The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Interest Rates

  • PMQT – 16 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clappison : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

    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. Clappison : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months this country lost the lowest ever number of days to strikes? Is it not sad that that record is being spoilt by a trade union which, in pursuit of an 11 per cent. pay claim, yesterday inflicted hardship and inconvenience on thousands of travellers and commuters, including many of my constituents in Hertfordshire? Is it not conspicuous that that is not being condemned in any quarter by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : Overall, our industrial relations record is extremely good, and the number of days lost in strikes is lower than it has been for more than 100 years. We now lose fewer days to strikes than Germany, France or the United States per head of population. As for yesterday’s strike, the disruption that was caused to millions of people was inexcusable. Most of the public sector has settled on increases around the rate of inflation. The dispute is over a bid for an 11 per cent. increase before negotiations have even begun about productivity. It is unacceptable, it cannot be right and it should be condemned by every Member of the House.

    Mrs. Beckett : Can the Prime Minister confirm that when yesterday his Chancellor ruled out tax cuts he was admitting what the Prime Minister refused to admit on Tuesday–that a second round of tax increases will go ahead next year and will cost a typical British family £800 a year more in tax?

    The Prime Minister : I suppose that there must be some occasion on which the right hon. Lady will address the current issue of the strike and not wriggle away from it. If she is so concerned about tax, perhaps she will now withdraw all the public expenditure promises that she and her colleagues have made, and which inevitably would lead to higher taxation in future. If she will not withdraw those public expenditure promises, will she please indicate how they will be paid for and by what amount tax will rise?

    Mrs. Beckett : That is twice in one week that the Prime Minister has refused to answer the question. Let us try again. Taxes will go up next year, won’t they? Just say yes.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady knows the contents of the Budget and knows also that she is wriggling and hiding behind promises that she cannot substantiate. Our tax position is clear and open and people know what it is. We have set out a position that is right for this country and which has brought this country back to better economic circumstances than it has known for many years. That is an honest and straightforward position, unlike the position of the right hon. Lady who makes promises of increased expenditure with no indication whatever as to whether she will borrow to meet them and put up interest rates, or tax to meet them, or break those promises.

    Mrs. Beckett : But does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor that those tax increases, and the threat of interest rate increases, are a direct result of the Government’s economic failure and their track record of boom and bust? Whom does he think the Chancellor was condemning–Lord Lawson as Mr. Boom, or the Prime Minister himself as Mr. Bust?

    The Prime Minister : That was very well rehearsed, but it will not win the right hon. Lady very many votes. As for interest rates, I wonder if the right hon. Lady can remember a time when interest rates under a Labour Government were as low as they have been under this Government for the past 15 months. I wonder if she can remember a time when inflation was as low as it is under this Government now. I wonder if she can remember a time when our growth rate was twice as high as that of our European competitors. The answer is that she cannot–and, under any Labour Government, that would never be so.

    Mr. Butler : Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour party has voted against every single tax reduction that has been introduced, over many years, by Conservative Governments, and has voted against every tax increase? Does he consider that to be consistency or stupidity?

    Madam Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the Executive that is responsible to the House, and the Executive that must answer questions, not the Opposition. That is the basis on which our democracy is built.

    Mr. Butler : I apologise, Madam Speaker. It was because I was so surprised to be called.

    Would my right hon. Friend consider such conduct on the part of his party to be consistent or stupid, had it taken place?

    The Prime Minister : The Opposition’s position is certainly consistently stupid, and stupidly consistent.

     

    Q2. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the people are often much more sensible than politicians? If so, has he reflected that last week–not only in Essex, but in a continuous, uninterrupted line from Dover to Oban–his policies were rejected and Labour’s were endorsed? Does he not recognise that he is increasingly seen as the captain of the Titanic–carrying on regardless, blaming the iceberg and determined to rearrange the deckchairs while he puts people’s lives at risk with his own reckless policies?

    The Prime Minister : Well, that was quite an effort. There are certainly occasions on which the public are much more sensible than politicians. They were much more sensible than Opposition politicians in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and they will be more sensible than Opposition politicians again at a later date in 1996 or 1997.

    Mr. Butcher : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the administration of law in this country now protects the civil liberties of yobs, bullies, violent criminals and drug barons so effectively that the civil liberties of the law-abiding majority are endangered ? The Conservative party never wanted that, the people never wanted it and the Cabinet never wanted it. If the legal structure is being undermined, should we not find out who the termites are before introducing further criminal justice legislation?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is necessary to look at the interests of the majority of the people in the country. I share my hon. Friend’s view : our present criminal justice legislation was formulated with that very much in mind, as were some of the ideas that I have outlined to the House on other occasions.

     

    Q3. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Flynn : Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in support of his campaign for a more civilised Question Time, which I hope is still continuing, and in the hope of a rational reply, 24 hours ago I sent him the following supplementary question : because of his own personal responsibility and his Government’s responsibility for introducing and promoting personal pensions, will he now give, in clear and simple language, a guarantee that the millions of people who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and occupational schemes and who have been subjected to bad advice will have all their losses made up and their full pension rights restored?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may not be quite aware of the present situation. The regulator has made it clear that he will use his powers to ensure that anyone who was mis-sold a pension will have a remedy. There is no need for investors in personal pensions to be too concerned ; the hon. Gentleman should have understood that. Within the next few weeks, the Securities and Investments Board is due to publish a full report setting out the terms of redress which should be applied to investors who have been disadvantaged by that advice. They would be wise to wait for that report and not listen to the hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that before the national health service reforms there was no such thing as equality of health treatment in this country and it depended entirely on where one lived? If one lived in Lancaster, one received good treatment, but if one lived in parts of the rest of the country, one did not. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the reforms, best practice is spreading throughout the land?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that that is the case. The health reforms are spreading best practice in every part of the United Kingdom and removing many of the anomalies that existed previously. That, and the increased resources available to the national health service, are intended to ensure that we have the best possible national health service for our nation that we can possibly afford.

     

    Q4. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Ms Eagle : Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government are currently spending £121,800 a year of taxpayers’ money on the salary of the chairman of Railtrack, who works only a three-day week? Is that value for money?

    The Prime Minister : If he turns Railtrack into the efficient organisation that customers who use trains wish to see, yes.

     

    Q5. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Duncan : Will the Prime Minister convey to the local government commission my constituents’ overwhelming gratitude for recommending the return of the ancient and valiant little county of Rutland? Will he hop across from Huntingdonshire and hang a horseshoe in Oakham castle to celebrate that sensible and popular decision?

    The Prime Minister : I know from my own experience how strong my hon. Friend’s campaign for the return of Rutland has been and I congratulate him on the outcome. He mentioned other counties. I am familiar with one near to Rutland, which I hope will also return. I believe that questionnaires are to be sent to every household, which means that local people will be able to express their views on the matter and on what they wish the outcome to be. That is the right way to proceed.

     

    Q6. Mr. Keith Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Hill : If the Cabinet is so bad that it needs a drastic reshuffle, as he promised on Monday, should not the Prime Minister take his fair share of the blame and reshuffle himself as well?

    The Prime Minister : In the interests of helping the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him, first, that whereas on Tuesday he told the House that unemployment was up in his constituency, today I can tell the House after yesterday’s figures that it is down–and I hope that he is grateful. The words that he metaphorically put in inverted commas–“drastic reshuffle”–have not crossed my lips.

    Mr. Lamont : May I urge the Prime Minister at the forthcoming summit in Corfu to reject firmly the candidature of the Belgian Prime Minister for the presidency of the Commission? Even if Britain did not have an excellent candidate with a brilliant negotiating track record, is it not true that Mr. Dehaene is a federalist of the old-fashioned type and that no Belgian candidate would resist the ever-increasing demands of the Brussels bureaucracy?

    The Prime Minister : At the moment there are only two declared candidates for the post–Sir Leon Brittan, whom we back strongly, and Dr. Ruud Lubbers. Both are highly respected in the European Community and are well known to all the member states. I have made no secret of my belief that Leon Brittan is the right candidate to be President of the Commission and he will have our strong support at Corfu. At this stage, I am not prepared to declare a position on any other candidate or possible candidate.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference on the Competitiveness White Paper – 24 May 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference on the competitiveness White Paper, held in London on Tuesday 24th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps I can just make a few brief opening remarks. You have all no doubt heard the statements by Michael [Heseltine] and David [Hunt] already this afternoon and I hope all of you have a copy of the press pack and the White Paper.

    Let me just make three overriding points right at the outset. All of us would like to see higher living standards and better public services, but if we are going to achieve that, over time, there are really only two ways to improve and sustain the level of quality of public services that we want, the first of those is business success yielding higher taxes, and the second of those would be higher tax rates. There is no doubt which is preferable. Secondly, there is no doubt that long term business success needs long term policies in order to obtain it, the long term policies we need are those we have in place and those we have set out in the White Paper today, we have brought them together in this way I believe for the first time. And thirdly, let me just make a point about the world in which our businesses have to compete, both large businesses and small.

    It is becoming a truism to say that the world is more competitive than ever before and it is becoming more so day after day. Technology and free trade have created a global environment, there is a global market place, there are new opportunities but we are only going to take those opportunities if we can keep up and beat the best of the competition. And many countries around the world who used to be fairly easy markets for us many years ago are now very firm competitors for us, there is no sentiment in the market place, we have to be better or our companies simply will not win in the sort of world market that exists at present.

    The White Paper shows what we can do to help our businesses to win and demonstrates our commitment to industry, manufacturing industry and services. As I think a number of you present will know, not least because you will have been with us on the trips, a number of my colleagues and I travel frequently batting for Britain with delegations of British exporters. Many of those visits have led to very substantial orders for the United Kingdom, bringing jobs and better living standards here. Those visits have brought home to me two lessons – the first is the accelerating pace of change and the quality of competition which businesses face; and the second is the need for active partnership between government and industry if we are to maximise the possibilities for businesses and companies in this country.

    It is of course the private sector companies, employees abroad, decision-makers often here at home, those who work on product development and marketing, who actually win the orders for us, it is on them that our living standards and our future depends. It was against that sort of background that I asked Michael Heseltine some months ago with colleagues right the way across government to have a look at the way in which the government could maximise its part in order to help our businesses win in that very competitive world market.

    A great deal inevitably must rest on work that has been done throughout the past 15 years and we are building on that with low inflation, deregulated, flexible and an open economy. But in addition to that the White Paper looks at a wide range of specific key areas and especially of course education and training. We have to give our youngsters the best start at school, that of course is the reason for our education reforms and it is the reason we are now introducing more vocational options for our 14 – 16 year olds.

    But of course a great many of those people, upon whom our future success depends, do not necessarily go on to college, so we also have to help them manage the transition from school to the early years of work and that is precisely what our apprenticeship programmes are about. Our intention is really very straightforward and very simple, whether children follow the academic path, the vocational path, or a mix of both, they will be given the opportunity to acquire the qualifications and the skills that they will need to get on in life and that we as a country need to assist our businesses in the competitive world in which they must compete. But we owe that I think both to our businesses and to those children and we owe it to our country to provide the best foundation for a competitive Britain in the next century.

    This is a long term look, there are no short term fixes in this White Paper, this is a comprehensive look at things that need to be done, some in the short term, some in the long term, in order to give us the best opportunity in the world’s business environment.

    I would just now like to ask Michael to say a word or two, and then David, and then we will take your questions. Can I say a word about questions? I have with me the Secretaries of State, all of whom in separate ways have been involved in the production of this White Paper, so I hope we will have questions of detail, we have the people here who will be only too happy to respond to those questions.

    MICHAEL HESELTINE:

    Prime Minister, when you entrusted some of us with the preparation for your consideration of this White Paper, you gave us some very clear steers. The first was to be absolutely certain that nothing was to be proposed that would upset the main macro-economic priorities of the government which we believe to be at the essence of remaining a competitive economy. The second was that if within the dialogue and within the public expenditure constraints we could find re-apportionment or realignment of priorities, then it was your particular concern that they should be directed towards improving the educational and training opportunities of our people. The next guideline that you gave us was that you wanted us to analyse Britain’s position in the long term context, as you said, to do so in a non-partisan way, to seek to unite the nation behind a whole range of initiatives in which every company and everybody would identify a purpose for them.

    We have done our best to fulfil that remit, it has required a superhuman endeavour by civil servants working right across government, it has involved the widest possible consultation outside government with organisations that have a role to play, and it is a particular indication of the significance that we give to the exercise that not only have we done that in the first place but that the committee that you entrusted with the initial task is to remain in existence and will as appropriate at given times update the work if the government believes that that will help. We are very pleased to have played a role in this.

    DAVID HUNT:

    Prime Minister, in setting the framework for a stronger partnership between government and industry, the role that John and I in particular have played is to put people right at the heart of the drive to ensure that the UK wins through in the 21st century, and programmes have got to be tailored to the needs of individuals, they must offer opportunities to individuals and they must ensure that individuals are motivated to take advantage of them. So our ambition is for our people to succeed. So we have a range of ambitious measures aimed at bringing out the best of the talent and skills of our people, you have heard the figures, you have heard the programmes.

    Right at the heart of the strategy, Prime Minister, something that I know you personally have always been strongly committed to, which is the new modern apprenticeship scheme offering real opportunities to youngsters to play a key role in adding to Britain’s brain power. And these new fast track apprenticeships are something that many organisations, many individuals, have been pressing for, we are now extending the opportunities beyond the 16 and 17 year olds to those aged 18 and 19, and key is a revolution in careers guidance now involving independent advice, probably to about 1.5 million one-to-one interviews and giving school children the opportunity to get the best possible advice at 13, at 15 and at 17, and also that small firms skill sharing scheme, a whole range of schemes. But, Prime Minister, the key to all is investing in people, that is a programme that we strongly support, that came from the CBI, we are carrying it through into every aspect of education and training.

    QUESTION:

    Why was it felt unnecessary to accept the main recommendations of the all party Trade and Industry Select Committee, such as a training levy on employers and a programme to combat short-termism in the City?

    MICHAEL HESELTINE:

    I think there were about 4 or 5 areas which we were not able to accept in the Select Committee report, by and large we accepted and agreed with the analysis and the proposals. But actually the Select Committee did not propose a training levy, if you look at the Select Committee report they admire the direction in which we are going and what they say is that we should come back to and consider a training levy if no better results are forthcoming in other ways, so they did not make that recommendation and it was a mistake for people to suggest in the House that they did. There were a number of other things that we were not able to agree, we were not able to agree with the suggestion that targets should be set right through every sector of the economy, I think that frankly is not realistic and I know of no government that has ever tried that ever succeeded, there are some who have tried but they have never succeeded.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, why do you look so grim?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am glad you are so concerned about that, I am trying to peer through those television lights, if you really wish to know the truth, if anyone whom I have known for years stands up and I do not recognise them, the answer is that beyond those lights all you can see are black spots, so I am not grim, just peering to see who is there.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] 4.55 in the paper on accelerated modern apprenticeships, you say if industry plays its part government will provide funding of 107 million pounds over three years, what precise part do you want industry to play for these modern apprenticeships for 19 and 18 year olds, and is this 107 million pounds over three years additional to any previous funding?

    DAVID HUNT:

    This is an additional commitment of 107 million pounds over 3 years and what this will do is to produce a fast track for those who have stayed at school, done A levels, GNVQs, etc, to move into work-based training. We calculate it will take them around about 18 months on average to get up to that key point of NVQ level 3, and what we are doing by introducing this fast track approach is giving many more people an opportunity, and we calculate that this will increase the numbers of those achieving NVQ level 3 from around about just over 10,000 at the moment to over 70,000 NVQ level 3s achieved every year, and the way we will do it is by working closely, as we are at the moment, through the industry training organisations, the training and enterprise councils, all the other key partners and bodies, working up models which then to form the basis of the new scheme.

    QUESTION:

    What precisely does industry have to do to get the government to provide the funding?

    DAVID HUNT:

    We have got 14, now just gone up to 17, pilot areas which we are starting this autumn. Each apprenticeship will have a different cost, apprenticeships in some of the more specialised engineering sectors will differ in cost from those in other areas and I am now awaiting reports coming from the working parties working up these pilots which will start later this year with a view then to introducing the full scheme in 1995, and we will be looking for a partnership whereby taxpayers’ money will be put alongside the private sector to secure through that training credit the opportunity for that youngster at 16 or 17 to have a 3 – 4 year apprenticeship and for the 18 and 19 year olds that 18 month fast track apprenticeship.

    QUESTION:

    There is a section in the document which allows pupils to spend what are presumed to be a voucher on a place at the school, college or training institution of their choice. The reforms were originally parent-power driven, this seems to be pupil-power driven, how far will it descend down through the school year, what age are we talking about and will it lead to an all in voucher system.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is at very early stages here, let me ask David to say something, John might wish to as well.

    DAVID HUNT:

    What we have said in paragraph 4.56 is that we see attractions in providing all 16, 17, 18, 19 year olds with learning credits with a real cash value, and that would give power to young people to buy their own education and training from schools, colleges, employers and other recognised providers. But we recognise that that would be a far reaching change in funding which is why John and I have said that we need careful preparation and we are going to consult further on the practical implications of learning credits and to discuss the issues widely and openly and also to introduce some pilot schemes on the basis of local partnerships.

    JOHN PATTEN:

    I would only add one thing to what David has said, and that is that yes we are totally devoted to parent power and parent choice for the parents of children of 5 – 16, but those of 16 plus are young adults, they are out and about in the world, they should be making their own choices. What we want to see is for those between 16 and 19 a good range of choices, whether it is city technology colleges, technology colleges, grant maintained schools, further education colleges, and we want them to have a wide range of examination qualifications, not forcing them into a rigid straitjacket, that is why we have got our gold standard, the A level, that is why David Hunt and myself have been developing the GNVQ, that is why we are very happy for the international baccalaureate to be taken, we have got to treat 16 and 17 year olds as young adults.

    QUESTION:

    The Prime Minister admitted that this White Paper brought together for the first time a range of initiatives, and right at the back of the document, on page 159, we discover that all it does is report on matters already announced and in progress, it is in effect a snapshot of the work in hand across government, basically the previous 158 pages are covering up for the fact that there is nothing new at all in this.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is, with great respect, rubbish. But let me ask the coordinator to spell out some of the details of why it is rubbish.

    MICHAEL HESELTINE:

    There are 60, I think, new proposals, 59, 60, 61 depends on the precise classification and I could mention a whole range of the ones that are announced here, the whole of the education and apprenticeship announcement that has been made are new, new money; the fact that we are spending 150 – 200 million pounds on a regional challenge is a new fact; the fact that we are producing a civil service White Paper is a new fact; you can go on. Quite frankly, the suggestion that you put that there is nothing new in it can only be charitably understood on the basis that you have not yet had time to read it.

    QUESTION:

    In the section on public purchasing you mention that you want a constructive partnership rather than an adversarial relationship in the government’s construction programme, could you outline how that will work?

    MICHAEL HESELTINE:

    On public purchasing, we believe that there is an opportunity to get a greater degree of professionalism into the purchasing machinery of government and a significant part of the initiative here is to improve training. But there is then another aspect to that and that is to set up a machinery across the country in order to make it easier for small companies to get access to large contracts and to so organise those contracts that they are more capable of being competed for by small companies. We are also going to work with the supply chain in order to encourage companies that are buying without thought to local sourcing the opportunities that they could create for British companies if they were to do so, there are a whole range of partnership arrangements that can be developed within such a framework and it is to bring professional management and an opportunity for particularly small and medium size companies in this huge public procurement process that is under way.

    PANEL SPEAKER:

    Also, we constituted our sponsorship side for the construction industry which fits in with this and of course throughout government we will be ensuring that the purchasing arrangements will be on the basis in which we also introduce the environmentally friendly kinds of concepts which enable our industries to be able to compete throughout the world. One of the things about competition is that you have to have the highest standards in this country in order to win markets elsewhere and that is very much driven by the standards which government demands as well, so this is inter-related with the kinds of contracts which we are now winning in places as far apart as the United States and Australia for the sort of environmentally friendly programmes which the water companies are now able to do because of competition, because of privatisation and because of the kind of government programme of purchasing which we are now demanding.

    QUESTION:

    You say that the basic thrust of this is to produce a more long-term vision so are there any measures in here to stop this haemorrhage of funds out of companies as dividend payments which obviously prevents companies from reinvesting in the very long-term things that you want such as R&D and education and training?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let William firstly just say something about R&D because I think often there are many comments made about the levels of research and development expenditure and investment which frankly are not right.

    WILLIAM WALDEGRAVE:

    The Government contribution on R&D is in the middle of the pack for the G7 and we remain one of the big five or six science countries of the world. Indeed, in terms of one of the indices, the citation index, we are probably the second biggest producer of innovative science ideas after the United States of America.

    The importance of getting longer-term decision-taking into companies is emphasised in the Paper but of course the fundamental thing that brings down time horizons is inflation and the establishment of real stability in the economy is already leading in this last period of the recession that is now over to a greater degree of protection for companies’ R&D budgets. That is a very hopeful sign for the future but the Paper makes absolutely no doubt about the fact that we want the best, that we want the average and the below-average to be brought up to the standard of the best investing companies in this country. Michael Heseltine talked earlier about for example the pharmaceutical industry. If we could have all our companies taking the same view about R&D in the long-term as the pharmaceutical industry does we would do very well.

    KENNETH CLARKE:

    We are having what we call a “Finance for Industry Study” in the Treasury and we are having a look at the views of companies themselves, the banks and other people about the flow of finance into industry in this country. Certainly, one of the things we will have a look at is the fact that, as you say, compared with some continental European countries certainly a greater proportion of profits are distributed in dividends here than are retained and we will look at that and decide the extent to which that gets the right balance between having properly functioning capital markets and on the other hand making sure that you can use some retained profits to build up your financial base. All these matters we will be considering in the run-up to the next budget.

    We have already shown that we are prepared to take measures in the budget to stimulate the kind of investment we require, particularly longer-term risk investment in small and medium-sized businesses but we are widening the scope of the studies that Stephen Dorrell and Tony Nelson have been carrying out. All of us in the Treasury are now settling down to this and I see the work we are doing looking at the flow of finance to industrial investment in this country all sitting alongside what is being done to help business improve its supply-side performance as well. We are very actively looking at that and the Government certainly is going to form a view on what we can do to improve the working of our capital markets in this country.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The intention is of course that these various examinations should interlock. As Ken has just illustrated, there are in effect four areas that the Treasury are looking at at the moment: savings, the working of capital markets, the flow of funds to business and as a result of that, the implications for taxation and I think it is very desirable that that work should be done. It is but part of the whole patchwork but I think an important part.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you have said today’s initiative is probably unprecedented. Why has it taken almost fifteen years of Conservative Government before it could happen? Isn’t today’s White Paper somehow an implicit recognition that so far the Government was not helping British businesses enough?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think so. A great deal has been done in the 1980s. Government is usually about the language of priorities and throughout the 1980s the first priorities were to deal with many of the macro-elements of the economy, not just the incipient inflation difficulty we had in this country but a range of other things as well, a range of supply-side measures and most obviously but not exclusively the reform of our then trade union laws.

    Those matters have been done. We are operating against a quite different background of better macro-structure, a better supply-side performance. What we now need to do is to move on to the things that still remain to be done and that is of course what has led to this particular White Paper. It comes on the back of the best inflation performance, the lowest interest rates that we have seen for a very long time. A number of people in this room were probably still in their nappies the last time we had interest rates at the present level and inflation at the present level.

    So we operate against that background and against that background there is every opportunity of maximising the competitive position that we have. It was an opportunity to be taken and that was the genesis of the White Paper.

    QUESTION:

    There are many small businesses who have wanted to expand up to now and recently. They say they can’t expand because they can’t find skilled workers and they can’t afford to pay apprentices. How, tomorrow, will they be able to say: “Ah! What you have announced today helps me, I can go ahead and expand now!”?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will get David to elaborate upon the apprenticeship point but can I just say something about small businesses before I ask him to do that. It is a quite staggering statistic that about 97% of the people employed in this country are employed by companies who have a very small number of employees, under 25 employees, that sort of size, so the implications for employment apart from anything else of the success of the small business sector are self-evident. What we believe is happening at the moment as the economy recovers is that many of those small companies are beginning to re-employ again. I think there is unmistakable evidence that that is the case. We hope our measures will give a kick-start to that.

    DAVID HUNT:

    Prime Minister, I have already spoken in the few moments I have had since leaving the House of Commons to several people who represent the small business sector who enthusiastically welcomed this White Paper. There are a whole set of provisions specifically for small firms. I will just mention one which is its identification with the assistance of small firms of up to 24,000 key workers who have got skills who just need that extra training to be able to pass on those skills to the next generation. That, allied with the new apprenticeship scheme, is directly targeted at small firms worth £63 million over three years.

    As Michael announced, we also of course have the innovation credits. That is another example. They are worth up to £1,000 a company for the innovation counsellors to enable the companies to pay for the best possible information or advice about innovation.

    Those are just two examples of a whole list of packages of opportunities for small firms because we recognise that much of the job-generation, the new jobs that are coming in the economy, about 25 million now, have come from small and medium-sized enterprises.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, in considering the problems of making Britain more competitive, did you find yourself casting envious glances at Germany where short-termism is not a problem because financial institutions are more closely locked into the companies in whom they invest, where managers and workers get along perhaps more constructively because they sit on management and supervisory boards and where there is the so-called “Mittelstand” – the medium-sized businesses – which provide a solid core for industry beneath the big boys on the one hand and the smaller corner-shop industries on the other?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly didn’t cast envious glances at Germany. I think over the years there have been things we have been able to learn from Germany. There are things I very much admire about the way they conduct their affairs. I am not sure that their interlocking shareholdings are one of the things that I would necessarily wish to replicate here, I think they were a product of particular circumstances in Germany.

    In terms of some of their industrial training, the particular emphasis in factories that you will see given to the foremen for example, I think there are areas there where there is something for British industry to learn but generally, no, I am not envious. If you look at the German economy at the moment, you will see that it is facing some difficulties. There has been massive job-shedding, there are over 4 million unemployed at the moment. Like every other nation, they are emerging from extremely difficult economic circumstances.

    I will ask the Chancellor to add to this because I think I heard a Chancellorial grunt on my left which suggests he wants to say something!

    KENNETH CLARKE:

    I happen to have had the chance to meet quite a lot of German ministers, bankers and businessmen recently and I don’t think they will actually share your view. Obviously, currently as we know, their unemployment is higher than ours, theirs is not yet coming down, their rate of growth is slower than ours and quite importantly, they have actually lost their competitive edge vis-a-vis British businesses in quite a lot of fields. I meet British businessmen now exporting components in the automobile industry into Germany because this is a better manufacturing base currently than Germany.

    Like the Prime Minister, I admire a lot of things German. Theirs is a very powerful economy where they are putting right the things they know they have to put right to improve their competitiveness but at the moment we have the edge over them and we have got to address the things we are addressing to make sure we do our best to take advantage of the position we now have where at last we are able to compete with the Germans on level terms.

    The reason I grunted, smiled or whatever I did, was that recently I met a whole lot of people from a German private bank and one of the German bankers amused me by saying: “What we need here in Germany is a bit more of your British short-termism!”. Because half their banks are nationalised – they are about to privatise more of them – they have this system of interlocking shareholding and they do actually feel they lack some of the advantages we have of more fluid capital markets.

    That doesn’t go back on my previous answer. We know here that we do lack sufficient long-term capital for small businesses in particular. I agree with you that we don’t have that middle range of companies that the Germans are much stronger in. We have always thought the Germans had a lead over us in technical training and somebody a moment ago suggested we had been inactive. What David Hunt and John Patten are announcing builds on a process now of seven or eight years that started with a situation when we had absolutely no structure of technical qualifications in this country, we had no commitment to vocational training and to move into the areas they are now moving into, apprenticeships for 18-year-olds and so on, is catching up the Germans very rapidly and it is with the aim of seeking to overtake them in that great strength of theirs as well.

    We have got to compete with the Germans and there are a lot of good things in Germany but the idea that we sit here envious of the German situation is not true. For the first time in my lifetime we have the prospect of being a more competitive economy than Germany and we have got to take advantage of that finally and not least by aligning with German ministers who want to get deregulation going in Europe and in Germany of the kind that we have already got going in the DTI in the United Kingdom and which we are going to get going in Europe with German assistance.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You raised one other point about the middle range of companies and I am going to ask Michael to say something about that but if I can just add one point to what Ken said a second or so ago, we have a very close alliance indeed with Germany in terms of seeking deregulation in the European Community. I will be very surprised indeed if deregulation across the Community isn’t one of the principal aims of the German Presidency of the Community in the second half of this year and the Germans and the British work in very close alliance on this and have done for some time I think to the benefit of both our countries and to the benefit of the rest of the European Union.

    MICHAEL HESELTINE:

    A very important question and nothing so reveals the long-term nature of changing relativities in the strength of the economy than this question of why we have fewer medium-sized companies than Germany.

    The reason basically for it is that for much of the post-War period, particularly under Labour governments, income tax was at 98p in the pound which meant that nobody earning money was capable of retaining any money with which to start a small business. You cannot start a medium-sized business, you start with small businesses, so there was a choke around the creative process of the capital system as far as individuals were concerned.

    We then had the existing businesses that had already started and many of them were medium-sized. What then happened is that we created a tax regime in which there was massive preferential treatment for the publicly-quoted company to take over the businesses that were middle-sized which were forced onto the market-place by death duties and capital transfer or wealth taxes of one sort and another and when the family businesses came to look at the consequence of the business on death or transfer, they discovered that if they sold their business for cash, which is all a small or medium-sized business could offer, then they would be taxed into oblivion and so they looked at the publicly-quoted companies, the giants who could give them shares, and there was no tax paid at that time and so not only did we put a choke on creation, we put a block on the transfer of inheritance and the sustenance therefore of the sector and that explains why under Socialist taxation policies we wiped out a whole raft of medium-sized companies.

    The exciting long-term thing of the 1990s is that there are today 600,000 more small businesses than there were in 1979. The latest published figures by Barclays Bank indicate there is now a net capital asset creation of small businesses after the recession and so what we have to do is keep that macro-economic climate developing in the very benign tax climate we have now got so that the small businesses created in the ’80s become the medium-sized businesses of the ’90s.

    JOHN PATTEN:

    On this issue of training and education in Germany often held up, rightly, to us over decades as a model, I think actually the Germans are beginning to look to us and the sort of innovative work being done by David Hunt and by people in the Department for Education to produce new higher-level vocational qualifications in a way which will leap over some of those that the Germans have.

    Just two other things: we do need, all of us in industry and in education and in the world of the employer, to link up in a national crusade to hit the national education training targets that we have set ourselves by 1997 otherwise we are not going to be as competitive as we wish by the end of this century. An awful lot has been achieved over the last fifteen years, standards are going up, standards are improving and best of all from the employers’ point of view, more young people than ever before are staying on at school post-16; back in 1979 it was about 40%, now it is round about 75% and I think it is our ambition as a government to see the 16-year-old school-leaver as rare as the dodo by the year 2000.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if this report is as successful as you say it will be, how many jobs do you think it will create long-term?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think you can produce an estimate of that. We can see at the moment that the rate of unemployment is falling rather larger than we had imagined just a few months ago. I very much hope that will continue and it looks at the moment as though it is certainly going to continue for some time but I think it is very unwise to forecast the levels of unemployment and of employment. No previous Government has done it and I think it would be very unwise of us to try. What one can certainly say is that if the economy becomes more successful, it generates more growth, it generates the growth of small businesses, then it is going to create more employment but quantifying that I think would be an impossible task.

    QUESTION:

    The modern apprenticeship system as presently proposed is going to cost £1.25 billion over the next three years. Now you are proposing £107 million extra to almost double apprentice numbers. I accept the point that the apprenticeship will be shorter but when you talk to people from Techs and ITOs they say that the modern apprenticeship scheme will last two years, maybe two-and-a-half years and now you are talking about eighteen months. How do you expect £107 million to virtually double apprentice numbers and is this where you expect a greater contribution from industry?

    DAVID HUNT:

    May I just explain the background to the figures. What we are talking about now is a total budget over the next three years which is up to £2.5 billion – £2,500 million – which the Department of Employment is going to invest over a three-year period to help our young people get modern training leading to high-quality qualifications.

    The £107 million investment over three years is what my officials tell me after consultation is necessary to introduce a short fast-track apprenticeship for round about at any one point in time 57,000 individuals participating in the new modern apprenticeship.

    The actual quantification of the cost of each sector will follow the detailed negotiations that are now taking place but all of this is against that background of £2.5 billion.

    Finally, Prime Minister, can I say about employment something just revealed in the House of Commons which I don’t think many people are aware of and that is when you look at the percentage of our working population now in work, we are just about the highest with one other country in the Europe in the league table in Europe. We have 70% of the male and female population aged 15-64 in work and that compares to Germany 65%, France 60%, Italy 56%, Ireland 52%, Spain 49%.

    QUESTION:

    Regarding the sections in the White Paper both on transport and London, Could you tell us what is happening to the “Crossrail” project and whether it will be built?

    JOHN MACGREGOR:

    We remain firmly committed to the “Crossrail” project. The promoters are currently looking to see whether they can revive the Bill.

    JOHN GUMMER:

    It is very important for London and we are determined to ensure that this range of new opportunities are made available. The fact of the matter is that even though we are spending an enormous amount of money, much more than was ever spent when there was a GLC, it is still true that the standards which we are trying to produce and the opportunities go on increasing and that is why this is another step on a course which we started a long time ago.

    It is incremental but it will be all the more exciting if we can get “Crossrail” as well.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 13 May 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference in Inverness on 13th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today of all days I want to talk not of partisan politics, but of our country and its prospects.

    There are occasions when it is right to turn aside from the clamour of political differences.

    Yesterday, this conference adjourned to mark its respect for one of our country’s political leaders. An opponent, yes. A gifted and an honourable opponent. Undoubtedly. But a partner, too. A partner in that mission which is central to politics. The guest to build a stronger democracy, a better country, a richer life for all.

    All of us here are people to whom our families matter deeply. John Smith was a family man. And our thoughts and prayers go out, above all, to his family in their grief – in a time of loss for which no words suffice, and into which no-one should seek to intrude.

    The reaction to John’s death tells us much about our country. It showed the priceless asset of the essential decency of the British. We can weep for a good man – even an opponent – because we recognise his qualities.

    This reminds us that there are things higher than politics and, across all divisions, common bonds of humanity that unite us all.

    I liked John Smith. The nation saw us set up in artificial confrontation twice a week in the House of Commons. That was part of our political process – and I make no complaint of that.

    But people did not see behind the scenes. There is friendship in politics, there is decency, there are private relationships across all Parties, there is principle and there is respect and understanding for the beliefs and the convictions of others. What a shame it is that that becomes apparent so rarely.

    Mr President, I must confess to you that I often have little taste for the politics of point-scoring or for the belittling of others. I have none today. I care passionately for what I believe in. But I don’t care passionately for damning what other people believe in. If we could attack the policies of others, but respect their motives, then politics would have a fresher feel than it does today.

    Let us be truthful with ourselves. Across all Europe there is a lower regard for politics than I can ever remember. And, as democrats, we should worry about that.

    Politics isn’t just about power. As you grow more experienced you see the limits on the power of action, limits set by the need to persuade others and carry them with you. Limits set by the capacity of our country to create the wealth and resources needed to fulfil our ambitions.

    No, it isn’t just about power. It’s about ideals. Hopes. Ambitions.

    In politics you never lose the ideals of youth. You always travel in hope. And you never forget your long-term principles.

    There are twists and turns, moments of exhilaration and achievement, and times, too, of disappointment and despair. But you pick yourself up, take on the next task, and go on forward. Because you always have a long-term aim in view.

    Mr President, I sometimes wish that side of politics was more evident. I know politicians of all Parties. And they are not the cynical, power-hungry, self-servers that fiction so often portrays. There is such a thing as public service in this country. And our politicians generally subscribe to it.

    Too often our politics is rooted in old battles, not new opportunities.

    Of course we differ greatly in our philosophy; in our beliefs as to how to do the best for Britain. But sometimes, too, we share a common purpose.

    The War-time coalition and the Labour and Conservative Governments that followed all worked to strengthen the welfare state, develop the Health Service, put in place the modern system of education that Rab Butler had worked to create, and which culminated in his great Education Act of 1944.

    The achievement of Conservatism in the present generation has been to redress the balance between the state and the individual. To extend choice and ownership, to build the right climate for industrial growth and expansion, to set the ambitions, the hopes, and the capacity of every family free.

    I don’t believe those achievements either will ever be challenged or changed. We have created a special British cocktail of free enterprise, tempered with social justice. A wider ownership of homes, shares and pensions than almost any nation in Europe, but a free health service which those overseas envy and admire.

    That will never change. When my parents were old and unwell and without any money, they were well treated. It made an abiding impression on me that they had the security and comfort of mind to know that. While I am Prime Minister, that will never change.

    All of us in politics – national or local – have our role to play. Whether we are players on the stage, or supporters in the wings, or commentators in the front of house, we all have our responsibilities.

    Sometimes I feel – and I don’t only mean in the reporting of politics – that there is too much knocking, too much carping, too much sneering. Too much setting up of Aunt Sally against Aunt Sally.

    Being negative can be an addictive drug. It’s easy. Because we all know how easy it is to do something, if you don’t have to do it yourself. But like any drug it corrodes and destroys the body in which it exists. And one body it runs the risk of corrupting is the body politic of the nation itself.

    If politicians fight – in Party and across Party – like ferrets in a sack on every issue, is it surprising if the public turns away?

    Let’s not be negative here today. Let’s be positive. And look at what’s happened in Britain in the last two years alone, and at our prospects for the future.

    We have achieved an impressive revival from recession – well ahead of the rest of Europe.

    We have the lowest inflation and interest rates for a generation.

    We have growth in the UK – twice as high as anywhere in Europe, and set to continue next year.

    We have public services forced by the Citizen’s Charter to tailor their performance to the needs of the public and to raise their standards year by year.

    We have a National Health Service, in which local doctors have more say than ever, and in which we are treating more patients than ever before – and treating them better.

    We have set reforms in place to raise standards in our schools and to improve the quality of training for young people.

    One third of our young people are now going on to university.

    And crime is now falling in Scotland and throughout the UK.

    That is the reality of what’s happening.

    Mr President, I have not come here to hide the challenges we still face. On the back of a world-wide recession Government is a tough business everywhere. We often have to do things that seem perverse today because we believe they will be right tomorrow.

    Our job is to look long-term, plan long-term, achieve long- term. Set a framework for lasting prosperity. To ensure we don’t go through such difficulties again.

    Some people may not like some of the action we’ve had to take – but our duty is to make the right choices for Britain’s future. It isn’t our job to do things to court short-term popularity, if they have a long-term cost.

    Obligations are painful things. So are difficult decisions. But often they are necessary for the sake of future generations. So that their prospects are not just as good, but better than ours.

    But that is what we’re in Government for.

    “The elevation of the condition of the people”. That’s how Disraeli once put it.

    “The elevation of the condition of the people” – Mr President, that is why I am a Conservative – why we are all Conservatives. And why this party must always frame its policies, not by the yardstick of ideology, but by how closely they touch the everyday lives of the people.

    We mustn’t live in a world of theory. Our theatre must not be the academic clique or the Party caucus. Our theatre is the home, the family, the business, the voluntary group. That is the world from which Conservatism grows.

    Our Party is at its strongest wherever it strikes a chord with the commonsense of the British people. When Conservative canvassers came to my door in Lambeth all those years ago they spoke a language I and the people I knew could readily understand.

    The things they cared about were the things we all care about – how to get on in life, how to take our own decisions, how to acquire new skills, save money, own a home and leave a better start for our children and grandchildren than we ever had ourselves.

    Even to the dependent Conservatism spoke the language of independence. Even to the insecure it offered security.

    It did then. And it must today. Somehow we must break through the artificial frenzy that so often masquerades as political debate and focus attention once more on the essential concerns of the people we represent. That, I believe, is what people want and what our political system needs.

    The Conservative agenda

    Last autumn I spoke of a malaise that I saw creeping across our country. A cloud of unease and uncertainty in the face of constant challenges to the standards that people hold dear.

    I said that our first duty was to dispel that anxiety, answer the worries people have, and draw deep at the well of commonsense instinct as we did.

    I set out there my programme for the rest of this Parliament.

    First, to see through – come what may – our policies for a strong stable economy. That we are doing – through low inflation, low interest rates and falling unemployment.

    It is easy to write off now the importance of the fight against inflation. That is a mistake that I will never allow this Government to make.

    I know from experience what inflation does. What it is like at the end of the week if you’re not sure you’re going to have enough money left over to pay the bills. I grew up in a hard part of London. We shared the house with all sorts of odd characters. Inflation wasn’t our only problem – but it was one of the worst. I know what it is like at the sharp end, what it’s like to struggle on fixed incomes. And so long as I am Prime Minister containing inflation will continue to be a cornerstone of our policy and a touchstone of its success.

    The second goal I set in Blackpool was to bring about a seachange in our approach to crime. Shift the balance in criminal policy decisively against the villain after a generation of liberal ideas. Put punishment back on the agenda. Reject forever the fatal idea that crime can ever be excused.

    If you don’t give young people guidelines and rules you are not helping them. Children who start with a small offence and are not brought up short will commit a bigger offence and then a bigger one, and, before you know it, they’re into serious crime. It is no good if when a young criminal gets caught all he gets is a slap on the wrist and sent on his way.

    We have embarked on a shift in policy on crime, not to turn back the clock – of course not, Dickensian attitudes have no relevance today – but to turn up the heat on the criminal. I make not a shred of apology for that. The British people are heartily sick of the apologists for crime. And the crackdown that’s needed has only begun.

    The third target I have set for the ‘90s is to raise standards in our schools. Without that Britain will not be able to compete in the world. We need to sweep aside the progressive dogma that has done so much damage. Extend parents’ choice. Insist on the basics. Make sure we get the best results for every child. And see that those results are reported, and, what is equally essential, tested.

    Mr President, I simply do not understand opposition to testing. I sent my children to school to learn – so do all parents. You can’t just wrap children in cottonwool. Life itself is a test – and you have to prepare them for it. Compete is what children do naturally. Just put four small children together and see what they do. They see who can run fastest or jump highest. So we will be introducing more competitive games and we will stick to our guns on testing.

    Mr President, in the last six months we have taken huge strides in carrying forward the agenda I set out in Blackpool. Inflation is right down. We have the biggest crime-fighting bill for years before Parliament. And, through teacher training reform, we are putting the last pieces into the mosaic of education reform.

    That is the road this country must follow – and that is the road down which I and this Party will lead.

    Mr President, the mandate we won from over 14 million people was a mandate which runs for 5 years. We are not yet half way through – and I intend to complete it. And then I shall say:

    “Judge me on my whole term of office. All of it. You can’t judge a house when only the foundations are laid”.

    A changing world

    If we are to achieve our social objectives we must have strong economic foundations on which to build.

    There are new and ever greater demands on our resources. But there’s only one way to create the wealth that we need. Through business success.

    We have to lift our eyes from the short-term headlines. Look to the long-term. The world is changing faster than ever before. Just look at the changes there have been.

    Operations that 15 years ago were unheard of now happen almost every day. Young people today have opportunities that our parents’ generation wouldn’t have dreamed of. In future it will not be enough to learn just one skill at 16 and do the same thing all through a lifetime.

    People are living longer than ever before. More people are going into higher education than ever before. Those are all good changes, changes we’ve worked for, changes we want, changes that are making people’s lives better.

    But they all have a cost. We need to pay for them. But we don’t want high taxation. So the challenge for us is to make our economy as competitive as possible, so that we can generate the wealth that we need for the improvements we wish to bring about.

    For today we face a world more competitive than ever before. Not just from America and Japan but from new countries in the Far East, once our captive markets, now our active competitors.

    We must look forward to the world in which our children will live. In the 21st century we’re going to have a world dominated by Japan, the United States and China. The European Community has a choice to make – will it be with those players or will it not?

    The importance of Europe

    I hope it will be, but it is not certain unless Europe follows the right policies. I would give Europe this warning. Unless it makes the right choices about policy today – unless it adopts free market policies – and believes in them – Europe won’t be up there in the next century with the US, Japan and China. It will slide behind.

    That is why Britain must play its full part in Europe. Not just for our own sake, but for Europe’s too.

    Nearly 200 years ago William Pitt said Britain “has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”

    I know that the issue of Europe runs deep in British politics. It touches emotions more profoundly than routine political differences. It raises concerns and fears that are too often played on too readily. For too long Europe has been the poison in the well of British politics.

    Here, too, far too many people present the European debate in fundamentalist terms.

    People are “for it” or “against it”.

    We “must do this” or “mustn’t do that”.

    Everyone, to paraphrase Gilbert & Sullivan, is either “a little Eurosceptic” or “a little Europhile”.

    This approach misses the real debate. The real debate must be about how we make Europe a success; how to make sure it raises enthusiasm, not resentment; how to make sure it raises the quality of our life and is not seen as threatening the nature of our life.

    What we are talking about in the debate on Europe is our national interest. Our jobs. Our future. And yet far too many people on both sides of the argument miss this wider point. They focus on narrow arguments as though we were fighting a holy war.

    So let us remember the fundamental economic realities.

    British business depends on Europe. Well over half of what we export, we export to Europe.

    We need a place in European Community if we are to continue to attract inward investors to Britain.

    And we need influence in Europe, if we are to make sure that our businesses have the right conditions in which to trade.

    Europe is absolutely fundamental to this country’s national interest. We cannot turn our backs on that. It would be the ultimate abdication, a supreme folly. Limit our horizons and we limit our future. A little country in a lost world.

    I am a Euro realist. I look at Britain’s interests with a cold and clear eye. Britain has a special place in the world. Alone of all nations we live and move in three distinct circles – NATO, the Commonwealth, and the European Community. Each and everyone is a shaping factor in our long-term foreign policy and our own national interest.

    We have a special feeling about America. We are intimately bound up with its history, language and culture. I am one- quarter American. My father lived in America for a number of years. But Americans are realists, too. They want a good relationship with Britain. But, today, one of the main reasons they do is because Britain is in Europe. If Britain’s commitment to Europe was in question, have no doubt – the Americans would look elsewhere for their closest allies – to Germany or to France. They are no more dreamy-eyed about international relations than we are.

    Diplomacy is a calculation of where long-term advantage lies. And, for Britain, that advantage is in Europe.

    Mr President, I don’t accept the argument that a British government, fully involved in Europe, cannot win the battle to shape and mould the future of Europe.

    Who says we can’t win the argument against centralism in Europe? We can and we must.

    Conservative Governments won on the rebate.

    Won on the Single Market.

    Won on subsidiarity.

    And we are winning on deregulation.

    Britain should be confident in Europe.

    One final point. I don’t believe the prevailing orthodoxy that if you disagree with current fashionable opinions in Europe that you are anti-European.

    That is not true. The good European does not rush like Pavlov’s dog to every European fancy.

    He judges what is right for Europe. What will attract the support of the people of Europe. What will retain their liberties – their traditions. And then he fights for it – and that is what we will do.

    Why Conservative?

    Mr President, for the moment the world of politics pauses.

    But in a short while the people of this country will be called, with the rest of Europe, to take up the work of democracy again. And in the European elections we shall put our case to the country on the kind of Europe we want to build.

    You know what I believe in.

    I want to see a wider Europe, which spreads the protective mantle of peace, security and prosperity to the troubled countries of the East.

    I want to see an open Europe in which the weight of bureaucracy and regulation is reduced, and we embrace wholeheartedly the goal of a great single market open for business, competition and trade.

    And I want to see a people’s Europe. One that is not the remote preserve of a circle of planners. But a Community that addresses the concerns of ordinary people – and never seeks to interfere where it does not need.

    Our guiding lights are the principles of free trade, free enterprise and free association.

    Our aim is still to build closer co-operation between a growing number of nations.

    But we shall stand always for individual choice.

    Cherish always national diversity.

    And never deviate for one instant from defence of Britain’s own national interest.

    Our vision remains as it ever has been – a strong Britain in a strong Europe. That vision is supported by all but a handful of the people in these islands.

    Conclusion

    Mr President, I am proud of what Conservative Governments have achieved for our country. And I am full of hope and confidence in what this country still can and will achieve.

    Over the last 15 years we have helped change Britain.

    When I entered Parliament Britain faced real and visible threats.

    Our economy was ravaged by inflation.

    Our industrial strength was sapped by trade union power.

    Our country was threatened by the armed might of the Communist bloc.

    Together we have seen that great external threat dissolve.

    And we have seen many of our internal problems so successfully resolved that many have forgotten the dragons that once stalked the land.

    Of course, in the modern world, new challenges constantly arise. And the pace of invention lays new opportunities and new ambitions in our path.

    But it is all too easy to forget how remarkably the face of our country has changed for the better.

    Today, a child growing up in Scotland is twice as likely to go to university, twice as likely to become a homeowner, and has far better job prospects. Not jobs in declining state owned industries, but jobs in growing industries – profitable businesses with better pay and better working conditions than we’ve ever known before.

    So whenever the storm blows, remember the successes we’ve had – and why we had them.

    We had them because, even when the going was toughest, we stuck to our last, stuck to our guns; we kept cool and we kept faith.

    Throughout all the ups and downs of the last 15 years – and together we’ve seen a few of them both – fashionable opinion has carped and criticised.

    I know many of you were with me in Edinburgh two years ago at that great rally in our General election campaign.

    We didn’t bow then to fashionable opinion. We took it on, shook it by the scruff of the neck, and turned it on its head.

    That Election was about something more profound than many before it. About the very structure and fabric of the nation state our ancestors fought to create. People saw clearly two great threats to our Kingdom – the siren songs of separation at home and surrender abroad.

    It was here in Scotland that we drew the line in the sand. We declared that we could not – we would not – whatever the cost, whatever the risk – compromise our deepest core beliefs, and put our nation at risk.

    We stand – by gut instinct – in defence of the ancient Union between four great nations. For one strong, united country whose voice is heard and respected abroad, as four small nations – however proud – could never be.

    The values we care about are the values that generation after generation in this country have lived for and lived by. I believe that Britain needs those values now, more than ever before.

    So, when the work of politics begins again, let us go out and campaign positively for what we believe in – with pride in our principles, confidence in our future, and faith in our country, the United Kingdom – that unique and special country – that means so much to us all.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Central Council – 26 March 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to Conservative Central Council, held at Plymouth Pavilions in Plymouth on Saturday 26th March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The First Three Years

    Someone once wrote of me that, when faced with a problem, I would take a piece of paper – draw a line down the middle – on one side I’d list the problems and on the other the objectives.

    That’s true. It’s an old habit.

    The other day I was looking for a note I wrote on the day I became Prime Minister. On the left hand side, under “problems”, I had written:

    Inflation

    Interest rates

    Unemployment

    November 1990. Inflation was almost 11 per cent. Interest rates were stuck at 14 per cent. And unemployment was rising fast.

    That day – three and a half years ago – they were our biggest problems.

    Today?

    Unemployment: down by 220,000 in just over a year. That’s a city about the size of Plymouth back in work.

    Interest rates are at their lowest for over 20 years.

    Inflation has been under three per cent for over a year – we haven’t seen that for a quarter of a century.

    Taken together, our present economic position offers tremendous opportunities for the years ahead.

    If I’d said in 1990 that we’d achieve those objectives so comprehensively in just three years, people would have said that I simply didn’t understand the extent of Britain’s problems.

    ‘He’s new,’ they’d have said, ‘he’ll soon grow out of it.’

    But I haven’t grown out of it. Britain has.

    And now exports are up, retail sales are up, productivity is up. Our economy is presently growing faster than any other leading European country – and that is expected to continue. So it’s time to start writing Britain up – and stop writing Britain off.

    No-one else will get that message across. We must do it. So we must junk the jargon and put our case across in straightforward terms that everyone can understand.

    Changing lives: schools

    Take grant-maintained schools. You’ve all read the Central Office literature.

    It’s very good literature. It gives all the information you need. It tells you we now have nearly 900 GM schools. But it doesn’t make the policy live. Doesn’t tell people what being grant-maintained really means.

    These are local schools, funded by government. Voted for by local parents, run by local people – for local children.

    And there are now over half a million children in them.

    ‘Trust the people’ is an old Conservative maxim. And that is exactly what we’re doing. Shifting power from Whitehall and from Town Hall – and back to local communities.

    Our opponents seem uncomfortable with people having more choice. They don’t trust them with it. Where we decentralise they demoralise.

    Well, I know who I admire. Not the Labour and Liberal education authorities who’ve tried to stand in the way of these local schools. But the Governors, parents and teachers who, in the teeth of sometimes bitter opposition, have had the courage and the vision to create them.

    Changing lives: hospitals

    And just look at this, a Liberal leaflet dealing with another policy where we are taking power from the centre and giving it to the people – health.

    Do any of you remember the Kincardine by-election? I do.

    The local hospital wanted to become self-governing within the NHS. But the Liberals wanted people to think the hospital was leaving the Health Service.

    So they said the Trust was a dangerous first step towards privatisation. Simply untrue.

    People were worried. And they voted Liberal in the by-election. But the Trust went ahead. And what happened? Well, I’ll tell you what didn’t happen – privatisation didn’t happen.

    And I tell you what else didn’t happen. Something that’s owed to people in that part of Scotland and to that hospital – an apology from the Liberal Party.

    Since then that self-governing hospital – freed from Health Service bureaucracy – has treated a record number of patients.

    Waiting times and lists are down. And it has new services it never had before.

    And, at the General Election, the seat came back home to the Conservatives.

    But, what happened in Kincardine has happened right across the Health Service.

    Since the reforms we are now treating 1,000,000 more patients a year than we did before. One million more. Don’t just glide over that. Behind every one of that million lies a personal story of care given and hope revived.

    So don’t worry about partisan criticism. It is in the nature of politics at the moment. It will pass. And time will root out the truth.

    And the truth is that a Labour Government may have set up the Health Service. But it’s Conservative Governments that have built it up.

    Changing lives: public service

    We are sweeping out the cobwebs of the public sector. Sometimes what we find is uncomfortable. But we’re right to expose poor service – so we can improve it.

    That is the aim of the Citizen’s Charter. It’s a ten-year programme to transform the quality of public services.

    That’s why every one of the 24,000 schools in the land is being inspected in just four years. Under the old system it would have taken 200 years to inspect just the primary schools. Now reports are sent out on every child. Exam results – and truancy tables – are published for all to see.

    Every hospital in the land is setting times for appointments. We have reduced the time people wait for hip, knee and eye operations. Three out of every four people are now treated within three months.

    And those in genuine need of key benefits have seen the time taken to deal with their claims cut by a third.

    These are real changes improving real lives.

    I belong to the school of thought that believes that people should get as good a service in the public sector as if they’d gone to the private sector and paid cash on the nail. And we are determined they will.

    Looking forward

    These are some of the things that have been achieved in the last three years. It’s time to lift our heads above the parapet and say so.

    We have to look to the future. So let us travel forward for a moment.

    And then look back from – let us say – spring 1997. I pick that date at random, of course.

    By then we will have had 48 months of steady economic growth. More new companies up and running. More people back in work. More families better off.

    Why? Because we’ve got the fundamentals of the economy right today.

    In 1997 we’ll see British industry manufacturing more. Selling more. Exporting more. Proving that British firms can make at home and sell abroad.

    Why? Because British companies are now more competitive than anywhere else in Europe. And they’ll stay that way, so long as we keep the Social Chapter at bay.

    We’ll see more people owning their own homes. More people living in decent housing, not anonymous tower blocks.

    Why? Because we’ll press ahead with the Right to Buy and private renting, and we’re going back to housing on a human scale.

    We’ll see more children in nursery education. New apprenticeships. And more young people going on to colleges and universities.

    Why? Because we’re not just interested in raising standards in the schools. We want better education for all – for life and through life.

    We’ll see more being spent on the arts, on charity, on sport. And we’ll see more people taking part in them.

    Why? Because we’ll have a national lottery, raising billions of pounds for good causes and the national heritage.

    And I also hope we’ll see more team sport back in our schools. I have no time for those Left-wing ideologues who oppose competitive sport.

    Put children together and what do you see. They run. They jump. They fight. They compete. It is their natural instinct. We don’t help them by hiding that away from them. Life can be tough. They need to know victory and defeat. And the sooner they learn it, the better equipped they will be for life.

    These are some of the things there’ll be more of three years from now.

    But also let me tell you what there’ll be less of.

    There will be fewer people committing Social Security fraud – because we are bringing in modern technology to beat the cheats.

    I know the British instinct. We’re always ready to help someone in genuine need. But there’s a counterpoint to that – and it’s a real sense of anger against people who cheat the system and take advantage of others, often poorer than themselves except in those qualities of decency and honesty that make this country what it is.

    There’ll be fewer squatters on private property. The Criminal Justice Bill means trespassers really will be prosecuted, and not before time.

    There’ll be fewer young criminals on the loose creating mayhem. There’ll be secure homes for them and safer streets for the public.

    There’ll be fewer offenders getting away with just a caution. There should be fewer people committing offences while out on bail, because if they do, they can be certain that the courts can come down on them hard.

    And especially down here in the West Country, decent hard-working people are fed up with people invading their property and destroying their crops. In future, if these New Age travellers drive in, the police will have powers to drive them out.

    So much of what I’ve described is just plain commonsense, building on old principles. Marking out a clear line between right and wrong.That’s what I mean by going back to basics. And I’m certain of this. Britain needs more of those basics, not less. And I don’t think there’s anyone here today who wouldn’t agree with that.

    Many of you here are facing local elections in the weeks ahead – some against Labour, some against the Liberals.

    But whoever your opponent is, the first thing to do is to take pride in your own record.

    Ever since the birth of the modern Conservative Party our local councillors have been one of our greatest strengths.

    Last month at our Local Government Conference in London we set out the policies on which we’ll be standing.

    Higher standards in schools. More say for the public. A tough line on crime.

    And above all, keeping the Council Tax low. Here’s one figure to take out with you and say day after day after day. Conservative councils cost you £131 less than Labour ones. £131. Knock that home.

    Wherever you go tell them. Conservative councils cost you less. Labour councils just cost you.

    Let me just say a word or two about the sheer incompetence of some of those Labour councils.

    Last year John Smith spoke of his concern about growing cynicism in politics. About the need for standards of integrity and honour. And about politics being a moral activity.

    Let me break with the adversarial nature of British politics. I agree with Mr Smith about that. But Mr Smith, you must be consistent.

    It’s not possible to talk about standards of integrity and honour if senior members of the Labour Party condemn people before an enquiry has reported.

    You can’t have standards of integrity and honour if they make false allegations and never retract. If they charge impartial public servants with political bias.

    By all means let’s maintain those high standards. But let us do it right across the board. And let that include Labour councils.

    Let Mr Smith condemn councils like Lambeth.

    I wonder if any of you saw the report about how much it cost to get two gas fires fitted in Lambeth? In the real world it costs £500. But what did it say it cost in Lambeth?

    £2000?

    £5000?

    £25,000?

    No. In Lambeth, it said that two gas fires cost the taxpayer £71,000. That’s 140 times the usual price. It’s scarcely believable – but I fear it’s true.

    And let’s not stop there.

    Take Derbyshire. Where did the Chairman of the Finance Committee have his office? In his prison cell.

    He’d been jailed for fraud. But he still went on getting his allowances and running the council’s finances. Nothing seems to be barred in the modern Labour Party.

    Local elections: Liberals

    I don’t want to waste much time on Liberal councils, though come to think of it waste would be a good place to start.

    But here in Plymouth, just a stone’s throw from Devonport, let’s take a cool sceptical look about Liberal claims for the West Country. Down here they said that Devonport should get the Trident contract. Up in Scotland they said Rosyth should get it.

    When it came to the crunch, they backed Rosyth. When put to the test the Liberals put Devonport last. That tells you everything you need to know about Liberal concern for the West country.

    At council level Liberal and Labour work together. The only time they compete is about who can charge the taxpayer more.

    Liberal councils are asking £67 extra on average on your Council Tax bill. Liberal Richmond has had the biggest rise in London – almost four times the rate of inflation.

    Liberal-led Hampshire has had the biggest rise in the Shires – more than five times the rate of inflation.

    If you want high standards of service and good value for money in local government, Conservative councils win hands down.

    Let everyone remember that on May 5th.

    European elections

    In the last week of the General Election, when we were way behind in the polls, I spoke out about the Union between Britain and Scotland.

    Some people thought I’d gone mad.

    But it was the right thing to do.

    Many of you will remember the long, bruising debates about Maastricht. It was not easy to get it through.

    But it was the right thing to do.

    Now, we are engaged in difficult negotiations with our partners in Europe. We are under furious assault from some quarters on both sides of the channel.

    But preserving British interests is the right thing to do.

    These negotiations are difficult. Points at issue are important and complex.

    But they are not insoluble. It is quite possible to get an agreement that secures our interests without damaging the concerns of our partners. That is what negotiation in Europe is about.

    I hope we can succeed, because enlargement of the Community is an important prize.

    Unfortunately as so often happens with the European debate, the complexities of the issue have been lost.

    It is cheap and easy to say that our position has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with Party management.

    But it is untrue.

    And isn’t it absurd that whenever the British Government takes a stand upon a legitimate interest we are parodied as being anti-European?

    No one thinks that of the French, the Germans or the Spanish when they take a stand in their interests. Nor should they, because every country in Europe fights its own corner very hard.

    Frankly, those people who comment in this way should just grow up and learn what the European debate is really about.

    We fight hard for our vision of Europe because we want Europe to succeed. Being a good European doesn’t mean you sign up to every dot and comma that our partners propose.

    It does mean we use our own judgement about the long-term interests of the Community. Because our national interests, our economic interests, our jobs, our livelihoods are engaged in Europe as never before.

    Over half of all our exports go there. To a huge single market right on our doorstep that Conservative Britain helped to create.

    Thousands of British companies, large and small, trade with Europe and provide huge numbers of jobs. And it is in the homes that their workers go back to at the end of the day that Britain’s interests in Europe are felt.

    And there is one other priceless legacy of our partnership in Europe. And that has been a Europe free of war.

    Fifty years ago a huge armada of ships and men gathered on the South coast to liberate the Continent. To end a war which had ravaged Europe. In June we will remember those veterans and thank them.

    Because of them, we have had an unparalleled prize. Fifty years of peace in Western Europe. Do you know when Europe last enjoyed 50 years of uninterrupted peace? If I tell you that the Cabinet then had names like Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, you get the idea. 1800 years.

    Today, our interests lie in being part of a Europe that sustains that peace. And keeps peace elsewhere.

    A week ago I was in Bosnia on the borders of the European Union.

    I visited Gorniy Vakuf, Vitez, Bugojno and Sarajevo and saw British troops helping deliver a new peace.

    In Gorniy Vakuf we saw villagers return to their shattered homes, carrying furniture on handcarts and children returning to play on the streets for the first time for months.

    In Sarajevo we saw a city return to life after months of nightmare and British troops dominating the trouble spots.

    Aid convoys often now travel unmolested and unescorted as troops corral weapons, man checkpoints, and keep former combatants apart.

    I’ve seen the British Army operate in many parts of the world. But I can say to you with perfect conviction that I have never been prouder of the British Army than I was last week.

    This was Britain in the heart of Europe.

    So we are firmly a part of Europe and let us conduct the debate on that basis. The decision in June is about how we shape that Europe. It is not Europe right or wrong. It is Europe Right or Left.

    And the distinction between those positions is very sharp. The policies of the Labour and Liberal Parties in this country on Europe are startlingly similar.

    Between them they would impose a minimum wage. A 35 hour week. They would renegotiate our rebate. Double Community spending. And if that is not enough, they would surrender our national veto.

    And what does that mean? It means we would no longer control our foreign policy. Our defence policy. Our planning controls and much else besides.

    What kind of manifesto is that? I’ll tell you. It’s one we should publicise – North, South, East and West. There aren’t just differences between us and the other parties – there’s a yawning gulf.

    People tell me they are confused as to where John Smith stands on Europe. So let me help you.

    In 1971 Labour opposed Europe, but John Smith voted for it.

    The following year, although he still said he was for it, he voted against. And he was against Europe through most of the 1980s.

    In 1992, John Smith became Labour Leader. Labour was now officially in favour of Europe, but Mr Smith told his Party to abstain.

    But now it’s 1994. And whatever Europe wants is good enough for him. He has abdicated independent judgement.

    So I hope you now understand where John Smith stands on Europe. And if you do, will you write it down on a postcard and send it to him. I’m sure he’ll be extremely grateful.

    If you know any Conservatives who are saying: ‘These elections don’t matter’, or ‘I don’t see why I should help’, just tell them, too.

    They do matter. And – if they care about Britain – they should help. For if they sit at home, others won’t. And people who believe – passionately – that we should be submerged in a different kind of European state will be out there day in, day out, knocking on doors, distributing leaflets.

    If in the next couple of months you look out of your window and you see people with red or orange rosettes going up and down your street campaigning, just remember this.

    They too, have a view about Europe. But it’s not your view, it’s not mine. And it’s not the view of the people of this country.

    We have a vision – one that’s right for this country and right for Europe. And we will pursue that vision best with the help of more Conservative MEPs back in the European Parliament.

    Peroration

    I wasn’t born a Conservative. I became one. By choice and by conviction.

    I don’t believe a great country is built by Government or planned from the centre.

    Governments can open doors, remove obstacles, point the way.

    But it’s people down the ages who have made our country what it is. Millions of people who never make the headlines – working together to better themselves and make a better future for their children.

    I believe that the people who made Britain – if only they have the confidence – can help to make Europe too.

    We’re an old Party. Were an old country. We have values and experience that make us equal to any challenge.

    In our Party we don’t walk away from difficulties. We go out there to meet them, solve them and turn them into success. That’s what we’ve always done. And that’s what we will do again.

  • PMQT – 10 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McFall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

    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. McFall : Now that the Minister for open government has given an entirely new meaning to the phrase, “lying in state”, does the Prime Minister agree that the democratic process is undermined if Ministers imply that concealing the truth from the House is acceptable? Does he accept that it is a lie that the former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, ever lied to this House? If so, will he apologise to the former distinguished Prime Minister for that slur?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may regret, on reflection, the way in which he phrased his question– [Interruption.] If hon. Members do not regret it, I believe that they should. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is not the case now, nor has it been in the past, that Ministers willingly mislead this House, and no one has suggested that that is the case.

     

    Q2. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Bearing in mind the fact that, last night, the IRA launched yet another vicious terrorist attack endangering the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians, were not the Opposition, at exactly same time, voting against the very measure which our security forces need to combat this evil? Are not the Opposition soft on terrorism and soft on crime?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the attack that was launched yesterday on Heathrow airport by the IRA will receive and deserve universal condemnation. It was an unjustifiable attack and will make no difference whatever to the search for peace in Northern Ireland. But I believe that it should lead to every part of this House uniting on firm action against terrorism.

    Mr. John Smith : With the issue of Ministers telling the truth now a matter of public debate, does the Prime Minister appreciate that what most undermines the credibility of his Administration is the blatant deception practised at the last election when the Conservative party promised to cut taxes? Since then, they have imposed the largest tax increase in Britain’s peacetime history.

    The Prime Minister : I shall turn directly to that point, but I must say that I am extremely surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should pursue that matter on the day after a mortar attack at Heathrow and on the very day on which the Cabinet has been considering sending more troops to Bosnia to deal with an international problem. [Interruption.] I have made the point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that these things do not matter. I think that people throughout the country will take a different view. [Interruption.]

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

    The Prime Minister : On the specific point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, taxation rose precisely because we kept our promises to protect the elderly, the vulnerable and the sick through the long recession. The recession lasted longer than we or other forecasters had imagined, and in order to sustain policy and bring down interest rates it was necessary to close borrowing. That was a responsible attitude. It was the right attitude. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman understood the first thing about economics, he would support it, not attack it.

    Mr. John Smith : To come very directly to the point, does the Prime Minister deny that before the election he promised to cut taxes and he is now putting them up?

    The Prime Minister : I have made it perfectly clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman why it was necessary to raise taxation, although we had hoped not to do so. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to consider taxes, he might look at the more recent figures of council taxes which show clearly how much more expensive Labour authorities and Liberal authorities are than Conservative authorities. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would comment on that.

    Mr. John Smith : Having regard to the Prime Minister’s feeble excuse for breaking his promise at the election, does he not remember telling the Los Angeles Times in his celebrated interview last year :

    “I said [to colleagues] the day after we won the election . . . Within the next 12 months the government will be the most unpopular we have seen for a long time.’”

    He went on to say, “I was staggeringly prescient.” Will the Prime Minister explain how he could know about the state of the economy the day after the election but not know before polling day?

    The Prime Minister : I shall go back further than that for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I made it absolutely clear on the day that I became Chancellor of the Exchequer that we would take whatever action was necessary to restrain inflation and put the economy on secure and steady growth. We have done that, including maintaining monetary policy with interest rates at a high level right through the election, because it was in the interests of the British economy to do so. That is responsible government. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand that.

     

    Q3. Lady Olga Maitland : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Lady Olga Maitland : With the council elections approaching, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that what council tax payers want are efficient services at the lowest possible cost? Does he agree that it is the Conservative councils who deliver this, not the Labour councils and not the Liberal councils, such as the one that I have in Surrey?

    The Prime Minister : I not only agree with my hon. Friend ; it is what the statistics now becoming available on council tax charges show. At present, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning announced yesterday, Conservative councils that have now declared their council taxes come out, on average, at £129 less than Labour councils and £73 less than Liberal councils. It is clear who costs one more in the shires–it is Labour. It is clear who costs one more in the mets–it is Labour. It is clear who costs one more in London–it is Labour. No matter where one looks, Labour councils and–so as not to disappoint the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)–Liberal councils, cost one more.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Marshall : Is the Prime Minister aware that his recent morale-boosting visit to Scotland has resulted in his party achieving a record low in the polls of 13 per cent? Does he appreciate why the Scots are once more uttering the refrain :

    “Will ye no’ come back again”

    and again, and again?

    The Prime Minister : As it happens, the hon. Gentleman is typically inaccurate. The data were before I visited Scotland.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q5. Sir Anthony Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Imperial War museum at Duxford.

    The Prime Minister : I know from private visits what a magnificent place the Duxford museum is. I can well understand the pride of my right hon. Friend in having it in his constituency. I hope that I may be able to pay an official visit at some time in the future.

    Sir Anthony Grant : Will my right hon. Friend note that the United States air force flew from Duxford during the last war with much loss of life and, in particular, flew on the D-day operation? Will he give his support to the American air museum being created there, either by visiting Duxford or by inviting the Americans concerned to visit him? It would be extremely good for Anglo-American relations.

    The Prime Minister : I should like to visit Duxford again. I shall take an opportunity to do so and to look at the museum’s plans. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the significant contribution of the US air force to the D-day landings. We have a continual debt of gratitude to them. It is right that we should celebrate the 50th anniversary and remember the heroism of the troops and the sacrifices that they made so that we can enjoy the liberties that we exercise in the House.

     

    Health Issues

    Q6. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of his time he devotes to health issues.

    The Prime Minister : A lot.

    Mr. Hughes : In that case, given that one of the most obvious implications of the Government’s policies for health services in London is that they plan to run down the hospital that the Prime Minister described as the flagship, and that the main building–a state of the art building costing £140 million–will never come into use, in all seriousness will the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State take a little extra time to listen to a proposal that keeps both Guy’s and St. Thomas’s as hospitals, saves the taxpayer money, reduces embarrassment and, above all, saves patients’ lives?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that the changes to the health service in London are long overdue; they have been long sought by many people. We have won support inside and outside the health service for tackling that particular problem, not least from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. As for the problems of Guy’s and St. Thomas’s, the hon. Gentleman will know that the clinicians at both hospitals believe that patient care will be improved by concentrating services on one site, not two. It is not just the Government’s view, but that of the doctors involved. Thanks to the determination to embrace change, the Guy’s and St Thomas’s trust will have a secure future and its buildings, old and new, will be used fully, effectively and appropriately in the best interests of patients, medical teaching and research.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Sumberg : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Sumberg : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern in my constituency and throughout the country about the activities of television cable-laying companies? Pavements are uprooted, roads closed and businesses disrupted all with the objective of getting doubtful television programmes into our homes. Is it not time that we found a better way of organising these matters?

    The Prime Minister : I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend. Of course it is important that all those with the right to undertake street works should keep disruption to a minimum. He will know that there are duties to do so written into the terms of the licence issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend will also know that in those areas where cables are laid, about one quarter of all homes subsequently decide to participate in cable television. That has led to investment across the United Kingdom of well over £1 billion.

     

    Q8. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will the Prime Minister find time today to check on a transcript of the “Today” programme earlier this week, when his right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, suggested that he would not be Prime Minister after November, or after the autumn ? If that is the case, will he make sure that his right hon. and learned Friend is incorrect, as he is such a good asset to us in the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I seem to recall cheap questions like that before the previous election. I am still here and the Opposition are still there.

     

    Q9. Mr. Bellingham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Bellingham : Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), does my right hon. Friend agree that the IRA-Sinn Fein must now be treated with complete contempt? Does he further agree that unless it signs the declaration tomorrow, it should forfeit its opportunity to be part of it?

    The Prime Minister : I think that every hon. Member of the House will have nothing but contempt for the IRA’s behaviour. With the attacks that it has made, both in Northern Ireland and at Heathrow yesterday, it has demonstrated again its disregard for human life and for opinion on both sides of the community. I believe that my hon. Friend misunderstands the long-term purpose and import of the declaration that I signed with the Taoiseach in December. It sets out a series of principles on which we hope and intend to try to build a permanent peace for Northern Ireland.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference – 26 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference on 26th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    “Making Councils Work for You”

    Making Councils Work for You is the theme of this year’s Conference. In those five words is the very essence of local government.

    It is something Conservative councils have always sought to do. It was what I tried to do here in Lambeth – what is it now, a quarter of a century ago.

    Present today will be people here who have served in local government all that time. That’s something to be proud of: a record of service that many have reason to be grateful for.

    There’s one lesson I learned in local government. Politics is about people. About their lives. That is why our policies are based on individual choice, individual opportunity, individual responsibility.

    That is the message we need to carry. Street to street, house to house, face to face. Tell it to people on the doorstep. After all, it’s their communities, their choices, their freedoms, their children, their future.

    So tell me tell it how it is – without the gloss of intermediary comment. That’s the way to hammer home our message and make sure it is received.

    In this we have an advantage. Our strength comes from the ground up. More than any other Party, our message is carried to the country by our local supporters, local councillors, local candidates and local party workers.

    This year, many of you will be fighting in the local elections. We’re going to have to fight hard to win. Mid term elections are never easy.

    But I’ll tell you one thing. We’re not going to win if we stay on the back foot. We must be positive. We must be confident. We must be united.

    THE ECONOMY

    And, Mr Chairman, we have reason to be. These elections will take place against an economic background that seemed impossible a year ago.

    Unemployment is falling. Growth faster than predicted. Business confidence rising. Exports up. Retail sales on the up. And British industry going from strength to strength.

    We can’t expect our opponents to say all this. Indeed, we can be pretty sure they won’t.

    So we must say it. And when we’ve said it – say it again, and again, and again.

    Make sure everyone notices it. Don’t let the good changes that are taking place be hidden. Gloves off. Punch the good news home. Build up the confidence that will build up our prosperity.

    When were interest rates last this low? 16 years ago. When was inflation last this low for so long? 25 years ago.

    When were mortgage rates last this low? 25 years ago.

    When was the number of strikes last this low? Over a century ago.

    When did we last have such good news on all these fronts together? Not in my lifetime. Not in anyone’s.

    I don’t intend to see the Conservative Party on the defensive.

    What we’ve done is right for the country.

    And what we’ll deliver is good for the country.

    So help spread that message wherever you are.

    For the last two years politics has all pointed in one direction. The issue has been the recession. No-one takes our opponents seriously. No-one pays much attention to what they say. They’ve had a free ride. They’ve talked complete drivel – and got away with it.

    But that won’t last. In due course people will notice the vacuum that is their policy. While we’ve been working to put Britain back on its feet, their only concern has been to put the boot into Britain.

    So – remember. While your main job is to explain our policies, just – occasionally – take a moment out to expose theirs.

    TAX

    Meanwhile, let us take all the key issues head on. Tax – for a start. Let me come straight out about where we stand on tax. All our instincts are to get tax down. There’s no other Party in British politics that can say that.

    Yes – taxes are rising in April. Why? Because tax income fell during the recession. And because public spending had to rise.

    Yes, but why did public spending have to rise? Mainly to help those people who were vulnerable during the recession – a recession we can now see was not – as advertised then – a British phenomenon, but one that has spread right across Europe and beyond.

    It was right to help people during that recession. We could not have done otherwise. No Conservative Government could turn its back on those most in need. Nor did we.

    That’s mainly why spending went up. But we’re through recession now – the first nation in Europe to be able to say that. Now we need to rebuild income and control spending. This country has been through many sacrifices to get to this position. We are not going to throw it away now.

    The first task of any responsible Government must be to balance the books. And, even though we’ve now cut spending, this still means that taxes have had to go up.

    We didn’t put them up because we wanted to. We did it because we had to. What we need now is to build a recovery that lasts. That is what responsible government is all about.

    But there’s something else you can tell them on the doorsteps. We remain by instinct a tax-cutting Party -the only tax-cutting Party. And when it is possible to cut taxes again, we will.

    So don’t just defend our record. Remind people of this…. Every time the Conservatives have voted for lower taxes, Labour have voted for higher ones. And the Liberals have voted with them.

    Every time the Conservatives have voted for lower public spending, Labour have voted to spend more. And the Liberals have voted with them.

    And when did Labour or Liberals call for spending cuts? You’re right – never. They called for more spending – as they always do.

    Nor do they stop at high tax and high spending in Britain; they want high tax and high spending from a high and mighty Brussels too. Yes – we’re in Europe. Because that’s where our interests lie. But not the Europe Labour and Liberals want.

    Just look at Labour’s plans for Europe. Sheer madness.

    Higher taxes on business. Extra burdens on business through the Social Chapter. Extra costs on business through a 35 hour week.

    In the European Parliament Labour have even voted for taxes on investment income – the old axe on savings and pensions. How extraordinary to propose a tax surcharge on savings income, just when interest rates are low. What damage that would do to the elderly and the prudent. The politics of envy are alive and well – and living in Labour policies.

    And if that’s not enough, they and their Socialist friends actually want to double the money that Europe spends. Double your money. Double the Community budget? That means doubling our net contribution.

    Hands up all those who want to double our net contributions to Brussels? No hands up? – the observer from the Liberal Party must have slipped out to lunch.

    How does that square with keeping your tax bills down? It doesn’t, does it? You can’t give more money to Europe unless you take more tax at home.

    In Whitehall, in Brussels and council chamber, too – it’s taxes, taxes everywhere. Remind the people – with every Labour promise, the taxing meter clicks upward.

    That’s the key difference between the Parties. And that’s the lack of difference between our opponents. Labour and the Liberals: two halves of the same tax demand.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW

    Mr Chairman, when I spoke to you last year, I said I wanted to produce an enduring structure for local government. I meant it. I come from local government. I have an affection for it. I want it to be successful.

    And it’s always been my belief that structures will only endure if they reflect the traditional loyalties and identities of local people.

    Local government is at its best when people know what its responsibilities are and who is responsible. When they know to whom they should look for help on particular issues.

    At the moment in many places that isn’t very clear. There are blurred responsibilities. People often don’t know who to turn to. There’s scope for better integration of services and savings from improved efficiency. Achieving that would not only be good for the structure of local government, it would be good for its prestige.

    In many cases unitary authorities will deliver advantages. Where that is so I believe we should have them. But the argument for unitary authorities may not be so strong everywhere. Where that is so, we have made it clear that we will not change for change’s sake. There is no national blueprint.

    And I promise you this. All through this process government’s doors will be open. John Gummer and David Curry will take your views fully into account before coming to any final decisions.

    We share a common objective of which this process is only a small part. To get back to the time when the big figures of local government were invariably big figures on the national stage as well.

    I want to see that happen again. You play a vital part in making your communities better places. I want your work to be recognised and your voice to be heard.

    IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL DECISIONS

    Mr Chairman, debates on structure will no doubt continue. But immediately ahead of us lie elections which will decide what matters far more: who runs the council.

    We’re realists. We know many people will vote on national as well as on local issues. That is why good news on the economy matters so much.

    But don’t think that what you do isn’t noticed. It is. Or doesn’t count. It does. Because most people’s day to day lives are affected by local government just as much as central.

    Many problems are best solved locally. Sorted out by thousands upon thousands of decisions and actions taken at council level. And, whatever the local problem is, I know one thing for sure. It’ll be tackled best, if it is tackled by Conservative councillors.

    On almost all the key issues of local government, there are sharp differences between the parties. And time and time again it is the Conservatives who are most in tune with the people.

    EDUCATION

    Take education. We can all agree it’s vital. Words are cheap. But only we Conservatives have produced a clear policy for the future. And we have done it against the flat opposition of the other parties, national and local.

    Children have only one chance. If schools fail to teach the basic skills, then pupils lose the opportunity to make the most of their lives.

    Every child needs the basic equipment for success in life. The three Rs do matter. And so too does confident command of standard English. If you can’t write a clear application, you may never even get an interview for the job you want.

    We Conservatives have a clear strategy for a better future.

    We’ve given parents the right to choose which school they want their child to go to.

    We’ve brought in a new National curriculum.

    We’ve insisted on testing – checking progress in every school.

    We’re taking on those trendy theorists who have done so much damage in teacher training.

    We’re giving more power to the schools.

    We’re giving parents and public more information about our schools than ever before. School reports, full prospectuses, truancy records and performance tables.

    And who is it that opposes us – on all these critical commonsense policies? Why, Labour, of course.

    They are the abominable no-men of education. They think they know better. So they say “no” to choice in education, “no” to information about how our children are doing in school, and “no” to more say for parents.

    How completely, how absurdly, time and time and time again the Labour Party has misjudged the mood of the people of this country. Not just in the council chambers – but in the Shadow Cabinet, too.

    Hundreds of thousands of parents have voted for Grant-Maintained schools – but John Smith and co still want to scrap them.

    Millions of parents want to see our school performance tables – but Labour still want to scrap them.

    Assisted places for poor children? They’ll scrap them, too. Their attitude is all so negative and out of date.

    And this week Labour have even revived their old blind prejudice against independent schools. They are talking of ending charitable status. What hope for our children’s future, when Labour’s spokesmen trek back into a discredited past?

    Mr Chairman, there seems no attitude on education so vindictive that Labour won’t back it.

    In some Labour-run authorities, young children in CTCs have been picked on and stopped from playing music or team games with children from other schools.

    I don’t know about you – but I don’t think you can sink much lower than that. What a spiteful policy. It is educational apartheid, and it should stop – now.

    Team sports are vital. They are part of childhood. And they are part of life. I am determined to see them played far more in our schools. And I don’t want to see classroom wars or perverted political ideology stand in the way.

    LAW AND ORDER

    Mr Chairman, as I go round the country one subject resonates more clearly than any other – concern about crime. This year in Parliament, we have the most comprehensive legislation for years to crack down on crime. To give the courts and the police the powers they need.

    But all of you can help us – and I’ll tell you how. For no-one should ever think that local councils can’t help in the fight against crime. The war on drugs and the war on crime involve us all. And you in your councils can play a big part in winning that war.

    Here’s an example. I recently visited a Conservative council in London. Ealing. I found they were leading the way in new projects for fighting crime on the streets.

    You didn’t need a degree in criminology to see the sense of what they were doing. It was simple practical action. Just fitting gates in the alleyways of estates. In just one year it cut domestic burglaries by a third.

    Not expensive. Not difficult. Just plain common or garden sense. Back to basics you might say.

    And that’s just one of many things councils should do.

    You can set up neighbourhood watch schemes.

    Work with the police and local businesses under our Safer Cities programme.

    And don’t underestimate what better planning can do. To help you and to pull threads together we’re publishing new guidance today on planning that will help councils cut out crime.

    Better lighting, entry phones in tower blocks, better street design. Simple things like these can make life more difficult for the mugger, the burglar and the ram raider.

    So, too, could more closed circuit cameras in City centres. We’re out to stop the criminal – and the best way to do that is to spot him before he strikes. Closed circuit cameras have proved they can work. So we need more of them wherever crime is high.

    Yes, no doubt we will hear some protests about a threat to civil liberties. Well, I have no sympathy for so-called liberties of that kind. The one liberty that concerns me is the liberty of people to go out in the streets without fear and to know that they and their property are safe.

    Anything that helps them and hinders the criminal is fine by me.

    PARTY DIFFERENCES

    Mr Chairman, in ten weeks time people will be voting up and down the country on what council will run their area in the years ahead. The choice they face couldn’t be clearer.

    What was it Jack Straw said the other day about Labour councils? He said he was “proud of what Labour councils have achieved”. Well, if he is, he must be easily satisfied. He went on to say, “The facts speak for themselves.”

    Yes, they do. But I wonder if he realises what they say.

    Seven out of the ten authorities with the highest Council tax arrears? Labour.

    Eight out of ten with the worst rent arrears? Labour.

    Nine out of ten with the worst exam results? Labour.

    Ten out of ten with the highest council taxes? Labour.

    “The facts speak for themselves”. They do indeed. And what they tell you is to vote Conservative – unless you want a council that puts up your taxes because it doesn’t collect the rents, and doesn’t teach your children.

    Thanks Jack for reminding us. Although I have a feeling that’s not what you wanted us to hear.

    And since I’m in the mood to let facts speak for themselves, here are a few more that positively scream out.

    Who runs the ten councils with the highest debts? Yes. Labour.

    And did you know those ten councils collectively have borrowed so much money that the latest figures show they owe more than Nicaragua?

    And if you think that’s unfair because there are ten councils and only one Nicaragua, let me tell you what else those figures show.

    After ten years of Socialism, Birmingham’s debt is almost three times the size of Albania’s. And it took Albania forty years of communism to build up her debt.

    And in case you think that’s a freak, then Hackney owes more than Haiti. Hackney’s Labour.

    Camden owes more than Chad. And Camden? Labour.

    And Sheffield owes more than the Seychelles. Sheffield – since we’re talking about elections today, that brings back some happy memories. Perhaps Labour would like another rally there – it might even be worth us paying.

    Week after week John Smith talks about competence in government. Well, that’s fine. But he should take a close look at incompetence in Labour local government instead.

    No wonder he calls for the cancellation of Third World debt. He thinks he might need the IMF to bail out third-rate Labour councils instead.

    LIBERALS

    Before we leave the third-rate, let’s spare a word for the fourth-rate also. Here’s one last question about council debt. Who runs the council with the eleventh largest debt? No, not Labour. Yes, you guessed it. The Liberal Democrats.

    Wherever Labour leads, the Liberals follow, tails wagging, right at their heels.

    We’ll confront Labour head-on. But don’t let’s forget the Liberal threat.

    Do you remember the Liberal posturing at the last Election? All that fuss about PR? Paddy’s patent remedy. People soon saw through that piece of quackery.

    The Liberals said PR was the key to a new style of politics. And that was half true at least. Because it was a key alright – a Liberal key to a Labour Britain.

    And events have proved that. Just look at what’s happened up and down the country. Wherever people have voted Liberal in protest, the Liberals have used that key to open the Town Hall door for Labour.

    In Berkshire, Essex, Hereford, Lincolnshire, Shropshire, Suffolk and Kent, what do we see? Liberals touching their cap and opening the door for Labour. Lib-Lab pacts putting up council taxes and snuffing out common sense.

    I hope everyone remembers that this May.

    There’s only one way to vote Tory. But there are two ways to vote Labour.

    A hung council is a swung council. And it always swings to the Left.

    The only consistent policy the Liberals have is to let in Labour wherever they can. Backstairs deals. Selling their principles for a few committee chairmanships.

    Three chairs for the Libs – and, hey presto, you have a Labour council.

    CONCLUSION

    Mr Chairman, I’ve spelt out for you today some of the challenges we face. But also the opportunities – and today we have opportunities better than we’ve had for years to take our country forward.

    At this conference we have set out our shared beliefs. And told the world how strongly we hold them. Our commitments on education and crime strike a chord in every household in this country.

    We in this Party are not in politics to advance a narrow political ideology. We are there to do what we can for the people we serve.

    Over the last two years, I admit, we’ve taken a fair amount of stick. But now is the time to give some back.

    We’ve been on the defensive. But now is the time to go on the attack.

    It will take time before our policies work through. Time before all their benefits are seen.

    But one thing I do know. We won’t convince anyone if we stay at home indoors. In all the years of service on your councils, in all your actions, you have helped to build the reputation of this Party.

    Now go out and sell it. You deserve to win. Make sure you do.

    So get on your coat. Get on the doorstep. And get stuck in.

  • Mr Major’s Speech Marking 25th Anniversary of Carparo – 11 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at a lunch to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Carparo.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be here today as a guest in my own constituency on this very special occasion of the 25th anniversary of Carparo. It has during the last hour and a half or so provided the odd surprise or two. When I heard a motion from the House of Commons, or at least a message from the House of Commons. I have to confess to you, for a fleeting second there was a twinge of concern. I cannot think for the life of me why this should be, but it most certainly was. But it is a rare event to have a motion of that sort. Rare, but I think justified because the motion referred not only to the contribution of Dr Paul, not only to the remarkable success of Carparo, but it also referred to the success of a British manufacturing enterprise and I was delighted to have that motion put down by colleagues from more than one party in the House of Commons.

    Before I turn to other matters can I just say how pleased I am personally to see the High Commissioner, Dr Sindha. He is, in my own experience, and I think in the judgement of many better judges than I of these matters, an outstanding High Commissioner who served India’s interest with great skill. But in doing so remains a very close friend to this country as well and I am delighted to see him here today. What a remarkable achievement, to have built Carparo up in such a time, on such a scale, across such a wide range of different activities. When I heard that motion about the British manufacturing industry, what came immediately to my mind was this thought – too often in this country we underestimate what can be done in this country and what is done. As I go around the country and see what is actually happening in manufacturing and non-manufacturing enterprises alike. I see stories of success, of innovation, of skill, of far-sighted judgement -of which we hear far too little in this country. We hear the bad news so frequently. It would be of more use to all of us – in industry, commerce and private citizens alike, if we were to hear a little more of the remarkable successes of so much of the British manufacturing industry.

    I have taken the opportunity in the last few weeks and I will return to this in a few moments, of going around the country, having a look at some of these remarkable examples of success, and I propose to do that again in the future. Because the success that Dr Paul has achieved, is a remarkable example of what can be achieved by hard work and enterprise. The success of Carparo is symbolic of what is happening in a large part of the British manufacturing industry more generally, and I’d just like to say this about manufacturing. There is more than one school of thought about manufacturing. There is a school of thought that regards it almost as marginal to the success of British industry, and there is a second school of thought that regards it as fundamental to the success of British industry. I take my stand with the second school of thought. I don’t regard manufacturing as a Cinderella part of British industry. Making things matters in this country and we must make it clear to everyone that all of us believe that making things matters. It has changed manufacturing. Changed in a remarkable way. Both in image and content, over the last 20 years or so. What we need in manufacturing is more of the best brains, the best skills, that our young people can produce. We need to build up those skills. We need to change the culture in this country, in the way in which typically we look at the manufacturing industry specifically and commerce more generally.

    I saw with some interest, just a day or so ago, a remarkable survey published by the CBI and I’m delighted to see Howard Davies, the Director General with us this afternoon. It was a survey of a wide ranging series of aspects of manufacturing. It showed manufacturing orders rising strongly, right across the United Kingdom. It showed business optimism increasing. It showed companies expecting output and demand to rise. Business optimism, at its highest level for 4 years. Orders up, exports up, exports even up in difficult markets as an increasingly competitive British industry penetrates even markets currently in recession on the continent and elsewhere. It showed costs under control, unit labour costs down over the last 12 months, and for the first time since the recovery slowly and painfully began in June, getting on for nearly 2 years ago, 20 months ago now. We began to see more companies expecting to increase investment over the next year, with engineering perhaps doing particularly well. That was from the industrial trends survey, which over the last 30 years has perhaps shown itself to be the most reliable indicator of what is going to happen in our economy. The prospects for the future look even brighter and for those who believe that the tax changes will perhaps put a break upon the recovery, as Howard Davies said just a few days ago, looking, and I quote directly, looking at the experience of previous tax increases in the late ’60s, the early ’70s and the early ’80s, that shows that tax increases will not halt the recovery. The key is confidence and we should not talk ourselves into pessimism which is not justified by the facts. I believe that is absolutely and entirely right. Because potentially at the moment, if you look across the range of economic indicators and the increasing competitiveness that British and commerce, we have potentially, the best circumstances for sustained growth with low inflation that we have known in this country for very many years.

    I have taken the opportunity of escaping from that Whitehall/Westminster nexus to go and look out in the real world at some of the things that are happening. Earlier this week in the East Midlands, I visited Triumph Motorcycles. Not all that long ago within the memory of everyone, every adult in this room, the British motorcycle industry just ceased to exist. They disappeared. An attempt to revive it as a cooperative failed. It seemed that another industry had fled the country and gone for good. But now Triumph have brought it back. Substantial capital investment and training is now growing and exporting to Japan, to Canada, to Germany, to New Zealand and to countries all around the world. A week earlier, in Yorkshire, to see in the textile industry Firth Carpets, again an industry that many people thought were in real difficulties and yet now, after suitable investment and good management, it’s competing with the best in the world and will take the advantages that spring from some of the changes in the Uruguay Round. The week before that, at Perkins Engines in Peterborough, another area where success for the future seems to be guaranteed and today of course, the truly remarkable success story of Carparo.

    Our host referred earlier to our joint date with destiny in 1968. I was elected to Lambeth Council and ended up here today, he had £5,000 and ended up where he is today. If only I’d had £5,000. In 1968, the success of the company is of course the stuff of dreams. But not only dreams, hard work, skill, aptitude, risk, application and yes luck, are the ingredients that have helped make the company what it is today.

    Perhaps a talisman of some of the other changes that have taken place. What I passionately believe is that at the moment people simply do not realise the transformation that is taking place in the British economy and it’s vital that they do so that they take the opportunities that that transformation is about to offer. We are in this country, frankly, not very good at talking about our successes. We should be. Because success will breed further success. It will breed confidence, it will breed investment, it will breed growth, it will breed tax revenue, it will breed jobs and it will breed a better quality of services that the tax yields that follow will enable us to fund.

    People abroad can recognise our successes and the changed climate. Why else would so much external investment from the European Community, from Japan and America, be coming to this country. Because they have seen the change with their perspective from abroad in the way that so many of us in this country have not yet recognised it. They know the opportunities here. They know what can be done by the right sort of investment over the long term in the United Kingdom economy and increasingly we should recognise it ourselves in this country. We should be more self-confident. We should say more about our successes and I hope we will. Exports at an all time high and Carparo playing its own part as a previous winner of the Queen’s Award for Export Achievement.

    We still have in the United Kingdom some of the best and some of the biggest companies in Europe. 14 United Kingdom firms in the top 25 in Europe. That inward investment I referred to from Japan, the United States and elsewhere. These companies don’t come here for the weather, they come here for the business climate. The low taxation climate, in terms of business. The increasing aptitude and willingness of people to seek skill training and I wish to turn to that in a moment. The number of companies moving from Europe to the United Kingdom. Black and Decker of course being a recent example, not just inward investment, but companies bringing their whole enterprise to actually establish it here in the United Kingdom and they come because the conditions are right. I wonder how many people in this room can last remember when we had inflation around 2 per cent for a full year. Certainly not since 1960. With interest rates at the lowest level since the mid-1970s, with productivity improved, with manufacturing output up, with unemployment having fallen in 9 months out of 11, while alas in so many of our competitive countries in Europe, it’s still rising sharply and with industrial relations wholly transformed. If I had stood here 12 years ago and said to you that we would have at the present time, the lowest number of days lost to strikes since records began and a relatively clement industrial relations attitude between workforce and management that exists in this country today, frankly most of you would not have believed that it would be possible. But it’s happened and it is of vital interest to manufacturing industry.

    But there is one other change that I wish to refer to and it relates particularly to industry. There is an artificial cultural distinction between blue collar and white collar workers that has existed in this country for too long and has done too great a damage over too long a period. We do need those people who work in industry to have the esteem they deserve and those artificial distinctions between blue and white collar workers are outdated, absurd, damaging and they should be put in the dustbin immediately and never taken out again. What we need, if we are to have the success in the future that I believe this country is capable of, that is going to be built on the right macro economic structure created by government and the right investment and vision undertaken by business. If we’re to achieve that, not just this year, next year, the year after, not just in good years but in difficult economic years as well, then we need to attract more of our brightest and best brains into industry.

    The world is more competitive today that it has ever been. It is going to get more competitive. We’re not just competing with our friends and colleagues in the European Union, in France and Germany and Portugal and Spain. The competition comes also and here we must gear our competitive structure to meet it. The competition comes the Pacific Basin, from Japan, from the United States and unless we lift our eyes to make sure we can compete with those countries, then we will not remotely begin to achieve the success that is necessary in the future. That is why we need to keep our industrial costs down. That’s in a nutshell, why I myself thought it wrong to accept the provisions of the Social Chapter and decline to agree it in the Maastricht Treaty negotiations. That is why I myself believe that we must do all we possibly can to reskill Britain in manual skills of all sorts. We do need those skills to meet that more competitive world that lives out there, which you as businessmen must compete. We need more apprenticeships. We need to see the increasing thrust of our young people going into higher education. We had a target of one in three of our young people getting into further and higher education by the turn of the century and we have achieved that target this year, six years ahead of schedule. We need that to continue. We need to put an increasing weight and interest and acknowledgement of vocational qualifications of one sort or another. This is a revolution. A revolution in culture, a revolution in business management, a revolution in thought, about the way in which we look at business and industry.

    Those days will, within my political lifetime. But every shred of profit was looked at enviously are surely regarded as absurd by the overwhelming majority of people in this country today. Business itself is willingly accepting more and more social obligations of one sort or another. The generous donation to London Zoo by Carparo and the generous donation to some of the charities Norma works for today is an illustration of that. It stretches right across business, free enterprise, profitable, in increasingly accepting the obligation to assist in sponsorship of arts and other charities and good causes of one sort or another. The old artificial division that existed so many years ago, of hostility for private enterprise, has been steadily draining away over the last 15 or 20 years and in that climate we have to recognise what the underlying philosophy for the future must be. It is a perfectly simple philosophy. If business wins, Britain wins and we need to gear our policies to provide business with the greatest possible opportunity of winning. Business of course has the primary role. Government must provide the right macro economic climate. It can help in other ways. Help with exporters, help with export credit, help with taking trade missions abroad to use political clout to open the doors to businessmen to secure their deals. That is something that I believe is a legitimate responsibility of business and increasingly we will do that and we will use our Embassies and High Commissions abroad to promote the interests of British business. That is in all our interests in this country.

    Carparo has illustrated much of that. Carparo is winning. In many ways has won. Could move from a company with £500 to the multi-million pound concern with interests all around the world that it is today is a truly remarkable success story in private enterprise. I’d like to extend my congratulations to Sir Raj Paul and all his colleagues who have contributed to that success.

    A few moments ago at the conclusion of these remarks, our host invited everyone in Carparo to rise and drink a toast to their guest today. I, for my part if I may, would like to return the compliment. We’re here to celebrate the 25th anniversary of a success story well worth celebrating. I would like to conclude by inviting all the guests to join me in a toast to Sirraj Paul and all who have made Carparo such a remarkable success story.

    Dr Paul and Carparo.

  • PMQT – 8 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dowd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Dowd : And very entertaining they were, I am sure. Will the Prime Minister admit that the Government’s proposals in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill for the measure of a pint of beer represent a total surrender to the interests of a big brewers, who are such generous backers of the Conservative party? Taken together with the craven submission to the interests of tobacco companies over advertising, does not that demonstrate conclusively that whenever the interests of the Tory party’s paymasters are involved, the customer is always the loser?

    The Prime Minister : On both counts, the answer is no. In the Deregulation and Contracting Our Bill we are concerned about removing burdens on business. The principal reason for seeking to remove burdens on business is to encourage their competitiveness, their profitability and their success and to encourage the creation of jobs. It is no good the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues parroting remarks about wanting jobs if they then oppose the measures that will help to create them.

    Mr. Cormack : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progressive destruction of a great European capital city and the extinction of a sovereign state that we recognise are unacceptable?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the problems of Sarajevo and he will know that I will be discussing those with my right hon. Friends this afternoon and that the North Atlantic Council will have a further meeting tomorrow.

    Mr. John Smith : On that point, does the Prime Minister appreciate that, if no action is taken to protect the people of Sarajevo from the pitiless shelling to which they have been subjected, the Serbs are bound to conclude that no action will be taken against them whatever they do?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the United Nations Protection Force contingent is in Bosnia to help the civilian population. The United Nations cannot end the civil war by force. That is a point which is generally understood and I am pleased to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that. That has never been a feasible option. Ultimately, peace will come only at the negotiating table, but the United Nations may need to use force for specific purposes– for example, to carry out its mandate and to protect its own people in Bosnia. It may need tactical air support from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We have always been prepared to see air power used for those purposes, provided that the commanders judge it appropriate.

    On the question of Sarajevo, I do not believe that we can wait for action to follow an overall settlement. I do not believe that it is right to tolerate the continued mortar and artillery attacks against the civilian population. UNPROFOR, with support from NATO, must apply immediate and strong pressure to halt those attacks.

    Mr. John Smith : I appreciate that we cannot end a civil war by military intervention, but should not we set ourselves some minimum objectives? For example, should not a political objective be set to remove all the weapons within striking distance of Sarajevo, with the threat that if that is not done, air attacks will be pursued? Why do the Government not say that that is one of our, and our allies’, political objectives?

    The Prime Minister : As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) a few moments ago, the North Atlantic Council will meet tomorrow to consider, on the advice of military commanders, what pressure can most effectively be applied and how. If we use air power, we must be clear about the objectives of that action. The aim must be to reinforce pressure to end the bombardment of Sarajevo. To that end, the United Nations command must be able to set clear and specific conditions, knowing that tactical air support is available to back it up if necessary.

    Any use of force must be forward looking. It must seek to improve the situation in Sarajevo and contribute to the pressure on the parties to end the war. Those are not easy options and no one in the House believes them to be so. Any decision must take careful account of the importance of the humanitarian operation and the safety of the civilians and soldiers running the operation. Those are the objectives that NATO must consider tomorrow in determining how to proceed.

    Mr. John Smith : On the precise point about the threat to Sarajevo, will the Government support a proposition that an ultimatum should be issued to the Serbs to withdraw the weapons of attack from striking distance of Sarajevo?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday made a clear recommendation that

    “The aim should be to bring about the immediate lifting of the siege of Sarajevo, using all means necessary, including the use of air power”

    but it then went on and looked to the North Atlantic Council to carry forward that process. That decision was precisely in line with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Sir Donald Thompson : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he was received by textile workers at Firth’s in my constituency 10 days ago, what their assembled customers told him and whether he was able to reassure them about the future?

    The Prime Minister : It was a most enjoyable visit to Firth’s. It is perfectly clear that the company is very successful. Its order book and exports are expanding, and it has invested in the most modern manufacturing equipment for textiles. There was no doubt about the success of that firm in the minds of either its management and work force or its customers who were present on that occasion.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister’s new, more muscular mood on Bosnia is welcome, but may I remind him that it is now four weeks since he told us of his determination to open Tuzla airport as soon as possible, and probably five weeks since the launching of the Serb spring offensive aimed at obliterating what remains of Bosnia? Can he tell us of any progress in opening Tuzla airport to which he has set his hand?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that matter is under consideration within the United Nations and NATO. It is not a unilateral matter for the British Government. The United Nations, with NATO’s support, is taking a firm line over the roulement of troops at Srebrenica, the opening of Tuzla airport, confronting obstacles to road convoys, warning off the Croatian army and demanding an end to the bombardment of Sarajevo. All those important and difficult matters are being considered by the commanders on the ground on a day-to-day basis. They are receiving the full support that they need at a political level.

    I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would stop pretending, as he does so often, that there is some easy, magical and painless solution to a problem that is intensely difficult for the commanders on the ground and everybody concerned with the operation. The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent in one respect only : he has been consistently wrong on every course that he has advocated since this dreadful conflict began.

    Mr. Paice : When my right hon. Friend was a banker, before he came to the House, how would he have reacted if a business man had presented him with a business plan that concentrated on building up overheads, increasing jobs at the expense of output and maximising wages whether or not the business could afford them? How would he react to a business plan with the social chapter, a minimum wage and returning to all the problems that beset business in the 1970s?

    The Prime Minister : I suspect that I would have reacted to it in exactly the same way as business men will today. They are perfectly clear about the business environment that they want. They want minimum interference from the European Community, the Government or local government. They want low inflation, the lowest possible interest rates and the right business environment. They do not want a 1960s-style business plan.

     

    Q2. Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Dr. Jones : Has the Prime Minister seen the report in The Times today that John Cahill, the chairman of British Aerospace who has just sold Rover to BMW, is to get a pay-out of nearly £10 million after only two years with the company? How can that be justified?

    The Prime Minister : That is not a matter for me.

    Hon. Members : Resign.

    Madam Speaker : Order.

     

    Q3. Sir Peter Fry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Sir Peter Fry : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best business plan for Britain is an economy with inflation at 1.9 per cent., the lowest rate of corporation tax in the European Community and the lowest interest rate for many years? Does he also agree that the business plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition would put British business straight into the hands of the receivers?

    The Prime Minister : We all know of, and see regularly, the hostility of Opposition Members to business but the economic conditions that we have now put in place–low inflation, low interest rates and low corporation tax–are precisely what business wants. The Governor of the Bank of England said the other day that economic prospects today are better than at any time in his professional career. We have the basics of the economy right and British business needs the opportunity to build on those basics to create the prosperity, the growth and the jobs that everyone in the country wants.

     

    Q4. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Ms Eagle : If the Prime Minister does not believe that a £10 million pay-off to somebody who has just sold our last remaining car industry to foreign competitors is not a matter for him, will he please explain to the House precisely what is a matter for him?

    The Prime Minister : I am intrigued at what the two hon. Ladies say. What intervention and control would the Opposition propose?

     

    Q5. Mr. Gill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Gill : The House will be aware of today’s announcement that British Telecom intends to extend its cheaper afternoon rate to peak periods. In welcoming those price reductions, will my right hon. Friend agree that they would have been impossible under a Labour Government because of the Labour party’s pathological opposition to privatisation and competition?

    Mr. Major : My hon. Friend is entirely right. Those changes have come about because we decided, against the opposition of Labour Members, to privatise the industry. I gather that many calls will now be 25 per cent. cheaper. That is very good news for everyone who uses the telephone. By privatising British Telecom, increasing competition and introducing a proper sense of regulation, we have helped to make the services more efficient, more reliable and better value for everyone who uses them. That is what happens when one leaves the private sector to run things, when one does not seek to over-regulate and over-control in every respect.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Leeds Chamber of Commerce – 28 January 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s speech held at Leeds Chamber of Commerce on Friday 28th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When I sat down here at this top table this evening, I learned the moment I heard that remarkable Grace that this was going to be a special evening, a very classy evening, something perhaps just a touch out of the ordinary so I listened to what the Rector had to say and in the midst of that excellent dinner I thought I might reply for a moment in kind so let me have a crack at doing exactly that:

    The Rector spoke tonight in rhyme and captivated us all the time; It even made me forget that he in times past once worked for the BBC. [Laughter and applause]

    That made him feel distinctly odd but thankfully drove him back to God!

    So I thought I’d follow his lead and say my message in the very same way:

    My call tonight is clear and bright: “Don’t worry boys, the country’s all right!

    Interest rates down and inflation low, exports up and we’re ready to go.

    Things are better and they won’t get worse, we can even accept the Grace in verse! [Applause]

    So Rector, into the pulpit and say: “God Bless Britain, we’re on our way!” [Applause]

    You can go home now! That’s it! We may say it more elegantly, perhaps in better grammar, perhaps in a bit more detail but that’s it so those who wish to leave may decently do so and no offence will be taken!

    It is always a great pleasure to escape from that chattering circle around Westminster and find out what is happening in the real world (Hear! Hear!) – I see you have been there! [Laughter] – How wise of you to come back!

    I have had a most enjoyable and interesting day in the area and I’m delighted to be here this evening and to see, if I may say so, so many of my friends from the House of Commons on both sides of the House here this evening and I am delighted to see them all here.

    Your President mentioned David Curry, the new Minister for Leeds. I would simply single him out for this reason if I may: in Leeds centenary year what we have is one of our youngest and best Ministers to look after your interests at Westminster and I have not a shred of doubt he will discharge that responsibility admirably. [Applause]

    Over the years, like many people who were born down south, I have observed the changing face of the north but I am in no sense the only person to have done that. Consider, for example, the observations of an Italian journalist back here in Britain after ten years’ absence abroad and what did he find? He found here a Britain transformed for the better but with one big failing, a failing touched upon by your President. This is what he said:

    “The British seem unable to appreciate any of the achievements of modern Britain. Not once was I told how good British theatre or the BBC World Service still are or how impressive Marks and Spencers and British Airways have become. There are many examples of the British failing to appreciate what they do well and concentrating instead upon what they do badly. The British have managed to turn grumbling into an art form and are kilometres ahead in it than anyone else.”

    But this wise Italian had one shining exception. He went on:

    “The north of England has stopped moaning, has rolled up its sleeves, displaying some of the grit and determination which astonished the world 150 years ago.”

    Mr. President, I agree with that and today in this area I saw some of that grit and determination and I have not a shred of doubt about your future in this part of the country.

    But if an Italian can stand back and look at our country, so can we. It is our country, so let us for a few moments do that this evening and take a clear-eyed look at ourselves, focus on what we do best and then build on what we do best.

    My overriding priorities for 1994 are the economy, education and building a safer and more ordered society. These, Mr. President, are the basics and tonight I will concentrate on the first two.

    First, the economy. Getting back to the most basic basics of all, lower borrowing, lower unemployment, low inflation and more growth. As you so rightly said, Mr. President, we have to break the inflationary psychology which has so bedevilled our prospects in this country for so long and everyone must understand that competitiveness is the route of our future prosperity, that unless we in this country are the best others will take our markets and steal our profits and as a nation we must steel ourselves to do whatever it takes to win in those international markets.

    The underlying message is very simple. If business succeeds, Britain succeeds; if business fails, we will drift on but not with the same prosperity, not with the same enthusiasm, not with the same belief in ourselves and not with the same political clout in the world and above all the route to future success lies with low inflation. I have always believed that. If you have ever been in a position where you can’t pay the bills at the end of the week, then you feel strongly about inflation and that is why on the very first day I became Chancellor of the Exchequer I was determined to take action that would break the inflation habit for good.

    There is in this country what I personally believe is a cynical view, a cynical view that a little bit of inflation is good for you, people feel better, wages go up, benefits rise more, asset values go up and people have a little bit more money but if that little bit of inflation is higher than your competitors it isn’t good for you and if you are poor or on a fixed income it is deadly for you; like a drug, it makes you feel better for a while but then you need bigger and bigger doses and soon you are hooked on a very nasty addiction indeed.

    Curing that addiction has been very painful. I understand that perhaps as well as anyone in this room, perhaps as well as anyone in this country. During the recession, many businesses and many individuals have been hurt but we are coming through that and a very different prospect lies immediately before us.

    Inflation over the past year has been 2% or less. No-one under the age of 40 can remember when that was last the case and what is more, while it may rise a little over the months ahead, low inflation is here to stay and what does that mean? It means industry can now invest with confidence but if we, if you, the business people who make the wealth to raise the taxes to support this services of this country, if you are to benefit from low inflation we must also break the habit of paying ourselves more than we should. We have no business any of us – public sector, private sector, it makes no difference – to demand pay increases year after year regardless of productivity, regardless of the market and regardless of the competition.

    You in the private sector are keeping your labour costs down while so many of your competitors are seeing them rise. In the public sector too we are keeping tight control of our running costs. We are insisting that any pay increases must be financed out of increased productivity and efficiency. That doesn’t mean no pay increases for public servants; it does mean that the Government will only pay what can properly be afforded.

    Everyone in this country without exception wants the benefit of low inflation but no-one wants the costs of getting there. Getting to low inflation and keeping low inflation is the very stuff of political unpopularity but it is necessary. I can only say to you that no prime minister – certainly not me – is paid to be popular and just right now, Mr. President, that is probably rather a good thing, if I may make the point!

    I will tell you what I believe about that. I believe it is right to take the tough decisions today that will make everyone better off tomorrow. To bring Government borrowing down, we have had to put some taxes up. I would very much have preferred not to have had to do that but it was necessary because sound finances are the only basis for sustained economic growth. Spending must be paid for, it can’t just go on unless one is prepared to meet that discipline and that is also why we have taken some tough decisions on public spending.

    Public spending means either more borrowing or higher taxes or both. We intend to cut borrowing and I do not wish to see higher taxes so I propose to take no nonsense on taxes from politicians who have been handing out promises of extra spending on every street corner. Those promises could easily be made but if those promises are to be kept, they would have to be met by the taxpayer and I remember only too well when the taxman took 98 pence in the pound from savings income, 83 pence in the pound from earnings; remember when corporation tax was 52% and I just have to say this to this audience: tax rates like that cause acute damage to the economy and I believe we must never go back to them. [Applause] It is low direct tax rates that have made Britain a magnet for investment, for enterprise and for skill and that is why other companies are now moving from continental Europe and elsewhere to set up business here in the United Kingdom: low inflation, sound public finance. These policies are right, right for Britain and right for our future prosperity.

    Mr. President, lift your eyes from the everyday headlines that you see, stand back a little and just look at the circumstances that really apply in this country at the present time. Do that with a clear and an uncluttered eye and what do you see?

    You see, I believe, above all else that we now have in this country the conditions for long-term sustainable growth. Last year, the economy grew by 2% – double what people expected – and I quote: “The world’s largest economic survey shows Britain leading Europe out of recession.” That is official; that is what the British Chambers of Commerce say quite apart from what the Government believes. [Applause] We have interest rates at 5.5%, the lowest for 17 years and amongst the lowest in Europe. The time lost through strikes is now the lowest for over a hundred years since records were kept; unemployment down around a quarter of a million since last January. In the United Kingdom still one-in-ten still without work most of them [Inaudible]

    I am not in any way complacent about unemployment, neither do I dismiss for a second the effect that it has upon individuals and their families but that one-in-ten figure is now falling. In other countries that is not the case. In the United Kingdom one-in ten and falling, in France one-in-eight and rising, in Spain one-in four and rising, in the whole of the European Community one-in-nine and rising. We are the only country in Europe seeing more jobs and shorter dole queues and I intend to ensure that we see more jobs and shorter dole queues in the future as well. [Applause]

    Set against that background, it is hardly surprising that our flexible labour markets are the envy of many others in Europe. Your President spoke of the Social Chapter. It wasn’t easy to say No to the Social Chapter but it was right to say No to the Social Chapter and however it may come back to us, this year, next year, some time in the future, I shall say No to the Social Chapter again and I will tell you why: not just because it damages competitiveness though it does but because I think it is morally wrong to provide fresh help for those people in work and ensuring in so doing that those people out of work have an even smaller chance of getting back into work at some stage in the future. [Applause]

    We have at the moment in the economic circumstances that are coming together – and they have painfully come together, they have not magically appeared, they have painfully been brought together over the past two or three years – some unique opportunities and don’t let anyone kid you that we can’t take them.

    You spoke, Mr. President, of people not appreciating what was right in this country and sometimes knocking it. Well here perhaps are a few things that everyone should know:

    We export 20% more per head than Japan and 85% more per head than the United States of America; we have more companies listed in the top hundred European companies than any other country and Japanese and United States companies have chosen to invest in the United Kingdom more than in any other European country; they have shown with their cash, their investment and their hopes for their future that they have a vote for this country and the future of this country.

    We have seen in the last decade or so massive economic changes for the better. The average family today is taking home around £60 a week more after tax and after inflation. Twice as many of our people in this country have foreign holidays, there are twice as many two-car families. I could spread that list to the corners of this room and back again but it isn’t just the material improvement in our well-being that matters. How many of our young people now go on to higher education? They have more than doubled in the last decade or so. One in every three of our young people now have that opportunity. That was the target I set for the Government to be reached by the year 2000; we have reached that one-in-three target this year – that target has already been met.

    And then take another aspect of our lift in this country, charitable giving, again more than doubled and not least from those of you in business.

    But if the changes of the last fifteen years have been rapid [Inaudible] the world is changing, changing at a bewildering pace, becoming more competitive for you to operate in than at any time we have seen at any stage in the past. Our markets will change, Europe will change. The countries of eastern Europe may well be members of the European Union, markets for us but also competitors for us as well. The economies of the Pacific Rim will continue to grow rapidly.

    In this country, we, you, business are going to have to prepare for that. We have to keep asking ourselves the questions: “Are we meeting demand? Where are our weaknesses? Are others doing better than us? If so, why and crucially, what can we do about it to make sure we maintain our competitive edge?” Above all we need to give businesses more freedom, the freedom to succeed. I tell you what success means: success means keeping business taxes low, keeping business free of rules and regulations, backing British exports, investing in our infrastructure and investing in people and in skills.

    We have acted in each and every one of those areas and there is a good deal more still to be done. We have brought corporation tax down, our business taxes are the lowest in the European Union and I intend to keep them that way. But ask any businessman – in Leeds or anywhere else you like – what he really wants from Government! You have given me several answers tonight but if to take your example of the genie, you could have had only one wish, I bet you would have replied like this: “Right Government! Get off my back and get rid of the red tape!” That, I believe, is what business wants from the Government. [Applause]

    I agree and we are acting on it. We have a huge Deregulation Bill cutting excessive regulation across Government, in transport, in employment, in environment and in fair trading. The bonfire of the [Inaudible] an end to controls, to forms and to paperwork and I was delighted to hear of your support for that tonight, Mr. President.

    We are backing British exports – the opportunities are there and you are taking them. Just this morning, the trade figures have shown yet again that exports are running at record levels and now we have a GATT deal opening new markets all around the world and let me tell you this: very reserved we are we British, we don’t bang our own drum very often, not often enough in fact, so let me do it now:

    Mr. President, without Britain I doubt whether there would have been a GATT deal at all nor for sure would there have been a Single Market and yet today as the rest of Europe comes out of recession GATT opens up the world market and we have a Single Market of over 340 million people right on our doorstep. I am determined that the Government will help British exporters make the best of those opportunities. We have expanded insurance cover for exports and lowered premiums, you in business have loaned your whiz-kids to Michael Heseltine so that the DTI can provide the best possible export advice, our embassies abroad are putting more and more effort into helping British exporters large and small; more than ever promoting British interests means promoting British trade abroad.

    But business needs good back-up at home as well because to sell the goods you have to move the goods and that is why we are modernising British transport. For years we have had this ludicrous hang-up, this ludicrous belief that big projects can only be done by the State – rot! Who built the railways in the first place? The private sector built the railways – you did and you can do it again in the future.

    So we are now opening-up major projects to private sector investment and private sector expertise. The private sector will help to build the Channel Tunnel rail link and the new Forth Road Bridge, it will modernise the West Coast main line and there is a great deal more to add to that.

    But there is a bigger, longer-term issue that will determine whether Britain will lead the world into the next century. You cannot be competitive without the people to compete and they are moulded in our schools, in our colleges, in our universities as well as in the training grounds of British industry. In many respects, the position is good but in others it isn’t and we frankly cannot afford it not to be, quite literally can’t afford it. Illiteracy and innumeracy among the work-force cost you as employers around £5 billion a year and it costs the children themselves through stunted lives, opportunities missed and a life less rich than it should be and that is why getting back to basics in education must be at the centre of our programme.

    I intend to work with teachers to build a better educated society. The national curriculum backed by testing will ensure that all State schools concentrate on the basics of education, on grammar, on spelling, on maths, on science, on reading, writing and arithmetic – the three R’s. I believe that is what parents demand, it is what employers ask and it is what I am determined that the education system will deliver.

    But I believe there is more still to come. I still believe that we must get rid of the damaging distinction that some people make between white-collar skills and so-called blue-collar skills. What disruptive class-ridden nonsense those distinctions are! Every individual’s different skills and qualities count and they must be made to count in their interests and in our country’s interests and that is why we have improved the range and quality of vocational qualifications for pupils over sixteen.

    I now want to work towards opening-up those opportunities, opening them up for children from fourteen upwards who want to take them so that schools will have the chance to teach a mix of academic and vocational subjects each with equal value, each to fit the child and their own aptitude to build a better future for them and help them build a better future for all of us.

    That must be true for all young people. That is why we have abolished the false distinction between polytechnics and universities, it is why we have created modern apprenticeships to treble the number of young people skilled as technicians, craftsmen and supervisors.

    Mr. President, let me just make the point plain: what we are working for is nothing less than the re-skilling of Britain and anyone who has come up the hard way knows how many others there are who have talent but don’t have the luck, who have talent but don’t break through the barriers, who have talent but don’t have the chance to contribute all that they could from their skills and their will to work. I am determined to give them that chance in the future. Decent education first, good training later – that is the way to let everyone fulfil their potential regardless of who they are or where they may have started.

    None of this, Mr. President, is abstract stuff. It is for real. What is at stake is our future as a country and their future as individuals and here in your city of Leeds I believe you know this better than almost anywhere else.

    Thirty years ago – not all that long – Leeds could have settled for being just a declining textile city but you didn’t. You acquired new skills and you made the old skills pay. Textiles aren’t a thing of the past, they have a future and Leeds has some of the most advanced plants in Europe. The new industries have a future too: financial services, food processing, defence, medicine and high-tech industries, huge investments coming to Leeds, a massive vote of confidence with other people putting their money and their future in your city because you know here in Leeds what change means, you know you can ride it and you have proved it in the past and I think it is no wonder that independent estimates say that Leeds is the fastest-growing job magnet in Britain for the 1990s.

    Yes, competitiveness is about making Britain prosperous and powerful but it is more than that: it is also the means to provide all that is civilised in the life we love. Your two great universities here, your theatres, Opera North, the Leeds Piano Competition, your famous art galleries, you brought together here some of the finest public collection of Henry Moore in Britain if not in the world and I am even told the gallery has been eyeing-up the Henry Moore sculptures in Downing Street but much though I love you, you can keep your hands off my Henry Moore sculptures!

    As it is in the arts, so too in sport. Leeds home to Rugby League, football – and here my eyes mist over – cricket, Headingly. I don’t know, looking round this audience, how many cricketers may be here this evening. One or two and I bet every single one of you remembers that test match in Headingly in 1981. It seemed impossible for England but we won but don’t just remember the runs that Botham scored, the resistance of Dilley or the wickets of Willis; remember that it was that gritty Yorkshireman Chris Old who held the show together when it mattered and opened the opportunity for that victory. I still remember at the most difficult moment of all that great Australian fast bowler Dennis Lilley saying this: “I’m betting on England to win!” Well, looking round Leeds today and looking at all of you tonight let me tell you what I am doing: I’m betting on Britain to win and I’m confident that we will. [Applause]

  • PMQT – 2 December 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd December 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

    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. Jones : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the vital importance of the north Wales railway line to the economy of north-west Wales, an importance recognised by the European Community? Yesterday’s announcement about improvements to the west coast main line omitted to include any reference to the section to Holyhead. The Chancellor in his Budget statement did not even mention north Wales. May I impress on the Prime Minister the need to include the north Wales section in that programme, which should also include new rolling stock as well as track improvements?

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any immediate commitment to that section of rail. Of course, in due course that will be a decision for Railtrack in conjunction with operators on the line. They will have to determine whether a commercial case exists for upgrading, electrifying or whatever appears to be appropriate for the north Wales line.

    Our commitment to the west coast main line is now clearly stated. The introduction of private finance can play a very substantial part both in the improvement of the line and in the renewal of much of the infrastructure.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

    Mr. Bruce : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn the merciless way in which Opposition spokesmen tried to frighten pensioners–

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for Opposition policy or activities.

    Mr. Bruce : Indeed, Madam Speaker.

    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have fulfilled their commitments to pensioners? Will not the tough fiscal stance that we are continuing to take ensure that low interest rates and low inflation, which are the cornerstone of our recovery, continue to benefit both industry and the public?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly condemn scares, from wherever they may come. The Budget is delivering our policies to pensioners. We are delivering low inflation to protect their savings, we have uprated the pension to meet the cost of VAT on fuel, and we have introduced an income bond to give them a guaranteed income month after month. At the same time, we have been able to give a boost to business and to deliver sound public finance. The Budget is well on track to deliver, in due course, rising prosperity to all our citizens. I am glad to note that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) agrees with the Government that the proposed assistance to pensioners for fuel bills is adequate.

    Mr. John Smith : At a time of high unemployment, what is the moral justification for cutting entitlement to unemployment benefit from 12 to six months?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have made substantial contributions towards both training and getting the unemployed back to work, which is the priority. Through unemployment benefit and subsequently, where necessary, through income support, we are ensuring that there is assistance for those who remain unemployed.

    Now, thankfully, we are seeing unemployment beginning to fall in every part of the country, and that is beginning to affect the long-term unemployed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know also that the majority of people who become unemployed are back in work within the six-month period for which they will still be entitled to unemployment benefit.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not begin to understand that it is a fraud on the public to raise national insurance contributions by a full 1 per cent. at the same time as cutting a benefit to which people have contributed all their working lives? Why do the Government not attack unemployment instead of attacking the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman had his own, rather more dramatic, plans for increasing national insurance contributions. At the same time, he has his own plans for unemployment– plans which would put it up. A new training tax on employers would put it up. A minimum wage would put it up. Businesses with new taxes levelled up to the higher rates in other European countries would put it up. Forcing employers to introduce a 35-hour week would put it up. That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s prescription for the economy. It would make more people unemployed, and for longer.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that in the real world in which, unfortunately, unemployed people have to live, if their partners work more than 24 hours per week they move from unemployment benefit to nothing– [Interruption.] –No, it is 24 hours per week. It was changed by the Government, as the Secretary of State for Employment should understand. Does the Prime Minister not understand that, however low the income that the working partner earns, the unemployed partner will receive no benefit? Is that not disgraceful in a country with so many unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman grows indignant in his usual fashion. Will he drop the policies that would make people unemployed, which he parades month after month? If not, what does he have to say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who said of a national minimum wage : “I knew the consequences were that there would be a shake-out in unemployment. Any silly fool knew that”?

    Not quite any silly fool, it seems.

     

    Q3. Sir Thomas Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

    Sir Thomas Arnold : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for measures announced in the Budget to help small businesses? In particular, is he aware of the support for the announcement that the statutory audit for very small firms is to be abolished?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I am aware of the support from many small business men and every small business organisation for the measures in the Budget. They do in a substantial way take the burdens off small businesses, abolish the audit requirement, and make matters simpler for more than 500,000 companies in this country. We are also raising the value added tax threshold to take 75,000 traders out of VAT. Ours is the only party committed to taking such measures to help small businesses.

    Mr. Ashdown : As the country waits to back the Prime Minister if he will take further risks for peace in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to reaffirm that he has no difficulty with the principle of separate and parallel self-determination for the people of the island of Ireland–north and south?

    The Prime Minister : For us, there is one fundamental point. It is that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom will not change without the freely expressed consent of the people of Northern Ireland.

    Mrs. Gillan : Has my right hon. Friend had time to reflect today on the overwhelming vote of support that the other place gave the Government last night?– [Laughter.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is a waste of time. [Hon. Members :- – “Yes.”] Order. The House is using up precious time.

    Mrs. Gillan : Is not that great success and the overwhelming support for the Budget on Tuesday further proof that the Labour party is totally out of touch with the British people, both in the other place and in this House?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know that my hon. Friend’s last comment about the Labour party being as out of touch in the other place as here can possibly be true. The reality is that it is rather odd to table a motion of no confidence in the Government in the other place the day after failing to vote against the Queen’s Speech. I rather suspect that the outcome of the vote in the House of Lords, where fewer than 100 Labour Peers were prepared to support the Opposition, shows a great lack of confidence in the Labour party in this House and nationally as well as in the leadership in the House of Lords. That may be because it used to be a serious party, but it is no longer that because it has no policies.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

    Mr. Prentice : Will the Prime Minister admit to any embarrassment or even mild contrition at presiding over the biggest tax rises in British post-war history? Is it not a grotesque betrayal of the people who voted for his party 18 months ago that he should now be introducing these colossal tax rises?

    The Prime Minister : I did not notice a great deal of complaint from the hon. Gentleman over the expenditure to protect people who were vulnerable during the recession. I did not hear a great deal from the hon. Gentleman about that. Broadly, had the Labour party won the election and were its members sitting on the Government Benches having implemented their programme, the increase to the average taxpayer now would have been about £24 a week.

    Mr. Dykes : Does my right hon. Friend feel that on Northern Ireland we can do without the shifting and swinging influence and suggestions of the Liberal Democrats, in view of the utterances of that party’s leader at the weekend? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s policy is clear and well balanced and provides the only way forward to a lasting and durable solution? I wish my right hon. Friend well for the meeting with the Taoiseach tomorrow.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members who have indicated their support for the meeting tomorrow. I hope that we shall be able to make some further progress. There is an overwhelming feeling in Northern Ireland and elsewhere that we should seek to produce peace in Northern Ireland if we can, but there are parameters to those discussions and that must be understood. The first parameter is that to which I referred in answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, a moment ago.

     

    Q5. Mr. Milburn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

    Mr. Milburn : Is the Prime Minister aware of my constituent, Michael Gibson, who died in August this year 16 months after being violently assaulted in Darlington town centre? Is he also aware that Michael’s killer is now free to roam the streets again because the current law stipulates that a charge of murder can be brought only if a victim dies within 366 days of an offence taking place? Will the Prime Minister join me and the Gibson family in urging the Home Secretary to review a law which not only takes no account of advances in medical technology, but which simply fails to deliver justice?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of the particularly tragic case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I should like to send my sympathy to the family. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is looking at precisely that matter now.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : Is my right hon. Friend aware that all of us who entirely endorse his total and complete commitment to peace in Northern Ireland believe that one way of solving that desperate problem is to integrate Northern Ireland completely and entirely in the United Kingdom? Will he give the matter some consideration because many Members on both sides believe that that could bring the problems of Northern Ireland to a speedy conclusion?

    The Prime Minister : Among the principles agreed last year was an agreement, accepted across the House, that we were looking for an agreement that would stretch right across Northern Ireland and all the individuals who live in Northern Ireland. It is for that reason that we are pursuing, as we are at present, the objectives that I set out earlier.

     

    Q6. Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

    Mr. Michael : Will the Prime Minister face up to the implications of his Government’s Budget? Does he accept that not only the car worker, for whom he cried crocodile tears before the last election, but the average experienced police officer will pay well in excess of £500 extra in tax on their basic pay? Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of presiding over the biggest tax bill ever for the British public?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might bear in mind that probably the car worker whom he is talking about is now exporting and making more cars than ever before and therefore has a more secure future, not least because of the policies that we have followed to get down inflation and interest rates.