Tag: Inflation

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the CBI Annual Dinner – 18 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Conference in London, held on Tuesday 18th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. Before I turn in a few moments to other matters, I would just like to say a word or two about the referendum today in Denmark. Although counting is still going on, it is now clear that there is a very large majority in favouring the Maastricht Treaty. Seven out of the eight political parties were in favour, business opinion was in favour and the result of that is evident in the votes cast today.

    Before today’s result, a large question mark hung over the treaty. The Danes, initially less cautious than us, agreed to the treaty without the opt-outs that we negotiated. As you will recall, their electorate rejected that position and they needed to come back to their Community partners. We were always clear in this country that Maastricht needed the consent of all Twelve members, eleven would not do. At Edinburgh we helped Denmark secure new agreements, agreements similar to those we had obtained in the original negotiation. Today, in the referendum, this new position has been overwhelmingly approved.

    Across Europe nine nations have now ratified. Denmark and Germany can be expected to do so shortly. Only in Britain where our process has been a little protracted is substantive approval for ratification still being sought.

    Mr President, business has warned government often enough of the danger that we in Britain could sideline ourselves from Europe. And away from the sound and fury of Westminster, away from the interminable, incomprehensible procedural wrangles over the Maastricht Treaty, away from all that the issue is stark and simple, the issue is British jobs, British sales, Britain’s future.

    So we will be moving on with our parliamentary process as soon as possible. I hope we will obtain approval in the Commons at third reading on Thursday of this week. We need now to put the Parliamentary wrangles behind us and get on with doing business for Britain in Europe, developing our sort of Europe, an open Europe, a wider Europe, a Europe that liberates the talents of its businesses and its peoples, emphatically, Mr President, not a federal Europe.

    We want a competitive Community, that is why we objected to the Social Chapter, it is why we opted out of it, Maastricht without the Social Chapter, influence without handicap. Mr President, business knows that that is what this country needs, I hope, Mr President, that business will speak out and say that that is what this country needs. And the sooner we put this debilitating period behind us, the better it will be for British business and for British prosperity.

    Mr President, success, business success, your success, that is the theme that I want to concentrate on this evening, that theme and the new partnership that is emerging between government and industry. It is private enterprise that creates wealth, government’s job is to help you get the orders, not to give you the orders. We must create the climate for business to flourish, low inflation, low interest rates, low tax rates.

    In the late 1980s the economy was allowed to overheat and the government then had to cool things down. And that is the best response when there has been a mistake, to correct it and then to make sure that it never happens again. Three years ago inflation was in double figures and rising, that would have halved the value of money in just seven years. Mr President, it had to be tackled. If inflation runs on unchecked, ruin is certain. If inflation is confronted and beaten, prosperity can then be re-built.

    So that hard grind of recession had to be endured. I know that it was painful, I know that recession has left its scars. Too many businesses had to close down altogether and many others shed many jobs. We have all learned the hard lessons of those years and we must never let inflation drive Britain off its course again.

    As we speak this evening, retail price inflation is now under 2 percent, interest rates are down to 6 percent, the process of recovery has begun. We now know that recovery began slowly, cautiously, in a timid fashion perhaps in the course of last year. And now the ripples are widening through industry and along the High Street. House building and car sales are up. Your own surveys show a new level of confidence and after today’s independent poll, dare I say it, confidence is galloping.

    Now that is cause for cheer but it is not cause for complacency. Tonight we need to look to the future. So be in no doubt, I am in no doubt whatsoever, it is going to be a highly competitive decade. The economy has been picking up here in the United Kingdom but in much of continental Europe it is slowing down, trading is tough, the horizon is crowded with new challenges, new competitors, new markets, new technology.

    If we are going to look competition in the eye, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror. Our objectives must be clear. We need to broaden our recovery, widen our manufacturing base, build on our strength and remedy our weaknesses.

    So I want to pick up a theme expounded at your last CBI Conference, the theme of competitiveness. First, manufacturing matters. I want to congratulate you, Mr President, on setting up the National Manufacturing Council, a very welcome initiative, a strong single voice for Britain’ s manufacturers, very welcome, I wish it had happened years ago.

    And let me say something else about manufacturing that I personally feel passionately. I do not believe we have any reason to be defeatist about manufacturing in Britain. In the 1980s productivity in British manufacturing rose faster than in the United States, faster than in any other major European economy, more than twice as fast as in West Germany. We have increased productivity over 7 percent in the last year and we have cut our costs as well and that is the key to success, keeping quality high and costs low. And those hard won productivity gains were especially valuable, they protected Britain’s manufacturing from the worst of the recession.

    But it is true, yes, our manufacturing output fell, but much less than in the previous recession, and indeed, to put it in context, much less than it has fallen in West Germany in just the past year. But let me give you an even longer perspective than that. Look back to 1981, the bottom of the previous European recession. Since then France has increased its manufacturing output by a creditable 7 percent. West Germany has done rather better – an increase of 13 percent. But Britain, Britain so often derided for its manufacturing performance, Britain has increased manufacturing output by over 24 percent.

    Mr President, they are outstanding figures. Of course we need to do better still, much better, but my point is simply this. In the 1980s we turned the tide, in the 1990s we can catch the flood and that must be the aim for all our manufacturing industries. I believe that we can do it. There is a new mood in British industry, a new culture, a new ambition stimulated by the transformation you went through in the 1980s, industry is not just leaner these days, it is keener, it is fitter, it is more prepared to go out and fight for its markets and keep its markets, it is less inclined just to look to a home base, it knows it has to fight around the world for the markets it needs.

    And you can illustrate that perhaps in a number of ways. Last autumn you illustrated it very vividly. Last autumn you turned the spotlight on yourselves, on your own performance, you applied a critical self-analysis to the competitiveness of British industry, asking the difficult questions, facing up to the quality of the competition. Those are the actions of the confident, not the cautious. You have assessed where British industry is ahead and where it is behind. It is for each company to determine what it must do to stay ahead or to catch up.

    We have world class companies in this country, world class companies making state of the art equipment, winning in the toughest of market places around the world – pharmaceuticals, aerospace, chemicals, biotechnology, power generation, the water industry, international construction – a very long list, Mr President, but not long enough. You create the world class companies but in a thousand ways the decisions that we take in government can help you or can hinder you, so we too, the government, we are part of Britain’s competitiveness.

    Let me say this about that. All our policies, not just our economic policy, need to be focused on the future strength of the British economy. I believe that industry and government are coming to a new understanding, a new partnership. Your leadership has represented your views very clearly and equally clearly we have responded.

    In March, against a difficult background for public finances, we still managed to cut industry’s tax bill by around 1 billion pounds, and that of course is on top of the help we gave industry in the autumn statement. But I believe that the government’s side of this partnership goes much wider than simply budget changes. We, government, we must bend our energies right across the whole field of government o the pursuit of enterprise and growth and prosperity, backing Britain’s exporters, making the single market work for us in the United Kingdom, fighting for free trade, rolling back excessive red tape, rolling up our sleeves together with industry to give this country the infrastructure it needs, getting better value for taxpayers’ money, raising standards across all our schools, putting training on the fast track and harnessing our scientific genius to industry’s needs. That is an agenda right across government so that harnessed together government and business can build a new prosperity for our nation.

    Mr. President, let me say just a little more about each of those goals and I will turn first, if I may, to that crucial question of trade. We are traders in this country. We live by trade. Exports make up a third of our national income. We know above all that we need to win in the world’s market-place. Our trade deficit is substantial. Imports have risen and the recovery has only just begun. Time after time in the past, expansion at home has brought a further surge in imports whilst business has turned its back on the export challenge. Mr. President, in all our interests, that of the country, that of the shareholders, that of the businessmen, that of the future, we simply must not let that happen again and it is partly because of our concern about that that the Chancellor increased export cover by 1,300 million pounds in the Autumn Statement and the Budget. It is why we have cut the cost of export cover. It is why in this country we have got to have the best export services in the world. You, business, generously lent Michael Heseltine some of your best people to sharpen up the Department of Trade & Industry’ s export work here at home. I am grateful for that and every overseas embassy must put you at the top of their priorities and I promise you this – every embassy around the world now knows they have to put British business at the top of their priorities.

    But Mr. President, where are our export markets? They are of course all around the world but our main export market is Europe or rather perhaps it is now our home market. We have heard all about Britain selling televisions to Germany and lace to Brussels but traditional French suits to Paris, pizzas to Italy? Why not? As the old song says: “Anything you can do we can do better!” and across this country those are the sort of exports that enterprising British manufacturers are now sending abroad.

    And, of course, those opportunities are vital for us. We recognised that right from the moment we joined the European Community. That is why, whatever the difficulties, whatever sometimes the extreme difficulties, we have fought for a competitive Europe, one in which every country in the community is forced to obey the rules right across the Community and that is also why we fought to keep those rules to a minimum. It was why I was so determined to keep Britain free of the Social Chapter. The Single Market is the opportunity of a business lifetime. I don’t intend to let Brussels spoil it for Britain because our prosperity depends upon taking those opportunities.

    Of course, Mr. President, some of our European competitors complain. They don’t want Britain to become a magnet for investment, a seed-bed for growth, a haven for jobs but the answer is simple – Europe as a whole needs to keep its costs down and sharpen its competitive edge.

    Mr. President, I spoke of free trade. The need for free trade doesn’t just apply in Europe’s Single Market – it applies throughout the world – and yet for seven long years governments have been promising to complete a crucial round of negotiations to liberalise world trade. Each year, pledges have been published, each year the deadline has been allowed to slip. Mr. President, that simply cannot go on! We are past the eleventh hour and the strains are showing. Europe and the United States have twice in the past year come close to a damaging exchange of hostile protectionism that could easily escalate into a full-blown trade war. Twice, good sense and good negotiation have prevailed but only just prevailed.

    I welcome without a shred of reservation President Clinton’s commitment to completing the Uruguay Round. I believe in Leon Brittan we have the best possible negotiator. I hope Japanese Government will engage fully in the effort to secure a breakthrough on tariffs at the Tokyo summit this summer.

    Let me speak quite bluntly and frankly about this position: the test of good intentions can no longer be delayed. We need progress, not words; agreement, not dissent; decisions, not delay; we need a conclusion to the Uruguay Round and we need it this year.

    Mr. President, we need it for a raft of reasons. We need it not least of course because our manufacturers’ markets are at stake. There are huge potential gains in the GATT Round for our service industries as well but that of course is the bright side; that is the side of getting an agreement.

    There is a dark side too, the dark side of no agreement, and on the dark side the threat to our industries from so-called “managed trade”, the threat to competition from back-room deals between governments, the protectionist threat to our freedom and prosperity. All can and must be resisted until we get that agreement.

    Mr. President, I spoke of the partnership between Government and business. Sometimes, the best service Government can do for industry is not to do something but to undo something. Take regulation or rather, perhaps better, take it away! Now there is an idea for a Government service – a takeaway service, deregulation by another name.

    How many times do you hear people say: “It shouldn’t be allowed! The Government ought to put a stop to it!“ and how many times when the public presses Government to respond is the final result another form to fill, another reel of red tape, another restriction on trade and enterprise? Mr. President, business and Government must join together to fight the bias against regulation.

    So we have changed policy sharply, clearly and distinctly. In future, every time Whitehall prepares a nice little parliamentary Bill, it is going to have to tell us what the bill will be for you, what it is going to cost business to comply with the new rules proposed. The rule for Government in future is a simple one: “No Bill without the true bill!” and that I believe will help us cut down on regulation.

    But that is weed control for the future. We need to go a good deal further than that. We need to uproot the weeds that are already there choking enterprise. Michael Heseltine’s task forces of industrialists under the leadership of John Sainsbury are digging away already. We plan to legislate in the next session of Parliament to cut red tape. That means that you, business, must act fast to tell us where regulation is putting you at a competitive disadvantage, where it is excessive, where good intentions have turned into bad results but if you need it changed, tell us now and if I may be blunt again, there is no point in coming to tell me after we have presented the parliamentary Bill. I need to know soon so that we can draft changes in the Bill and make the changes that business believes are necessary.

    Mr. President, there are other ways in which we are seeking to change the old habits of Government. You often press us. Every time I see you, you rush up with Howard and grip me warmly by the throat. You often press us for further investment in infrastructure. But then you also press us to restrain public spending and borrowing. I agree. You are right, on both counts.

    Government needs to subject its services to the same severe tests you face. It is essential to keep public expenditure under control. This summer we are vigorously assessing our spending priorities. Like you, we cannot afford waste. Like you, we are market-testing our activities. Like you – in this year’s unified Budget – we are separating our capital programmes from our current spending. Like you, we must constantly be looking to see where money can be saved – where more can be done for less. And where less should be done by Government – more by the individual and the private sector.

    So let me make this request of you. As we will support you in your drive for efficiency, so we will look for your support in ours. But we can do more than back each other up. We can work together. That’s why I do not believe that the provision of infrastructure has to be restricted to the public sector. Now is your chance – in partnership – to get the infrastructure that you, the private sector, feel is important.

    Consider our history! Many of the great infrastructure projects were designed, built and funded by entrepreneurs. It was the private sector that built our canals, that laid the foundations of our railway system. More recently, it was the private sector that built the new Dartford bridge on time, on budget and very well too. It is the private sector that is behind the Birmingham northern relief road, the first privately-funded major road this century.

    We want to see the private sector fully involved in London’s Cross-rail project. We are determined to make sure the project is carried out as cost-effectively as possible and let me confirm tonight for those who may have had doubts that London Transport’s parliamentary Bill is going ahead in Parliament next month.

    Some people say that private finance won’t make a noticeable difference to our capital programmes. The City say differently. The City say that there already is something in excess of a billion pounds worth of private money available to support Crossrail and as President Reagan once memorably said: “A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you’ re talking real money!”. The Chief Secretary says something similar from time to time! Almost every time I see him, as I recall!

    Mr. President, it isn’t just physical capital that is important. Human capital is vital too. Tomorrow’s school-leavers will not be up to the jobs you are creating if they cannot read, write, calculate or spell. Government in Britain spends a higher share of our national wealth on education than either Germany or Japan and yet a third of those going into further education still need remedial help with English to get through their courses. Forty percent need help with numbers. Poor basic skills in literacy and numeracy cost you, business almost £5 billion a year. That, frankly, is a handicap Britain cannot afford. Schools cannot be a no-go zone for accountability and they cannot be a no-go zone for testing either in the future we are building.

    We British are a common sense people. We know that tests in schools are a necessary preparation for the tests that we all face in life. Britain is tested day by day in every market around the world and I want to see British workers top of the league tables of the world and that means the right education from the very first day each and every one of our children goes to school. And beyond school as well, because I know and you know that we can only do that by training our workforce throughout their lives. Education never again will stop at the school gate on the day the pupil leaves.

    Again, we need to set the right framework for the future turning the tattered patchwork quilt of vocational qualifications into a proper banner of progress, getting the best training for the best jobs and that is what tests and training credits are intended to do but I recognise that Government’s training effort can only be a fraction of industry’s own effort. Good businesses invest in their people, train them, develop them and as a result of that, they keep them as valuable employees for a very long time.

    I would like to pay my own tribute to the CBI who played a key role in the “Investors in People” initiative and I know that many of you here this evening are among the 3,000 organisations working to meet its demanding standards, organisations that include the public sector right up to its core in Whitehall and I expect more and more to take on that particular challenge. With Brian Wolfson spearheading the drive, we are now on track to meet our target for this initiative and tonight I am delighted that Bass Taverns represented by Charles Derby this evening have become the 250th investor in people. I hope we will soon increase that number many times over.

    Mr. President, right across industry we need to turn best practice into common practice. The best help smaller arms to grow, nurture their suppliers, even pay their bills on time! They adopt partnership-sourcing. You can always tell how many small firms are in the audience! They work together to offer the best possible deal for their customers and the best possible future for British industry as a whole.

    Innovation isn’t just about technology or about science but it depends on them and our scientists today are every bit as worthy in their own particular fields as were their great predecessors like Faraday or Fleming. They can’t be trammelled to think the state decree like some intellectual short-order cook but within our science base there is a cornucopia of ideas, of invention, of ingenuity just waiting to strengthen Britain’s competitiveness. Our job as Government is to help bring the best ideas out of the laboratory and into industry and William Waldegrave who is here this evening will shortly publish a White Paper on science and technology and his aim in that White Paper is quite clear, to help maintain and improve scientific and engineering skills and then to engage them in the creation of this nation’s wealth.

    We want all those changes that I have set out this evening and others besides that time has not permitted me to mention for one overwhelming, over-riding reason: I want to see this country hungry for excellence and thirsty for achievement. Those aren’t slogans to be discarded as recovery fades the economy out of the daily news headlines; they are imperative for all our futures. We must have the confidence to compare and to compete and beat our competitors around the world and we won’t do that – we shouldn’t do it – by asking where our competitors are today or where we were yesterday. Let them ask that about us! We should ask where we want to be by the turn of the century and some of our aims are clear. We should lift our eyes beyond the immediate horizon of next week, next month, next year to look at what is going to happen during the rest of this hugely competitive decade.

    The search for high and rising productivity must be continuous. Firm control of costs is needed; a well-educated workforce ready for high-quality training is essential; an economic environment of low inflation and hence low interest rates; a wealth-creating economy, free from the burdens of over-regulation and high taxation.

    Mr. President, not one of our competitors is standing still, not one of our competitors will stand back for us. It is up to us, the people here in this room and your colleagues in business from one end of the country to the other, it is up to us, all of us in partnership, to help Britain get that step ahead and keep that step ahead and if we do it, if we can achieve it, if we can develop this new culture that you can sense happening in British industry and commerce day after day, then the prospects for our country, our future, this generation and the next are very bright indeed. We must set as our ambition to enter the new millennium at the forefront of achievement, a nation respected for what it contributes, admired for its standards and emulated for its practices. That must be the aim to which all of us must dedicate ourselves.

    Mr. President, today we are laying secure foundations for sustained recovery. Tomorrow, we must build on them as we face this hugely competitive future.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 14 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1993 Scottish Conservative Party Conference, held on 14th May 1993 in Edinburgh.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, I’ve not come to this conference to talk just about Scotland. I’ve come to the Conservative and Unionist Party to talk about the whole of the United Kingdom. I hear you had some singing as well as some talking this week: the Secretary of State sang to you; Lord Sanderson sang to you, and this evening there’s a band in this hall – but you’re spared, I promise you. The last time we met was before the General Election. Do you remember? The Conservative Party? No chance, they said. Scotland? You’ll be wiped out, they said. The Union? A lost cause, they said. How wrong they were. Mr President, we stuck to our guns; we stood by our principles; we saw it through, and against all the wise men’s odds we won when the votes were counted. Aberdeen South from Labour. Kincardine from the Liberals. We won seats in Scotland and we won power right across Britain, thanks to you, the work that you did, the leadership that you gave here in Scotland. We proved faint hearts wrong. I’d like to say tonight how much we owe to Russell Sanderson, for on one worked harder than him to bring about victory. He’s been a tower of strength in Scottish politics for almost as long as any of us can remember. A very trusted friend, and a very wise owl, indeed. Russell, we owe you a very great deal and we’ll miss you. But bless you for all you’ve done. But we’re fortunate in Scotland: in Micky Hurst we have a worthy successor. A tough campaigner, a fighter, an old friend: just the man we need in 1993. A very welcome appointment. I offer my best wishes for the future.

    At the Election our opponents got quite a lot of things disastrously wrong. One of them of course was Galloway and Upper Nidsdale. How confident they were! It was all in the bag: they were measuring the office for curtains for a new Nationalist Member of Parliament. But they don’t need that office, and it was curtains of a different sort for the SNP. And, today, you can fit all the SNP Members of Parliament into a telephone box. Appropriate, really. The number they required was unobtainable and they had trouble getting through. They should have asked: I would have told them. Ian Lang’s a good operator and he reversed their charges. lan, you’re leading a renaissance of Conservatism in Scotland. It started with the General Election. It went on at the District Council elections. It’ll continue right the way through this Parliament. And I will tell you the next target for lan’s winning team: more Conservative gains in next year’s European elections.

    So, Mr President, we Conservatives know all about fight-backs, and today, once more, we’re coming out fighting: fighting for what we believe in. Mr President, we are not going to change our objectives. We are going to do what the Conservative Party has always done: the right thing at the right time for our country. That is the way to carry the British people with us. This is a five-year Parliament. Last week, at the end of the first year we had a serious setback. There’s no point in fudging the issues. The local election results across England and Wales were bad: worse than we thought they’d be; and, so, too, was the by-election at Newbury. We shouldn’t ignore that, but neither should we over-react to that. We’ve been here, before, you and I. And this time there are four years to the next Election. Four years to take through our programme of modernising Britain and building up its strengths. We don’t have a large majority, at present, so we cannot always grandly sail ahead oblivious to all. We may have to tack a little here, manoeuvre a little there. That’s politics. We can’t ignore the Parliamentary arithmetic. That would be plain stupid. But we cannot, and will not hold back from our objectives. So don’t expect a bland, Parliamentary programme: there’ll be red meat aplenty, and don’t expect us to shrink from controversial decisions because we won’t do that in the year ahead.

    We won’t be Nationalists, Liberal, Labour by imitating them – pale pink and poisonous as they are. I mean, of course, the policies. We are Conservatives. We must think like Conservatives. We must act like Conservatives. And we’ll win by carrying out policies that are distinctively Conservative. Conservatives are rooted deep in every part of the country. Draw on that strength.

    Let’s tackle first the problems people fear most: inflation, unemployment, crime, but there are other reasons why people look to the Conservative Party: for strong and modern industry; for better public services; for lower income tax; getting the state off people’s backs; wider ownership of homes, of shares, of pensions. A solid, sound schooling for the young, and yes, devolution, Conservative devolution: devolution of choice to every family throughout the United Kingdom. Mr President, that’s the modern Tory agenda. My agenda, your agenda, the agenda we will win on right the way through this Parliament. And I’ll you how we’ll do it: by remembering who we serve and what we stand for. By seeing the right policies through. Mr President, we’re at a turning point after a time of great difficulty for our country. We have had a war; a recession; a tough General Election; and international events have crowded and during this time there have been three matters that have dominated my concern. The first was to get inflation down and keep it down. That is the only way to bring down unemployment and create jobs. We forget too easily the fear and uncertainty of rising prices. The second was to put our country where it can play a leading role in shaping European policy. We must shape it and not be shaped by it. I don’t want to see Britain sidelined and dragged along behind the ambitions of others.

    And the third concerns the very future of the United Kingdom: a threat too little recognised before the last General Election. We had to waken our fellow countrymen to the scale of the danger and then face it down. Mr President, cutting inflation has meant hardship for many people. They want to know why and they deserve to know why, so let me explain. For many, the 1980s was a time of prosperity: Conservative governments brought home ownership within reach of millions who’d never expected to enjoy it. We all became too confident. We took our eye off the ball. We allowed inflation to creep back. People who’d worked hard, who’d borrowed money to start businesses or buy houses were caught up in it. Inflation had to be brought back under control. We had to do it. Left unchecked, it would have threatened everything that we had worked so hard to create. Doing that meant higher interest rates, higher unemployment, it lead to bankruptcies and home repossessions. I would have given all I had to avoid it, but if we hadn’t done it, people would have suffered all those things and we would still have had the inflation. That is the heart of the matter. All our hopes for the future depended upon the conquest of inflation. It was a huge responsibility and a huge challenge. It took determination. It took skill. It took guts, and Norman Lamont has shown he has all three in the difficult months through which he has come.

    But curbing inflation is only the first, the first, but indispensable step to recovery and growth. Since the General Election the fight for recovery has gone on, but people’s patience, even British patience is not unlimited. They have been hurt out there, they are reacting, and although we can see that recovery is underway, it isn’t obvious in the pay packet, it isn’t obvious in the Job Centre – not yet, but it will be. Mr President, the recovery has started. It is soundly based. Inflation is under control and we are going to keep it that way. No more boom and no more bust. We’re going for steady, non-inflationary growth. The British people have earned it and this Government are going to deliver it.

    Mr President, the second issue I faced when I became Prime Minister was a troubled relationship with our partners in Europe. Let’s be frank: we have an ambivalent attitude to the European Community: as a nation we don’t love Europe. We’re too British: too Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish for that. But we know its importance to us. We know our prosperity depends upon it. We, in this Party, want more cooperation in Europe between freely trading sovereign states. That’s what we’ve been fighting for these last two years. The kind that has led to hundreds of millions of pounds of inward investment pouring into Scotland: nearly one hundred thousand jobs depend upon that. And Britain’s hard, economic self-interest depends on having influence in Europe; on winning arguments in Europe; on building alliances in a Europe we can live with and be comfortable with. Mr President, you cannot build such a Europe if you denounce it daily; mis-represent it hourly; and poke suspiciously at it by the minute.

    It’s easy to play ‘John Bull’ in a china shop: attractive even. There is popularity to be gained by it, but it is not in our long-term interests as a nation to do that. If we cut ourselves adrift from the mainstream arguments about Europe, we would soon be sidelined, and five years from now the bitter, hardest of that short-term policy would be found in collapsing exports; in collapsing prospects; in collapsing companies, and in growing unemployment queues from one end of the United Kingdom to the other. There are great issues at stake: open Europe markets are vital for Britain; inward investment is vital for Britain. I am out to win both. I will do nothing that will put them at risk; I will do everything I can that will help to make Britain grow. Some of you may feel that we’ve heard rather a lot about principled opposition to Europe. I want to hear more in the future about principled support for Europe. Those, like me, who want Britain in the centre of European debate are not crying out for a federal state; not seeking to end a thousand years of British history; not seeking to undermine the essential individuality of our island. We are seeking a wider Europe, a Europe with less bureaucracy and without federalism. I know of no Conservative Member of Parliament who cannot support that sort of Europe, and I believe that vision is shared by almost everyone in this country and in this party. So let us put the arguments behind us – better to battle together, better for Britain, better for our Party and better for our future.

    The final great issue that faced us when I took office was the very maintenance of a United Kingdom. No other Party but the Conservative Party was going to fight for it, and I was determined, come what may, that we should. Some said the strategy was crazy, but you in the Party in Scotland, you never had any doubts. The Union was our great cause, and I spoke about the Union in every meeting I went to from the Tamar to the Tay. England needs Scotland, every bit as much as Scotland needs England. The United Kingdom is united, today, for one reason above all because the Conservative and Unionist Party won the last General Election. Mr President, we chose to put the Union right at the heart of our Election campaign. We spoke of the historic choice that faced our nation between a united and prosperous Britain, a force for good in the world, or the path to separatism, the path to disintegration and insularity. And we spoke about the Union, about our long history and achievements together, we spoke from the heart. We said the right thing at the right time for our country. It was instinctive and it was heartfelt, and the people responded. Mr President, for me, that was perhaps the sweetest victory of all in April of last year.

    But, now, now we must build on that victory. The separatist tide was turned but it’s not yet beaten. And that’s why Ian Lang’s proposals to bring the Union alive are so important: the will improve Government in Scotland; they will give Scottish people a stronger say. They mean change, yes, but we are changing to preserve the Union, and let me make this prediction: some time in the future we will look back at the last Election and say this: that was the moment of greatest danger to the Union, and that was the moment the Scottish people spoke up for it and saved it.

    Mr President, on these great issues we’re now winning through. It would have been easy to give up but we didn’t. And we won’t give up on our reforms in health, education, railways and public services; despite difficulties and setbacks, we intend to carry them forward. We had no intention of giving up – give over, I would say to those who think we might give up. Mr President, I know that some people say from time to time we’ve spent the whole year talking about Maastricht. Sometimes it feels like that to me, as well, but the truth is, we haven’t. During this last twelve months we put a series of radical, reforming Bills to Parliament: the Housing Bill, an Asylum Bill, a Lotteries Bill, an Education Bill, an Employment Bill – all key Conservative measures, all solid Tory objectives, and all in the first session of Parliament.

    That’s what Conservative governments are for: to extend choice to parents, to extend freedoms to trade union members, to give new rights to tenants, more opportunities to people to own their own homes, more chance for parents to know how their children are doing at school, and that is what we have been doing in the past year. And not a lot of people know that, but it is a massive programme of reform that we have carried through Parliament in the last twelve months. Mr President, these policies are building choice in every city, in every town and every village. Choice is power. We are taking choice away from Government and giving power back to the people. That is where power belongs. I want to see minimum control by Whitehall and maximum choice for every family. All this has been rolling forward: radical changes, far-reaching changes, stretching out and reaching forward to the year 2000. Mr President, there are ancient echoes in all of us that whisper: we’ve done enough. We should now opt for the quiet life. It sounds tempting. But if you start down that road, you soon bump up against a hard fact, and it’s this: unless we face up to change, change will overwhelm us. Year by year, all around the world, the pace of discovery quickens. We cannot just stop the world and get off. Mr President, it’s when the Conservative Party is on the side of reform that we win. That’s when we prosper. We Conservatives must have the confidence to go forward; confidence to test the market; confidence to trust the people: that is our duty, that is our strength, and that is our programme.

    So, let us keep our eyes on the bigger picture; on the key challenges of the next four years. And let me share with you some of my own priorities and the direction in which we must go. I’ve spoken already about some of the key themes, but there are other fundamental issues that demand to be heard. We must build a stronger, manufacturing base. We must take regulation off industry’s back – large industry and small industry. We must make public services truly serve the people’s needs. And we must provide the best possible education in all our schools. And, Mr President, critical to millions of people in this country, we must win the war against crime.

    It is upon these issues that we will take our stand. They will dominate our thinking and our law-making, so expect action on deregulation, expect action on education, and expect action on law and order right at the very heart of what we do. Ken Clarke’s package, yesterday, was just an instalment, so we will have a full programme and a busy autumn. Mr President, unless British industry is competitive abroad, Britain will be weak at home. We have to get the basics right for business: inflation, interest rates, tax, they’re all uniquely favourable to British industry today. Exporters haven’t seen a combination like that for very nearly forty years. The signs are right. Manufacturing output is up; investment is up; productivity is up: excellent signs, every one. Retail sales; construction orders; car sales – all of them are up – all very good signs. And Scotland – Scotland is leading the way: another very good sign, not least with whisky exports – Scotland’s liquid gold: rivers and rivers of scotch pouring down foreign throats. And not only foreign throats! I cannot tell you how much I’ve been looking forward to this part of the speech. That’s the way to get overseas businessmen to sign. And look at that – Ian Lang smiling, as well! That’s another sign: a Scottish sign, a marvellous sign, an Auld Lang sign! I know, Mr President, the joke was awful, but the whisky was great.

    And the future looks good: we’ve turned the corner. But for British industry the challenge is still enormous. For them to succeed they need a workforce with skills and with imagination. It’s they who’ll carve out success for Britain. So our children must be taught the skills they need. That’s why we need the basics at the very beginning of schooling. It’s why we need good, vocational education. Why we need proper information on how children are doing. And, yes, Mr President, that’s why we need tests in schools, as well. Mr President, we might as well face the truth, only quality will win in today’s world. As a small boy, I grew up like many of you, I suspect, looking at a map covered in pink with a huge British Empire spanning the world. Like many people I’m nostalgic about that. I wish the world was still a captive market for British exports, but it isn’t. And it’s no good our dreaming that it is and pretending that things haven’t changed. Our businessmen have to operate in the most competitive world we’ve ever seen, and so we must give those businessmen every bit of help that we can. And that’s why this Government must be, and I promise you it will be, right out there in the thick of the fight, right out there alongside British industry – manufacturing matters. And, Mr President, wherever I travel around the world I’ll tell you what I want to find. I want to find goods with that magic label, ‘Made in Britain’, all around the world. We’re going to win in the export markets of the world, and to those who said that Scotland can’t play its part in that, I say: this is James Watt country, Baird country, McLaren country, Bell country – doers. Doers who took destiny by the scruff of the neck and changed it. And it’s the country of Adam Smith, the arch priest of enterprise and choice. So, I make you this promise, here in Scotland, and where better, we’re not going to let tin-pot regulators who can’t see beyond their office door tie down the genius of a nation.

    Mr President, choice: choice is central to Conservatism, It is its very heart. Without choice there is no freedom. Without choice there is no achievement. It is a basic fact of human nature. When people choose of their own free-will, they become committed. They don’t just stick to the contract. They give that little bit extra. They become inventive. They make things happen. That’s the spirit we want, and not least in our public services. And, so, since the Election, look what has happened in some public services. In Scotland’s health service: not just the seventeen new trusts, but much more besides. Look what Scotland’s hospitals are achieving: better patient care; shorter waiting times; tough targets exceeded. That is the power of choice at work, today, in Scotland. And when others abroad were beginning to write about re-inventing government, we, in Britain, were putting it into practice. That is what the Citizen’s Charter is all about. The most far-reaching programme for raising standards in public service ever seen. Some said it was irrelevant. The cocktails grenadiers sniped and sneered, but then they don’t rely on public services. But millions and millions of British people do. And what has happened in these last two years? Real changes – real changes enhancing real lives, the time taken to deal with pension claims cut by a third; every hospital eliminating waiting lists of two years or more; ninety-five percent of Scotland’s parents now getting their children into their first-choice primary school, and every parent in Britain receiving an annual report on their child’s progress in schools. Some people always took such things for granted, but not everyone. And now the Charter’s opening out old narrow privilege. It’s making first-rate service a natural expectation of everyone. So here’s a slogan for Whitehall: competition reaches the parts of the civil service that memoranda cannot reach! We are changing the age-old practices of the public sector: making pay relate to how good they are, not how long they’ve been doing the job; giving the private sector the chance to compete. Mr President, we are still only at the beginning. Over time, there will be no part of the public service that will not be touched by these changes: from the dustman at your door, right up to the office of the Cabinet Secretary himself. And, I daresay, he’ll soon be asking my Private Secretary precisely what I mean by that. I’ll be very surprised if he doesn’t!

    Mr President, I want now to turn to another matter of huge concern. And let me say this right at the outset: I refuse to accept there is nothing to do about crime, and I’m not going to turn my back on what I know is a growing worry for millions of people. The great majority of decent British people know it’s the duty of everyone to uphold the law: no ‘ifs’, no ‘buts’. But I’m afraid there are a far too many who do ‘if’ and ‘but’. Who do criticise the police. Who do devote their energies to explaining crime and justifying it. And there are those who boost the self-esteem of young criminals by giving them the chance to swagger on television and radio. To them I would say: just think. Just think, then stop, That way you can play a part in this country’s fight against crime. Mr President, I don’t underestimate the challenge. There is a huge battle ahead, and it involves all of us. If we fail to teach children the difference between right and wrong, we are fostering crime. If we turn away or close the curtains, we are helping crime. If know what others have done and don’t say ‘no’ but say nothing, we are aiding crime. The police and Government, we will do all we can, but we cannot do it all. We are on the side of the public, but we need the help of the public. Society may not be to blame for crime, but it can certainly play its part in clearing it off our streets. I’ve been encouraged by the recent figures in Scotland showing a downturn in many types of crime. But Peter Fraser made it clear to you this afternoon, that we are far from complacent. We are putting more police on the beat. We are clamping down on late-night drinking, and we are reviewing Scotland’s criminal justice system to see how it can be improved further. Many of you will have been here at this conference all day, so let me say this, to ‘Judy of Edinburgh’ who spoke so eloquently and so bravely in this debate this afternoon, I heard what you said in that remarkable speech. Not only did I hear what you said, I got the message, and so have the whole Cabinet. Judy, you didn’t just speak for yourself. I believe you spoke for the whole country in what you said this afternoon.

    South of the border, we’ve been busy, too. There are too many young criminals offending and re-offending, and laughing while they do it. So, we’re giving the police and courts the powers they need to deal with them. There are too many people who’ve been committing new crimes while out on bail, so we’re going to crack down on them, as well. They will face stiffer sentences and, in my judgment, quite right too. And on too many occasions we’ve seen pedestrians killed by drunken or dangerous drivers, so we’ll be doubling the maximum sentence for them. And we’re removing artificial restrictions on the English and Welsh courts. They’ve resulted in some absurd sentences recently, and they’ve prevented magistrates from giving people with long criminal records the punishment that fits their crime. Mr President, that is wrong. I am not having policy driven by the size of the prison population. I am having policy driven by the safety of the population at large. And another thing, Mr President, we want our police to use their time as efficiently as they can. We want to help them do the job they want to do: beating crime. We don’t train, and equip and pay our police filling out forms. I don’t want policemen fighting paper on their desks: I want them fighting crime on the streets.

    Mr President, we are in the midst of a decade that will see greater change than any decade, even the most venerable person in this hall will have lived through. Change is accelerating, not just in this country, but in countries all around the world: inventions we’ve never dreamed of; social and other problems we’ve never yet faced lie not very far ahead of us. If ever there was a time when governments had to take a long view rather than a short view, you and I, today, are living through that time. We cannot afford just to cast our eyes on the problems of tomorrow, next week, or even next year. We have to stop and think and plan; and often take decisions that may seem strange, today, but are geared at the problems or the opportunities that we can see five or ten years ahead. It seems a long way away, the next millennium. It isn’t. It’s eighty months away. We need to start preparing for it now; thinking for it now; planning for it now; putting our industry and our nation in a position to compete for it in the most competitive world we’ve ever seen, Those are the matters that crowd on in governments, on Ministers, quite apart from the day-to-day problems that one reads about day-to-day in the morning newspapers and watches day-to-day on television.

    We need to stand back sometimes and re-assess where we are, where we’ve come from and where we need to be. I joined the Conservative Party, above all, for one reason: because I believed it had the clearest philosophy and the clearest instinctive ‘feel’ for the ambitions and hopes and dreams of individual people of any political party in this country; and it had a history that was unique. No other political party in any part of Europe, in any part of the world, has served so long, so well, so often in government for its nation.

    We are a remarkable political party: the most formidable fighting force when roused that western politics has ever seen. We have had our good days and our bad days; our highs and our lows; our opportunities and our difficulties, but it is in that unity, that philosophical unity of belief, that instinctive feel for what our nation is and what it wants that Conservatives draw their greatest strengths. It is at times of difficulties that they go back to those ancient instincts, draw out that strength again, and prepare for the years ahead. We’re a party that thinks beyond one generation. We can afford to do so. We were governing this nation long before the Labour party was ever a nightmare in anyone’s mind. And we’ll be governing it long after they’re dead and gone as a political party, provided – provided we maintain that instinctive connection with the cares, the concerns, the hopes and the aspirations of the British nation. That is the genius of our party. That is the genius, I suspect, that drew all of those, however we may have thought of it, in this great party, and kept us here through the years,

    So, let us put aside temporary problems and temporary difficulties. Let us keep our eye on the far distance as well as the near future. Let us plan not just for what we’ll be doing tomorrow or next year, but for the sort of society we want our children and our grandchildren to grow up in. That is what I ask this party of ours to do, both today and in the future. So, at the moment, after recent difficulties, we are fighting back at this conference. Fighting back for our ideals, fighting for what we believe in. Fighting for what brought us in to the party and what will keep us bound in this party, even in the most difficult of days. We have been through tough times, tough for this party, more important, perhaps, tough for millions of people across the land. But at the last General Election those millions of people supported us: fourteen and a half million more votes than any political party had ever received at any Election in this country, and they did so because we set out simply and clearly what we stood for and what we were doing. We set out where we were going and why we wanted to go. And from one end of the country to another they listened. We touched a chord in their instincts. They trusted us to do what was right for Britain and to see it through.

    Mr President, that is what Conservatism is about – your Conservatism, my Conservatism – to offer a fuller life; to stand up for Britain; to keep our United Kingdom whole and strong. Today, I sought to spell out where we stand and what our policies are. Our ambitions are, as they ever were, the ambitions of millions: to build a prosperous Britain. A Britain which sends its goods to every part of the world; a Britain where people feel safe on our streets, and secure in their homes. A United Kingdom, where effort is rewarded, where choice is ‘king’ and where everyone has the chance to succeed. Mr President, that’s the Britain that I want, and that is the Britain that we are fighting to build, and I invite you all to join me in that fight.

  • PMQT – 13 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Congdon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

    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. Congdon : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the levels of compensation paid out under the citizen’s charter demonstrate its effectiveness? Does he further agree that the moves to agency status and contracting out are the best way of achieving value for money? Does he also agree that it is not surprising that all those measures have been resisted by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : As to the last part of my hon. Friend’s question, I am unsurprised.

    Paying compensation is popular with those who use public services. I also believe that it is right that compensation should be paid when service is bad. It provides a satisfactory discipline on the public services. As regards contracting out, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It has brought great benefits both to those who use public services and, critically, to those who pay for public services.

    Mr. John Smith : Since the opposition of the whole teaching profession to the imposition of tests this year has been reinforced by the overwhelming vote by members of the National Union of Teachers in favour of a boycott, will the Prime Minister now do the sensible thing and suspend compulsory tests this year?

    The Prime Minister : I was very sad this morning to see the result of the vote by the National Union of Teachers, which was the only teacher association not to welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on Tuesday. A lot of people will be asking whether that union really supports the principle of regular testing in our schools or whether another agenda concerns it. I very much trust that the NUT will reflect on what my right hon. Friend said.

    Mr. Smith : As the Secretary of State for Education was forced to concede that there were flaws in the tests, which is why he climbed down about next year, why on earth is the Prime Minister forcing children to take the tests this year?

    The Prime Minister : What should be called off are the unprofessional and utterly futile boycott threats. Teachers should do what the majority of parents want–co-operate in helping to make the tests work this year and in future years.

    On the second point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, he will recall that he has asked me that before. Ron Dearing has made it absolutely clear that he needs the experience of this year’s tests to redesign them satisfactorily for the future.

    Mr. Smith : As there is overwhelming opposition to compulsory tests this year, from parents as well as teachers and governors, why does the Prime Minister not show a glimmer of common sense and end the farce now? If he is not listening to parents and teachers, whom is he listening to? Does he not understand that to be so foolishly stubborn is a sign of weakness and not of strength?

    The Prime Minister : It is common sense to proceed with tests so that we can correct them and get them right in the future. Testing in schools is vital to measure the progress of the pupils concerned. The Opposition may wriggle, but that happens to be the reality. I hope that even, at this late stage, teachers will realise the importance to pupils of having these tests, the importance to the reform of testing of having those tests and the importance to the dignity of the profession of teaching in not proceeding with industrial action at the expense of schools.

    Mr. Gorst : Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Conservative Government came to office in 1979 membership of trade unions has fallen by 28 per cent? Will my right hon. Friend say whether he believes this is due to their being a growing anachronism, badly led, or merely because of their limpet-like, hand-in-glove connection with the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly not inclined to disagree with any of my hon. Friend’s points. Trade union membership does continue to decline and is substantially lower than it was a decade or so ago. I notice that many of the unions still sponsor right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench and resist suggestions that they should abandon the out- dated block vote in favour of one member, one vote. It is a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune, and on this, too, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is wriggling.

     

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

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

    Mr. Burden : The Prime Minister will probably have heard that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that he regrets “that inflation got out of control at the end of the 1980s.” Would the Prime Minister care to enlighten the House as to what jobs he was doing at the end of the 1980s?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had cared to research very carefully, he would have known that we have made it clear on a number of occasions that after the 1987 stock exchange crash we reduced interest rates faster than, with hindsight, we thought was correct, and that contributed to inflation. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, at that time, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) both invited us to cut interest rates further and faster and that that would have put inflation up even more. The hon. Gentleman should do his research more accurately.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jessel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Jessel : As the economy and business confidence have, under the Conservative Government, begun to improve–especially since Britain left the exchange rate mechanism–will my right hon. Friend give further support to business confidence by making it clear that the United Kingdom will not return to fixed exchange rates?

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, and as I made clear earlier this year, we will not consider rejoining the ERM before important conditions have been met, in particular the requirement that German and United Kingdom monetary policies must be much more closely aligned before we can begin to consider whether it would be appropriate for Britain to rejoin. Clearly those conditions are unlikely to be satisfied soon.

     

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

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

    Mr. Barnes : Some people still believe in the ultimate objective of a multi-ethnic democratic society, with full minority rights, for the former Yugoslavia. Included among them are many of the people of Yugoslavia who bravely stand out against violence and intimidation. Why do we not listen to some of their ideas for the extension of safe havens and United Nations border controls? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not everyone in Yugoslavia is a supporter of paramilitarism and war lords?

    The Prime Minister : We have indicated on a number of occasions in the House the way in which we think it is right for us to proceed at the moment. We have made that clear and we have said that we believe that it is right to continue to pursue a political settlement, without which no settlement can stick in the long term even though perhaps for a short while it might be held. We have made it clear that we believe that it is right to proceed with sanctions, and we have not ruled out the use of force, should that prove necessary, in selected circumstances.

     

    Q5. Mr. Alan Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that as economic growth strengthens and as our improved competitiveness, particularly in manufacturing, makes its impact, that will increasingly be appreciated by the voters, who will also note the nature of the Opposition parties–one inextricably tied to the big unions and big bureaucracy and the other without roots and no more than the scavengers of British politics?

    The Prime Minister : Things have certainly been difficult for many companies and people throughout the recession. I understand that and have acknowledged it on a number of occasions. I believe that as recovery comes through, many of those people will see that it would not have come through unless we had taken the right decisions to get inflation down and keep it down for the future.

    We can now see that manufacturing output is turning up, that manufacturing productivity is at record levels, that exports of manufactures are at record levels and that, according to the Confederation of British Industry, optimism in manufacturing industry has reached a 10-year high. They are very welcome signs. We are clearly coming out of recession in the right circumstances for sustained growth over a long period.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown : When the right hon. Gentleman took the decision to withhold the helicopter carrier order from Swan Hunter Shipbuilders, he will have known that he was bringing shipbuilding on Tyneside to an end, so he will not be surprised to learn that at 1 o’clock today Swan Hunter called in the receivers and 6,000 people are now to lose their jobs on Tyneside. Will the Prime Minister help my constituents by telling them where they will find alternative work?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Gentleman knows that, of the two tenders submitted, that submitted by VSEL at Barrow was many tens of millions of pounds below the tender submitted by Swan Hunter. I understand the difficulties faced by Swan Hunter and, because I know of those difficulties, I agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to bring forward that tender earlier than we would otherwise have done to see whether Swan Hunter could satisfactorily win the tender in open competition. I regret that it did not, but I am not in a position to reject a tender many tens of millions of pounds below that of the alternative tender. The answer to the substantive second part of the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary question is that it is precisely because we are concerned about the employment prospects on Tyneside that we yesterday announced a range of measures to help, including a new enterprise zone, a new English Estates development in conjunction with the city council and the development corporation, more services from the Tyneside training and enterprise council and employment services, confirmation that Newcastle and South Tyneside will remain a development area, and extra resources for the Tyne and Wear development corporation for industrial sites.

    I invite Opposition Members who scoffed when I mentioned the enterprise zone to look at other parts of the country that have faced similar difficulties in the past to see how effective that has been. They might, for example, recall the great difficulties at Shotton 10 years ago. If they go back to Shotton today, they will find a modern estate with high-paid, permanent, high-tech, secure jobs for just as many people as once worked in the steel industry there.

     

    Q6. Mr. Ancram : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Ancram : Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as the optimism to which he referred in yesterday’s CBI survey, there are also real indications of growth and increased investment in most of the regions of the United Kingdom, including the south-west? Given that after three hard years of recession most people in my constituency, and elsewhere, want to see real, tangible proof of recovery, as well as promises of recovery, does my right hon. Friend welcome the report as a true indication of recovery which even Opposition Members cannot deny?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I do welcome the report and I hope that that encouraging trend will continue in the months ahead. It is encouraging that businesses right across the country themselves expect to grow strongly in the months immediately ahead of us–in the south-west, certainly, but also in the south-east, the midlands and right across the land. What we in the House all want, I think, without exception, is to see that growth translated into jobs and into money in the family pay packet.

     

    Q7. Mr. Malcolm Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Bruce : Does the Prime Minister accept that the campaign by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to transfer payments from post offices to banks is totally inimical to the interests of those who live in rural communities? Will he ask the Secretary of State to call off that campaign? Does he further recognise that the privatisation of the Post Office will damage rural post offices and delivery services? Rather than postpone privatisation, will he now abandon it?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) last week, I believe, we have made no such proposals. Our policy is to encourage people to receive benefits via their accounts while maintaining a viable network of post office outlets.

  • PMQT – 11 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Pickthall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 May.

    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. Pickthall : I thank the Prime Minister and the many Cabinet Ministers who campaigned in Lancashire in recent weeks and helped Labour vastly to increase its vote and achieve a majority on the local council. Was it in Lancashire that the Government heard about the challenging environment that they faced, the big hole that they were in and the bloody nose they were about to get? Did they listen to the people of Lancashire on value added tax, testing in schools, unemployment and the attacks on local democracy? Can the people of Britain expect the Government’s supposed listening to the people to be translated into action to rebuild the country, instead of the present policies which are dismantling it?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly deserves an A-level in smugness. Perhaps I may quote something to the hon. Gentleman from The Sunday Times that I have no doubt he will find of interest. The quote, which he may enjoy, reads as follows :

    “Conservative set-backs in Thursday’s county council elections were so severe that Labour would win the general election on the same voting breakdown.”

    That was The Sunday Times in 1985. Two years later we won the election with a majority of 100.

    Mr. Conway : Is my right hon. Friend feeling cheerful, because he should? Is it not the case that we have every reason to be optimistic because, of all the countries that pulled out of the exchange rate mechanism last autumn, the United Kingdom is the only country to have pulled out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : The principal reason Britain has come out of recession is that we have achieved low inflation ; because we have got inflation down, we were able to cut 5 per cent. off interest rates– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Will hon. Members on the Bench below the Gangway please desist until we get through Question Time? They can then go outside and have their own singsong.

    The Prime Minister : I think that everyone was enjoying it, Madam Speaker. It was because we cut inflation that we were able to take 5 per cent. off interest rates before last September, and because we got inflation down we are now beginning to see a recovery in retail sales and exports since the spring. It is because of that that we shall see greater growth this year and next year than any other country in the European Community.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Budget in November will be presented by the present Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)?

    The Prime Minister : That is a hoary old chestnut of a question. I have not yet even begun to contemplate Cabinet changes. But I will say this: it is because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken difficult decisions that we now have inflation at a 25-year low, interest rates at a 15-year low and prospects of the fastest growth in Europe this year and next year. That is an excellent record which people will recognise long after the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s undignified sniping is forgotten.

    Mr. Smith : Surely the Prime Minister heard the question quite clearly. It is a simple question : will the present Chancellor present the next Budget? Cannot the Prime Minister say either yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : I explained very clearly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If I wanted advice on Cabinet making, I would not seek it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who last week had to sack his own economic spokesman for incompetence.

    Mr. Smith : Madam Speaker– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Smith : The Prime Minister seems to be having some difficulty with a simple question– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and not use up time in this way.

    Mr. Smith : May I give the Prime Minister a third shot at it? Will the present Chancellor present the Budget? If the Prime Minister cannot say yes, why cannot he say no?

    The Prime Minister : Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman just admit that he has got a bloody nose? It is a good deal more dignified.

    Mr. Marlow : My right hon. Friend–as a genuine, listening Prime Minister–will be aware of the alienation expressed in the constituencies last week. He will also be aware of the severe mauling given to the Maastricht treaty by the democratic process. Is he not greatly concerned about the massive alienation that would result if the ratification of this new constitution now depended on the Danes, the Whips and the courts alone?

    The Prime Minister : If, as my hon. Friend intimates, the election was really about the Maastricht treaty, it is rather surprising how well some other political parties did.

    Mr. Ashdown : After Srebrenica, just as I predicted, there has been Zepa. Does the Prime Minister still insist on doing nothing more to save the tens of thousands of innocents in Gorazde from a similar tragic fate?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is being deeply unfair to the efforts by both this country and a large number of other countries which are working together. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the difficulties and also of the intense dangers of following some of the actions that he has advocated in the past. He knows what action we are proposing to take ; that remains the position and we continue to discuss that and other options with our allies.

    Mr. Streeter : Is my right hon. Friend aware that on a recent visit to estate agents in Plympton in my constituency, I found that estate agents could talk of nothing else but a real and significant upturn in the housing market, with house sales increasing and house prices improving week by week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that reflects a steady return to confidence in this country and represents good news for Plymouth, good news for the country and bad news for the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that that is right in every aspect. I have not myself visited estate agents, as I have no intention of moving.

     

    Q2. Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Milburn : Does the Prime Minister share his Chancellor’s lack of regret about the damage done to the country by his Government? Is not it time that he learned to apologise and to listen to the millions of people who have become the victims of his policies? Has he got time today to tell them what changes in direction he has planned following last week’s overwhelming public rejection not only of him and his colleagues but of his Government’s policies?

    The Prime Minister : I have said before, and from the Dispatch Box, that I understand the difficulties that people have faced as a result of the recession. I have said that clearly. I have also made it clear that I appreciate that it has lasted longer than people anticipated, but it was necessary to bring inflation down, or inflation would have gone on wreaking ever-greater damage for an even longer period. We needed to bring it down ; we have brought it down. That is the only secure basis for lasting growth in the future. The fact is that the Labour party would never have had the guts to take the decisions that were necessary.

     

    Economy

    Q3. Mr. Michael Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the state of the economy.

    The Prime Minister : It is getting better every day exports up, manufacturing output up, retail sales up, business confidence up, new housing starts up and gross domestic product up.

    Mr. Brown : Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply is confirmed in Brigg and Cleethorpes, where industrial recovery has resulted in unemployment falling to below the national average where once it was twice the national average? Will he acknowledge the Government support that has resulted in tremendous United States investment through companies such as Kimberly-Clark Ltd. and Paramount Packaging, where many jobs have been created in the last few months? May I advise my right hon. Friend that in Cleethorpes last week Allied Colloids announced that 90 more new jobs would be created?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to welcome investments such as those which represent good news for Humberside. They represent the confidence of inward investors and of British companies in the region. I know how hard my hon. Friend works for his constituents and how much he will welcome those developments.

    Ms Estelle Morris : What would the Prime Minister say to the millions of pensioners living just above income support level who thought that his pledge to start listening would mean that the proposal to charge VAT on fuel would be removed?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone, including the Opposition Front Bench, as I understand it, agrees that the budget deficit is too high and that we need to bring it down. We have had the courage to produce our proposals, of which VAT is a part, to bring it down. I am surprised that the hon. Lady should raise that after the nonsense talked by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about VAT last week, when it was clear from one of his economic spokesmen that the Opposition, too, would have increased VAT on a range of items.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Sir Fergus Montgomery : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 May.

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

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Has my right hon. Friend seen the report today that housing starts are up 22 per cent. compared with the last quarter? Should not that news bring joy even to the hearts of the dismal Johnnies on the Opposition Benches? Is not that a sign of a return to confidence?

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that the Opposition are unhappy at good news. They realise that good news today for us is bad news tomorrow for them. Clearly, it shows growing confidence by the building industry in the market for new houses. That is very welcome in view of the difficulties that the construction industry has had. With the measures that the Chancellor took in the autumn statement, the measures that he took in the budget and the reduction in interest rates, there is clearly a much better prospect for the housing market.

     

    Q5. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Connarty : Does not the Prime Minister accept that the bloody nose on Thursday was given to him personally as much as to his Government? Has it improved his listening skills area on the issue of testing children? We are to have a statement later today, but the nation is looking to the Prime Minister to see where he stands. As a Scot, I remember that we went through a period of attrition when the Government tried to force testing on to our country. Thankfully, it is now back in the hands of parents and teachers who care for children, so that test items can be used whenever they want and not compulsorily. Will the Prime Minister tell the House where he stands on the testing of children and the interference of the state in the care of parents and teachers?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is that, of course, I accept my share of responsibility for the election results last week, in precisely the same way as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will accept his share of responsibility for losing the last election. As for education and testing, I will tell the hon. Gentleman precisely where I stand : I stand four square with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

     

    Q6. Mr. Thomason : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Thomason : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is never popular to increase taxes but it is necessary to balance the books? Does he further agree that the responsibility of the Government contrasts sharply with that of Labour Members, who demand more spending but do not tell us how they would pay for it?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend and, as he indicated, measures are in place to bring down the size of the borrowing requirement. That has required some tough decisions, but, having concluded that that is necessary, the Government have taken those decisions knowing that they cannot be ducked. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Labour party is in a fundamentally dishonest position– [Interruption.] Opposition Members are committed to spending money, but they will not say where the money is coming from. That is very good for an Opposition but not for a Government, which is why we remain on these Benches and they remain on the Opposition Benches.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Newspaper Society Luncheon – 5 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Newspaper Society Luncheon, held on Wednesday 5th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say that I do regard today as an important occasion to talk about some of the particular difficulties and some of the opportunities that are faced by the press generally but most importantly in terms of today’s occasion, the regional press. It does I believe have a very special place in our community and I want to touch upon that in a little more detail in a few moments.

    It is a rapidly changing industry, it has come a huge way since that old and hoary headline we all know about the sinking of the Titanic, Aberdeen Man Feared Lost at Sea – all that seems a very long time ago. Regional papers, local papers, have a much broader vision these days. New technology, new attitudes, new approaches, all of those in their different ways have transformed your industry. And if I may say so on this occasion, I think no-one pushed harder for such transformation than the great Malcolm Graham, the grand old man of regional press if I might put it that way, who sadly has just died and who I know must have been well known to many of the people here today.

    I teased about Aberdeen Man Lost at Sea. But I have to say, despite the modern attitudes of your industry, despite the changes in it, the headline writers still occasionally have a tricky job. For example, I have in my hand the Lynn News. Those people who wonder whether I read the press now know that I read the regional press. And last week’s Lynn News announced: “MP introduces his bride-to-be, Emma.” Now that seems straightforward enough, doesn’t it? Less straightforward than you might think. The Member of Parliament of course is our old friend Henry Bellingham who is shrinking into the tablecloth over there on that table, and I offer Henry my congratulations. His engagement, you may think, is just plain, simple, straightforward good news. Or is it? Read on in the Lynn News. It says here that an ancestor of Henry’s murdered the Prime Minister and the Tories are the party of tradition. Family tradition, Henry, is a wonderful thing, but so is ambition, and they may clash.

    My current favourite headline does not as it happens come from today’s press but from headlines: “Better times”, it says, “are really on the way”. I think that should be good news for everyone although of course good news for some is bad news for others. And to quote a recent headline in the Financial Times: “British recovery worries Delors” – very snappy, I like it, and poor Jacques, if our recovery really does worry him, he is in for a very bad time in the future.

    Mr President, let me say something about how I see the importance of your industry. Or perhaps a little better, let me quote Alan Proper from the Kent Messenger Group, and I do so now: “The strength of the regional press lies in binding together local communities and giving people back a sense of belonging.” I think that is right. And in giving us just that you often, as you hinted in your modest remarks earlier, Mr President, you often out-perform the nationals. People want the news, they want to be informed, but I believe they want the good news as well as the other news, they want to know about local events and they want to contribute themselves. Public figures of course may respond to the press by lurching from blase to paranoid during the space of a single afternoon. But for private citizens penlines on the turn are an event. You can brighten lives or you can blight them. So I would say to you, dip your pens in kindliness and tolerance when writing of private citizens, you record the real Britain so be a recording angel when you do.

    So far as public figures are concerned you may think different circumstances apply. I certainly know, and I see a number of my Parliamentary colleagues from different parties here today, I know many Members of Parliament are tempted to use Sir Jacob Astley’s prayer. He wrote as follows:

    “Oh Lord, thou knowest how busy I shall be this day,

    If I forget thee, do not thou forget me.”

    A very wise man, Sir Jacob Astley, and any Westminster politician who thinks he can forget the real Britain and forget his local newspapers will be out of touch now and probably be out of office later.

    I welcome unreservedly, and I say so not simply because Harry Roach is sitting opposite me, I would have said it anyway, if you spent Tuesday and Thursday afternoons like I do you lose that sense of delicacy, I welcome unreservedly yesterday’s statement by the Press Standard’s Board of Finance outlining measures to strengthen self-regulation. The government is still considering its response to the Calcutt Report but I have not a shred of doubt that this positive move will play its part in moving the debate forward, we will keep a particularly close eye, Harry, on how effectively and widely the new measures are implemented.

    The best of the national press can be very good even though it may not thunder like the times of delaying, often it drizzles, sometimes it drizzles acid rain. There are moments when Quintus Flyde of the People’s Vanner appears to have leapt straight from the pages of Trollop into contemporary journalism. Quintus Flyde was very fierce with politicians and I think it has to be said that politicians are sometimes very fierce with the Quintus Flydes. Baldwin’s memorable remarks about press power and responsibility have travelled famously down the years.

    And last night reading in the watches of the night that remarkable Martin Gilbert biography of Churchill I came across Churchill’s letter to The Times complaining that his editorials had, in his words, and now I quote, “been a very important adverse factor in the life and strengths of the British Empire and Commonwealth.” And he went on, in remarkable fashion: “Time after time they have thrown their immense weight on the wrong side and such is their power that they have been able, again and again, to blow away the head of every front or formation which could be made to keep Britain great and strong.”

    Thank goodness it is not like that today. Churchill, you may equally be interested to know, wrote his letter, but as Martin Gilbert faithfully reports, he did not send his letter which suggests that underneath the frustration there was a very practical politician indeed.

    Now obviously, just as the press has responsibilities to the public, so the government has responsibilities to let the public and the press know the state of our thinking. We will never be proscribers but there is a common climate of anxiety about malevolent abuse. Contemplate for a moment, particularly important I believe to the regional and local press, the new opportunities to challenge government and public services. Under the Citizen’s Charter we are publishing more information about public services, about school league tables, hospital waiting times and shortly the performance of local authorities as well, comparing one with another. Rich pickings for local reporters, bad news for the inefficient, ammunition for the awkward squads and even fun for trouble-makers, but all now published and all available for use.

    We are giving, too, much more detail of the thinking behind government policies. Ten times more background information accompanied this year’s budget compared with 15 years ago and we are opening up the process of government, Cabinet Committees, historical records, disputed criminal verdicts, the Channel Island occupation papers, even the secret of the FCO Sphynx Suez – all now available. Sir Humphrey Appleby, a wonderful character, I believe of fiction, once said: “You can either have openness or you can have government, but you can’t have both.” I don’t understand this next line but you can have William Waldegrave. And this summer he will be publishing a White Paper on openness with further proposals to open the workings of government and public services to public scrutiny. I want to turn Sir Humphrey into a melancholy ghost who has lost his mystique.

    In recent weeks, Mr President, a cascade of economic information has been released that suggests we are moving out of recession and back into growth. The recovery is in its infancy but it is growing daily, GDP up 0.6 percent in the first quarter; new car registrations 11.5 percent up on a year ago; manufacturing output up; construction orders up; retail sales at record levels; exports at record levels; unemployment down for the second month in succession. And business optimism, so vital, that instinct, that feel that people have for what is likely to happen in the future, business optimism, as assessed by the CBI, the highest for 10 years. Other surveys, private sector, not government surveys, paint the same picture.

    And the vital ingredient for our economic future is confidence, confidence that recovery has started, confidence it can be sustained, confidence we can compete successfully abroad in manufacturing and services. But confidence and recovery need to be earned. It was the long hard slog to get inflation down, down from nearly 11 percent to just 1.9 percent, that laid the foundation for recovery. We started that process before we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the benefits had started to come through before we left the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Interest rates had been cut from 15 percent to 10 percent before last September. GDP had stabilised before September and started growing again in the second half of last year. And it is now clear that retail sales, industrial production and manufacturing Investment all started to recover from around the middle of last year. So anyone who argues that leaving the Mechanism was the sole cause of recovery should inform themselves by looking at those facts. We were cutting inflation and cutting interest rates well before and recovery was starting to show through, but we could not have sustained recovery if we had not already got inflation under control. And those conditions, low inflation, low interest rates, competitive exchange rates combined with high productivity, those are the quiet enormously influential guarantors of sustained recovery for the future.

    Of course our recession was exacerbated by a slow-down in the world economy. Similarly, the speed of our recovery will be affected by the recession in many of our European markets. But the fact is we have emerged from recession ahead of our main European competitors and ahead is a good place to stay.

    Mr President, in recent months public and parliamentary debates have been dominated by the economy and by the Maastricht Bill. And one of the effects of that has been that a vast range of reforming legislation has been passing through Parliament in some cases almost without notice, other than perhaps by those Parliamentarians who spent so many hours debating it, discussing it, reforming it and amending it. Recently I asked my staff to draw up a list of our manifesto commitments and the progress that we had made thus far in putting them into effect. On a rough estimate we have already fulfilled rather more than one-third of the commitments we made in the manifesto, in fact more manifesto pledges have been honoured in the Parliamentary year since the 1992 election than was achieved after the elections of 1979, 1983 or 1987.

    And we have had resounding successes in taking important reforming measures through Parliament – the Housing Bill, the Asylum Bill, the Lotteries Bill, the Education Bill, the Employment Bill have now all either received Royal Assent or are well on the way to the Statute Book. As Michael Caine might aptly have put it, not a lot of people know that, but that is what has happened in the midst of the debates about the economy and the Maastricht Treaty.

    And neither I think should we overlook some of the other notable successes, the dogs that did not bark, the successful introduction of the Council Tax and the long awaited reforms of health care in London. And then there is a whole list of solid achievements, of far reaching reforms that just over a year ago people said would never happen – the 800 grant maintained schools, the 150 National Health Service Trusts, the 3,000 GP fund-holders, new rights for parents, new rights for pupils, new rights for trade union members, new rights for tenants, more opportunities for people to buy their own homes, more opportunities to take out their own pensions, more opportunities for parents to know how their children are doing at school. All that has happened over the period of the last year. And we turned over some stones that were left unturned throughout the 1980s. We will abolish NEDDY, we are getting rid of the Wages Councils, controversial in many cases but things that we believe to be right, that we have done and our opponents have rightly opposed for they believe we are wrong, that is the essence of Parliament.

    We are bringing the fresh air of private enterprise into the railways and we are saying that public services – all of them – are no longer no-go areas for government reforms. Pushing through changes as profound and wide ranging as anything we attempted in the 1980s, and just as we succeeded then, I believe we will succeed on this occasion.

    So away from the headlines, away from the smoke and fire of Westminster, we have been pushing ahead with a radical agenda to extend choice, open up opportunity and enable more people to know the pride of ownership. That is what has been happening.

    In the year ahead I want us to make more progress on that vital domestic political agenda and I want to single out just two areas where we will be moving the debate forward. Firstly, and I make no apology for putting it first – law and order. I know there is growing concern about crime, I know it because I share that concern. We have already brought forward measures to tackle the problem of persistent young offenders and new age travellers. Ken Clarke has responded to concerns that have been expressed about the Criminal Justice Act. So we have shown that we are prepared to listen and then act, but there is more that we can and must do and you can expect to see further action in the next session.

    For I am personally in no doubt at all, when that smoke and fire spoke about has cleared away and the Maastricht Treaty is concluded and the immediate concerns and day to day high publicity of the economy have been swept to one side, the matter that is most likely to be on the minds of all of our fellow citizens up and down the country is the need for us to deal firmly with the concerns that they face about crime and the determination to uphold law and order and it is right for Parliament to put it in the centre of its concerns, and that I am determined is precisely where it will be.

    And secondly, businessmen tell me time after time about the problem that they face from over-regulation. Again I believe they are right to be worried, unnecessary bureaucracy destroys jobs, it is as simple as that. I am not amongst those people who decry bureaucracy almost as though it was a smear word, bureaucracy has its role and it is a vital role in many industries and in the maintenance of government and in many ways and on many occasions it is very efficiently performed and I welcome that.

    But unnecessary bureaucracy is a drain on the economy. No-one, for example, who cares about unemployment can be complacent about the great tomes of rules and regulations with which business are burdened. That battle against red tape is never ending, it is a battle that must be fought year, after year, after year, after year, the enemy never seems to lie down and die, it always reappears in one guise or another. So we need to get its hand round its throat, and let me say to you quite clearly today, for me deregulation is an absolute priority and I believe you may see that reflected when we bring forward our legislative programme in the autumn.

    There is a great deal that needs to be done, a great deal that want to do, a great deal that I believe the people of this country want to see Parliament do if we are going to build on the reforms of the 1980s and turn Britain into a country that will succeed in the 1990s. That is why the legislative programme this year is so full; that is why the legislative programme next year – bad news for my parliamentary colleagues of all parties – is going to be very full too and there will be plenty of red meat for every parliamentarian to get his teeth into and equally for the press, both national, regional and local, to comment upon and to examine with care and let me tell you one reason why that must necessarily be so.

    We live, I believe, in the most rapidly-changing decade in peacetime that any of us have ever known. All around us, wherever you look around the world, the competitive environment we face, the people with whom we do business or the people with whom we must transact political exchanges are changing as well. We lead that change or we will find ourselves led by that change. I don’t want to see Britain with a halter round its neck led away by other countries. I want us to play our part in leading in the development of the 1990s both within the European Community and beyond.

    It is very easy – and people are often very fashionably inclined to do it – to stand back and decry the contribution that this country has made, can make, is making and will continue to make in the different fora around the world. That is not a party point. I make no party point. I think it is an instinctive reflection of our historical background that we have a particular role to play in Europe and in the world and I believe it is overwhelmingly the view of Parliament – again irrespective of party – that Britain should play its part in those changes and to do so with maximum influence we need to make sure domestically and economically that we remain ahead of the field.

    It will need changes. Sometimes they will be painful changes. Change is often difficult, often debilitating, often something people would like to put aside and wish it wasn’t necessary but unless we wish to decline, we must face up to many of the needs that we see for changes and implement those changes during this particular decade. I want to be certain that when we start the next Milllennium in 80-odd months time – for that is how close it is – that we can look back on the span of the 1990s and say: “Not only did we deal with the contemporary problems; we laid the groundwork for a more successful, prosperous, secure and happy country at the beginning of the new century!”

    Mr. President, let me just finally turn back, if I may, to your own industry. It shouldn’t, I think, surprise you that I feel a certain sympathy and kinship for your industry. After all, politicians and some journalists hold an equal place in the public’s esteem – as every opinion poll shows! [Laughter] There we are and I think you know where we are! There we are at the bottom of the list along with estate agents who are deeply embarrassed to see themselves bracketed with us!

    So let us see who can improve their rating fastest. We, the Government and the newspaper industry national and local, won’t always agree, Mr. President, but let us join forces in one thing at least. As I said a moment ago, our world is fast changing, disturbing and too many people are uncertain of the future, fearful of losing much that is traditional and valuable about our society – tolerance, decency and respect for others.

    Alan Sprossor spoke of the danger of people becoming – and I quote directly from him again – “strangers in their own land” and he spoke also of the role of local newspapers in preventing that. I agree with him. Let us offer support, show that those British values we care about are still alive and well. Like you, the regional and local newspaper industry, we speak for the local hearts of Britain. Let us help local communities take control and shape their own local services, promoting choice and encouraging responsibility. It is work worth doing; it is work worth doing together; it is work, I believe, that millions of our fellow citizens out there hunger to see done both at Westminster and locally so let us see to what extent we can work together and build that better Britain we want to see and build it from the ground up. [Applause].

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    I ask this question, Prime Minister, not because I am sitting opposite you [indistinct] [laughter] I was very pleased indeed to hear the fact that you welcomed the improvements that [indistinct] announced yesterday about self-regulation. What I would like to say is given those improvements and given that the industry – and by “the industry” I mean the national, regional and local press – is not opposed to legislation to protect the privacy of members of the public providing that that legislation is applicable to all and not just to newspapers, would you agree, Prime Minister, that the way forward is to couple that general [indistinct] with continuing improvements in self-regulation rather than [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me say firstly to Harry it is unsurprising you should have a question in mind and I answer it not because I’m sitting opposite you but because I am happy to deal with what is a very important point.

    Let me elaborate firstly on the question of self-regulation. I always welcome moves to improve self-regulation. I think it is attractive, I think it is desirable and I shall study very carefully, as I said, precisely what you proposed yesterday and how it works. We will need to see how successful it is before passing judgement on it and deciding absolutely what to do. We will take that into account when responding to the Heritage Select Committee Report as we are bound to do in due course.

    Let me tell you some of the instincts I have about press regulation. I have made it clear before and I am happy to make it clear again today that I am reluctant to go down the route of statutory press complaints tribunals. I am reluctant to do that. I have made that clear before and am happy to reiterate that point today. We have reserved our position but our reluctance is genuine.

    We have accepted the recommendations that Calcutt produced for criminal offences of unwanted intrusion into people’s privacy. We have done that because we think there is a difficult balance to be kept. There is firstly upon the one hand the legitimate right of the press to investigate and report and as I said a few moments ago when I spoke to you, I am not a proscriber, I am not in the business of restricting the legitimate rights of investigation of the press but I do want to balance it with the legitimate right to privacy of individuals as well. It is a difficult balance to keep but it is one in my experience that the regional and local press particularly have well understood over many years and well appreciate.

    We all know from time to time that the desire to know goes further than the desire to know legitimately ought in the interests of the individual and you have seen the sort of occasions I mean: where there is a vast collection of people with bugging devices, telephoto lenses and a degree of intrusion and harassment often of people in a very defensive position, perhaps when someone has died in a very emotional situation and I think many people think that goes too far. Much of that is for self-regulation and I hope your proposals will help. Bits of it, I think after Calcutt, are perhaps for the Government to consider regulating but we are not in the business, as I said, of going down the route of a statutory press complaints procedure.

    We are considering precisely how we should proceed. I think it is right that we should take a good deal of time to do so because it is a very important series of principles that are at stake. They are not principles that all lie on one side of the argument. There are legitimate principles over the right to know as well as legitimate concerns over the right to privacy. I don’t want to make a snap judgement on what might be in any proposals we produce. Let me say to you: when we produce those proposals, it will only have been after the greatest consideration and care and with no intention to do violence to the traditional freedom of the press. That is not our intention and we will announce our conclusions when we have finished our consideration. That, I fear, will be a little way ahead [applause].

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do, but let me say a few general words and then I’ll come directly to article 3B which for those of you who have been carefully following the debates in the House of Commons through day and night and not reading Martin Gilbert’s biographies will know is the clause that actually deals with subsidiarity.

    Let me say a word or two about Europe first. There are three sorts of people who look at Europe and our position in it.

    There are those who wish in their hearts we were never part of it and the world was still as it was a long time ago and that we were still sending Henry II abroad to teach the French how to behave [laughter] – and some of those may be here.

    Then there are those who are full of the milk of human idealism and do actually see a great deal of advantage in a centralised Europe.

    I would suggest to you that both of those two extremes are a minority of opinion amongst the British people.

    And then there are the vast majority of people, amongst whom I stand myself, who look across the European Community and see the reality of what life is industrially and commercially and the opportunities that exist for us if we play a part in it and the disadvantages that lie ahead for us if we do not. Those people, I believe, take my view that we are in the European Community, 60% of our exports go to the European Community. We export more to Germany these days than we do to the United States and Japan added together. There are vastly important markets for us and for our industry and the European Community of which we are a part makes the rules that govern this great free-trading single market, a free-trading single market that has come about because of the British influence.

    We have a choice: get out and lose many of those markets; stand aside without influence and let the French, the Germans, the Dutch and the Spanish make the rules that will govern the way our industry operates or get in the middle of it and actually form alliances with other people who think as we do and ourselves begin to frame the sort of European Community that is compatible to us and compatible to the rest of the European Community and there I must say is where I take my stand as to the right policy for the United Kingdom.

    There are those who say to us: “But you never win!” Where have they been these people who say we never win? Who invented the Single Market, the free-trading aspect of Europe? A British commissioner. Started by a British Prime Minister, completed at Edinburgh by a British Prime Minister.

    Who pushed for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy? The British pushed for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

    Who want the European Community to widen and bring in the EFTAn states? The British wanted it to widen and bring in the EFTAn states and why? Because what we have at the moment is a fragment of Europe, not the real Europe; it is a fragment of Europe.

    Bring in the EFTAns and you bring in free traders, you bring in people who will contribute to the Community budget and you make it infinitely more likely that you will have the sort of European Community that will be amenable to you as a businessman and to every other businessman in this country.

    And then lift our eyes for a moment above the mundane problems of commerce and the profit and loss account nationally or at company level. Twice this century the world has gone to war and the war has started in Western Europe. That is inconceivable and the principal reason it is inconceivable is that intermeshing of trade that has come about over the past 30 to 40 years in the European Community, that interlinking of mutual self-interest that renders any war other than a paper war or a war of words absolutely unthinkable and we have an opportunity not just to enshrine that but to spread that. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of communism, the opportunities that exist with enlargement of the Community to the north with the EFTAns and potential enlargement to take in the Visegrad countries – our old friends from Hungary, Poland, the Czech Lands and Slovakia – opens the possibility of extending that free trade principle, that democratic principle. With free trade there is democracy; without free trade there often is no democracy at all. Those are historic political opportunities that we actually have as well.

    That is – you may put it – the high-flown reason for being part of the European Community but you say that I am buried in all sorts of boring and tedious regulations. I know that. What do you think I spend my life fighting in Europe for? It is to get rid of those tedious regulations. Where do they come from? They come from the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. The Maastricht Treaty gives us an opportunity for the first time to start reversing that.

    What was I doing last night? I was discussing with the new French Prime Minister the virtues of subsidiarity with which he wholeheartedly agrees. What was I doing in Salzburg when I went to see Chancellor Kohl on his health cure? [Laughter] I was actually eating a five-course meal while he drank herbal tea! [Laughter and applause]. But apart from that, we were discussing matters like subsidiarity.

    It is not just we who feel frustrated about it. Ask the French how they feel about the fact that they are often stifled and you will get the same sort of response that you had a moment ago. Ask the Germans how they feel about subsidiarity with the troubles they have got between their federal parliament and the their Lander all the way around Germany.

    What has changed in the European Community is that Britain no longer stands alone. That is what has changed and we have the opportunity of forming those alliances and shaping in a way we have not previously had the sort of Community in concert with our partners that we like.

    Let me put this point to you. If any other European country suddenly said: “We are going to do it all our way and the rest of you in the Community can follow on behind!” If the French said that, the British would be up in arms and equally, I have to say to you that when the British beat their chests and say: “In a Community of Twelve we are going to do it our way or not at all!” the same frustration, the same blockage, the same breaking of links that will actually reach concrete results also comes about so I no longer am Henry II. I cannot go abroad and impose my will. I have to negotiate and agree what is right for this country but I don’t have any doubt that it is right for us to be there, right for us to create our sort of Community and I have no doubt that the principle of subsidiarity

    [small section missing]

    I put it at its simplest. The Maastricht Treaty is in British national interest. If I had wanted cheap, short-term popularity, if I had wanted to don a John Bull vest and been cheered no doubt in odd meetings from Lands End to John O’Groats I could have said: “Away with treaty! We’ll all do it differently!” but it isn’t in our interest and whatever the manoeuvrings and interests of others are, my responsibility is to proceed with what I passionately believe is in the British national interest and that means ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, Britain in Europe with the Treaty without the Social Charter playing a role in developing the future of Europe. I believe that is an historic role for the British nation and I believe it is an historic role for the British Conservative Party and upon that point I will not be moved. [Applause].

  • PMQT – 29 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Couchman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Couchman : I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he contact President Clinton today, as he contemplates new measures against the Bosnian Serbs, and convey to him the grave reservations of many people in Europe about the possibility of air strikes against any targets, strategic or otherwise, in Bosnia? Will he remind the President of the paramount need to secure the safety of United Nations troops presently serving in Bosnia, including British soldiers, in giving vital humanitarian aid?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital to minimise the risk to the United Nations troops and, of course, to the humanitarian aid civilians who are also there and who, for so long and so bravely, have carried out the humanitarian operation. We will take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that.

    Our other objectives in Bosnia are to do all we can to deter further Serbian attacks and to maximise pressure on all parties to accept the cease fire and a negotiated settlement. But at the moment we are not excluding any viable option which might help to achieve those objectives. We are consulting our allies, especially the United States and our United Nations allies in France and elsewhere, and have expressed our views very clearly to them.

    Mr. John Smith : As the horrendous situation in Bosnia worsens even further and as no clear policy has yet emerged from the international community which would effectively deter continued Serb advance, is it not the case that the acknowledged risks of limited air strikes are increasingly outweighed by the very real dangers of continued inaction? Is there not a serious danger that if another policy is not adopted, moves will be made to lift the arms embargo, which would merely intensify the conflict?

    The Prime Minister : I share the observations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made about the lifting of the arms embargo. That does present special difficulties. As I have said before, and reiterate now, we cannot rule out further measures for maximising pressure on the Serbs. We are consulting closely our allies and partners. We must, of course, weigh carefully the implications of air strikes for the removal of the arms embargo or, indeed, any other proposals that may arise in our consultations or in the debate in the House this afternoon.

    We must bear particularly in mind the need to sustain the United Nations humanitarian effort. It is all too easy to overlook the fact that, but for that effort over the winter, many hundreds of thousands possibly would have died. The fact that it has continued has been of immense benefit.

    Mr. John Smith : As the days and weeks go by, and the Serbs continue to flout the authority of the United Nations, is it not increasingly clear that if the Serbs are to be stopped, they must be given an ultimatum that is backed by a credible threat to their lines of communication and supply in Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister : I have told the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will reiterate it, that we have not ruled out options. We are discussing options and it is best to consult on them, consider them, examine the probability of success and the possibility of difficulties and then reach a final conclusion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Duncan : While I recognise our success in bringing down the level of inflation and thereby laying the foundations for economic recovery, does the Prime Minister agree that a rapid rise in house prices is not necessarily good news? Should not we aim for a sustainable recovery, based on exports and investments and, at all costs, avoid a return to the cycle of boom and bust?

    The Prime Minister : I share that objective with my hon. Friend. We have said from the outset that we want a recovery that is steady and sustainable, and that is what we have repeatedly taken action to achieve over the past two years. We have said that recovery would follow the reduction of inflation. We got inflation down from 11 per cent. to 2 per cent., and it seems that recovery is now following. As a result of that, we were able to cut interest rates, but that had to follow the reduction in inflation and not precede it. We have worked extremely hard, and it has been extremely difficult for everyone during that period, to get the fundamentals right. We now have them right and I have no intention of throwing away that advantage.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister pause for a moment in his campaign of self-congratulation– [Interruption.] –and recollect– [Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister pause for a minute in his campaign of self-congratulation and recollect that the price of his policies for Britain has been 3 million unemployed, borrowing at £1 billion a week, a devalued pound and a burden of debt that will not be paid off until the end of the century? Does he really think that that is cause for self-congratulation?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman carried the House with him in the introductory part of his question. I acknowledge the difficulties that there have been for many people, not just hon. Members but throughout the country, as we have dealt with the effects of the recession. As the right hon. Gentleman will observe, that recession is not unique to this country. We are emerging from it when many others are still going into it. As we come out of the recession, perhaps I might quote the words of the chairman of Grand Met, Sir Allen Shepherd, who said :

    “Today, in British Industry we have almost everything that we’ve been asking for : low inflation, competitive exchange rates, higher productivity and good industrial relations. On top of that, the skills revolution’ is well under way and will add value to everything we do.”

    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that and go out and encourage people across the country to take advantage of that position.

    Sir Edward Heath : Does my right hon. Friend recognise that until he and the Government give an absolutely clear and categorical assurance that no British forces, of any kind, will become involved in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia, except for humanitarian reasons, any other suggestion will be suspect and will make it extremely difficult to persuade people to support the effort that we make? It will be suspect because it will be thought that we shall be dragged, stage by stage, into a European war or that we shall be pushed there by Washington. Both would be intolerable.

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend knows, we were among the first specifically to put troops into Bosnia to deal with humanitarian matters. We need to consider precisely how we can play a part both in seeking to end the terrible conflict that exists within Bosnia and in ensuring–for this is a clear-cut British strategic interest–that the conflict does not spread beyond Bosnia and lead to a realisation of the greater fear on which my right hon. Friend touched : a wider Balkan war. Those are issues of great complexity, which we need to discuss with our colleagues and friends in the United Nations and NATO.

    I take to heart my right hon. Friend’s remarks, as I know will every right hon. and hon. Member. This is an emerging and changing situation. We shall keep at the forefront of our minds the concern to keep British troops off the ground in Bosnia, but also the need for us to play a part, with our partners, diplomatically, in humanitarian aid, and in using political pressure to bring this dreadful conflict to a conclusion.

    Mr. Hoon : Is the Prime Minister at all embarrassed by the fact that last year some £7 million, or two thirds of the cost of his general election campaign, was received by the Conservative party from foreign sources?

    The Prime Minister : I have to say that that is just a touch rich coming from a member of a party whose entire shadow Cabinet is sponsored by trade unions. As Mr. Tom Sawyer of NUPE said, “It’s as crude as that no say, no pay.”

     

    Q3. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Bates : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gross domestic product figures produced on Monday clearly show that the recession is over and recovery well under way? Does he further agree that those same figures point to growth in the United Kingdom economy commencing in the middle of last year? Does that not further point to his leadership winning the essential battle against inflation and the equally essential battle against the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right that getting inflation down was the key. We were elected in the spring and the figures that we now have for growth in the second half of last year show that recovery began in the summer.

     

    Q4. Ms Coffey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Ms Coffey : Is the Prime Minister aware that Ferranti International, a company in my constituency, is awaiting the outcome of a bid for a high technology contract from the Saudi Arabian Government to which I understand he gave personal support in his talks with the Saudi Government earlier this year? Can he tell me what action he is taking to ensure that the contract is awarded to a major British industry to prevent the job losses that will surely follow if we do not get the contract?

    The Prime Minister : Defence Ministers are following the programme closely and doing all they can to progress it. The awarding of the contract in due course is a matter for the Saudi Government, but we are doing what we can to assist.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Ann Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mrs. Winterton : Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the British taxpayer should not be expected to pay towards the administration costs of the social charter throughout the EC, when the United Kingdom, quite rightly and properly, has opted out of all its provisions?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is well aware of and shares the Government’s view on the social chapter. The administrative costs of dealing with the social chapter are de minimis and in no sense a burden on the economy.

     

    Arms Exports (Iraq)

    Q6. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to instruct Government Departments to make full disclosure of all documents requested in connection with legal proceedings relating to unlawful export of arms to Iraq; and if he will make it his policy not to issue public immunity interest certificates in connection with any such proceedings.

    The Prime Minister : Government Departments will continue to disclose documents in any legal proceedings in the manner prescribed by law.

    Mr. Dalyell : If that is the answer, why is it that the Crown did not exercise its discretion, when Ministers knew perfectly well of his service to MI5 and MI6, in favour of Paul Grecian in the Ordtech trial?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House that it is quite inappropriate for me to comment when such cases are in the courts. He knows that it is inappropriate and I will not do so.

     

    Engagements

    Q8. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Pike : Will the Prime Minister rethink the Government’s approach to low pay and the abolition of the wages councils? Will he consider the information prepared by Lancashire county council which not only highlights the scandal of low pay but shows that in areas with no wages councils there is a much higher incidence of low pay, clearly identifying the dangers of their abolition?

    The Prime Minister : I am hardly likely to take any advice from Lancashire county council, given its record in recent years. The sheer scale of the increase in Lancashire’s council tax–I think from memory that it is an extra £84–as a result of the council’s maladministration is remarkable. Therefore, it is most unlikely that I shall take its advice upon that matter.

    On the general subject of wages councils, we have made it clear on a number of occasions in the past that their principal drawback is that they cost jobs to people who would otherwise be employed, and that is something which we care about, even if the hon. Gentleman does not.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Freight Transport Association Dinner – 26 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Freight Transport Association Dinner, given in London on Monday 26th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Director General, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen. I listened with very great interest to what the Director General had to say and I was struck at the outset by the difficult choice he had to make between a Ratners clock and the opportunity to speak at this dinner. I think I speak on behalf of everyone in saying that we are very glad he decided to come and speak to us.

    But I did feel a little uneasy when he mentioned the clock because it just so happens, to mark his retirement, I was going to bring with me a small token of our esteem – a clock. Fortunately I do not remember where it came from and I do not remember where I put it, but I now know it does not matter because the Director General does not like clocks anyway.

    Mr President, when I received an invitation, I was invited to come by Norman Fowler, Gary Purdy said he did not know what Norman Fowler said to me to persuade me to come. Well I must let you know he said nothing, he just gripped me warmly by the throat and refused to let go. But I now offer the Director General a word of warning, because he is sitting next to Norman. During the general election campaign which we had about, it seems, forty years ago, I spent a great deal of time with Norman Fowler and everywhere we went something curious happened, people turned up to throw eggs, at Norman. Now he is obviously used to this because he kept ducking and they missed him and they hit me. Well all I can say to you, Director General, you are in a very dangerous seat sitting where you are.

    Mr President, this is one of a series of speeches I am making about British industry but I am doing so because I believe British industry matters, that manufacturing matters, I spelt out why in Manchester last week. And services matter as well, they matter because they too create wealth and jobs and they matter because they are vital to manufacturing. The two are inextricably twinned.

    And transport of course is a very good example and freight transport is an integral part of the whole industrial process. And if I may say so, echoing to an extent what the Director General said, freight transport is something which we in this country, or perhaps more accurately I should say you, are world leaders at.

    And I will tell you why I believe we are so good, because freight transport in Britain is overwhelmingly private sector, is overwhelmingly deregulated and provided in an open competitive environment. Your Director General touched in his speech on the transport history of our country. I wonder, Mr President, if you realise that in the reign of Charles II the cost of transporting goods from London to Birmingham was 7.00 pounds a tonne and from London to Exeter 12.00 pounds a tonne. Now I am told it costs 7.50 pounds from London to Birmingham and 10.00 pounds a tonne from London to Exeter – not a great deal of difference until you remember that in the intervening three centuries inflation has risen by 4,800 percent. Mr President, I knew yours was a competitive industry and so did you, but I bet you did not know how competitive an industry it was. So I offer you, if I may, an advertising slogan – “No price increases for 300 years” – then I expect you to keep it for the next 300 years at the end of which, if you do, Norman Fowler will come here and you can all throw eggs at him.

    Of course there are other differences too. There were highwaymen in 1660, now there are VAT men, motorway maintenance men, speed limiters and tachographs. Mr President, we need an efficient and successful freight transport industry. My message tonight is that the government wishes to see your industry successful and, where we can, to help it be so. I do not mean by interfering and telling you how to do your job, I would not frankly, I could not do that. But the first way the government can help is by getting the economy right and then keeping the economy right. I know that times have not been easy for your industry, or indeed other industries in the last year or so. Those of you who move goods to and from other European countries such as Germany, France, Spain, will be well aware of the downturn now affecting them. Those who regarded the recession as a British phenomenon may now begin to re-think their prejudices about that particular point.

    But we are now seeing the pendulum in Britain swinging back, in welcome fashion, swinging back towards growth. Manufacturing output is up, exports are up, retail sales are up in March to the highest level ever recorded, car production and car sales are up, house sales are up and there is I believe the beginning of a new mood of confidence throughout British industry. But in just the last two days we have had two very important indications of recovery. Unemployment has fallen for the second month in succession, it is still too high but it is a very welcome sign. And today we have good news on the widest measure of prosperity of all – Britain’s output jumped upwards in the first three months of this year, the biggest increase for three years.

    Mr President, we said that low inflation would create the climate for recovery. We have driven inflation down and recovery is following, as we said it would. Both the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission now forecast that Britain will have the fastest growth of any major European Community country in the next two years.

    But perhaps even more important than that is the longer term perspective. We have the right conditions to sustain recovery. Inflation is low, under 2 percent, the lowest for around a quarter of a century. We mean to keep it down. Interest rates are down to 6 percent, the lowest for 15 years and, crucially important for competition, the lowest in the European Community. We have a competitive exchange rate. Manufacturing productivity is now improving at its fastest for six years and we have seen a record fall in wage costs. Mr President, we have not seen that combination of circumstances for 40 years and we must take the opportunities that exist there and not throw them away in the future.

    With Britain emerging from its difficulties and with the single market opening Europe to British firms, British industry has unparalleled opportunities before it today. Mr President, British industry must grasp those opportunities, that is why we have given priority both to manufacturing industry and to the services which support it. And that is why also, in a difficult time for public spending, as it must be if we are determined to keep inflation low, we have given such a high priority to the infrastructure programme. That is the second way I believe government can help.

    Good transport links are fundamental to a sound economy and over the next 3 years we will be spending a record 6.3 billion pounds on national roads, from the M25 to the A1 in North Yorkshire. Investment in British Rail has been running at the highest level since the early 1960s.

    But even more important, and you touched on this and I wish to say something about it, we are bringing private capital into areas that used to be public sector responsibilities. Let me make it absolutely clear, that is not a matter of ideology, it is not just a clever way of cutting public spending, it is our conviction, based on experience, that the private sector runs industries more efficiently and more profitably than the government can do even with the most efficient bureaucrats to help them.

    Just remember a few years ago! Twelve years ago, the taxpayer underwrote the cost of a new fleet of lorries for the National Freight Corporation, a new fleet of buses for the National Bus Company and a new fleet of aircraft for British Airways. The taxpayer also underwrote the cost of new port facilities at Southampton and Tilbury and new aircraft facilities at Heathrow and because the taxpayer underwrote the costs the Government had to approve every decision and those of you here who remember those days will no doubt remember something else as well – that uncomfortable feeling of bureaucracy breathing down your neck week after week, day after day and hour after hour.

    Today, how very old-fashioned all that seems. Both companies are now owned by the private sector; they are funded by the private sector; they provide efficient services for their customers; they now make profits for their shareholders not losses for the taxpayer and now we are bringing finance into the funding of roads and railways. Very innovative some say. Is it, I wonder?

    Don’t forget that many of Britain’s roads and most of its railways were built in the first place by private industries and financed by private investors. What we are doing is mobilising private finance again. Private finance has built the Channel Tunnel; private finance has built the Queen Elizabeth II bridge between Dartford and [inaudible]; private finance is building the second Severn Crossing; private finance is going to be largely responsible for building the Heathrow Express Line; private finance will have a huge role to play in building the Channel Tunnel rail link and cross-rail; and there will be more. Wherever possible, we will ensure that private firms provide all the finance and all the expertise and get the full financial returns and where risks and costs have to be shared, and in some cases they will have to be shared between the private sector and the Government – we will encourage joint ventures between the public and the private sectors. Mr. President, we are building on the developments of the 1980s and we are intended to keep innovation going in the 1990s.

    I noted Gary’s remarks tonight on inter-urban road charging and I have no doubt John MacGregor will spot them as well. John will be publishing a Green Paper on that shortly. I know you will want to study the options carefully and we will look forward to receiving your response and we will study that and take notice of that no less carefully but I want to turn for a moment to another matter you touched upon and that is the privatisation of British Rail.

    A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the privatisation of British Rail. I put the point bluntly for I feel it strongly. The privatisation is not ideology but plain common sense and national self-interest. It is common sense that the private sector will run the railways more efficiently and it is in our national self-interest that they should do so. The UK as a whole needs the best possible efficient, reliable railway service. Bringing in private-sector skills and liberalising access to the network are in my judgement the best ways to achieve that and an expanding economy will bring a growing market for freight transport in which there is undoubtedly a place for rail freight. I listened extremely carefully to what your Director-General had to say on that.

    Let me make it crystal clear we do want rail freight to be used to the full as a result of the improvements and competitiveness that privatisation of the railways will bring but we certainly do not intend to penalise road freight as the counterpoint of that policy.

    Mr. President, better infrastructure, road and rail, means a more productive, more efficient and therefore a more profitable freight industry as a whole and I am sure you will benefit to the full from the changes and the opportunities which private financing will bring.

    Mr. President, just a little over a year ago, I have to confess I did some of your members out of a valuable business opportunity. I didn’t call the removal men to 10 Downing Street! I am not this evening prepared to apologise for that but I do intend to make up for the lapse by fighting to win new opportunities for your members abroad, beginning with Europe.

    To those of you who don’t and haven’t yet lifted your eyes to the prospects of business that exists within the European Community, I say to you do so speedily for those prospects are real, they are growing and they are glittering prospects for the future for such an efficient industry as we have in this country. The opening of the Channel Tunnel and the opening of Europe’s Single Market are two significant events with huge implications for the freight industry.

    The Single Market has already opened up most Community transport markets to transport operators and we have now agreed programmes for opening-up air and coastal services with each member state. Road transport within each member state is next on the agenda; it has been partly liberalised and we shall continue to press for agreement on complete freedom of access as soon as possible.

    Mr. President, what do those new freedoms mean? They mean greater choice for transport users and greater opportunities for transport operators. They mean more competition within the Community and beyond and. I have not a shred of doubt that British freight operators will rise to that challenge and grasp that business but to enable them to do so, there is something we have to do. By “we”, I mean the Government. We have got to make sure those new freedoms really happen. We have won the right to offer new services, ferry services or road haulage for example. Governments must not be allowed to put obstacles in their way.

    Let me say this to you tonight, Mr. President: your Government will insist on your right to offer your services right the way through the European Community and the European Commission has important responsibilities to enforce these rights and I believe that they will meet them and we will certainly encourage them to do so.

    Mr. President, during Britain’s Presidency of the Community [section of speech not recorded] right conditions for you to get out there and succeed. The economy is set fair for steady growth with low inflation. Some £3 billion of capital expenditure on roads and rail alone in the current year with new opportunities for private sector investment; new freedoms in Europe for British companies to turn their competitive edge into new markets in road, rail, air and sea transport; and a radical review of deregulation to get Government off industry’s back.

    In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to pick out just one point from. your Director-General’s speech tonight. He urged this industry to be proud of its achievements. I would say simply this:

    So you should be! Competitiveness, safety, environmental standards, industrial performance have all improved dramatically in recent years. You do have an exemplary record. Be confident! Be proud of that record and don’t in any sense be afraid to take the remarkable opportunities that lie ahead of you in the 1990s. I have no doubt about your capacity to take those opportunities and turn them into profits for your companies in the future. Let me conclude by saying simply this: Mr. President, as you do so, you will have the Government’s full support. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Manchester – 23 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, made in Manchester on Friday 23rd April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    My Lord Mayor, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. I would like first, Gill, to thank you for your budget submissions, a little early perhaps but I will take very careful note of them. A curious fact, Gill, very curious, I noticed it particularly when you were speaking, but when I was in Wales they asked me for an airport like Manchester’s.

    Can I say, firstly, how delighted I am to be back here in Manchester. It is always a delight to escape from the hot house of Westminster and see what is happening in the real world, so it is a great pleasure to be back here today. Two hundred and fifty years ago, Daniel Defoe called Manchester “the greatest village in the country”. No longer true of course. Today Manchester is no longer a village but one of the great cities of Europe. And I say that this evening not as a politician’s wholesale civility but this is the city of wholesale English commerce, and you should be proud of it. This is Brindley and Crompton country where faster transport set an eight-fold increase in yarn and cloth production and together that did spark the industrial revolution and sold shirts to the world.

    But what over the years has made it from a village to a great city? I think the answer to that is quite clear. Because leading, and not following, Manchester has changed with the times. Today we all face a similar challenge, as Bob Dylan sang many years ago in my youth – the times they are a changing. They are certainly changing now, rapidly perhaps, more rapidly in this decade than any decade, even the most venerable amongst us can remember in their long life. In our interests, our cold self-interest, we must make sure in this country that we lead that change and lead it fast. Captive markets for our goods around the world no longer exist, the captive market these days is an inscription upon our headstone. And the Lordly assumption that somehow it is a privilege to buy from the British has passed into history.

    The world has changed. Japan and the countries of the Pacific Rim are giant manufacturing powers. China is set increasingly in the decades ahead to become a huge industrial power. That is the competition that we need to face in this country in the future. That is the competition, so let us not flinch, let us not fear, our job is quite simple and quite clear [inaudible] and train and prepare and export and beat that competition for our own domestic prosperity in the rest of the ’90s and in the new century.

    So we do not need to make the mistake, and dare not make the mistake, of falling for the alternative to complacency, that British gift for graceful despair. In this country we can compete brilliantly and we are now well placed to win in the world’s market places.

    Just contemplate, just step back for a moment from the painful necessities of the last two years and consider the position today and just listen, please, to the scores that Britain chalks up and that you do not hear often enough. we have inflation below 2 percent, better than most of the European Community and better than most of the G7. We have a highly competitive exchange rate. We have interest rates, the lowest in the European Community and the lowest for 15 years.

    We have not seen that combination of remarkable trading circumstances for nearly 40 years. And I believe that industry and commerce have recognised that reality better than many others. Manufacturing output is up, investment is up, productivity is rising fast, you have kept wage costs competitive and we have sought to do that in the public sector as well, doing better than Germany or Japan and better than at any time for a generation.

    And as the Chancellor said earlier this week, Britain is set for 2 years of solid growth, growth that will be the faster in the European Community big league. As we meet here this evening, after what I know have been difficult circumstances for some time, we have every reason to be confident about our future economic prospects.

    We said two years ago that low inflation would bring recovery. We have brought inflation down, recovery is now following, as we said that it would. Yesterday’s news that unemployment has fallen, fallen for the second month running, is very welcome news, welcome that it has fallen in every region, welcome for the 50,000 people that Britain has now put back to work this year. More businesses are beginning to take people on again and job vacancies are rising. All that can only add to confidence.

    That recovery will benefit every bit of Manchester’s increasingly broad-based economy, a diversified, a diversified and successful base that is well represented in the attendance here this evening. Your region’s service sector is vital to the nation as a whole. And as an employer your financial and business services alone provide work for nearly a quarter of a million people, indeed even more now that Mercury is bringing an extra 500 jobs.

    And Manchester is the student capital of Britain, leading the way in the sciences and technologies that we will need for tomorrow. Three universities, a world renowned business school, UMIST, you name it, you have got it here in Manchester.

    That is not just an investment for the future. Education is a key part of the service economy of today, a service economy that is also showing its paces abroad. The North-West Chambers show that service exports have sharply improved over the last quarter. Good, good, but if the recovery is to last and prosperity to grow, we have to win and continue to win right across the market place in the service sector and beyond the service sector. Because vital though services are to our prosperity, we cannot depend on services alone, we need a vibrant, thriving, manufacturing base and I hope every part of this country will recognise that for the future.

    So, Mr President, I hope our friends in the service sector this evening will forgive me if I turn from them to manufacturing because I want to say this evening a few words about the importance of manufacturing and just a bit about our export success. And where better than here, in Manchester, in this hotel where Mr Rolls met Mr Royce in 1904. We British have done something typically British and wholly remarkable, we have managed a fanfare without trumpets. We are exporting more now than at any time in our history. But in the export markets how do operate? We operate like Jeeves, we just shimmer silently, export discreetly, we do not tell anyone, it might give offence. Well I think we should tell people about our successes in taking export markets right the way across the world, it is about time the British beat the drum for British successes and let know what we are doing right.

    Ask people around the world – who are the great exporters? And they will speak with respect and admiration of Japan. That is right, they are a great exporting nation, the Japanese. But what about us? We British export 400 pounds per person per year more than the Japanese – 1,800 pounds for every man, woman and child, compared with 1,400 pounds for the Japanese.

    What are we to do with the Gordon Glooms who always say that British industry is crumbling? I think people should listen. In financial services, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, the water industry, power generation, areas of food processing, the drink industry, garments, aerospace, defence equipment, the oil and gas industry, mining equipment, bio-technology and international construction, we lead the pack in this country and we should continue to take that message right the way around the world.

    British companies are big companies, powerful companies, successful companies. British companies account for ten out of the top European twenty companies by profitability, and eleven out of the top twenty by size. And although the trade gap is wide, we are seriously engaging with the competition. We export televisions to Germany, lace to Brussels, cosmetics to the French, cars to Japan and with a brass neck that would have delighted Richard Arkwright, we now sell pizzas to Italy. One day will speak of Salford as the world’s centre of pizzas – Italians will never speak to me again.

    The balance of trade in the motor industry will be revolutionised over the next few years, in partnership of course, rightly in partnership joining and beating.

    But what of the future? Well I am a fairly tolerant soul. But I will tell you one thing I do not like, I do not like to see British manufacturers retreating from the field. The British car industry has turned retreat into triumph, other industries can do the same.

    And why is it that so many people seem to have such a low view of manufacturing? I think part of that view comes from the out-dated image of manufacturing as an employer of large numbers of unskilled people in sprawling plants doing heavy manual work, the ancient mythical world of the cloggit and thump brass hammerworks. That is not a low view of manufacturing, it is a total misunderstanding of modern day manufacturing. Reality, manufacturing reality, is more like the British Aerospace works I saw today, or the factory just 30 miles from Manchester I saw the last time I was here, a factory spinning optical fibres, modern expanding, sharp, the biggest producer outside America and selling right the way across the world.

    These are great symbols, but we want more than symbols, we want fast reader replication and we want it now in ever increasing numbers. And improving competitiveness is the key to expanding our manufacturing base. We know that when we have manufactured we can sell. As recovery picks up we must make sure there are more and more British goods for customers to buy of the quality and the price that they want to buy, available at the time that they want to buy it.

    There is, I have to say to you, a danger that nags in my mind time and time again, it is always there waiting. Time and time again since the war exports have gone up in recession but when the recovery came companies abandon the export drive for the warm debilitating huddle of the home market. Well that must not happen this time, in our own interests we must not permit that to happen again. We are determined to build up our export success and that is why in the Autumn Statement and the Budget the Chancellor increased export credits and cut its cost to business. You keep exporting and we will keep supporting and between us we will bring prosperity to this country.

    Success requires continuous effort, continuous improvement, we cannot let up. Manchester I think knows something of this: the fourth-generation mill-owners who bought shooting estates, lived in Surrey and wouldn’t replace old machinery; the soft and selfish gentlemen manufacturers – they very nearly destroyed Lancashire for you. Let us remember them in order not to be like them in future. “Change not decay” must be our creed.

    Let me make it clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that I believe the Government has a duty to work with industry to help industry to meet that challenge, not Whitehall picking winners. the winners picking themselves and Government helping them heart and soul.

    Everything we do has to be supportive of you. We want less of a tax burden on the profits that you need for investment. That is why we are pressing down on public expenditure; it is why we have to give priority within that spending to infrastructure projects which spell business. Manchester’s own Metrolink that Gill mentioned earlier is a very real example, so is the Channel rail link, so is the Forth Crossing in Edinburgh. That is why we are seeking to reform education. That is what tests in schools are all about, to find out what the children know and what the children don’t know because we need to know what they don’t know so that we can teach them what they should know. They deserve the best, they need the tests; you need the best working for you and the vital importance of our education system cannot be overstated. [Applause]. That is why we are doing more than ever before for good vocational training to give our youngsters the best possible start in the best possible jobs, a recipe for the best possible success for Britain. It is why science these days is a Cabinet job and why we are overhauling what we do on science and innovation to ensure Britain’s effort and brain power backs industrial success.

    It is why in the budget we have given extra help to Britain’s exporters; it is why we have cut businesses’ rate burden and cut Advance Corporation Tax to boost businesses’ cash flow by £2 billion a year and when we have winners we support them everywhere. I did it recently in India and the Gulf. British firms had done the work, Government helped unlock the contracts. £5 billion of orders and 20,000 jobs safeguarded for years to come.

    I saw the fruits of that partnership earlier today when I met the Gulf Tornado builders at British Aerospace. I and my colleagues will give that backing, so must each and every British embassy around the world. Graceful manners and an elegant understanding are surprisingly well-suited to the indispensable arts of trade. Let them by all means pour out the gin and tonics but then let them sell both bottles to the opposition [Applause].

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

    Mr. President, you touched delicately upon the point – a number of points as I recall but certainly this one: over recent months there has been a tiny frisson of controversy over our European policy. [Laughter]. Let me set out my position clearly.

    Commercial success starts on our own doorstep and our doorstep is Europe. When Europe walks, it walks in shoes exported from Manchester. The new rail terminus at Charles de Gaulle Airport is work done in Bolton. The cocktail chatter is that the Government is too obsessed with Maastricht when we should be concentrating on jobs. In what world are those cocktail chatterers living? Jobs and sales are what being in the heart of Europe is all about for our future. [Applause]

    What made possible the vast expansion in small and medium-sized businesses and new jobs in the 1980s? Where did they find their main export markets? Overwhelmingly in Europe. An example not far from here: a Leyland company went into Europe a few years back with one Chesterfield in the back of an estate car; in the Single Market it now does a million pounds of business.

    Have your reservations by all means. No-one says that Europe is perfect but that story tells why we are there. Since we joined, our exports to it have grown nearly 50 percent faster than have those of our own EFTA partners. That is almost £20 billion last year, twenty export billion poundsworth of jobs. No wonder the Scandinavians and the Austrians wish to join the Community! What an irony that a nation which sought trade when Tuscan merchants brought wool in the Cotswolds in 1370 should contemplate holding back from the richest free trade market of all time.

    I believe that the Chambers of Commerce understand the importance of Europe to Britain’s trading strategy and of the Maastricht process to that strategy. The President of your Association, Christopher Stewart-Smith, who is here this evening, wrote to me recently specifically to support what we are doing. Let me quote from his letter. He wrote as follows:

    “Those who suggest we have gone far enough with the Single European Act are making a mistake that British business cannot afford. Businesses do not want to see the clock turned back nor would they welcome the reintroduction of new non-tariff barriers. Britain needs the commitment to subsidiarity to avoid unnecessary interference in domestic issues.”

    That, Christopher, is it smack between the eyes, a bull’s-eye beyond a doubt! That is the message that business should give to doubters about our commitment to Europe. Maastricht opens the way to the sort of Community that we want to see. Taking that essential step away from centralisation, we gain the benefits of the Single Market without the drawbacks and at the end of the inky labyrinth of treaty subclauses is a trading Europe. Especially here in Manchester that is important to us, a trading Europe in which we can send our exports in the future.

    Yesterday in the House of Commons, we finished the Committee Stage of the Maastricht Bill. Let us now finish the Bill and get on with the job of building prosperity for Britain in Europe and put these squabbles behind us. [Applause].

    Mr. President, here this evening perhaps I will be permitted to say just a word about the Chambers of Commerce movement. It is already helping its members with Maastricht but I think it can do more. I would welcome a bigger billing for the Chambers. It can only help the businessmen to swap ideas and learn from each other. I would like in the future to see Government develop the same relationship with the Chambers that it has developed with the CBI. The one-stop initiative is a tangible sign and naturally Manchester has won the bid to be one of the pilots of this new and I believe utterly worthwhile initiative.

    Here in Manchester this evening there is perhaps one other issue that commands me like a referee’s whistle – the City’s bid for the Olympics. Manchester’s bid goes beyond pleasing discus fanciers. Building the Olympic facilities and hosting the Games should generate £4 billion of new spending in the region and make 11,000 jobs but better yet, it will be a shop window beyond dreams. The world would see what North-West England has to offer. Manchester is already eighth in the European league of best cities in which to locate a business but it can move up. I know and everyone here knows – and Gill mentioned it to me earlier – that Manchester has ambitions to be top of the league so the Government is shouting and finessing for Manchester’s bid. We have put up £75 million for the bid and for the initial construction programme. That starts with the Olympic arena and the National Cycling Centre. We are providing some £40 million funding towards the regeneration of East Manchester this year and we are backing Manchester’s bid by ensuring that all the necessary facilities can be built. A state-of-the-art Olympics for the start of the new millennium. Where better than here in Britain and here in Manchester? [Applause]

    I am honoured to play my part together with Craig Readie of the BOA and Bob Scott who I must tell you though I think you already know it have done wonderful things for Manchester’s bid in the last year or so. [Applause]. When Bob comes up and grabs me warmly by the throat [Laughter], I have this instinct of what he is going to say to me and that instinct has never been wrong! Together with Craig Readie and Bob Scott, I pressed the case to the President of the IOC just a couple of weeks ago. No-one can be sure what lies in the minds of the members of the IOC when they vote to decide the location but because of what has already been done Manchester is now one of three hot favourites. Beijing and Sydney will make their pitch but nothing that can be done for Manchester will be left undone in the quest to bring the Olympics here at the start of the new millennium. [Applause].

    This bid and the great works that accompany it are just one sign that Manchester has kept all its flair. Much of the rest of the world may still be going into recession; we are coming out of the recession and we have the edge – low inflation, rising competitiveness. We need the Manchester touch for the great things which are pending. It was Manchester which took raw cotton from Smyrna, sold it to the fast bobbin men in Oldham and the power loom men in Preston. Then it sold cheap cotton cloth to the world. Manchester knew what needed be done then; it knows what must be done now. So does the Government. Together I hope. Perhaps in Manchester I shouldn’t say “together” but “united” [Applause] and to be strictly fair let me put it a slight different way: in this city [Applause] united we can do it. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy (II) – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 22nd April 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recession was over and the recovery started].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The economic indicators are looking a lot brighter. We’ve had a whole range of figures that were rather better than many forecasters imagined. I am very pleased to see that but I think we must wait until we see GDP figures in due course.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this was just a modest rebound after a large recession].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it is a pretty remarkable “modest rebound” as you put it, when you see almost every indicator moving in the same direction and doing so quite sharply. Normally, when one emerges from a recession it tends to be rather more jagged and rather more uncertain so I think the trend is undoubtedly in the right direction.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if unemployment falling was just a one off].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to wait and see, won’t we? It is certainly very welcome to see for the last two months that unemployment has fallen and of course three months ago, if you remember, the unemployment rise was actually rather small so it is three months where the unemployment figures have been better than people imagined.

    The level of unemployment is still far too high and we need to get it down. That is why we said some time ago that need a base of low inflation from which we can have an expanding, growing economy. That is the only way to have secure jobs.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the high PSBR].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wonder what you or most other people would have said to me if I had actually cut public expenditure in the midst of the recession? I think many people would have thought that would have been a rather strange way to deal with it.

    A large part of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement is cyclical. It is a collapse of income during the recession: no house sales – no stamp duty; no high street sales – far less value added tax; fewer people in work – a loss of income tax. As that begins to correct itself, a large part of the deficit will itself disappear. There will be more. We shall need some growth. We shall need to look very carefully at public expenditure.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy (I) – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 22nd April 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recession was over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a great deal more confidence among business, I think it is they who by their performance will show whether the recovery is with us. There is no doubt they are very confident indeed now and many of the indicators over recent weeks have been very positive, so that is very satisfactory.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he wasn’t prepared to say that the recession was over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When the recession is over everyone will see that self-evidently. What I think one can see is happening, there is a much greater degree of confidence, exports are rising, one has seen with car sales and a whole range of other indicators that they are getting a good deal better. I want to see those indicators go on getting better, that has been happening in recent weeks, it is very welcome news.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how people knew that the recovery wouldn’t lead to Lawson type boom].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is exactly the right question that people should have in their minds and exactly the right concern that I have in my mind. We said two years ago that there was no short cut out of the difficulties we faced. I said that it would be a difficult period, we had to get inflation down, when we had got inflation down – and I knew it would be difficult, knew it would be unpopular – then we would begin to see recovery.

    We have got inflation down, we are beginning now to see the recovery, I think that is self-evident from what businesses themselves are saying. I have not lost my concern about inflation, I had it two years ago, I have it now, I want to make sure this is a long term sustainable recovery, not a short term boom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recovery was a candy-floss recovery with no recovery in manufacturing].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There has been a great degree of retraining but let us look at more substantive matters of what is actually happening. You refer to a candy-floss economy. The reality is the fact that our exports, a key element in continuing economic recovery, are now penetrating very deeply into both European and markets way beyond Europe. That export growth is at record levels, it is continuing, and that shows several things, that British firms are manufacturing, that they are competitive, that they are prepared to look for markets abroad and that they are successfully doing so. All that is very welcome. The unemployment drop is very welcome, I am delighted about that, most for the unemployed who have found jobs and for their families, but the level is still too high, we need to see a much wider manufacturing base, I shall be talking about that in the next few days and I wish to see that we have the right circumstances to engender confidence so that business can produce the growth we need. Governments cannot do it, they can set the framework, then business can do it, that is what we are seeking to do.