policies change 50,000 more jobs will go from construction, 40,000 from motor vehicles and textiles, with a further 70,000 manufacturing jobs going? Why does the Prime Minister ignore all that evidence? Why does he just sit there and do absolutely nothing to combat the recession that his policies have caused? After 22 months, does he not yet understand that sitting there crossing his fingers and closing his eyes will not bring recovery?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman talks of ignoring evidence. There is evidence, too, which he is ignoring. He has not acknowledged that more people are now moving out of unemployment than a year ago. Every month 300,000 people are leaving unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman quotes job losses, but he fails to mention Tesco’s plans for 5,000 new jobs over the next year, Safeway’s plans for 2,000 jobs, Nissan’s plans for 600 new jobs in the north-east, and the fact that Toyota is providing another 3,000 jobs in Derbyshire. He also chooses to ignore the fact that this country has a higher proportion of its population in work than any other Community country except Denmark.

    Mr. Kinnock : Under the Prime Minister’s leadership, in the last 12 months alone more than 800,000 jobs have gone and during that period the number of people in employment in Britain has gone down by 800, 000. The number of vacancies has fallen. Even the Chancellor confesses that the Government caused the recession. And they have continued it, and have let it get out of control. The Government are guilty on all counts.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend said no such thing, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about taking action, perhaps he will consider the action that he proposes to take in his policies: a minimum wage that will cost jobs, a payroll tax that will cost jobs, and a strikers charter that will create jobs–not here but in France, in Germany, in Belgium, in Italy, in the United States and elsewhere. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the costs of extending national insurance or raising taxation will help employment? None of that will help employment. The right hon. Gentleman’s plans would spell disaster for this economy, disaster for companies and permanent unemployment for millions of people.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton : Does the Prime Minister accept that one of the great achievements of the Olympic movement is to bring nations together in sporting endeavour and excellence and that similarly, despite the forthcoming general election, all political parties are brought together to support this country’s bid to host the Olympic games in the year 2000? Will my right hon. Friend agree to support fully the Manchester Olympic bid which will benefit not only the north-west of England, where most of the events will be staged, but our capital city and the rest of the country–in fact, the whole nation?

    The Prime Minister : I met the Manchester Olympic bid committee some weeks ago when we discussed the proposed bid that Manchester wishes to make. I asked on that occasion for considerably more information. That is being provided and I look forward to meeting the bid committee again towards the end of this month.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister is right–the Government are not wholly to blame for this recession, but they are chiefly to blame. Does he realise that what the country now needs from him is hope, but all that it gets is complacency ; that what the country needs from him is leadership, but all that it gets from him is excuses ; that what the country now needs is a Government who will act, but what it has is a Government paralysed by the election who dodge the issues, duck the realities and do nothing?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reprising his party political broadcast of last evening. It is a good sound bite, but it is not any better for hearing it the second time. What the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, if he cares about real prosperity for this country, is making sure that we get the economic basics of inflation and the exchange rate correct so that we can get sustainable investment for the long term, not the short-term gimmicks that the right hon. Gentleman embraces.

    Sir Peter Hordern : Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. Delors that the proposed increase in the United Kingdom contribution to the European budget is wholly unacceptable? Will he also tell him that the first priority must be to reform the common agricultural policy, to remove the losses from fraud which occur within that policy and, especially, to bring about a successful conclusion to the GATT negotiations?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend on each of the points that he makes. There is no justification whatever for an increase in the budget on anything like the scale that the Commissioner proposed. There is already scope for significantly increased expenditure within the existing own resources ceiling.

     

    Q2. Mr. Martlew : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. Martlew : The Prime Minister will be aware that there is great anger and despair in the country at the announcement today that unemployment has moved up again. That is reflected in my constituency, where there are an extra 400 people unemployed in the Carlisle area, bringing the total to a staggering 4,000 unemployed. Bearing that in mind, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity today to condemn one of his Ministers who said yesterday that people who were losing their jobs were being “liberated”? Will he dissociate himself from that comment and will he take action today to see that the hon. Gentleman concerned is “liberated” from his ministerial duties? In other words, will he sack him?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by nearly 20 per cent. since the last general election. My hon. Friend has made clear his regret at the job losses at British Aerospace. The hon. Gentleman simply trivialises the issue with his remarks.

    Sir William Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that of the known policies of the Labour party– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Sir William Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there were a minimum wage and also higher taxation both on individuals and on companies, that would kill inward investment and cause even more unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about that. It is also the case that most independent commentators–Goldman Sachs, Credit Lyonnais, BZW, Phillips and Drew, Nomura, the CBI–agree that Labour would cause a rise in inflation, with all the impact that that would have on living standards, jobs and future prosperity.

     

    Q3. Mr. O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : In a radio programme, the Prime Minister told Sue Lawley, in response to a question on housing, that repossessions had stopped before Christmas. Will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he accepts that, in addition to the massive number of homes repossessed last year, a further 80,000 families are to lose their homes in the current year?

    The Prime Minister : What I confirmed in answer to the question to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was that we had put in place measures to deal with the problems arising from repossession. Lenders have confirmed that they do not seek possession where the borrower has suffered a severe reduction in income support but is still making a regular and routine payment, nor will they repossess–which is the point that I was making– where income support is paid direct to them. I reiterate that point today.

     

    Q4. Mr. Dykes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. Dykes : Further to the European Community budget proposals, which were proposed unanimously by all the Commissioners, including the two British Commissioners, will my right hon. Friend also agree that extra resources long term will be needed for redundant farmers– [Interruption.] –in east European countries, and for the cohesion fund, that there is no need for us to have the United Kingdom budget contribution under-mined in any way by these proposals and that they are less in percentage terms annually than the last 10 years’ increase in the EC budget?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend points to the fact that there is scope for significantly increased expenditure, perhaps for eastern Europe and the cohesion fund, as he says, but without the existing own resources ceiling, which is still underspent. There is at this stage no justification for the proposed increase suggested earlier this week.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the 1992 Young Conservatives Conference – 8 February 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Young Conservatives Conference in Eastbourne on Saturday 8th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, it’s good to be back at your Conference. It has been an important year. I’ve seen the UN in New York, the EC in Maastricht, and now the YCs in Eastbourne.

    And by the way, there’s something else I can tell you about

    1992 … it’s the year the Conservative Party will win the next General Election.

    We will win that Election. And win it clear and well.

    A National Party

    Mr Chairman, let me tell you why we’ll win – and what we’ll do. About what we stand for – and what we don’t stand for – and what we won’t stand for.

    Why should people give us their trust? Because our ideals meet the hopes of people in every walk of life. And in every age group. Because we don’t see good fortune for some as injustice for others. We don’t scorn the successful. We don’t preach envy. And we don’t trade on division.

    For us each person counts. We never forget those with their foot on the first rung of the ladder of opportunity. Or those who have been knocked off it by misfortune. The Government I lead will always protect their interests.

    And that means taking decisions that are right in the long- term, not easy and popular in the short-term.

    Holding firm on the economy

    Mr Chairman, the world economy is showing greater strain now than it has for a decade. That doesn’t make it easy for Britain, as we work our way out of recession. A quick fix is the wrong way. It calls for steadiness. Keeping inflation down. Keeping strikes out of fashion. And keeping faith in policies that are the only sure foundation for our recovery.

    You may have heard what our opponents suggest. A poisoned chalice. They want to raise taxes on incomes and savings. Raise National Insurance. They want us to put new levies on business. And bring in a minimum wage.

    We know where that would lead. We’ve been there before. Higher interest rates, higher mortgage rates, higher taxes, more unemployment, a longer recession, and the re-invention of the Brain Drain.

    Not one of their policies would help our recovery. They would mean perpetual recession and terminal decline.

    If we had had the high taxes and the strikers’ charter that Labour demand, I can tell you this. We wouldn’t have had Nissan investing nearly £900 million at Sunderland.

    We wouldn’t have had Honda investing £300 million at Swindon.

    Wouldn’t have had Toyota investing £700 million at Derby.

    And wouldn’t have had, in the five years to 1990, twenty billion dollars of United States investment in Britain.

    The conditions which attracted this investment are what Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman, Gerald Kaufman, condemns as a sweatshop economy. Sweatshop economy?

    Last year Japanese firms invested £3,600 million in Britain – more than half all the Japanese investment throughout the European Community. Under Labour all that would have been at risk. “Alien investment”, their union friends call it. They would rather have unemployment in Britain than investment from overseas.

    Mr Chairman, Britain simply can’t afford Socialism. What an absurdity it would be, as the world ditches it, for us to let it to creep back in this country. Labour’s attitudes are old hat. And its prescriptions are yesterday’s prescriptions. We live in a harsh and competitive world today – the most competitive decade we’ve ever known. And unless we’re able to compete we’ll face a harsh future.

    A Nation at Ease with Itself

    Mr Chairman, when our Party honoured me by making me its leader I was asked what my aims for Britain were. I had no doubt the first of these was to create a nation at ease with itself.

    That sounds a simple idea. But for me it is fundamental.

    We live at ease with others when each of us has the same choices. The same opportunities. Peace of mind. Simple human dignity. We’re all entitled to that.

    But what is our path to these things?

    For our young people, the chance of a good education. Up to date skills. Qualifications that mark their achievements.

    For workers, freedom from trade union pressure. To feel a part of their enterprise. To be able to earn more and keep more for their families.

    For the sick, to know that there is – and always will be – a free National Health Service which develops and grows.

    For older people, to know that inflation will not destroy their security. That the State will not confiscate their savings. And that the streets must and will be kept clear of crime.

    For all to know that their contribution – whatever it may be – is respected and valued. And crucial in binding every local community together.

    These are the things that bring security and self-respect. And self-respect breeds respect for others. An old lesson of history, long understood in Britain, before Socialism began to eat it away.

    Any Government can aspire to these aims. But it’s only the Conservative philosophy that is able to secure them.

    So what is it that is special about the Conservative way?

    The Principles of Modern Conservatism

    Let me tell you. The principles of modern Conservatism are the principles of choice. Of opportunity for all. Of ownership. Of responsibility. Those four themes run through every part of our programme for the 1990s. And everyone’s policies should be judged against them. For they are the foundations of a free society.

    The Power to Choose

    Of these four great ideas, I put choice first.

    There are those who say that choice is selfish. Or that some people are too foolish or too stupid to choose. That the safest choices are made by the State. By other people who know better than you.

    Those who say that are the people who defended the closed shop. Resisted the Right-to-Buy. Pushed up tax levels in Britain until it wasn’t just the pips that squeaked. It was the whole fruit-stall.

    You know who they are. The people of Britain know who they are. The shifty men – who once proclaimed their Socialism in public, but who now phase out the hymns they once sang with such gusto.

    Of course it all depends on which Labour shadow you’ve been listening to. They talk about “lime for a change”. What do they mean? They mean it’s time for Neil Kinnock to change John Smith’s policies. Or vice versa. Cometh the dinner, cometh the fudge. A blinding conversion on the road to Luigi’s.

    Mr Chairman, the harder they fought us, the more our policies of choice put power in people’s hands.

    We’re putting it back where it belongs:

    With the individual. Not the trade union.

    With the customer. Not the controller.

    With the citizen. Not the State.

    We’ve widened choice by breaking down nationalised monopolies and opening up markets. Giving tenants and parents more say in their lives and those of their children. Above all by keeping taxes down.

    It’s no good looking at the mail order catalogue, the holiday brochure, or even the take-away menu, if a tax demand from a Socialist Chancellor has left you no money to pay for it. Your modest hopes are swallowed – in his huge ambition.

    So be on your guard. 35 per cent basic rate income tax? They denied it before; and they did it before. They deny it again. But, given the chance, they’d do it again.

    Extending Choice

    Mr Chairman, once again our Party is bubbling with new ideas. Widening choice in all sorts of ways. We are giving council tenants even more rights. We’ll bring private sector skills more into public service. And we’ll be acting to end – once and for all – the monopoly power of arrogant Labour councils over the management of housing estates.

    And there will be more choice in the way we travel. We’re going to end the public monopoly of London’s bus services. We’re going to ensure better service on the railways. Break up the huge, inefficient monopoly that is British Rail. When you’re young you want to travel and see the world. Well, we’re going to challenge the cartels and the cosy deals that keep too many international airline prices far too high.

    Mr Chairman, last year at this Conference, I told you that education was top of my agenda. Since then we have pressed on with a tide of reform. One by one the citadels of the trendy left are tumbling down.

    We are insisting on new standards in the curriculum. We’ve given parents more power. But, as we’ve made clear in our Citizen’s Charter, choice is meaningless if, like millions of parents in Britain today, you never see the school’s results, and you’re never sent a school report.

    So we are now bringing in – for the first time ever – systematic inspection of all schools. The results will go to every parent. And – again for the first time – league tables will be printed showing how different schools compare.

    Free choice must be informed choice. That way you can help us to secure our foremost aim – higher standards. For every child. In every classroom. In every school.

    More Accountability

    In the next Parliament we intend to put on record the performance of every local authority in the country. There must be no more municipal cover-ups. No hiding place for uncaring and incompetent councils.

    Labour don’t like league tables. And you can all guess why. Who doesn’t collect rents? Southwark and Lambeth. Who costs the public most? Lambeth, Haringey, lslington and Bristol? Who keeps the most homes empty? Hackney, Liverpool, Newham and Salford? Where are maths results the worst in England? Bradford, Newham, and Sandwell? No wonder Labour don’t like league tables. There would be Labour councils at the bottom of every list.

    You didn’t hear any of that at Labour’s local government conference yesterday. Of course they attack our Citizen’s Charter. They’re terrified at what the public will be told.

    I believe that where the public have no choice, the inefficient must be held to account. That’s why we also want more independent inspection in key public services. Like the police. Or social work.

    Too often eccentric theories and slack management have escaped proper scrutiny, undermined public confidence, overshadowed the dedicated service of tens of thousands of social workers.

    I want to see rigorous and independent inspection of social work. Some of the most vulnerable people in Britain depend on it. And in the next Parliament we will see to it that it is provided.

    Choice where we can bring it. Accountability where we can’t. People’s rights. That’s what the Citizen’s Charter is all about.

    Ownership and Wealth Creation

    Mr Chairman, alongside choice there is a second great foundation to the Tory approach – ownership. And with it goes wealth creation, which is the only way to provide for those who need help. Wealth creation and welfare hand in hand – those are the central pillars of the Tory temple. So it’s in everyone’s interests to have low taxation on business. Regulation which promotes competition and open markets, and doesn’t stifle enterprise. That’s what’s wanted. Low inflation, freedom in the workplace, and reforms in education and training to bring out each person’s skills.

    We also need low income tax. Incentives to save. The chance to inherit. Wider ownership. These things broaden and deepen our freedoms.

    Those are not Labour’s priorities. Labour believe that taxes should be higher and promotion penalised. That shareholders are second-class citizens. That Whitehall knows how to run industry. And that trade unions should call the shots.

    Millions of people in Britain think differently. They know that the homes, shares and pensions they own were won despite bitter opposition from Labour. They fear the impact of Labour taxes on the housing market. Labour regulation on the stock market. And sheer Labour hostility to personal pensions which over three and a half million people in their 20s and 30s now have.

    Mr Chairman, ownership is at the very core of Conservatism. It gives people pride. Spurs on their efforts. Offers them security. Satisfies their hopes and dreams.

    There is nothing wrong with the wish to have something of your own. Or to pass it on your own. There is no other party which believes in making ownership easier across the generations. But we do. We want more people to gain more, own more, leave more. Yes, and inherit more. I make no apology for that. For if families get richer, so do we all.

    Savings

    In recent weeks a lot has been said about Labour’s policies on income tax and National Insurance. By everyone – except Labour. But in all the comment on their damaging and vindictive proposals, there is one which has yet to be given the attention it deserves. Their carefully calculated plan to hit out at personal savings.

    Any one with more than £3,000 a year from their savings – a worker taking early retirement, a businessman selling a corner shop, a child inheriting a home, would be clobbered by a new Labour surcharge on savings. How can you trust a Party that calls for investment and attacks the investor?

    Mr Chairman, after the success of the home-owning democracy, we must move on. We are a Party that believes – as no other believes – in savings, in shares, in pensions for all. I am proud that as Chancellor I introduced the tax-exempt savings schemes, the TESSAs that are proving so popular. People are showing in their millions that they want, and believe in, Tory savings policies. Saving regularly, with the tax incentive to do so. Partnership with the investor – not the confrontation that Labour would bring.

    Pensions

    People have also shown in their millions that they want Tory opportunity in pensions and share ownership, too. I simply don’t understand why Labour are so hostile to savings. They now say they would scrap help to those with personal pensions. Force them back into the State system. So let me assure you of this, the next Conservative Government will go on encouraging personal pensions and reduce long-term reliance on the State.

    Labour talk of increasing pensions for all. But they say nothing about the obstacles they’d put in the way of people saving up for old age. Nothing about the folly of pushing up taxes to pay out £1,000 million across the board to those in the top half of the income bracket. And nothing about policies which would increase inflation and hit the pensioner hardest. This Government has protected the pensioner, lifted the fear of inflation, and concentrated help where it is needed most. We will stand by our pledges in the 90s.

    Shares

    Another question for Labour – wholly unanswered – is how far they would tamper with or take away the rights of owners of shares. Where they wouldn’t renationalise, they would interfere. Force down dividends. Cut the values of shares. There are 8 million new shareholders who have entrusted their savings to investment in privatised industry through shares. Not one of them – not one of that 8 million could feel safe if Labour crept back.

    For us the question is different. How can we extend share ownership further? My ideal is to see every worker in every firm with a real personal interest in its success. And how can we make it easier to own shares? I want it to be as natural to deal in shares as it is to invest in a building society or bank. It will take time. But that’s the way this country must go.

    Responsibility

    Mr Chairman, our Conservative ideas are the right ideas for the ’90s. The tide is running ever more strongly against the fading grip of the Left. Labour is awash. Adrift. And sinking. Everywhere, all over Europe, the sandcastles of Socialism are slipping away.

    Mr Chairman, there is one responsibility that this Conservative Government, the next Conservative Government, every Conservative Government will always fulfil.

    To defend our nation. No ifs. No buts. No small print. No Kaufman quibbles. Defend our nation. Week by week. Year by year. Quiet. Careful. Cautious. But always on our guard.

    Of course, we want peace. Of course, we want to see more resources available to health, education, and the protection of the weak. In recent years we have shown that, with our policies, we can modernise our defences, and still provide the quality services the nation needs. But for us, defence spending is an insurance premium that, as long as any risk remains, we will continue to pay.

    You don’t need me to tell you the risks that remain. Even in recent years you have seen twice how suddenly an aggressor can strike. In the Falklands. And in the Gulf. In those wars the young men and women of our armed forces – many of them at school or college with you – fought superbly.

    I hope that no-one, ever again, will have to lead this nation in time of war. There is hope of a new spirit in the world. Nine days ago I signed an historic declaration with President Yeltsin. And last Friday we brought the Security Council together at Head of Government level, for the first time in 47 years of UN history. These were both British initiatives. But they offer hope for the world. And whatever it is in our power to do, to strengthen this positive spirit, that, I promise you, we will do.

    But let me also be blunt. There are still dangers ahead. The future is uncertain. The collapse of Communism has brought great opportunities. We will do all we can to help democracy take root in the new Russian Republics. But there is still dangerous instability. And, in the wider world, Saddam Hussein is not the only dictator longing to lay his hand on a nuclear trigger.

    In such a world, as Boris Yeltsin has acknowledged, it is essential to maintain a minimum level of nuclear deterrent. Labour don’t want a nuclear deterrent. They just see it as something to bargain away. But will never take risks with Britain’s defence.

    We will keep a deterrent – a minimum deterrent. Britain must have the capacity to keep a deterrent at sea. Labour don’t want to build it. But I can assure this Conference. We will. The next Conservative Government will complete, and deploy, the fourth Trident submarine.

    Conclusion

    Mr Chairman, in the last two years we have seen 400 million people cast off Communism as the ideals of the free market spread across the world.

    Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried. Now the whole of Europe is throwing it out, neck and crop. Well, let me tell you this. Here in Britain it’s not coming back.

    I know the ambitions you have for our future. The high hopes. I share them.

    The right policies will help us achieve them. The wrong policies would destroy them.

    That is what is at stake at the election.

    For your generation. For every generation. Soon it will be time to choose. And I look to you to be in the vanguard when we win the coming election.

  • PMQT – 6 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Anthony Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Sir Anthony Grant : Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he was eight and I was a little older, Her Majesty the Queen acceded to the throne? Will he join me in expressing our deep respect, our loyal affection and our good wishes to Her Majesty on the 40th anniversary of her accession?

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Queen has set a shining example of steadfast service over four decades of momentous political and social change, and will he wish her many more years of a great and glorious reign?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to accept my hon. Friend’s invitation. The Cabinet discussed the matter this morning, and the whole House may care to listen to the message that the Cabinet agreed to send Her Majesty :

    “At the Cabinet meeting today, Your Majesty’s Ministers agreed that I should convey to Your Majesty our warmest good wishes on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Your Accession to the Throne. This was in recognition of the incomparable contribution Your Majesty has made to the life of our nation throughout your Reign.” I am sure that those are sentiments that the whole House would wish to endorse.

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I join the Prime Minister–and, I am sure, the whole House–in sending good wishes to Her Majesty, and in expressing the admiration that I know is felt throughout our country, the Commonwealth and, indeed, the wider world for the wisdom, strength and dedication that Her Majesty has invariably shown throughout the four decades in which she has been our sovereign?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for all our millions of fellow citizens.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I– [Laughter.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Mr. Kinnock.

    Mr. Kinnock : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    When the Prime Minister told us on Tuesday that, like the British economy, Japan’s economy was, as he put it, in recession, had he overlooked the fact that last year, while our economy shrank by 2.5 per cent., Japan’s economy grew by 4.5 per cent.?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of countries around the world are in recession, are heading towards recession or are coming out of recession. According to the latest figures, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden are at the moment in recession. In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, the worst of the recession is over ; in West Germany and Japan, growth has slowed and is slowing.

    I noted this morning that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) now at last admits that there is a world situation which is on a downturn. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will also have the courage to admit that.

    Mr. Kinnock : There are economies that are slowing ; ours is in reverse because of the Prime Minister’s policies.

    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that Japan was in recession. It is worth reminding him of the fact that Japan’s economy grew by 4.5 per cent., and ours shrank by 2.5 per cent. Japan’s unemployment is at 2 per cent., while ours is at 9 per cent. Is it not now obvious that, because of his policies, the Prime Minister is reduced to imagining recovery at home while inventing recessions abroad?

    The Prime Minister : Every one of the right hon. Gentleman’s policies would lead to a continuing recession, and that is well known. The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that I head a Government who have cut interest rates seven times in the past 12 months, halved inflation in a year and built up the best industrial relations in half a century. The reality, I fear, is that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the economy or how it works. The right conditions for economic growth are low taxes, the right hon. Gentleman wants high taxes ; low inflation, the right hon. Gentleman would engender high inflation ; and good labour relations, the right hon. Gentleman would reintroduce the old, bad trade union practices. Everything that the right hon. Gentleman proposes would lead to the perpetual recession of which I spoke on Tuesday.

    Sir Bernard Braine : May I revert to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant)? I speak as Father of the House. Is it not a matter of great rejoicing, wherever we may sit in the House, that throughout the past 40 years, which have seen such momentous changes as the peaceful transition from empire to Commonwealth, the ending of the cold war and the coming together of former enemies in the European Community, Her Majesty has presided over this nation unfailingly, with a dignity and devotion to duty for which we are all greatly thankful?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend is right and speaks with the authority of many years’ membership of the House. One of the most striking facts of the Commonwealth, as I saw clearly at the Commonwealth conference in Harare, is the immense affection and admiration that exists for Her Majesty the Queen among all Commonwealth leaders and countries.

    Mr. Ashdown : May I associate myself, my right hon. and hon. Friends and our party with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister on the 40th anniversary of Her Majesty’s accession to the throne?

    On the more unhappy subject of Northern Ireland, in the light of the appalling horrors which last night added to the seemingly endless litany of tragedy in that unhappy Province, does the Prime Minister agree that the first condition for defeating terrorism in Northern Ireland is to ensure that the politicians there get together and work together?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the whole House will share the right hon. Gentleman’s view on both the matters that he raised. The recent activities–the shooting of five men and the wounding of others the other evening–were another terrible and unnecessary scar on the history of Northern Ireland. It would greatly assist the activities in Northern Ireland and the search for peace if the clearest possible lead was given by all politicians in this country and Northern Ireland.

    Sir Alan Glyn : I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his message from the Cabinet and Government. Is he aware of early day motion 580, already signed by 165 hon. Members, which expresses the views of Back Benchers and their loyalty and congratulations to Her Majesty? It does not include members of the Cabinet or Government, or of the shadow Cabinet, and, unfortunately, is not even allowed to include Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Will my right hon. Friend please convey that message to Her Majesty?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend expresses sentiments that are shared by the whole House.

    Mr. Molyneaux : May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tribute paid by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen, and may I join in the other congratulations already expressed?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall ensure that Her Majesty is aware of what has been said.

    Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Queen Elizabeth II? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that if politicians in Northern Ireland had been sitting at a table, the awful atrocities that we have witnessed in the past few days would not have taken place? If he and this House believe that, there is no hope for Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s words about Her Majesty the Queen.

    The point that I was seeking to make a moment ago–I reiterate it now–is that I think that it is to the advantage of everyone in Northern Ireland for the politicians of Northern Ireland, of all shades of opinion, to come together, to talk and to express their mutual wish for peace in Northern Ireland.

     

    Q2. Mr. Eastham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Eastham : The latest year for which figures are available on the number of new houses built in the United Kingdom is 1990. A comparison with 1980 shows that 38,000 fewer houses were built in 1990. Why is it the policy of the Government to build fewer houses?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might more accurately have asked which local authorities had the highest number of vacant dwellings. I shall tell him : numbers of vacant dwellings are highest in Liverpool, then in Manchester, then in Salford, then in Burnley, then in Brent, then in Hackney, then in Tower Hamlets, then in Knowsley, then in Newcastle and then in Wolverhampton. The characteristic of all those areas is that for a long time they have been Labour controlled, although Conservatives have been in control in Brent for the past year and the Liberal Democrats have recently been in control in Tower Hamlets. There is no doubt which party fails people on housing.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the remarks of Sir Brian Corby, the president of the CBI, who said that to sign the social charter would be an act of remarkable lunacy? Does he agree that, if we signed the social chapter, employers’ costs would rise and jobs and foreign investment would disappear, all of which would be bad for this country?

    The Prime Minister : I most certainly agree with that view, which is why I declined to sign the social chapter. I believe that it would cost jobs and cost prosperity in this country. It is noticeable that a number of other politicians abroad have made it perfectly clear that this country becomes a more attractive place for investment–and therefore for jobs and prosperity–because we are not committed to the costs of the social chapter.

     

    Q3. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Why have pensions dropped from 20 per cent. of average earnings to 16 per cent. under the Tories? Does the Prime Minister believe that pensioners were paid too much in 1979, or will he express regret at that meanness and raise pensions in line with Labour’s plans?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should look at history. If he talks about pensioners, he should let the facts speak for themselves : under the previous Labour Government, the real average income of pensioners rose by only 3 per cent. and their income from savings fell by 16 per cent. The Labour party had no place for pensioners in the past and no promises that it can properly meet for the future.

    Sir Ian Lloyd : The Prime Minister will no doubt have noticed the interesting exception that President Bush made in his state of the union message to Congress, when he said that his Government were too big and spent too much. The exception was that he proposed to maintain research expenditure at the record level of $77 billion and to make permanent the fiscal allowances for research and development. If my right hon. Friend should be considering with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor any largesse over the next two or three weeks, will he ensure that a few crumbs from the Treasury table fall in that direction?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will know that there was a real- terms increase in the science and technology budget this year, a point that has been readily acknowledged by scientists up and down the country. As for potential largesse, there is no lack of applications for any that there might be.

     

    Q4. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Banks : May I thank the Prime Minister for allowing his Ministers to vote as they wish on the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill on Friday 14 February, St. Valentine’s day? If the Bill is passed, it will stop the massacre of harmless creatures like deer, hares and foxes.

    No one expects the Prime Minister to be here to vote on Friday 14 February, but will he tell the House and the country whether he supports the abolition of fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing? I hope that his answer is yes.

    The Prime Minister : It is a matter for the individual conscience of every hon. Member, which is precisely why I am allowing a free vote by my Ministers on the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill in question goes a good deal wider than just the matters that he has been addressing. Because it goes a good deal wider, I will not myself be supporting it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Colvin : Will my right hon. Friend send a message today to the leaders of the National Association of Local Government Officers who are spending some £2 million on a shoddy and inaccurate advertising campaign, telling them that their policies of abandoning competitive tendering, abolishing the Audit Commission and introducing a minimum wage would be acceptable only to a party which has already sold its soul to the trade union bosses?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a very sound point. It is clear that the advertisements appearing today show that now, as in the past, the Labour party remains in hock to the trade unions.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to North East Businessman of the Year Award – 7 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the North East Businessman of the Year Award Dinner in Newcastle on Tuesday 7th January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today I have been able to see at first hand the continuing strength and the enormous diversity of the North East economy. This morning I visited Vickers – one of its oldest and most famous engineering firms. I spent a most enjoyable time clambering around Vickers’ new Challenger II tank. And inevitably my thoughts went back to the last occasion when I climbed on top of a Challenger tank. Just ten months ago in the desert in Kuwait.

    Everyone who went through the Gulf War knows of the efforts made by the Vickers Gulf team. Their ingenuity, their persistence and their sheer hard work ensured our tanks, guns and equipment were ready for action at all times. It made a vital contribution to the war effort – and I was delighted to see that contribution suitably “honoured” last June. It was thoroughly well-deserved.

    At Newcastle Business Park, I opened the new British Airways flight reservation centre. BA is, of course, just one of many enterprises attracted to the new Newcastle Business Park. With some £140 million in private investment, it is already 95 per cent sold or let. And by companies that read like a Who’s-Who of modern, innovative industry.

    That demonstrates another vital feature of this region. An understanding of the need to diversify: an eagerness to use both the public and the private sector to create new facilities; and a determination to attract new enterprise and new firms that will ensure the future growth of the North East.

    Finally, at Amec Offshore, or Press Offshore as many of you will know it, I had the opportunity to see the oil rig fabrication yard. In 7 years, the company’s turnover has increased 10 fold and its workforce by a factor of 4. Today, it has announced a further contract which will create 200 new jobs at Sunderland. Amec Offshore is surely a classic example of the way forward: building on our traditional engineering-based skills and applying them to a new and expanding sector.

    This combination of enterprising incoming firms and traditional strong businesses has given the North East greater resilience in recent years. I know times are hard. I don’t pretend otherwise. But in many ways the North East has proved more robust than other areas in recent months; it has built on its long-standing record in the engineering-related industries and transformed it into a worldwide reputation for success.

    And increasingly the North-East offers a greater diversity of enterprise and employment opportunities than ever before. Whole communities are no longer dependent on single industries; and that offers greater security to future generations than their predecessors ever enjoyed.

    Perhaps that success is best demonstrated by the attraction of well-known Japanese inward investment – Nissan, Fujitsu and Hashimoto. They could have gone anywhere in Europe. But they chose Britain. Chose England. Chose the North East.

    But the future for the North-East is also:

    – about new investment by successful UK firms – Glaxo, MTM and British Airways;

    – about the work of the Tyne and Wear Corporation to rehabilitate old industrial areas, and promote major commercial developments alongside the Tyne and Wear; and about the parallel activity of the Teeside Development Corporation alongside the Tees;

    – about the development by ICI at the Belassis Technology Park to encourage and attract small technology-based businesses;

    – and about the innovation centre at the Newcastle Science Park linked to the City’s university and polytechnic.

    With such a record of innovation, diversification and growth, you may well wonder why this Government is sometimes accused of having no industrial strategy. Well it’s partly politics of course. But also, if by industrial strategy, you mean an obsession with regulation, with intervention, with Government interference, with excessive taxation, then certainly we have no such strategy. What we have is quite different and, I believe, better for our longer term interests.

    Our industrial strategy is clear. It is based on creating the framework in which business and industry can flourish in a decade that will be more competitive than any we have previously known.

    – That is why low inflation is our top priority. Without that our companies cannot compete;

    – that is why we reward initiative and success through lowering taxes: we now have one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the industrial world; we have cut income tax rates and our objective is a basic rate of 20 per cent;

    – that is why we will continue to return nationalised industries to the private sector – we are already discussing the ways in which British Rail and British Coal can be privatised;

    – and why we will continue to free up the labour market.

    Mr. Chairman, we have no intention of adding £1,000 to the annual tax burden on the average family; or of setting a 59 per cent top tax rate.

    And we have:

    – no intention of creating a national investment bank with regional branches trying to second guess business and markets;

    – no intention of introducing a minimum wage, thereby destroying the jobs of many lower-paid workers;

    – no intention of introducing a statutory training programme with every company subject to a half per cent of payroll tax, whatever their size or profitability at the time;

    – no intention of reversing the reforms that have transformed our industrial relations in this country.

    That is also why I was not prepared to sign up to the new Social Chapter at Maastricht. We could not see decisions taken in Brussels that would have reversed the better balance between the two sides of industry that we have achieved.

    Of course, that does not mean we are seeking lower standards for our workers; indeed, people know that in many areas standards in this country are higher than in other European countries. These are matters to be settled between individual employers and their employees – not by central government. And not by agreements at European level between trade unions and employers subsequently imposed by European directives – even though it might be opposed by the British Government, British management and workforce alike.

    We are a trading nation. We cannot flourish unless we can compete on level terms with other countries. That is why we consider a successful outcome to the current GATT negotiations so vital. It is why we are working so hard for the successful completion of the Single Market. And it is why I fought at Maastricht to make sure that in future countries which sign up to Directives implement them in full – or face penalties if they do not do so.

    Mr. Chairman, I recognise that for many sectors in our economy times are hard – in some cases very hard indeed. With growth faltering overseas in the world’s largest economies, our economy has not performed as well in the last year as had been hoped.

    But let us not get these matters out of perspective. We are at a different stage of the economic cycle than many of our competitors. For while Germany and Japan will continue to slow in 1992, I do not doubt that we will see recovery here in Britain.

    I know there is much speculation about the date of the turning point in the UK. Some economic pundits talk of little else. Yet in reality, there is no magic moment, no precise point when recession lies clearly in the past, while recovery stretches out into a better future. Inevitably economic data will show ups and downs and irregular patterns as recession ends and recovery begins.

    Recent economic figures certainly do not support the sudden swing into pessimism which has overcome certain commentators. Of course, there is no point in excessive optimism or trying to talk up the economy. But there is equally a risk in going too far the other way. And I certainly believe that the recent pessimism has been overdone.

    There are plenty of encouraging developments. If you listen to some of the dismal Johnnies you might never realise what has been achieved in the last year.

    We have reduced inflation from almost 11 per cent to around 4 per cent; it is now firmly under control.

    – We have cut interest rates eight times – faster and further than almost anyone expected: for some on annual mortgages, those cuts are only now feeding through into lower mortgage payments.

    – Thanks to our ERM membership, we have been able to bring our interest rate differential against the deutschmark to its lowest level for decades. In the 1980s sterling rates were on average 5 per cent higher than DM rates – today that differential is around 1 per cent.

    – Retail sales are higher than a year ago – and many stores are reporting record sales.

    – The trend rate of increase in unemployment has now slowed substantially.

    And real incomes are rising.

    Too many people seem to be losing sight of the issues that really matter. Governments cannot – and should not – try to adjust the economy month by month, or week by week. Policy cannot – and should not – react to every monthly economic statistic that is released. Our job is to provide a stable and predictable economic framework, with responsible monetary and budgetary policies so that business and individuals can have the confidence to take the right decisions.

    I believe we can look forward to 1992 with confidence. It is not just the Government but virtually every international, City and academic body that expects a return to growth. For we are getting the fundamentals of the British economy right. We have made clear our commitment to exchange rate stability through membership of the ERM. We have brought inflation down and will keep it down. We can look forward to growth founded on economic stability and low inflation.

    But, while we can create the right climate for future growth, it is up to business to seize the opportunities and build our future prosperity.

    What does that mean in present circumstances? Ultimately, at its very heart, business seizing opportunities is about the behaviour of individuals. About how they act. How they decide on their actions. About their skill; their foresight; their knowledge; and the sheer hard work, that they bring to decision-making.

    And it is also often about an independence of thought – what you might term being “canny”. Persisting with a view based on the evidence that the individual believes to be right. Having the initiative to look at a problem in a different way – and thus perhaps seeing the solution and way forward that escaped everyone else. It is about being able to spot and assess opportunities. And then having the skill, foresight and the courage to take the risk and then turn those opportunities into realities.

    And that of course is what tonight’s Businessman of the Year Award is all about. We are here to celebrate successful risk-taking, the very heart of a successful commercial economy. It was that spirit of enterprise which built the North-East in the first place. Now it is transforming the structure and diversity of its economy once again. It will enable that economy to grow and expand in the years ahead.

    I am confident about our prospects for the 1990s. In the last decade the Government and business – working together – turned an uncompetitive, ramshackle, over-regulated economy into an enterprise economy that out-performed most of its competitors. Now, as we come out of our difficulties, we must build on that. We will come out of the recession as we need to – with low inflation, a stable exchange rate and the prospect of steady, sustainable growth.

    If we build on that; if we ignore siren voices offering quack remedies; if we turn aside from re-regulation and higher taxation; if we build an enterprise partnership between Government and industry, then we can create a level of prosperity that exceeds anything we have known before.

    That must be our objective for the 1990s.

  • Mr Major’s 1991 Conservative Party Conference Speech – 11 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s 1991 Conservative Party Conference Speech, made on the 11th October 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Earlier this week this Conference welcomed Mrs Thatcher. You gave her the most tumultuous reception. She deserved it. She led our country for over 11 years, our Party for over 15. We owe Margaret a great debt.

    The Britain she left us is immeasurably stronger than the Britain she found. Above all, she helped others to believe in us and us to believe in ourselves. And on those foundations she laid three great Election victories.

    It’s good to applaud; it’s grand to cheer. But the greatest tribute we can pay her is to do as she did. To win, and win, and win again. At this Conference – and what a successful Conference it’s been – you have heard how the next Conservative Government will secure the best future for Britain.

    We’ve heard some cracking speeches this week. From the right team. A young team – in fact the youngest Cabinet this century. A professional team.

    Just think for a moment. When the going gets rough in international affairs, who would be the first person you would send for? Gerald Kaufman? No. He would be the second person. The first person would be anyone but Gerald Kaufman. But far and away the best person would be Douglas Hurd, one of the finest Foreign Secretaries this country has ever had.

    Of course, Labour’s Captain tries to talk up his team. “A winning team” he calls them. After three election defeats? Well, it goes to show that there must be more than one way to look at history. Take waterloo. You thought Wellington won Waterloo? No, Waterloo was a smash hit for Napoleon. But we can help Labour to win one thing – the record for the longest run of election defeats. Played four. Lost four. And a probable vacancy for team captain.

    Last week at Brighton we had speech after speech about a fairy-tale future for the British people. In Labour’s Never-Mind-the-Cost-Never-Never Land. Then there was singalongaleader. It was all good fun if you like that sort of thing.

    But while this was happening out front, there was something thoroughly nasty seeping from under the platform. I refer, of course, to what Labour pretends to believe are the Government’s plans for the National Health Service. There’s only one way to deal with a lie: nail it to the wall of truth, as William Waldegrave so conclusively did yesterday. We have all been brought up with the Health Service. We use it. We cherish it. We are proud of it.

    I know that for millions of people in this country the National Health Service means security. I understand that. Because I am – and always have been – one of those people. I know that even when you’re fit and well, it brings peace of mind – just to know it’s there. It is unthinkable that I, of all people, would try to take that security away. A genuine belief I can respect, even when I profoundly disagree with it. But deliberate lies – repeated, repeated and repeated – merely diminishes its authors.

    The Health Service has been in existence for over 40 years. And who has been in Government for most of that period? We have. For 29 of those years it has been a Conservative Government. It has been under Conservative Governments that the National Health Service has been built up, enlarged and improved. And our reforms will carry that right through into the 1990s. So let me say now, once and for all, and without qualifications – under this Government the National Health Service will continue, to offer free hospital treatment to everyone.

    And so that no-one can misunderstand the position – and I hope the whole country is listening – let me make it even clearer. There will be no charges for hospital treatment, no charges for visits to the doctor, no privatisation of health care, neither piecemeal, not in part, nor as a whole. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not after the next election. Not ever while I’m Prime Minister.

    And if, after all I have said, there are still those who set out to frighten the vulnerable, the weak, and the old, with carefully calculated smears, then the public will know where to find them – in the gutters of public debate. Such people are not friends of the Health Service. They are the parasites that live on its back.

    No Conservative need be defensive about the Health Service. On the contrary, every Conservative has the right to share my disgust at what is said. Go to your local hospital. What do you find? You’ll find Conservatives. In the hospital shop. Serving with the League of Friends. Working on the wards. They are not just friends of the Health Service. They are part of the Health Service.

    The National Health Service doesn’t belong to the Labour Party. As its name makes clear, it belongs to the Nation. And – in both senses of the phrase – Labour isn’t going to get away with it. The Health Service is not a political football to be kicked around in the hope that, somehow or other, it will reopen the door of Downing Street to a Labour Government. It won’t. Neither by hook or by Cook.

    This is the first Conference I have addressed as Leader of the Conservative Party. It is hard to explain how I feel about that. It is a long road from Coldharbour Lane to Downing Street. It is a tribute to the Conservative Party that that road can be travelled.

    Perhaps at the back of this hall today there is another young man or woman who stands where I did 30 years ago. Who knows few people here. Who feels it is a long road to this platform, too.

    They should remember the last two leaders were a builder’s son from Broadstairs and a grocer’s daughter from Grantham. We don’t need lectures in the Conservative Party about opportunity. We are the Party of opportunity.

    This Party is open to all. And to all those who may be watching, wherever you come from, whatever your background, I say simply this, “Come and join us”. There are no barriers in our Party, just as there will be no barriers in the Britain we are building together.

    Some people ask whether we will have a different sort of Conservatism in future. Of course we will. We all bring our own beliefs, our own instincts, and our own experiences to politics. And I am no exception.

    But the fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, those beliefs that brought me into this Party, are the beliefs that Chris Patten expressed so brilliantly on Tuesday. They remain as strong today as ever. Old though our Party is, the values behind it are older still. They are rooted in the instincts of every individual. And it is through our policies that we make them come alive.

    What is it that we offer? A strong Britain, confident of its position; secure in its defences, firm in its respect for the law. A strong economy, free from the threat of inflation, in which taxes can fall, savings can grow, and independence is assured.

    I want to give individuals greater control over their own lives.

    – Every mother, every father, a say over their child’s education.

    – Every schoolchild, a choice of routes to the world of work.

    – Every patient, the confidence that their doctors can secure the best treatment for them.

    – Every business, every worker, freedom from the destructive dictatorship of union militants.

    – Every family, the right to have and to hold their own private corner of life; their own home, their own savings, their own security for their future – and for their children’s future.

    Building the self-respect that comes from ownership. Showing the responsibility that follows from self-respect. That is our programme for the 90s. I will put it in a single phrase: the power to choose – and the right to own.

    Do you know what Labour believes? That choice is something for them. They just can’t accept that choice is something most of us can be trusted with. You might make mistakes, they say. What arrogance. As if the State have never made mistakes, in our name, with our money. Try telling that the tenants of the crumbling tower blocks that disfigures our cities.

    And tell that to the citizens of Eastern Europe, who have risked their very lives for these freedoms, for the right to own, and for the power to choose. Ordinary values – for which ordinary people have, in our time, fought an extraordinary fight.

    During the summer I did quite a bit of travelling – Headingley, Edgbaston, Trent Bridge, Lord’s, the Oval. Also Moscow, Peking, Hong Kong and Kennebunkport. Wherever I went abroad, I found the same story. Britain is respected again. We don’t always realise the admiration and affection for Britain abroad.

    We’ve earned it, because when others have hesitated, we have always stood firm and given a lead. As we did again this year. In defence of freedom in Kuwait. We didn’t want that war, its waste, its suffering, its grief. But to achieve greater security in the world, we had to reverse the annexation of Kuwait. And to keep that security we must destroy Iraq’s nuclear weapons capacity. They are still trying to cling to it, still cheating, still lying.

    They cannot be permitted to succeed. One way or another that nuclear capacity must go. I hope it will go peacefully. If not, it must go by force. But go it will. In January I flew by helicopter over our army in the Gulf. I can still see the scene below me. A great convoy of troops and heavy equipment moving forward across the sands. For mile after mile. You could only marvel at the organisation and planning involved.

    But down on the ground, I had a different impression. Dug into position each unit seemed almost alone. Young men – mostly very young – thousands of miles from home in the wastes of the desert. Let me tell you what was in my mind when I met them. What would they think? Here was a new Prime Minister, unknown to them, untried, asking them to prepare for battle, perhaps not to return. How would they respond to that? And would they understand the reasons why they were there?

    Whatever doubts I had soon disappeared. They knew why there were there. They knew the cause was right. And they knew that they could do the job. They asked only to be allowed to get on with it. And, when they did, my goodness, how they proved their point. They really were the best of British.

    I learned something else from that extraordinary war and especially from that precision bombing that amazed the world. It’s this. If our troops are to do the job we ask, it is absolutely vital that their equipment and their training are the best.

    That is why in the last few weeks we have bought the new anti-submarine helicopter from Westland – the best. Why we are moving ahead with the new Challenger tank from Vickers – the best. And that’s why we will keep our own independent nuclear deterrent, Trident. The best security for Britain.

    And we will take with just a little pinch of salt the conversion of those who campaigned for CND for the past thirty years – and then suddenly let their principles ….what was the word? … lapse? What principles? First, peace at any price. Then power at any price. I know what this country will say to that. Never at any price. For a man who with no fixed view on the defence of Britain, there can be no fixed abode in Downing Street.

    As we saw again in the aftermath of war, a confident Britain is a force for good in a troubled world. If we had not created those safe havens in Iraq, hundreds and thousands of Kurdish people would have died last winter in bitter, freezing mountains. We spoke out strongly for human rights in Peking and spoke out first against the return of tyranny in Moscow.

    Alone among all the nations of the world we stand at the hub of three great interlocking alliances. Of NATO, which is and must remain the core of our defence. Of the European Community. And of the Commonwealth, which meets in conference next week. There we must persuade 50 nations, some – frankly – with a chequered political history, to a formal commitment to democracy and human rights.

    And in the 1990s I hope to see one former member of the Commonwealth once more take its rightful place. We have always fought for an end to apartheid. But we have worked just as consistently for the long-term goal of a fully free and prosperous South Africa. I believe that both goals are now in sight. And when they are reached I want to see South Africa back where she belongs – as a fully-fledged member of our Commonwealth of nations.

    A great debate is now underway in Europe. One in which the Conservative Party can speak with authority. Harold Macmillan first sought to take Britain into the Community, Ted Heath finally led us there, and Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act – with its vision of ever closer union between states. Closer union between states. Not a federal merger of states. That is still our policy.

    I believe strongly in partnership in Europe. Britain, as a great European power, has gained from our membership of the Community. That is the verdict of those people in our country who live by business, banking and trade, the very people on whom our prosperity and jobs depend. But it must be the right Europe. Let me set out for you the objectives that I have in mind, the principles that I will fight for, and the propositions I will resist.

    First we want a Community that will in time embrace the new democracies of the East. We have the chance to heal the scar that divided and disfigured Europe for two generations. The nations of Eastern Europe – Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States – need to know now that when their economies are ready for the Community, the Community will be ready for them.

    Second, I want a genuine single market, open for business right across the Community. It must have common rules. And these rules must be obeyed. When we sign up to something, we put words into actions. Some of our partners, I fear, are keener on making new rules than on keeping them. We need a system that can deal effectively with those who call themselves good Europeans, but who hijack lorries or hold up free trade.

    We are now negotiating new Treaties on political and economic union. I am always ready to listen to new ideas. But they must be workable ideas. Ideas that make sense for Europe, and for Britain. There are vital issues at stake. They involve hard judgments of where our true interests lie. The idea of a single European currency is one with enormous ramifications, both practical and political. At best it is an uncertain prospect. And treaty must provide for a separate decision to be taken – not now – but at a future date by the British Government and the British Parliament. It’s our decision. A single currency cannot be imposed upon us. And I would not accept, on behalf of Britain, any treaty which sought to impose a single currency – at however distant a date.

    We already work closely with our European partners in financial affairs. So, too, in foreign policy and defence. When national interest and Community interest coincide, then common action is only common sense. But in no circumstances – not now, not at Maastricht – will a Conservative Government give up the right, our national right, to take the crucial decisions about our security, our foreign policy and our defence.

    We are working to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December. But I cannot guarantee that our negotiations will succeed. For it is no easy task to get 12 nations to agree. And for my part, I shall put the interests of our country before any agreement. Not any agreement before the interests of our country.

    I hope we can reach agreement. If we do, I will submit that agreement to parliament. For it is here in Britain that the crucial decisions must be taken. Not in the European Parliament. Not in the Council of Ministers. Not in the Commission – certainly not in the Commission. It will be for Parliament to decide on behalf of the people of Britain who elected it.

    So far I have spoken of alliances. Of how much we can achieve if we work with other nations. But when it comes to the search for new markets, even our closest allies remain our competitors. I have never accepted the craven argument that Britain can’t compete with Germany or Japan. And I have contempt for the defeatists who run down our country and write of its future.

    Those who said we couldn’t compete in Europe when we led Britain into the Exchange-Rate Mechanism.

    Those who said that we would have to push up interest rates. And that our inflation was bound to stay far higher than the rest of the Continent.

    All that was just a year ago this week. And look what has really happened since.

    We have cut interests rates – eight times.

    Our exports to the rest of the Community have shot up. Our imports have fallen. Our trade deficit with Europe has been almost wiped out. And in case you haven’t heard this morning’s news, our inflation rate has fallen to just 4.1%. For the first time in a generation we have brought inflation down to German levels.

    They said we couldn’t do it. We did it. And in just one year. Let me remind the sell Britain short brigade of just a few facts. We attract more American investment than any other European country, and twice as much investment from Japan.

    Only two years ago, this country had a 17,000 million pound deficit on manufactured trade. This summer, we had a surplus. Our manufacturers sold more abroad than ever before. They didn’t sell Britain short. They sold for Britain. And they had to fight for their markets when the going was hard.

    I know times have been tough. Unemployment has risen. Many people have faced great difficulties. I know how they feel – what it’s like for a family when a business collapses. What it’s like when you’re unemployed and when you have to search for the next job.

    I have not forgotten – and I never will.

    It is because of that that I will never play fast and loose with the economy. Many have pressed us to do so this past year – siren voices, urging us on to the rocks of inflation, and off the course to recovery. The Chancellor and I ignored those voices. And, as he told you, we can now see the way ahead out of recession, to the recovery that will bring investment. To the investment that will bring jobs.

    And the clearer the signs of recovery, the louder the Labour Party complains.

    Look how they rounded on the Governor of the Bank of England. All because he dared to confirm what everyone else was saying. That recovery is on the way. When he said there was a recession – they cheered him. When he said it was coming to an end – they called for his head. What are they going to do with those hundreds of businessmen telling the CBI exactly the same thing? Will Labour threaten to sack them too? All of them?

    Do Labour realise what their policies would do to business?

    – Stab it in the back just when it’s winning the battle for trade

    – Impose new levies

    – Pile on new costs

    – Bring back union power.

    It may be true that a Labour Prime Minister would no longer get his marching orders over beer and sandwiches at No 10. In these days of designer socialism, he’d get them over a G&T – down at the Old T&G.

    A minimum wage would create the very unemployment they claim to care about. New burdens would drive business out of markets. Higher taxes would drive business talent abroad. Above all, inflation would drive our economy out of the future and back to the past.

    Remember who suffers from inflation.

    – Infant businesses

    – People on fixed incomes

    – Pensioners

    Inflation is a tax paid by those least able to protect themselves. It is Labour’s invisible tax. It wouldn’t come through the letter box, though there are plenty that would.

    They have eight new taxes lined up already.

    Well, that’s not surprising. We’ve costed Labour’s spending promises. 35 billion pounds extra and still rising. Of course, they say there would be hardly any more tax for hardly anyone. But that’s hardly credible.

    The next Labour Manifesto will be the biggest tax demand in history. They love nationalisation. High taxes nationalise choice. It won’t be a case of ‘you pays your money, you takes your choice’. It will be – they take your money, they take your choice.

    High taxes would enrich the businesses, the laboratories, the the universities of American and the rest of Europe at the expense of the businesses and universities of Britain. We’d be back with something we haven’t heard of for twelve years – the brain drain. Our low tax policies have built up a brain bank for Britain.

    Our Party has always kept personal tax rates down. And in the next Parliament we will go on doing so.

    Lower taxes don’t just mean richer people. They mean a richer life. A life with wider horizons, in which people can develop their interests. Support their favourite charity, pursue their hobbies. Go fishing or to a football match, the theatre or the cinema, or just save up for a holiday.

    But lower taxes give people more powerful choices, too. The chance to save for the long-term, to invest in the future. Building up a pension. Starting a business. Giving their children a good start in life – and passing on to them the fruits of a lifetime’s work.

    In the 1980s we began a great revolution. Our aim was a life enriched by ownership, in which homes, shares and pensions were not something for others, but something for everyone.

    We can now see the lifeblood of ownership – of wealth – running through the veins of the country. Nearly four million more families now own homes. And eight million people more own shares. And four and a half million people now have personal pensions.

    But this revolution is still not complete. In the 1990s we must carry it further. We must extend savings and ownership in every form. And we now have the chance to make enduring change. For people in their middle years are inheriting homes, businesses, farms on a scale never before seen. The pioneers of the property-owning democracy are the parents of the capital-owning democracy to come.

    We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew, with the past cut off and the future ignored.

    So, in the next Parliament, I believe that we must go much further in encouraging every family to save and to own. To extend every family’s ability to pass on something to their children, to build up something of their own – for their own.

    Labour have their eyes on the money stored in the homes in which millions of people now live – and in the businesses they have created. But I believe that what people have worked to build up in life, the State should never destroy.

    As Harold Macmillan once memorably put it, people walk in public gardens, but they tend their own. I want to build a pride in our common inheritance of town and city, coast and countryside. In the very fabric of our nation.

    I want to foster ownership in its widest sense. In making people feel that public property belongs to them. Giving them more say – at the local level – in how things are run. Giving them a choice. Putting them in control.

    That’s the idea behind our Citizen’s Charter – about which Francis Maude spoke so well yesterday. It will be a centrepiece of our policies for the 1990s. I want to see public services in which the passenger, the patient, the parent can have confidence. And in which public servants can have pride.

    I see that Labour are now trying to copy my ideas. I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised at that. Even the Labour Party has to have some good ideas amongst all the bad. It’s just that they filch the good ideas from us. The bad ones of course they think up for themselves. They don’t even hide it when they steal some of my clothes. Did you see how many of them were wearing grey suits last week? Have they no shame?

    The test for Labour will come in the next session of Parliament. We will be legislating on the Citizen’s Charter. We shall be giving parents a greater say in schools. Making the big utilities more responsive to customers. And as Michael Heseltine promised us yesterday, exposing incompetence in the council chamber.

    And how do you imagine Labour will vote? With us? For the charter? And for the consumer? Or against us? For the trade unions? For the old ways? For the past? But it’s not just a matter of changing the way we run things. It’s a matter of breaking down the false and futile divisions, based on class and envy, that have been around for generations. They are wholly artificial. Labour fosters those divisions. It thrives on them. Our task is to end them for good.

    I spoke of a classless society. I don’t shrink from that phrase. I don’t mean a society in which everyone is the same, or thinks the same, or earns the same. But a tapestry of talents in which everyone from child to adult respects achievement; where every promotion, every certificate is respected, and each person’s contribution is valued.

    And where the greatest respect is reserved for the law. There can be no harmony in a lawless society. The recent outbreaks of violence in some of our council estates involved a brutal disrespect for other people and their property. Such behaviour cannot be excused and will not be tolerated. In the face of such violence, I know that this Party will give the police the support that we always have. We admire the bravery and the professionalism of those young policeman and women who have been the front line against violent attacks. This Conference must leave no shred of doubt. Rioting is a crime – a serious crime. And it will be dealt with as such.

    But dealing with crime is not just something for other people – the police, or the courts, of the Government. It’s a challenge to everyone. And the way to fight crime is to change the attitudes that lie behind crime.

    The attitudes of people who say that theft of vandalism are somehow less serious. They call it property crime. Property crime? Tell that to the widow who has been robbed of treasured mementoes of her past life. That’s not a property crime. It’s a personal wound which can never be healed.

    This Government is going to crack down on crime, as Ken Baker made clear this week. Let me give you an example. What the irresponsible call joy-riding, we know as simple theft; dangerous driving, a disregard for human life, and the destruction of other people’s property. Some of these people are too young for a licence. We will ensure that when they reach driving age they can be banned from the road.

    As for those parents who stand by and watch while their children commit crimes, they are going to be held responsible for their children’s actions. Those in authority – parents and teachers as well – should use their authority to teach a sense of respect for others, for their rights, not just your own; for their opinions, their welfare and their possessions. Without respect for others, there can be no proper respect for the law.

    We don’t help our children by excusing bad behaviour, we betray them. And we lead them into worse behaviour. Sometimes it’s right to say no.

    A great deal has been written about my education. Never has so much been written about so little. Perhaps that’s why I am so keen on the subject. I believe that Ken Clarke’s programme of reform is a turning-point in education. It will mean that parents and pupils come first, that the key subjects are studied properly, and that the status of teachers is restored.

    Some have said that Ken Clarke and I are wrong to insist on simple pencil and paper tests for children in schools. Well, I’ll tell you what marks I would give to people like those. Nought out of ten for concern. Nought out of ten for interest in our children. Nought out of ten for commonsense. And, so long as there is a Conservative Government, they’ll get nought out of ten for influence in our schools.

    What Labour Governments did, and what all too many Labour Councils are still doing, is unforgivable – the years of levelling down; the destruction of good schools; the harassment of good teachers; the kicking away of the ladder of opportunity by those who climbed up it themselves; the setting of the union rule book above all other text books; the neglect even of spelling. That is where the long march of the Left in education has led us. Well, we are now rooting these ideas out. We are giving parents more influence in schools. If we want them to exercise responsibility for their children, we must give them a say in the education of their children.

    I will fight for my belief in a return to basics in education. The progressive theorists have had their say. And they’ve had their day.

    In the last twelve months we have seen the Socialist philosophy collapsing in ruins. Who will ever forget those days of high drama in the Soviet Union last August? Or the three young men in Moscow who gave their lives for reform.

    When I visited the place where they died, I was struck by the number of young people who pressed in around me. They had copied Western fashions, wore Western gear. For decades they and their parents had been taught that Socialism was the destiny of their future. That the Soviet Union would bury the West. But it wasn’t the West that the Socialist system had buried, it was the hopes and dreams of their own people.

    Socialism has gone in Czechoslovakia, gone in Poland, gone in Hungary, gone even in Sweden. And here in Britain, I’ll tell you what you’ll see over the next few months. You’ll see the Red Flag dying here. It’s going. Going. Gone. Suddenly, it’s just so old fashioned, so irrelevant, so out of date.

    What I owe to this country and to its people is difficult to put into words. My greatest wish now is to give back something of what I have been given.

    I want to work for a Britain that is the best educated and the best governed.

    Where schools and universities are the finest and accessible to all. Where inner cities don’t mean deprivation, but communities that bind and belong. And where no-one has to go in fear at night.

    I should like to live in a world where opportunity is for everyone, where peace is truly universal, and where freedom is secure.

    If that is what you believe in, then go back to your constituencies. Tell them what we stand for. Tell them what we care for. And ask them to choose.

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

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 4 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

    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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread concern that in certain cases banks have not been fully passing on, particularly to smaller businesses, the full very recent and welcome reduction in bank base rate?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am very concerned about the growing level of complaints from small businesses that they are being harshly treated by their banks. I discussed that matter with the Governor of the Bank of England 10 days ago and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking this forward with the individual chairman of each of the clearing banks. The banks themselves can be in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling on this, and they are as aware as anyone that their interests lie in having a sound base of small firms around for the future.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister think that recession, rising unemployment and increasing poverty will improve or make worse the health of the nation?

    The Prime Minister : The health of the nation is improving. The policies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be announcing in a few moments about preventive health medicine will also make further improvements. No one I know of with any experience or knowledge whatever doubts the improving quality, quantity or nature of health of the people in this country at the present time.

    Mr. Kinnock : I hope that the forthcoming Green Paper will therefore include specific policies to combat unemployment and poverty, although I very much doubt it. The Government have brought us two recessions in 12 years. Unemployment is higher and poverty is more widespread. As there is a very definite link between low income and high rates of death and illness in poor families, will the Prime Minister now do something effective to combat unemployment and recession instead of saying that it is a price well worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman will soon learn, there are specific targets in the health proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will announce in a few moments. We set targets in other contexts a year or so ago, which have been met by doctors in terms of improving health care, and the targets will be met on this occasion as well.

    As for unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman’s comments were rich when every time his own party has been in government, when that Government left office unemployment was twice as high as it was when they entered government. The right hon. Gentleman’s present policies would have the same effect. His minimum wage policy would destroy jobs, his penal tax proposals would destroy incentives, and Labour’s tax on savings would destroy investment. What would then happen to jobs?

    Mr. Kinnock : Clearly, when the Prime Minister cannot give a straight answer to a straight question, his last refuge is to try to sound like the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)–no wonder she said at the weekend, “I chose him.”

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, week after week, sinks to a new low. We shall see how low he can sink. We shall see how far he can sink in the months ahead.

    Sir William Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that not passing on the reduction in the base rate to small businesses is damaging to the economy? Would it not be a good idea for the British Bankers Association to make it mandatory for its members immediately to reflect any reduction in the base rate?

    The Prime Minister : A large amount of lending is, of course, tied specifically to the base rate and is therefore amended automatically. It is those loans that are renegotiated that I think cause the particular problems. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is examining that matter with the chairmen of the clearing banks.

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Illsley : In view of the horrific attacks by dangerous dogs that have taken place in the past two weeks or so, and the Government’s dithering about what measures to implement to take account of those attacks, will the Prime Minister now agree that in the interests of responsible dog ownership a dog registration scheme should be introduced? Will he introduce such a scheme at the earliest possible opportunity?

    The Prime Minister : So decisive have the Government been that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing a Bill later this week to deal with the problem of dangerous dogs. On the specific point of general dog registration, I continue to hold the view that such a scheme would be ineffective, bureaucratic, expensive to operate and difficult to enforce.

    Sir Gerrard Neale : Has my right hon. Friend seen–and, if so, will he comment on–the report by the respected City institution, the Nomura Research Institute, that if interest rates were 11 per cent. at the next general election they would rise to 16 per cent. in the unlikely event of a Labour victory?

    The Prime Minister rose–[Interruption.] I will wait for a little silence– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is taking up a lot of time. I call the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I have absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friend and the analysis that Nomura has made are right. Financial markets have no confidence whatever in Labour’s ability to keep down inflation and no confidence in its capacity to protect our competitive position. By contrast, the major independent forecasters agree with us that we shall have inflation at 4 per cent. by the fourth quarter of this year. The other point about Nomura’s analysis is very clear–it shows that Labour’s first priority would not be pensions and child benefit, but an immediate and necessary hike in interest rates and mortgage rates.

     

    Q3. Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Campbell : Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many in the House about the events of last night in Vilnius? Will he take the opportunity both now and in July to impress upon Mr. Gorbachev and his generals that western economic co-operation and assistance depend upon a recognition of human rights and an acceptance of the right of self-determination for the people of Lithuania and of the other Baltic states?

    The Prime Minister : I can say nothing more to the hon. and learned Gentleman other than that I agree with him.

    Mr. John Browne : May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to early-day motion 776–about Grenadier guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray who, in 1989, had their legs blown off in Canada–which has now been signed by more than 200 right hon. and hon. Members on a cross-party basis, including the Secretary of State for Defence of 1989? It calls on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to look personally into the case with a view to granting an ex-gratia compensation payment, thus creating a good precedent. What progress has been made in the past month?

    The Prime Minister : I am not yet in a position to tell my hon. Friend precisely what the outcome will be, but I am satisfied that the proper grounds for compensation should be on the basis of legal liability, and it is upon that basis that I shall examine the matter.

    Mr. Speaker : Mr. Hood–no, Mr. John Garrett– [Interruption.] Order. I am looking for an hon. Gentleman who has not asked a question. Let us have Mr. Garrett.

    Mr. John Garrett : Does not Britain deserve better than a lame duck Government, limping from one public relations fiasco to another?

    The Prime Minister : As it has a Government who are announcing new and fresh policies every day, the question does not arise.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Marshall : During the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend been able to read the comments of Mr. Gavin Laird about a minimum wage? Does he agree that a minimum wage would be cruel and heartless because it would lead to much higher prices and to an increase of 50 per cent. in the level of unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : I have, of course, read them. I enjoyed them and I agree with them, as do many other people. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition’s plan for a minimum wage has very few friends left : the Fabian Society has said that there would be massive job losses ; Mr. Laird thinks that the plan is nonsense ; the engineers and electricians recognise that Labour’s policy is nonsense ; and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said that himself in the past. Even the Sunday People, which is hardly a Conservative news sheet, stated in its editorial :

    “Labour’s plan for a national minimum wage is not the answer. It would only cause more unemployment and deny jobs to those who need them”–

    [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like that because they know that it is true.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister has rightly criticised the banks, but does he not accept that small business failures have increased by 68 per cent. with nearly 8,000 mainly small firms going to the wall in the first quarter of this year? The Prime Minister has criticised the banks, but does he feel any personal responsibility for this?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, very many additional small firms have grown and thrived in recent years. All Conservative Members, including myself, regret the loss of small businesses in the past year or so. However, what is essential is to create the circumstances in which businesses can thrive and survive and in which fresh businesses can be created, as has happened so widely in the past 10 years. That requires reducing inflation to a low level and keeping it there. That is the policy we are pursuing, and every independent commentator now acknowledges that we are succeeding in that policy.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert B. Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to visit north-west Hertfordshire to see for himself the £40 million worth of new investment in the national health service that has been made under this Government? Will he contrast the fact that at this very moment a new maternity unit is being completed in which babies can be born in the 1990s with the fact that, under the last Labour Government, babies had to be born in the clapped-out facilities of the former workhouse?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Capital expenditure on hospitals in England has grown in real terms in the past 12 years by 62 per cent. to £1.7 billion. In contrast, as the House well recalls, under the last Labour Government capital spending on hospitals in the national health service was cut by nearly 16 per cent. because the Labour Government lost control of the economy and inflation and would not take the necessary decisions to bring inflation down.

    Mr. Clelland : Did the Prime Minister see the recent “Panorama” programme entitled, “Scuppering British Shipbuilders”, which demonstrated how the Government have killed off merchant shipbuilding in Britain? Is he aware that unless the right decision is made about Challenger 2, “Panorama” will soon be making another programme about the killing off of the British tank manufacturing industry? Will he ensure that the decision that we now understand is to be made before the end of this month is made not only in favour of the British Army but in favour of British manufacturing and British workers?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is no, I did not see the programme to which he referred, but on his substantive point–the question of a new tank for the Army–I hope that a decision on equipment for our future main battle tank fleet will not be delayed too long. When the appropriate military conditions are right for us to make the decision, we shall do so.

     

    Q6. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Bowis : Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the report of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which shows that for the past year Britain’s strike record has been at its lowest for 56 years? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to legalise secondary strikes, unofficial strikes and flying pickets, that strike record would be undone? Is it not odd that that is precisely the policy of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is correct. It is also the case that our employment legislation, which was opposed at every step by the Opposition has helped to transform industrial relations in Britain. But the Opposition do not care about industrial relations–they are obsessed with public relations.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Annual CBI Dinner – 21 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Annual Dinner of the CBI, held at Grosvenor House in London on Tuesday 21st May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well Brian, My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I think I just heard a new version of confidence and optimism in the suggestion that I am going to tell you what the election date is. I do know it has been a subject of very considerable speculation as to when the election will be. All I can say to you is anybody who knows me well would think it is most unlikely it is going to be during the middle of the England/ West Indies test series. And even more unlikely that it is going to be straight down the middle of my son’s GCSE examinations. I don’t know how we will do in the test series, and to be strictly fair, I don’t know how he will do in his GCSE examinations. But I have given him one piece of advice. However he does, I told him, “don’t ever forget how you did, because you never know, thirty years on, how important it might be, to some people.” Brian, thank you very much indeed for inviting me to join you for a second successive evening.

    I was your guest here last year, and on that occasion, Roland Smith, who is hiding here somewhere in his usual anonymous way, sent up to the top table a Manchester United scarf, I can’t think why he did that. He sent up nothing this year, I suppose they haven’t been doing too well lately. Brian, this evening I want to look at a series of themes of concern, I believe, to all of us and to look forward to the opportunities opening up for Britain as we approach the millennium. And with that in mind, for it is a very remarkable period we have ahead of us, I want firstly to congratulate the CBI on publishing a ‘New Agenda for the 1990s’: an agenda which focuses quite directly quite specifically on the challenges and the opportunities, that lie ahead. And rightly it looks at not only those opportunities, but also back at the very remarkable transformation in industry during the last decade.

    Ten years ago, the CBI gave an earlier lead. They published an Agenda for the 1980s entitled ‘The Will to Win’ and that document was one of the first signs that after the 1970s, and all the difficulties of that period, enterprise was coming to life again. And now, industry must look forward once again, raise its sights as it looks towards the year 2000, plan for it, prepare for it and in doing so remember also the lessons of the past.

    In his foreword to that Agenda, your President concludes and I quote “British business has not only shown the will to win but the ability to do so in some of the toughest markets there are”. He is right about that. And my first message to you this evening is a simple one and a clear one. Never under sell what you and British business have achieved over the last decade. Now that same document also warns that the United Kingdom must not reverse the changes we have seen in that decade nor forget what the situation was like in the late 1970s. And that is a critical message. How easy and comforting it might be to forget but how dangerous it would be. In the late 1970s, wealth was being destroyed not created as the CBI itself said failure was almost expected, success was a surprise. Industrial profitability collapsed, productivity stagnated, Britain’s share of world markets contracted, inflation escalated to a peak four times as high as the levels we are experiencing today, and spend-thrift Government was borrowing up to 10 per cent of our national income. We must never return to the policies which created those problems.

    But in the 1980s we began to regain ground. Productivity was transformed. In manufacturing, often looked down on by some, in manufacturing it grew faster than in any other large economy and output in manufacturing rose to record levels. Profitability recovered and recovered spectacularly. After years of decline, our share of world markets is holding firm, our manufacturing exports increased by nearly 60 per cent over the decade and our car production for export almost doubled over the last year.

    Now those are remarkable and successful improvements. But I understand very clearly that right now industry is facing difficulties as we bring inflation down. I know that times are tough and I am very well aware of the problems confronting many of you. But I do believe that we must keep those current problems in perspective. Your President has called them temporary difficulties. He is right. It is a British characteristic, endearing perhaps but often damaging, to accentuate the negative and overlook the positive. But we should not lose sight of the gains that you have made in the recent years. For I believe that they are fundamental and that means that we will soon be in a position to build on past successes once again, and we also need to bear in mind that in no sense are we alone.

    Growth is still slowing in Europe and in North America. Unemployment is rising there too, indeed unemployment is far higher in France, Italy, Canada and Australia, than it is in this country. And yet however international and temporary the current problems, I understand very well that is no consolation for those who lose their jobs or for the companies which are facing financial crisis. And it is for that reason that I am absolutely determined that the defeat of inflation must remain our top priority. Never again, never again must our economy have to face the painful but necessary retrenchment of the last few months. This Government’s policies are clear. We must concentrate on getting the economy right. We must conquer inflation and we must have minimum interference in industry.

    We have already removed huge burdens from industry. A whole mass of restrictive administrative red tape that tied up your employees and your business and we haven’t finished with those changes. Our deregulation initiative will continue to pursue ideas for removing more burdens from industry whether imposed at home or from Europe we will seek to have them removed where ever we can.

    We have cut corporate taxation and then cut it again and again. The main rate of corporation tax is now lower than the special rate for small businesses when this government took office and with the Chancellor’s further cuts announced in the Budget, we will have the lowest corporation tax levied by any of our major competitors.

    But we know one thing very well. We know Governments can’t run businesses as well as private enterprise can. And that is why we privatised no fewer than 44 large businesses no less than two thirds of the nationalised sector that we inherited in 1979. And in doing so, we have turned a national burden into a industrial success and brought in 28 billion pounds for the tax payer as well. And nor have we finished in that regard. We will return more nationalised industries to the private sector, including British Rail and British Coal. And we will open up more national and local Government activities to private sector skills.

    To provide a stable framework for enterprise in an unstable world involves difficult economic judgements. But no Government can hope to get those right unless its objectives are clear. Our economic objectives are clear – to drive down the rate of inflation; to reward success and enterprise by cutting and simplifying taxation on individuals and on companies; to open up markets for businesses at home and abroad; and to restrain government and make it more efficient and more sensitive to the individual citizen. Of these, of course, the reduction of inflation is the most important, and it is down – coming down. Last Friday, we saw spectacular evidence of this. The annual rate of increase in the Retail Price Index, that headlined figure of such importance in our national inflation psychology, plunged nearly 2 full percentage points to 6.4 per cent. It was the biggest monthly fall that we have seen in a decade. The rate of inflation is now 4.5 percentage points below last Autumn’s peak. Of course, that is still not good enough and not for a second would I pretend that it was. We expect to see inflation fall and fall again. We expect to see it fall to 4 per cent by the end of this year. Underlying measures of inflation are inevitably falling more gradually, but make no mistake about it, on any sensible measure, inflation is now coming down and will continue to come down. So we are winning this most crucial battle. And our forecasts point to a welcome resumption of growth in the second half of this year. It will not be dramatic or sudden but it will be secure and it will be well-based.

    The task for business in this climate is to prepare for this recovery ahead. And the task for government is to assist the recovery by maintaining the stable policy framework that we have now put in place. I believe that this framework offers a robust defence against the inflationary surges we have suffered in the past. Against a return to the miseries of the 1970s, and even against the lesser resurgence of inflation that we have experienced in the late 1980s. Inflation peaked last year at less than half the excesses of the 1970s, and yet despite that, it has proved painful to correct and we must now ensure that it never recurs.

    Our new policy framework allows for the domestic management and monetary policy within the external discipline of the exchange rate mechanism. That is a discipline on both Government and on industry, sometimes tough but necessary. And it is a discipline that delivers the two most precious requirements for industry, low inflation and stable exchange rates. Already we are seeing the benefits of joining the exchange rate mechanism. Renewed international confidence in Britain’s economic strategy. A confidence that has enabled us to cut interest rates by 3 full percentage points without de-stabilising the pound. And others predicted, you recall, that we would have to devalue within the mechanism if we were to cut rates. They were wrong and we can now see that they were wrong.

    We have stability against the currencies of our European trading partners at a time when the dollar has oscillated widely. And there is widespread confidence that within the exchange rate mechanism framework, we will see further falls in inflation throughout the year, and that interest rates can and will fall further too. I share the confidence in that judgement.

    Exchange rate mechanism membership has made explicit our need to compete. Industry must break free of the bad old habits of paying itself, on the shop floor and in the board room, a level of salary and money that it cannot hope to earn.

    The retail price index is no longer sending dangerous misleading signals to wage negotiators and I welcome very much indeed the signs that pay settlements are now coming down. The faster they do the clear the evidence that inflation is coming under control and the sooner recovery can begin and bring new jobs to our economy.

    There should be no such thing as automatic pay increases. Pay must be linked to performance and to productivity. It is a principle that helps incentives, it involves employees in their business and it is also a principle which I wish to see being applied increasingly throughout the public sector as well as in the private sector.

    And nor must productivity gains simply be swallowed up by pay rises. Each business has the responsibility to decide for itself what margin must be left to help profits, to sustain investment, to generate future growth. And it must also decide what level of wages it can afford to pay its own employees. No-one else can make that decision for a business and by contrast, any proposal from whatever source it may come, any proposal to impose a minimum wage will dramatically drive up industrial costs and massively increased unemployment.

    Any attempt to link the lowest wage to the average would set off a pay spiral that would destroy jobs and cripple industry’s ability to create incentives and raise productivity.

    I believe such policies would be an industrial and economic tragedy for this country, if they were ever to be implemented and we must ensure that they never are.

    Precisely those same principles underlie our policies for training. We prefer incentives to intervention, and choice to compulsion. As I am sure you will know, yesterday, I helped to launch three White Papers which will, I believe, come to be seen as a turning point in the history of education and training in Britain and I am very pleased to pay tribute to Ken Clarke who is here this evening and Michael Howard who I think is not here, for the enormous work and innovation that they put in to ensuring that those White Papers were produced in, the form that we were able to publish them yesterday.

    And tonight I want to make it clear that at the earliest possible opportunity we will be giving legislative force to those proposals. An education bill to start the process will, therefore, be at the heart of our legislative programme. And along with those elements of those reforms which are already underway, such as the introduction of the national curriculum, the creation of grant-maintained schools and in the training field, the piloting of a new system of credits for school-leavers. The effects of these reforms will be truly revolutionary. I believe that they represent nothing less, nothing less than the most radical reforms since the great Butler Education Act of 1944.

    And that parallel is apt. It’s apt because one of our aims is to meet a great but unfulfilled objective of that particular Butler Act. And that objective is this we are determined to improve the quality of vocational education and the esteem in which it is held. That is an ideal that has never fully been realised in post-war Britain.

    But our ambitions go wider, they are to provide new links between the school room, the college, and the world at work. We have deliberately put forward our proposals for education and training together, precisely because we see them as being complementary, and they will, in consequence, extend choice and provide new opportunities for many more young people than ever before.

    And at the heart of these reforms, is our determination to break down the artificial barriers between academic and vocational education, between blue collar worker, and white collar worker between pin stripes and overalls. Such divisions are wrong, they are outdated, they are wrong. Wrong for industry, wrong for our economy, and utterly wrong for our future. These measure we have brought forward sound the death-knell for those divisions.

    At present, we have too many young people without the skills or motivation to get off to a good start in their working life. Time was, when school leavers took up an apprenticeship. Over a period of years they required a recognised trade and that was their training for a life-time of employment. That was fine, of course, if their employment lasted a life time. But tomorrow’s employees will be different, those youngsters leaving school today will face a different world and a different environment. They may have to train, then retrain, then retrain, and then perhaps retrain again and again during their working life, if they are to keep up with the skill and speed with which skills and innovation moves in the modern world. And all that means, a different approach to training. And that’s why are embarking on a programme designed to give more choice and more training to young people leaving school; to provide greater training flexibility for young and old; to maintain standards of academic education, while bringing up vocational standards; and to end the barrier between polytechnic and university.

    I know that this audience will welcome that. The CBI has played a vital part in helping to launch the skills revolution in Britain. Your President has a strong interest in education. I am happy this evening to be able to pay tribute to his work as Chairman of the Trustees of Education 2000.

    It is employers, you, employers, who now take on the lead role in the Training and Enterprise Councils. I know looking round the room amongst those who I have met before, that many of you here tonight are involved in the detailed decisions involved in public expenditure of 2.7 billion pounds a year on training, enterprise and vocational education. And now we are planning more – much more for the future.

    We announced yesterday that we would make training credits available to 16 and 17 year old school-leavers. This ambitious programme will be based on one essential principle, to create opportunity through choice, that is the principle underlying training credits.

    Choice for young people to buy the training they need.

    Choice for employers to provide workplace training.

    Choice, locally, within the TEC’s, to set the right training priorities for the needs of business in each area.

    And we will use that power of choice in the market to deliver opportunity for the workforce of the 21st century. And the whole country will gain as a result of that policy.

    And I believe it will gain too from another policy, from the proposals we will bring forward in our Citizens’ Charter. This is no gimmick, this charter, it will have teeth, it will bite, it will change the way in which public services are delivered and in which the consumers of public services have redress against the quality of those public services. And I will tell you why it will do these things, and what our ambition is for it. I want to make the public sector more responsive to the needs of the public, more responsive by defining standards of service and putting in place mechanisms to ensure that they are met.

    I want to bring business skills into the public service, through competitive tendering for the provision of services, contracting out, privatising and market-testing those activities best supplied by private enterprise.

    I want to introduce new performance incentives for public sector employees. But there is a counterpoint to that. There must also be penalties for poor performance in the public sector as well.

    I want to give greater authority and independence to those who monitor, audit and inspect public services.

    And I want to examine way of providing effective redress to those who suffer, when standards slip.

    Those are the principles of the Citizen’s Charter that we will introduce in a White Paper before the summer recess. We are, of course, already applying many of these principles. I have spoken earlier of the momentum of our privatisation programme. We are encouraging more contracting out of public service provision – and enjoying the benefits that it provides. In Westminster, those benefits are clear. They already contract-out printing, office cleaning, leisure centres, refuse collection, street cleaning and catering. What Westminster has done, others should do. And I hope will do, in the future.

    And there is a further point. The opportunity to tender for local services has encouraged the growth of successful small businesses right around the country. But it is where the market cannot reach that we need to be most vigilant in setting standards.

    Where services remain in the public sector, they must offer the same standards of courteous and efficient service that the best private sector companies provide. The Citizens’ Charter aims to ensure that is what they do.

    But I am aware, Mr President, that it is not only officialdom that needs to listen and to respond; Government must do so too.

    A fortnight ago, the Department of Trade and Industry set out, as one of its formal objectives, its requirement to listen to the concerns of business and consumers – and see that these are genuinely taken into account in the development of government policies. I would like to take this opportunity to endorse that new role for the department.

    Communication between government and industry will grow in importance as we approach the conclusion of Europe’s single market programme. The deadline of January 1 1993 is fast approaching. And there is much still to do. The single market will not exist until all its measure have been introduced, then implemented and then enforced in every country in the Community. And I emphasise the implemented and enforced. We must ensure that Community legislation is not approved but then ignored in countries throughout the Community. In this country, we put into effect the legislation to which we have committed ourselves. Let me say this evening, we expect no less from every country throughout the Community.

    Mr President, the Single Market will be an example of the benefits that can come from removing unnecessary regulation. The same must apply to what is called the “Social dimension” of the Community. We will continue to make clear to Brussels the dangers involved in ill-considered regulation. Employment and prosperity flow from free markets, not from bureaucracy and imposed uniformity.

    I have made clear on a number of occasions my absolute determination to place this country at the very heart of the European Community. And business, I know, has an unparalleled determination to compete with Europe’s best and to win in that competition, both in the Community and beyond the Community. And that is why our struggle against inflation is not just a matter of short-term economic tactics but a matter of priceless importance and of long-term strategy.

    Inflation is a distortion. Inflation is a handicap we cannot afford in the 1990s. If we have it and others don’t, we lose our markets our prospects and our prosperity. That is what is at stake as we battle to get inflation down to a very low level, at least as low as elsewhere in the Community. So we must reduce inflation to the point where it plays no part in people’s decision-making, no part in where or when they invest, how they plan for the future, with whom they have the confidence to compete in business, we cannot be satisfied with anything less than that.

    In recent months, we have brought our inflation rate down closer to the European average. But we must go further, and find for ourselves a place amongst Europe’s best. Then we will be well-placed to fight for free markets and firm counter-inflationary disciplines in the year ahead.

    Your President has rightly called this decade, the decade of Europe – one of opportunity and challenge. Both Government and industry have the chance to set themselves on a course that will yield the benefits of stability, growth and prosperity.

    I have every confidence, every confidence in industry’s ability to rise to that challenge – to plan, to invest, to succeed. That is what you are about as businessmen. That is what we expect you to do; that is what we know that with the right environment you can do and you have done in the past. That is what we invite you to do in the future. Mr President, I cannot overestimate the importance of the success that is necessary for business in this country upon your success as businessmen and as businesses, upon your success rest our country’s prospects for the future. I hope you appreciate, as I am sure that you do, how crucially important that is. So is it my pleasure and privilege tonight, Mr President, to propose tonight’s toast to British business. I propose a toast willingly and with fervour, I propose a toast in the belief that we have the best business disciplines in the world and that with the right economic climate we can capitalise upon those disciplines and storm markets in every part of the world. So my toast tonight is to British business and I will invite you to rise and drink that toast, a toast to British business, may it prosper and profit in the years ahead.