The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Single Market

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Chatham House – 14 February 2013

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech held at Chatham House on 14th February 2013. The speech was entitled “The Referendum on Europe : Opportunity or Threat?”. A PDF version of the speech is also available.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    A short while ago, the prime minister offered the nation a referendum on whether to remain in the European Union – or leave it, and I believe he was right to do so.

    As a general principle, I don’t like referenda in a parliamentary system. But this referendum could heal many old sores and have a cleansing effect on politics. It will be healthy to let the electorate re-endorse our membership, or pull us out altogether. At present, we are drifting towards – and possibly through – the European exit. We need a renegotiation – and a referendum endorsement of it, and if that is denied, the clamour for it will only grow.

    But it is a gamble – for the country and for the Conservative Party. The relationship with Europe has poisoned British politics for too long, distracted Parliament from other issues, and come close to destroying the Conservative Party. It is time to resolve the matter.

    If the referendum were held now, some polls suggest electors may vote to leave. In 2017, their decision may depend upon the outcome of the negotiations, and success in those might involve repatriation of powers, or opt-outs, or reform of existing policies, or safeguards against unwelcome developments. It will, most likely, be a combination of all these – and perhaps more besides. None of this will be easy. On many issues, there will be no natural meeting of minds.

    To what the French call the Anglo-Saxon mind, the case for reform is very strong: unanswerable, even. To many Continental minds, there is a very different perception. The French already believe that sterling has a competitive advantage over the euro. They now fear that the UK will opt out of social and employment provisions to give our economy a further competitive boost. They will not readily concede that in negotiations. We need to prepare our own proposals without delay, negotiate courteously and with understanding and the manner in which these negotiations are conducted will be vital.

    If we enter them without appreciating the position of each of our European partners, we will fail.

    If we enter them without engaging with each of our European partners, we will fail.

    If we enter them with the aggressive attitude of ‘give us our way or we quit’, we will fail.

    We British would regard any such approach from our European partners as a threat, an attempt to bully; and, just as we would take a dim view of that, so would they.

    When the end game approaches, the prime minister will need to conduct the negotiations personally – and when he does he will find that more concessions will be won in relaxed, personal face-to-face discussion than in formal talks. But long before that, much preparatory work must be done, and that preparatory work is so substantial it wouldn’t be physically possible for the prime minister himself to do it.

    I believe therefore that he should appoint a lead negotiator who sits in the cabinet. And if the Liberal Democrats oppose such an appointment – which is possible, since they oppose a referendum – then the prime minister should over-rule them. On a matter of this national importance, the tail must not wag the dog.

    It is essential that this negotiator is seen as the prime minister’s personal emissary. He, or she, must visit and re-visit every European capital to explain our case, seek allies, set out our aims, and – crucially – emphasize the damage to the European Union as a whole if the negotiations fail and the referendum is lost.

    The prime minister cannot afford to ignore the home front. He must carry public opinion with him. In Parliament, I have no doubt he will continue to receive unsolicited ‘advice’ about what powers he must repatriate. Some of his colleagues in offering this advice will think it’s helpful, and that our partners will hear the strength of feeling – and immediately capitulate. That is quite wrong. They will not. Such advice – given publicly – will undermine, not strengthen, the prime minister’s negotiating position. And it will do so, because he will be seen to be acting under political duress, rather than principle and conviction – and his hand will be correspondingly weakened. And I know that because I have been there: advice, yes – that is a proper role for parliamentarians – but the truly well-meaning will give that advice in private.

    Many colleagues will be instinctively loyal, but not everyone. Rebellion is addictive, and some members may be getting a taste for it. I learned 20 years ago that the parliamentary party includes irreconcilables who are prepared to bring down any government or any prime minister in support of their opposition to the European Union.

    Some have softened their views with age. Others have not. The present Parliament contains members whose opposition to the European Union is fundamental.

    Members with Conservative heads and UKIP hearts cannot be placated. Whatever is offered to them will be insufficient. They will demand more. They will only be satisfied by withdrawal. It is, therefore, essential for the prime minister to rally the persuadable majority of the parliamentary party.

    And if the negotiations fail, and the referendum is lost, we could slip out of the EU in frustration and by default. The prime minister should be prepared for the likelihood that the irreconcilable amongst his parliamentarians, including perhaps some ministers, will campaign for a British withdrawal.

    I am neither a Eurosceptic nor a Europhile. As prime minister, I vetoed the appointment of the president of the Commission because the candidate – an able man in every way – held views inimical to our national interest.

    At Maastricht, I obtained opt-outs from the Single Currency and the Social Chapter. And I did so by explaining in innumerable private meetings why I could not accept those policies and that, without an opt-out, I would have no choice but to veto the whole treaty.

    I judge our membership of the European Union upon one overriding criterion: is it good for Britain?

    Is it good for our economic well-being? For competition, and jobs? For our general quality of life? Is it good for our security, our diplomacy and our standing in the world? All of these elements are relevant to the value of our membership. And now, after 40 years, the referendum raises new questions:

    • What would it cost us to leave?
    • What would we lose if we left?
    • And, if we stay, how can we carve out a leadership role?

    Firstly, some process. We cannot – legally – simply walk out of the European Union. We are obligated by Treaty to negotiate our exit, and also to meet liabilities that will crystallize at a later date. The costs could be substantial. No-one knows how substantial.

    If we left, a swift glance suggests we’d be freed of budgetary contributions, regulations, directives, interminable meetings, unwanted lectures and multiple frustrations. Sounds pretty attractive. But closer examination returns us to the world of realpolitik.

    One presumption from those who advocate leaving the European Union is that we could remain in the Single Market of 500 million consumers. That is, probably, true: but there would be a price. Norway – as a non-member – pays two-thirds as much per head for access to the Single Market as the UK pays as a full member of the European Union. We could accept similar terms if outside and that price would be likely to rise with every opt-out we achieve that our partners believe would give us a competitive advantage.

    Moreover, trade policy is a European Union prerogative: as a non-member we would have no national trade policy in place, and would need to negotiate our own free trade agreements. At worst, this could take years. At best, we might be able to piggy-back on existing European Union agreements. Either way, we are likely to face tariffs.

    And one example, I think, will suffice. At present, we export five out of every six cars made in the United Kingdom but – as a non-member – we may have to pay a 10 per cent external tariff on exports to the European Union, and a 5 per cent tariff on components. And that raises a question: would Nissan, I wonder, and BMW, Honda, Toyota, Ford continue to build at Swindon, Deeside, Dagenham, Bridgend or Oxford – or would they relocate and place future investment inside the European Union with no tariff on their cars? Many livelihoods in the UK depend upon that answer.

    And then tariffs are not the only – or even the worst – threat to competitiveness. Most trade barriers are regulatory and – for us to continue to sell in Europe – UK exporters would have to conform to European regulations. As a non-member, we would have no input into them, but if we wish to export we would have to meet them.

    Now, would this hurt us? Certainly. In the crucial area of financial services, we can anticipate that regulations could – and would – be designed to undermine UK competitiveness. Many would argue that in some areas this is already happening – and I would agree: but, whilst inside the European Union, we can mitigate the worst of the excesses. Outside, we could not.

    The European Commission, generally, is very unpopular in the United Kingdom – sometimes, rightly so. It can be insensitive and seem bullying. But we shouldn’t ignore its virtues. In alliance with the Commission, the UK has driven policy on the Single Market for many years. And in the negotiations to come, the European Commission may often be our ally. They know that a Europe without Britain would be more vulnerable to a move towards protection – and they know how damaging that would be.

    And then, of course, there is inward investment. Inward investment may also be at risk. Another question: would companies from around the world who invest over £30 billion a year in the United Kingdom be more – or less – likely to do so without unfettered access to the European market? To me, the answer is self-evident, but any doubters should ask those foreign investors – and then reflect upon the half a million jobs those same investors have created in the United Kingdom in the last decade alone.

    The impact of a withdrawal goes beyond trade and investment. In a world of global markets, countries are increasingly banding together. It would be a brave decision for Britain to go it alone. I bow to no-one in my pride of our country, but we should see ourselves as others see us. We are 70 million in a world of 7 billion, with countries like China, India, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico and Russia all rising in economic and political importance. Do we wish to become less relevant in their eyes, or face the future as a leading voice in a block of 500 million people? To leave would be to march against history.

    Many of those who wish to withdraw from Europe do so on the assumption that we could enhance our relationship with existing allies: most obviously, the United States and the Commonwealth. They are mistaken.

    Economically, the United States looks increasingly to the East, where the market is growing. Politically, every American president I have known wishes to see the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe, because that is what is in America’s own interests. Outside, we would be of far less relevance: we could no longer advance the argument for free trade in Europe or – as recently – help develop sensible rules on data protection, or digital rules that accommodate American counter-terror objectives. Nor could we push for sanctions on Iran – a policy largely driven by the United Kingdom.

    So, be certain of this if nothing else: America does not want the UK to cut her ties with Europe. As for the Commonwealth, two facts suffice: we sell more to North Rhine-Westphalia than to India, and more to France and Germany than the whole of the Commonwealth added together. And incidentally, overall, we export four times as much to Europe as we do to the United States.

    Being inside the European Union can often be frustrating; but outside, we would be at a serious competitive disadvantage. The tens of thousands of UK companies who trade with the European Union should think long and hard about the consequences of exit. And so should their employees, numbered in millions. To leave would be a jump into a void.

    Now of course, the argument with Europe isn’t all one way. The prime minister’s negotiating hand is by no means empty. A British exit would seriously diminish the European Union itself. It would have suffered its greatest reverse. And this reality – well understood by our partners – strengthens our position, but must be deployed with care and sensitivity: clumsily handled, it could be counter-productive.
    If we left, Europe would lose one of her biggest economies. Her role as a global power would be diminished. So would her diplomatic reach. Her foremost free marketeer would have gone. Her main bridge with the United States would be broken. The Transatlantic Alliance would weaken. Even now, America, rightly in my view, complains that she contributes disproportionately to European defence: without the United Kingdom, the Continental European contribution – to their own defence in NATO – would be pitiful. Departure might be a leap into a void for Britain, but her loss to Europe would be palpable.

    None of the risks of separation mean the status quo is acceptable. Nor does it mean that it cannot be changed. I believe it should be – and I personally believe that it can be. What it does mean is that Britain and Europe must work to accommodate one another with goodwill and tolerance. Tolerance was once a great political virtue, and one that I would love to see restored to the body politic everywhere. With goodwill and tolerance, a deal can be done.

    At present, the eurozone is changing its relationship with the rest of the European Union: against that background I see no reason why we should not seek to do so, too. It’s not anti-European to fight for the British national interest. But we should not over-estimate what can be achieved.

    The prime minister can probably deliver safeguards for the City, less regulation, less bureaucracy, no more social legislation, enhancement of the Single Market and more besides. Beyond that, there are many areas ripe for reform, including a full repeal of the Working Time Directive, which a number of countries in Europe would welcome. We should also focus on tackling the democratic deficit and giving real muscle to subsidiarity. And we should do that because reforms that help Europe will also help the United Kingdom.

    Other European Union policies – CAP, fisheries, structural funds – are a constant frustration to the United Kingdom. But even if the prime minister were able to gain exemptions from these policies – does anyone imagine hard-pressed farmers and fishermen would welcome the loss of subsidy from Europe and not demand its replacement from the British Treasury? Does anyone assume for a second we would not need to replace the subsidies lost to poorer regions in our own country from our own resources?

    We know the answer to those questions: I daresay we could improve on European Union policies, but the net gain would be far more marginal than many people imagine. And whenever we out-competed Europe, they would react to offset our competitive advantage. And how do I know that? Because that is precisely what we did when we put tariffs on Norwegian salmon to protect our own industry in Scotland. As we did, so will they. And in our negotiations, it would be more productive in many areas for us to seek allies to reform core policies for everyone, than just to seek a British exemption from them.

    We will also improve the outcome if we take a proactive role in developing future policy: it would be fatal just to sit on the side-lines sniping. Many in Europe, rightly or wrongly, feel that we have lost interest in them: we should make it clear that we have not. We can – and should – carve out a leadership role.

    And some will say well – how can this be? Sterling isn’t in the eurozone, nor likely to join. Well nine other nations are not in the euro nor – although some have ambitions – are many likely to be admitted for many years. Denmark has an opt-out; Sweden and the Czech Republic don’t wish to join; others are far less enthusiastic than once they were. And their interests are often our interests. The Eastern Europeans for example were admitted to the European Union because we British – together with Germany – championed enlargement against the opposition of some others. We are a natural ally for their ambitions and for the reforms they seek. President Giscard d’Estaing has said our negotiation, and I quote, ‘opens the way for the indispensable reform of the European machinery’. He is right. There is an opportunity here and we should lead it in the negotiations to come.

    We must seek further reform of the budget, where we will have allies in Holland, Denmark and Sweden and, in many areas, would be able to make common cause with Germany.

    We should reengage the argument for completion of the Single Market. I’d like to see us advocate the appointment of a Single Market Commissioner to oversee this work across the whole range of services: financial, retail, medical, digital – the list is very long, and the potential gain is very large.

    We could seek to interconnect the energy market. We could widen trade agreements. We could try and create a true European venture capital market. There’s no lack of areas where we can seek to lead, and change, and improve European policy.

    We should continue to work with France in particular to develop policy on the Middle East and the North African rim. Stability in that region – with its trade and investment potential as well as its proximity to southern Europe – is crucial to Europe, and Britain and France are well-placed to lead policy. We have had successes with action against Libya and sanctions against Iran, but there are many more options.

    I believe a proactive role in Europe would pay rich dividends in policy and perception – both at home and overseas. It would also highlight our British value to the European Union, and by highlighting our value encourage acceptance of our demands. Our case is logical and can change minds, but it will require time and patience and commitment.

    What of the future?

    Why are so many of the British – perhaps especially the English – so cool towards the EU?

    Some blame Eurosceptic opinion, and that has been a powerful factor. As pro-Europeans have remained silent, anti-Europeans have become more vocal – and less tolerant.

    But that is far from the whole story. Europe is also culpable. Year after year, Continental leaders have told us that Britain is an essential and valued member of the European project. That is flattering, but their soft words are offset when they pursue policies they know to be anathema to us. For years, Continental leaders have denied a federal ambition, while their policies have moved us closer towards it. They have introduced a single currency, job-destroying legislation and excessive regulation. There has been a wilful refusal to complete the Single Market. Some have flirted with protection. All of these policies are against British advice and British interests. If we are seen to be unreasonable by some, we do have some cause for that stand.

    And emotion matters too, in this debate. Our electorate doesn’t like to see Britain dragged along at the tail of the cart: they’d much prefer to see us to be in the driving seat. I suspect that if Britain were seen to be proactive in policy, it would revolutionize British public opinion.

    And that is necessary: because at present, public frustration is very deep. Perhaps deeper with Europe than I can ever recall it being at any time in the past.

    We don’t know where ‘more Europe’ will end. Or how we can stop an ever increasing bureaucratic power grab into what Douglas Hurd memorably called ‘the nooks and crannies of our national life’. People fear: will we eventually be submerged in an undemocratic United States of Europe? For most of us, that is simply unacceptable.

    We need an end point, and we need to know what it is. And we need to be confident that it will not be breached. These are all matters for the negotiations to come.

    Let me summarize.

    When we come to the referendum, the public will decide. At present, affection for the European Union is minimal. Its virtues are denied, even ridiculed. Its drawbacks are emblazoned in debate. Years of negativity have sunk deep into the British psyche. Ill-feeling between pro and anti factions is worn by some like a badge of honour. Debate over Europe tends to be conducted at the extremes of opinion, with most of the country uninvolved. A single-issue party, dedicated to withdrawal, has grown in public popularity. Public scepticism about Europe feeds on an intense patriotism, and has become a reality our political system cannot ignore.

    Some see the referendum as merely a piece of party political management – but it is much more than that.

    It can be cathartic.

    It can end 40 years of political squabbles.

    It can allow our Parliament, undistracted, to put vital issues – such as the growing underclass and the disregard into which politics has fallen – where they should be: at the very forefront of our national debate and national agenda.

    The referendum can help reform the European Union, and for the better.

    It can resolve both justified – and unjustified – fears about our membership.

    And it can encourage the United Kingdom to take a more positive leadership role in the development of future policy.

    All this is possible.

    Let me close with a vignette. In 1990, in an attempt to head off a Single Currency, I advanced the concept of the ‘hard ecu’: a parallel currency that was market-driven and would co-exist with national currencies. Our proposal failed. It was – first – too late; but the more pertinent reason was explained to me by President Mitterrand. His response was simple. ‘Right policy – wrong country.’

    ‘Right policy – wrong country.’ All too often, that sums up how Britain has been regarded in Europe. The referendum gives us an opportunity to change that perception. It is in Britain’s interests – and Europe’s interests – that we take this opportunity and that we do so.

    Thank you very much.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Tory Reform Group Dinner – 25 November 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Tory Reform Group Dinner, held at the Cavalry and Guards Club in London on Wednesday 25th November 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Here at Cavalry & Guards Club: moment to remember contribution of Cavalry, Guards and Services generally in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere as we sit here over dinner. We owe them a lot.

    You may think “British Foreign Policy in a Changing World” is an odd subject for someone who was Foreign Secretary for a mere 94 days.

    I partly agree: except – it seems to me – those 94 days were a golden age. We were at war with no-one. There were no “dodgy dossiers”. All was serene. A period on which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office looks back with great nostalgia. All was serene. A period on which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office looks back with great nostalgia.

    This evening, I want to focus on the world as it is – only then can we make policy with a clear-eyed appreciation of what is happening elsewhere and where the British national interest lies. This means shedding the nostalgia and fantasies that so often bedevil British attitudes.

    Fifty years ago, no-one could have predicted the present social or geo-political landscape.

    The Soviet Union and the United States were the two super-powers. China was isolationist and something of an enigma. Japan had barely begun her post-war rise. Central and Eastern Europe fell under Soviet control. Germany was still divided. Latin America was a Continent of revolutions. The EU was in its infancy. Much of Africa was still colonised. Oil was $3 a barrel and no-one imagined an Islamic Revolution. Little of that world now survives. Huge changes – and yet the pace of change is accelerating.

    But old attitudes linger. Often, very old attitudes. Beneath a thin veneer, there are still strands of opinion that hanker for the days when Palmerston sent a gun boat. These days, there are no Palmerstons and – as it happens – not all that many gunboats.

    As we look forward, more than ever our military power will need supplementing by diplomacy, by soft power, by the intelligent use of foreign policy.

    Here, history helps us. Old alliances can be invoked. Old friendships re-asserted. But, self-interest suggests we should use the international institutions with more commitment. Our membership of NATO, of the Security Council, of the Commonwealth and of the EU can all help us. Some may dispute the last assertion but they are wrong – the EU is crucial to our foreign policy clout. Every American President I have known wants the UK to be a power inside the EU and would see us as diminished if we were outside it. America does not want us as the 51st State, but as a powerful ally within Europe.

    Of course, many recoil at shared authority within Europe but, often, intelligent policy can shackle our partners to policies we advocate. The Single Market is a case in point. So is enlargement to the East. These are two of the biggest changes in European policy since the birth of the Common Market – and both were British initiatives. Let me offer a further example.

    After the first Gulf War the Iraqis were murdering Kurds. It was genocide. I advocated a ‘Safe Havens’ policy and persuaded the EU and the Commonwealth to back it. Faced with this alliance, the US, initially reluctant, signed up to this too: troops were put in the field and hundreds of thousands of lives were saved. On these occasions others accommodated British priorities. Sometimes we must accommodate theirs.

    The Lisbon Treaty is now law. Some of it is sensible. Some of it I don’t like. In particular, I am hostile to the idea of a President and a High Representative for Foreign Policy and – to judge from the appointments made – others have reached have reached the same view. Even so, David Cameron is right to accept that despite the denial of a referendum – our economic interests require us to remain an active Member.

    Some don’t agree. Britain, they proclaim, has surrendered so much power it has the status of a Parish Council. This is absurd, of course – what Parish Council runs its own tax policy, monetary policy, defence policy and foreign policy? None, of course. Nor ever will.

    But the ‘Better Off Out’ advocates – UKIP and their sympathisers, some within our own Party – magnify the frustrations of Europe and minimise its achievements. A war between European nations is now inconceivable and yet the sceptics see no relationship between that self-evident truth and the advent of the EU. Nor do they see that, if they achieved their aim of withdrawal they would downsize our role in the world. Less important to America. Detached from our European market. A less attractive home for investment from the East. The world would not applaud our Bulldog independence: they would think we had taken leave of our political senses. And – soon – we would, no doubt, take leave of our membership of the Security Council and our influence within the international financial institutions. We would not be seen as a serious nation: we would have emasculated our future. A Little Britain not a Great Britain. A stifled voice in a big and noisier world.

    It would be folly. A march towards irrelevance at precisely the moment we need all our confidence to compete in a world that is, perhaps, changing faster than it has ever done.

    The present economic crisis may slow down the exuberant change of the last decades but it won’t stop it. For sound economic reasons the East will outgrow the West for the foreseeable future: it has a lower cost base, more – and less expensive – labour, and it can build anew without first demolishing what existed before.

    In 1700, China and India were the greatest economic powers in the world: in terms of GDP they will once again – sometime in the next few decades – sometime in the next few decades – outstrip everyone, even the US and the EU. And, since economic power leads to political authority, it will pose an increasing challenge to Western diplomacy. Also, until science develops alternative fuels, nations rich in oil and gas will flourish. Over recent years, the world has looked enviously at energy rich nations – especially in the Gulf, but also Russia, of course, and the spending power of their Sovereign Wealth Funds. At an oil price of $75 – and it will soon exceed that once again – the Gulf alone adds $140 billion a year to their war chest for investment.

    We have a Government in the UK in the UK that inherited the best economy in Western Europe yet – in 12 years – has managed to near-bankrupt the nation. We are now the most indebted industrial nation in the world. Our fiscal deficit is – unbelievably – three times that of Italy and twice that of Japan.

    Labour bought the last two elections with a reckless economic policy and now the electorate that was deceived must pick up the bill. Labour now promise to halve the deficit in four years: but even if they did so – and it is unlikely – the deficit would still be twice as high as we have ever known before. And that relative poverty impacts on our foreign policy as well as our pockets.

    Since 1997, much of Labour’s foreign policy has been thoughtless and short-term. As for Afghanistan – which was embarked upon with the false promise that “not a shot will be fired” – no conflict in our modern history can have been sanctioned with less consideration.

    We had no objective. No idea of the scale of the commitment. No plan. No exit strategy and – for years – our servicemen and women have been in harm’s way with poor equipment and inadequate numbers. There is a case for this war but the political management of it has been shameful. I believe that was true, also, of the second Iraq War. Soon, the responsibility may devolve on a new Government.

    They must ask:-

    What is the aim of this war?

    What is the cost of failure?

    Can it be won by force of arms alone?

    What is the political/diplomatic strategy?

    And why – after eight years – is this still not apparent- after – is this still not apparent?

    Can a credibly non-corrupt Afghan Government be formed?

    How many troops are necessary?

    Does the use of unmanned drones which kill more civilians than terrorists aid or hinder the cause of winning hearts and minds?

    These questions – and others – should have been asked – and considered carefully – before the conflict began and it is a failure of commonsense, let alone good government, let alone good government, that they were not. The Nation is as right to be proud of the role of our Servicemen and women as it is to be hostile at the ineptitude of our Government.

    Good foreign policy also looks at inter-generational policy. One aspect of that is overseas aid – traditionally under the bailiwick of the under the bailiwick of the Foreign Office.

    One-half of the world will go to bed hungry tonight. They live on less than $2 a day while the rich nations spend many times more on agricultural subsidies for the already well-fed as they contribute to aid for 3 billion people who often have no food in their belly at all.

    And this will get worse. In the last 50 years, world population has grown from under 3 billion to over 6.5 billion. At the birth of Christ, world population was – probably – 300 million. By 1900 – 19 centuries later – it had grown by something over one billion. We now grow by nearly one billion every decade.

    World population is projected to reach 8 or even 9 billion by 2050 and over 95% of growth is in the developing world. This is like absorbing two more nations the size of China. We ignore this at our peril.

    The plight of the poorest is made worse by an issue that will impact on everyone: the price of food.

    Here, there is a real irony. As some nations grow and improve living standards, they drive up prices beyond the reach of the poorest. If one billion Indians – one-sixth of the entire world population – together with millions of Chinese, Brazilians and Malaysians – now eat two meals a day, instead of only one, the demand for food soars.

    That puts up prices – provoking panic and moving the politics of food to the front burner of controversy. The days of cheap food are gone.

    In the future the world will need all the food we can grow – even if nations such as Ukraine and Zimbabwe once again become the agricultural bread-baskets nature designed them to be.

    It is hard to overstate the importance of a cogent foreign importance of a cogent policy, and its wider impact, and its wider impact. Apart from those issues I have touched on it must deal with:

    The hotspots of Iran and Iraq;

    The Middle East Peace Process;

    The risks of nuclear or biological terror;

    The insecurities created by the arc of uncertainty from Syria to Pakistan;

    The enigma of Russian policy-making; and much else, not least the trade promotion of Great Britain PLC.

    We must make sure the Foreign Office is equipped for these tasks. It needs to be strengthened – not weakened. We need to stop cutting overseas posts and manpower. And we need to end the absurdity of requiring HM Ambassadors to become bloggers for Government PR purposes, and advisors on media handling for every report they submit. For Heaven’s sake, they are highly trained diplomats – not under-qualified publicists.

    There is an old sneer that the Foreign Office exists for foreigners. It is often trotted out to the applause of the ignorant and the ill-informed.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. The Foreign Office exists to represent British interests overseas in diplomacy and trade. Its job is to negotiate, to persuade, to identify a identify a problem before it becomes a crisis, before it becomes a crisis, and prepare the ground for solutions. In an increasingly inter-dependent world, its role will become ever more crucial.

    Let us hope we are soon returned to a Government that will re-establish Britain’s role in this new world and a British Foreign Secretary who will, once again, carry the weight of that Office as elegantly and intelligently as Peter Carrington, Geoffrey Howe, Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind.

    The world is in a constant state of change – and we need to put Britain back where she should be – ahead of the game rather than trailing in the wake of bigger beasts. The Foreign Office has the experience and the talent to do that. William Hague has all the qualities of leadership to deliver.

    But – first – we have an election to win. If we do so, we will return to serious Government.

    And then we can return to serious policy.

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Focus on Scotland Dinner – 29 January 1993

    Below are lengthened extracts from Mr Major’s speech to the Focus on Scotland Dinner at the Hotel Forte Crest, Bothwell Street, in Glasgow on Friday 29th January 1993. This text is from the Conservative Party press release issued on the same day.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    During the last week, I have been looking to the future – looking for trade, looking for exports. Looking for prosperity. Looking for jobs.

    That was why I took with me to India the most prestigious group of businessmen ever to accompany a British Prime Minister abroad. While we were there significant contracts were signed – a £100 million supply contract for British Gas; and a £140 million power transmission contract for GEC Alsthom. Even more important, we opened up export opportunities for the future. We established a new rapport with the Indian Government and the Indian business community that will bear rich fruit in trade, investment and jobs.

    After India – Oman and Saudi Arabia. And with them, orders for 36 Challenger Tanks for Oman and 48 Tornado Aircraft for Saudi.

    A huge boost for British industry – a huge boost for British jobs, some of them here in Scotland. One reason why I am so pleased to procure this Tornado order is that it will bridge the gap between the Tornado and European Fighter Aircraft – thus keeping together the army of skilled workers who service industry so well. It’s vital that we preserve these precious national skills.

    Whenever I come home there’s always one thing that strikes me: we really do have a genius for running ourselves down. It baffles our friends abroad. They see that in recent years we have achieved much. They see our strengths. A stable political system. A tolerant and open society. A rich heritage that gives us stability and continuity. They see a country which has great opportunities. And so do I. It’s time to start selling Britain abroad. And stop selling Britain short.

    Over the past two years, we have brought inflation down from nearly 11 per cent to under three per cent – well below the European average. And, with this week’s interest rate cut, we have brought base rates down from 15 per cent to only six per cent. It’s now cheaper for business to borrow and invest in Britain than it is anywhere else in the Community – and cheaper than it’s been here for 15 years.

    So we have a great opportunity to invest for our future. A chance to succeed at home – and abroad. The Single Market is open for business – and I know Scottish business will be in there, responding to the challenge. But we must look beyond Europe as well.

    The US market is expanding again – and the rise in the dollar has given us a new competitive advantage. In the Far East, and in all other key markets, we can succeed. In just the final three months of last year, our exports of manufactured goods rose five per cent, in real terms. We must build on that success. Manufacturing is not an optional add-on extra. It is a vital part of our economy.

    The 1990s will be the most competitive decade business has ever seen. There will be no prizes for coming second. No prizes for old technology. No prizes for poor training. Either we invest and thrive, or we stagnate and simply survive. The circumstances are right. And the need is obvious. We need merchant venturers, not merchants of gloom. The time has never been better. And the rewards have never been greater.

    The Government will help. The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement signalled our approach. In public spending, he protected the capital projects so vital to our economic future, and opened the way to joint public and private schemes to improve our roads and railways and the rest of our infrastructure. He gave extra encouragement to private investment; and abolished car tax which had hung like a millstone round the neck of one of our greatest manufacturing industries.

    We will continue to listen to industry – and respond. But – as I know industry would expect – we will do nothing to compromise our firm commitment to low inflation and control of public spending. These are the foundations of lasting growth; sustainable growth; growth that creates secure jobs, and will have a real and lasting impact on unemployment.

    Others recognise the virtues of Britain. That’s why we continue to attract more inward investment than any other country in Europe. Here in Scotland, there has been good news just this week. Motorola has announced that it is continuing to expand, creating up to 600 new jobs and bringing total investment up to £100 million. And Hoover have chosen to move from Dijon to Cambuslang, bringing an extra 450 jobs with them.

    It’s not surprising that people want to come to the UK. Our productivity has been rising fast – and industrial relations have been transformed. The number of days lost from strikes has dropped to record low levels. We’ve abolished the closed shop. We’ve outlawed secondary action. We’ve given the unions back to their members. And now, in Parliament, we’re strengthening rules on strike ballots and giving rights of challenge against unlawful strikes.

    But we can do more to help industry. We must cut a swathe through the jungle of regulation that stops people starting businesses – and stops businesses growing and creating new jobs. I have asked every Whitehall department to turn out its cupboards and throw out the fussy rules and restrictions that serve no purpose but to hold British business back.

    Next week Ministers will be joining me in No 10 for a bout of spring-cleaning. Whitehall too easily throws its weight about. We need to redress the balance in favour of enterprise. And we will.

    This year, too, we must press ahead with a revolution in education and training. It is good news that the latest CBI survey showed that Scottish manufacturers are planning to increase spending on training and re-training this year. We need those new vocational qualifications, new high-quality courses for young people that will spread the skills we need for the future. And we need to work together to break down the barriers and old divisions in the workplace, and in schools and colleges. We need to tackle the old prejudices against manufacturing and engineering that have hampered our performance ever since the time of the Industrial Revolution.

    That is the way to prepare Britain for a prosperous future. I am confident that you will succeed. Because Scotland has always been outward looking, Scottish businesses understand better than many others the opportunities offered by the EC Single Market. After 300 years of union with a bigger neighbour, Scotland knows it is possible to benefit from a larger association without losing its distinctive identity. And Scottish businesses recognise that the Union has been the foundation stone of Scottish prosperity. No-one knows better than you what damage separation would do to your prospects.

    I think you know where I stand on the Union. Some things in politics are non-negotiable. And for me the maintenance of the Union is one of them. I believe it is vital for both our countries. That’s why I put it bang at the heart of our election campaign – in Scotland and in England.

    Last April we succeeded in turning the separatist tide. We turned it further in the May Local Elections and in the months ahead we will turn it further still.

    The Union has always challenged insularity and inward looking nationalism. The Scottish men and women who brought the Union alive knew no frontiers to their ideas: Livingstone, Telford, Watt, Bell, Robert Louis Stevenson, James Clerk Maxwell, Hume, Lister, Baird – explorers, scientists, industrialists, writers. They combined the Scottish spirit of radical enquiry with that Scottish capacity for hard work, to become truly international figures. They are part of Scotland’s greatness and they rose on Britain’s greatness. They typify the spirit of the Union. Their achievements are a powerful source of national pride. Together the countries of the UK have shaped world history. Together we have always looked beyond our frontiers and have played our part right at the centre of the world stage. But even after 300 years in which we have shared our culture, shared our experiences and shared our interests, we still remain distinctive nations with our own culture and traditions.

    I believe that our defence of the Union during the Election stirred feelings and memories that we had left untouched for too long. Labour ended up looking shoddy, unprincipled and opportunist. They deserved to. That’s what they were. The credibility of their scheme was revealed for what it really was: a recipe for bitter conflict, enormous cost and ultimately, separation. The Labour Party should know that for so long as they put forward policies for short-term political gain that would lead to the division of England from Scotland, one Party will always stand in their way. The Conservative and Unionist party. And that is where we should be.

    From time to time in our history there have of course been strains. Separatism has fed on these strains ever since the Act of Union was signed. Distance from London has led some rightly or wrongly to feel a sense of isolation and neglect. And at times, let’s face it, both Scotland and England have been clumsy in their dealings with each other.

    I said during the Election that we would recognise and address these concerns. I said we would take stock of the way the Union works and Scotland’s place within it. We will be announcing our conclusions shortly. I will not pre-empt them tonight but I will give a few of our preliminary impressions.

    I do not believe there is a widespread desire for total separation or dramatic constitutional upheaval. Most Scots, like most English people – recognise the benefits of the Union. Economic benefits, cultural benefits, and the benefit too of being part of an influential voice in world affairs.

    But I do accept that there is a widespread feeling that Government is too remote. A feeling that it does not properly recognise Scotland’s status as a nation or provide enough opportunities for the Scottish voice to be heard. We will address these concerns.

    Scotland has its own institutions – its legal system, its churches, its universities, its financial institutions and learned societies. It has its own priorities and we, the Government of the United Kingdom, should respond to them because that is what the Union is all about.

    How do we do this?

    First we must build on the many distinctively Scottish institutions which give a focus to the political identity of Scotland. We need to make the institutions of government more visible and accountable. The Scottish Office is Scotland’s department in Government with responsibilities right across the field of domestic policy. The Secretary of State for Scotland sits on all the vital Cabinet Committees and he is never hesitant in putting the Scottish view. So we will be looking to build on this role and build up the status of the Scottish Office.

    It is vital also that Scottish people feel their interests are properly represented in Parliament at Westminster and in the Scottish Grand Committee. We took an important step in re-establishing the Scottish Affairs Select Committee whose job it is to scrutinise the work and policies of the Scottish Office and to explore key areas of particular Scottish interest.

    Our reforms to local government in Scotland are also central to the taking stock exercise. A new single tier of local authorities will enable local councillors to promote more effectively the interests of the people they represent and will help to reduce the sense of remoteness that some have felt in the past.

    But self determination is not just a matter of where decisions are taken in government or local government. It is about giving people more power over their own lives; devolving choice from government to individuals.

    We want to widen choice and give more power to the user of public services – patients, passengers and parents. If the trains are always dirty and late, or if you are fobbed off again and again by the bureaucrat behind the desk, you should be able to do something about it. Insist on better quality and insist on being treated with courtesy, openness and respect. You should be able to insist on redress or at least a full explanation when standards are not met.

    That is why we are increasing parent power in schools. Parent power has, if anything, even greater potential in Scotland than in England. Here, education enjoys a status that is the envy of schools elsewhere. Parent power in Scotland gives people the power to raise standards still further and develop Scottish schools along Scottish lines.

    The NHS trust revolution and the extension of GP fund holding in Scotland is bringing health services closer to Scottish patients. Two hospital trusts are already up and running. Fifteen more have been approved to start this year and there are 20 further applications in the pipeline – representing 90 per cent of the hospital and community budget in Scotland.

    Scotland pioneered the Rents to Mortgages Scheme – widening choice for tenants. I think back to all those years ago when we introduced the Right to Buy in Scotland – I remember being told that it wouldn’t take off in Scotland. Ownership wasn’t part of Scottish culture, they said. What patronising nonsense. Since 1979 home ownership in Scotland has risen from 35 per cent to 52 per cent. It remains our objective to encourage a home and share-owning democracy in Scotland. It is above all ownership that gives opportunity and choice and a share in the nation’s wealth. And it is what the majority of people in Scotland aspire to just as much as in England.

    The qualities that have made Scotland a great nation are qualities that lie right at the heart of Conservative thinking. Individualism, a strong sense of social responsibility, radicalism, a belief in high standards in education and throughout public services, a deep sense of history and patriotic pride, a desire for greater choice and ownership and wealth.

    Ian Lang has spoken of “bringing the Union alive”. Our task is to demonstrate, as we work together in the Union to bring economic recovery, that the UK Government is a Government for all the United Kingdom, for Scotland as well as for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We need to build a firm constitutional base that meets the needs of Scottish people to be heard and to participate in the democratic process. We must bring the Union alive for the future of a prosperous Scotland in a United Kingdom and in Europe.

    We have a full and radical programme for this Parliament, to the next Election and beyond. And we have a strong message: a message of choice and opportunity, wealth, ownership and social responsibility. The tide of ideas is still with us. It is our agenda that will signpost the way to the millennium. Our plans for our people will determine the future of our country. We need to take that message to every town, every village, every street and every home.

    That is why we won the last Election. Not because we believed the opinion polls – they were wrong – or because we listened to the Westminster pundits – they are often wrong. But because we won the battle of ideas on the doorstep. That is the key to our success. And with your help I’m confident that when the next challenge comes, it will once again unlock the door to the next Conservative Government.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors – 1 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors, held in London on Wednesday 1st July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to add my welcome to the President of the Commission and the other Commissioners to London this morning and to say we [indistinct] looking forward for the last year or more to the Presidency of the Community at what, it seems, will be a crucial period for its future.

    We have had the opportunity today of discussing the very heavy agenda that lies ahead in the period between now and the Edinburgh summit. We have had some very worthwhile discussions this morning, it was very useful to have the views of the Commission on the workload that lies immediately ahead and I have no doubt that will help us in the efficient conduct of Community business as the individual councils begin to meet.

    We paid tribute at the outset of our meeting this morning to the work accomplished by the Portuguese Presidency that was brought to fruition at Lisbon over the weekend. The predominant part of our discussions this morning was a forward look at the agenda facing the United Kingdom Presidency. There are a particularly large number of matters that lie on the table requiring action and determination.

    Amongst the major themes clearly are the completion of the single market, we have a deadline for completing that at the end of this year; the future financing negotiations that we have touched upon but no detailed discussions have yet begun; the preparations for enlargement negotiations with the EFTAN countries; the development of relations with other applicants to the Community, and also with the countries of central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; the consistent search for a conclusion to the GATT Round; we had discussions also this morning on proceeding with Maastricht ratification and on the way ahead to entrench subsidiarity as a way of life within the Community; we also spent some time discussing Yugoslavia and the need for humanitarian aid, and proposals are at present being put together for extra aid that I hope will reach a conclusion fairly speedily.

    Let me say also that the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out our Presidency priorities in the House of Commons in a debate tomorrow and the Foreign Secretary of course will make the traditional Presidency programme speech in the European Parliament on 8 July.

    We look forward very much to working with the Commission, with the European Parliament and with our Community partners in all the member states over the forthcoming six months. I think at the outset that is all I wish to say, but I will invite the President of the Commission to add any points that he may think are relevant and then we will seek to take your questions.

    DELORS:

    The Commission and I take this opportunity to fulfil the preparation of the British Presidency and to concentrate our minds on the priorities designed by the British Presidency. And you must understand that in the spirit of the Community, during those following months, the Presidency and the Commission are on the same side, with the same purpose to make progress and to succeed.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    Delors said that the Presidency and the Commission would be on the same side, do you see any areas where there is a tension between the British position and the position of the Presidency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are the Presidency so there is no distinction between the Presidency and the British position. But we will be discussing the areas that are difficult throughout the Community, both with the Commission of course and bilaterally with our Community partners. We have a dual responsibility during the Presidency, the first, of course, is to maintain the British interest and that we will do. But the second responsibility we have in the Presidency of the Community is to bring together the disparate views and seek a conclusion that is the right way ahead for the Community at large and in that we will work very closely indeed with the Commission and I have every reason to believe we will reach successful conclusions on many of the outstanding matters.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    How important is it for the success of the British Presidency for the House of Commons to ratify the Maastricht treaty before the Presidency ends and before the Edinburgh summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will bring the Bill back to the House of Commons at some stage, I cannot be quite clear yet when it will come back, we will need to see precisely what is going to happen with the difficulties that at present exist in Denmark, we need to give the Danish government some time to determine how they propose to deal with that difficulty, I think that is perfectly reasonable. So we will take stock again when the House of Commons resumes in the autumn and decide what the right procedure is for bringing the Bill forward. It would be desirable to finish it by the end of the year but it is not essential.

    QUESTION:

    Your predecessor, Mrs Thatcher, called the Community ‘socialism by the back Delors”, do you agree with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been in the Community now for 20-odd years, during that period we have helped frame the policies of the Community. The single market is a particularly strong British initiative in the Community, that has been the driving motor of the Community over the last two or three years, that embraces open competition, that certainly is a British concept, I do not know what others may call it, but I would say it is a concept of open liberal markets, that is what the single market is about.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Delors, how significantly do you think the British government’s position has changed with the advent of Mr Major as Prime Minister; and do you think that Lady Thatcher’s current comments are consistent with her Presidency of the Community and the attitude she took as Prime Minister?

    DELORS:

    I have not the intention to enter into the internal debate of Great Britain. I say that it would be possible to work frankly and friendly with the Prime Minister and the duty of the Commission is to help the Community to make progress, no more. And if we must have discussion, we have discussion on technical matters between the Minister in charge and the Commissioner in charge, no more.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how does your Presidency intend to interpret the principle of subsidiarity, it is at the heart of the Maastricht treaty and how do you hope to have a good relationship with M. Delors who represents the federalist intention of the Community?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first thing I think I should say about subsidiarity is that whilst we feel very strongly that it is something that ought to be entrenched in the Community principles and practices, so does the President of the Commission who has made that position entirely clear on a number of occasions both publicly and privately. We are both committed to looking at ways in which the principle of subsidiarity can be enshrined as a natural part of the Community’s instincts rather than something that is just wheeled out from time to time when it is convenient. And the President is examining ways, the Commission will be examining ways, with our guidance and assistance, over the next few months to determine precisely how we carry that principle into practice. We have a number of ideas we are looking at, many of those are not yet right for public discussion, but I assure you progress is being made on that, we are determined to make progress on that as the British Presidency and the President of the Commission and the Commission are equally determined to make progress on it. We will report to the Edinburgh summit.

    QUESTION (John Cole – BBC):

    A question to M. Delors, please. How do you think a country which has opted out of the Social Chapter and reserved its own position on the single currency can give the kind of lead to Europe that you think it ought to have in the next six months?

    DELORS:

    The twelve member states accepted the two opting out in the Maastricht summit. This is not the first time there was an opting-out and it is frankly possible to manage the Community and to make progress in those conditions and the Maastricht Agreement obliged all member states and the Commission on all aspects of the treaty draft.

    QUESTION:

    A general and a specific question on the British presidency’s hopes to improve environmental concerns in Europe throughout your time. What will you do to, in a general sense, enforce improvement in environmental legislation in the EC and specifically on the question of Norway’s and Iceland’s attitude to whaling? Given Britain’s anti-whaling position, will the British presidency be able to lead the EC to perhaps take action against those two countries perhaps through trade sanctions to prevent them whaling?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are both important matters. We weren’t able to discuss them this morning, not least because as of this moment the Community does not have an Environment Commissioner. Ripo di Meana, who was the Environment Commissioner is now a member of the new Italian government and a new Environment Commissioner has not yet been appointed so we have not had the opportunity of discussing those matters this morning. I have no doubt, when we have a commissioner, that we will wish to discuss with him how to make progress on environmental matters – that we will do.

    On the subject of whaling, I think the British position is very clear both on whaling and on the smaller animals, the dolphins and others. Our position has been spelt out by John Gummer on a number of occasions. We will try and persuade other people in the Community and beyond it that that is the right way to deal with the present problems of whaling.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    A question for M. Delors, if I may. It was agreed at Lisbon that there could be no official enlargement negotiations for the Community until both the ratification of the treaty by all twelve member states and the settling of the budget but the British presidency has talked of unofficial negotiations starting on enlargement. How much do you, M. Delors, believe can be achieved by unofficial negotiations? How far can they go and are they a meaningful concept?

    DELORS:

    Practically, there is no difference between my colleague, the Vice-President Andriessen. We are in discussion not only with Sweden, for which we prepare an opinion but also with Austria, with Finland and so on and the objective of the British presidency is to be ready as soon as possible to start with official negotiations and during the following months the Community will do its best to accelerate the preparation of the opinion for Sweden and after for Finland and Switzerland and also to take in place the things which allow official negotiations starting as I hope since the beginning of 1993.

    QUESTION:

    I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. In view of improving the relationship of the European Community with Turkey, will that include the adoption of the 4th Financial Protocol? My second question in about Yugoslavia. What are the next steps that the British presidency is planning to take with the government of Giro Gregorov [phon] in Skopje?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    As regards the first question, I hope that the Foreign Affairs Council will discuss later this month the whole question of the Community’s relationship with Turkey on the basis of a working paper which the British Government was asked to prepare some weeks ago and which is now ready but certainly one element of that in our view should be the fulfilment of what the Community has already undertaken in the financial protocol.

    I have nothing at the moment to add to the Conclusions of the Lisbon Council on the question of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.

    QUESTION (David Buchan – Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, where you have a conflict between subsidiarity and the single market as you well might have – decentralisation might cause unevenness in the single market – which would your highest priority be?

    Could I ask President Delors about the environment? When do you plan to nominate an Environment Commissioner? Do you intend to give that dossier to one of your colleagues and will the Commission in general terms pursue your court case against the UK Government on the issue of bathing water?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Shall I deal with the first part of the question?

    I actually made clear in the House of Commons the other day that there is sometimes a conflict between subsidiarity and achieving a level playing field across the Community – that is undoubtedly the case. The single market requires a level playing field and often that does require action at the Community level. We would have to look at the conflict between those two principles in terms of each individual matter that may arise but we are committed under the Single European Act to reach a single market and we do make sure there is a level playing field on the major matters of competition throughout the European Community so that clearly has a very high priority but we would have to look at each individual item to see whether the balance of advantage lay wholly with an unreconstructed level playing field or whether on occasions subsidiarity would have to take precedence but generally I think we would want the level playing field.

    DELORS:

    As you know, the Commission is a college and I intend to propose tomorrow to the college that a commissioner take by interim the portfolio on environment until the Italian Government appoint a new commissioner and with the interim commissioner in service, we intend to discuss the problem you raise concerning bathing water.

    QUESTION (Jon Snow – ITN):

    Delors, do you accept that it is the ambition of the British presidency to ensure that your last two years as President are less powerful than your first?

    DELORS:

    The most important for me is not to appear as powerful. The most important is to be useful, useful for the Community, that is all and evidently I do not please articles in the British press but this is not my problem. My problem is that the twelve member countries consider that the Commission will be useful to make progress in the Community – no more – and the problem of power, the problem of nomination of the President of the Commission is not of interest to me; even for French politics it is not interesting. [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    Regarding M. Delors’ comment on the issue of subsidiarity, what he, thinks about what kind of work should be done. Does it infer that in some way there could be some danger for the Commission itself.

    DELORS:

    I put my ideas over a dinner with the Chiefs of State and Government and those ideas I think are welcomed by the twelve Chiefs of State and Government and those ideas are put in the communique of Lisbon. Evidently, it is very difficult to draw the line between what is best done at Community level and what is best done at national level but we make an effort to conciliate for example as one of your colleagues raised the problem, the necessity to have an efficient single market and also the political necessity to bring closer the decision from citizens. It is not always easy but the Commission has has two debates on this question and is fully prepared to apply the principle of subsidiarity even before the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in the line of the [indistinct] given by the European Council in Lisbon.

    QUESTION (George Jones – Daily Telegraph]:

    A question for both Mr. Major and M. Delors. Earlier this week, British Employment Minister, Mrs. Gillian Shepherd, cast some doubt over whether Denmark would be the next presidency of the Community and there were some suggestions at the Lisbon summit that because of the referendum Denmark should not take it because its commitment to the European Community was now in doubt. Are there going to be sanctions against Denmark?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me answer that first. Denmark have confirmed to us this morning, I think, that they are going to be part of the Troika, that is to say the immediate past presidency, the current presidency and the future presidency and the implication for that is that Denmark proposes to take the presidency of the Community at the beginning of next year and it is our view that that is the right way for them to proceed.

    The wish across the Community is to give the Danes some time to sort out the difficulties that they have so that they may then decide how to proceed but that is a decision that Denmark must take. They are in the Community and they take over the presidency on 1 January next year.

    DELORS:

    I share the same point of view and the Commission is ready to prepare tomorrow the next Danish presidency.

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well Brian, My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Choice for young people to buy the training they need.

    Choice for employers to provide workplace training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1991 Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 10 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the 1991 Scottish Conservative Party Conference on 10th May 1991 in Perth.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s wonderful to be back in Scotland for my fourth visit since I became prime minister. And each time I come I am struck by the growing confidence of our party. We are right to be confident. So is Scotland. There are five Scots in my Cabinet shaping policy – for all the UK, with my old friend Ian Lang making sure the Scottish dimension is always considered.

    He has a powerful team at the Scottish Office. Allen Stewart once defeated me by one vote for a local council candidacy over twenty years ago. I often wonder what would have happened if I had won.

    And in the party machine, Russell Sanderson and Micky Hirst are revolutionising our prospects as we look forward to Conservative gains at the next election.

    Today I want to share with you some important news – of a new White Paper we will be publishing to improve public service, of help for a hard pressed region of Scotland, of our initiative to tackle the international trade in arms. And a meeting that will make Scotland the focus of world attention.

    But before I address these policies to enhance our future, I want to turn for a moment to something that could threaten it – Labour’s policy fiasco on tax and spending. We have always said Labour do not add up. This week they have proved that in spectacular fashion.

    People want to know a party’s promises, of course. But they also want to know how they will be delivered; how they will be paid for; and – crucially – who will do the paying.

    After this week we know who will do the paying for Labour’s promises. Every single taxpayer will. It was kind of Mr Kinnock to warn us he wouldn’t make any tax cuts. We never supposed he would. It’s not your taxes he’ll cut. It’s your income.

    This week he promised 20 billion of extra public spending which, he said would be paid for by economic growth. But existing spending plans already rely on growth in our economy. You can’t spend the same money twice. So his 20 billion would have to be paid for either by higher borrowing or higher tax. 10p on the basic rate of tax. Of course, it would be phased over a full parliament. So that is the cost of Mr Kinnock. 2p a year on the basic rate of tax every year for 5 years to take the basic rate even above the 33p we inherited in 1979.

    It is a breath-taking lunacy. And this from the man who promised 14 out of 15 tax payers would not be worse off under his plans.

    You work harder. Good. You pay more.

    You put more into your job. Bad luck. You take less home for your family.

    What folly!

    That is no way to encourage people to work harder. It is a way to encourage people to work abroad. And when our doctors, dentists, surgeons and scientists take their talents abroad Labour will be surprised. But who will be the poorer? The whole country will be poorer. They always are under Labour.

    So don’t be misled by the red rose ad-men. I know from personal experience how deep is the difference between Labour’s policies and ours. When I was young and living in an inner city, labour canvassers used to come to our door. They were confident and cocky. They assumed I would vote Labour because of where I lived. But they never said how their policies would help me make the best of my life or how they would help me reach a position where I could help others.

    They just assumed I would go on living exactly as I did then. That was my role in life. And I should stay there. They talked about my rights. They talked about what they would do for me. But never about my opportunities or my obligations.

    That is the enduring face of Labour. Never to ask what people, given the encouragement and opportunity can do for others or for themselves. Just what the state might do. Always with someone else paying the taxes. To block out hopes and ambitions and to disparage success. That is the real failure of socialism.

    So when people say there’s no difference between us and Labour, tell them some of the differences.

    We back the consumer through our citizens’ charter plans; they line up behind the trade union providers.

    Our aim is lower taxes for all; they reject lower taxes and plan to put them up.

    Our pledge is more home ownership; theirs more council homes.

    We offer personal pensions to millions of families – pensions they own; they want dependence on the state and attack personal provision.

    We promote more savings and investment; they plan to tax savings and so damage investment.

    We help more families to own shares they want the state to have more.

    We give more say to parents in running their schools; they would go back to council control – ‘on day one’, Labour’s Education spokesman boasts. Their top priority. To take parent’s freedom away. ‘on day one’. I tell you. If parents understand that message there will never again be a ‘day one’ for Labour.

    So Mr Chairman, there is a giant gulf between our parties. That gulf is seen in many policies. But in essence it is that we trust people and they don’t.

    One thing is clear. Labour have peaked. Roy Hattersley knows that. He now warns he will retire if Labour don’t win. Well there’s a threat. Vote Labour to keep Roy Hattersley in politics. It’s not the worst reason I can think of for voting Labour. But, it’s far from compelling.

    As always, it is our party that has the new ideas. About good public services at low public cost. About raising standards in schools and hospitals. About leaving more money in the pay packet and about ownership for all. The issues that we put first are the issues that matter to Britain.

    People build success

    Mr Chairman, it is now evident that we are getting inflation down. And provided we keep it down our prospects are bright. The opportunities immense. I want to see those opportunities spread as widely as we can. To see more people with homes, shares and pensions of their own. More people with skills. More ways into independence and less ties to dependence. More say for every family in their children’s future. More chance to save to make that future secure.

    In our party we know that it is not the state that builds the success of a nation. It is the citizen that builds the success of the state. What we in Britain must do is encourage success at every level. And recognise it when it happens. I don’t want a country in which anyone should be led to feel: ‘I can’t do that; that’s for other people’. I want to see an end to the bystander mentality – the view that problems are something for someone else to deal with, and that success is something you see on television. No-one should settle for less than they can achieve. The credo is simple. If you think you can do it, you can do it. So start to do it – and don’t delay.

    Winning hearts and minds

    We must take our Party’s appeal into every village and home in Scotland. Our door must be open to everyone. And we must open their doors to our ideas. And that means understanding the doubts and fears of many who traditionally vote Labour.

    We have always stressed the dangers of Labour’s far left. And rightly so. Their neglect of defence; their attacks on the police; and their contempt for the law. And never suppose that those elements in the Labour Party have ceased to exist.

    But the vast majority of those who have supported the Labour Party do not share those extremist views. They have their ideals. As we do. They want a better future for their children. As we do. We need to show them, through performance and persuasion, that it is the Conservative way that offers independence, choice, and better living standards.

    And if you want to test the strength of our vision there is nowhere better than Scotland.

    Scotland’s revival

    Ten years ago Scotland stood on the fringes of Europe’s economy. Its industries outdated, its infrastructure and cities run down. So we took the Whitehall controls off Scotland’s economy. Output today is more than 10 per cent higher than it was in 1979. All due to the work of those in the offices and on the shop floor. At 4.6 per cent a year over 12 years, the rise in productivity in Scotland has been among the fastest in Europe.

    No longer is Scotland dependent on a few declining industrial sectors. On steel, shipbuilding, coal. New industries have grown, high tech industries. Service firms alongside the manufacturing base. Who would have expected in 1979 the rate of expansion of services? Services now account for two in every three jobs in Scotland. 23 billion of value-added in 1989.

    And look at the astonishing growth of the electronics industry – a fivefold increase in output since 1979. Who would have guessed then that within just twelve years, one in ten of all the personal computers built in the world would be made in Scotland?

    We took the tax burden off personal success. And Scotland responded – with a surge of innovation and effort. There are five companies in Scotland today for every three in 1980. And the number of self-employed is up by more than half.

    No one ever needed persuading of the attractiveness of Scotland, the quality of its people or of its environment. Whenever I come here I am struck by how within a few minutes of any airport or station I am in beautiful countryside.

    But for too long the outdated face of Scottish industry turned opportunity away. Now, people and businesses are voting for Scotland with their cash. And with their feet. In 1989, 10,000 people moved here from the rest of the UK and from abroad. Since 1981 foreign companies have invested 4 billion in Scotland, creating or safeguarding a planned 80,000 jobs.

    These achievements reflect Mrs Thatcher’s determination to get business and industry here and throughout the United Kingdom back on its feet. And her success in doing so.

    Lanarkshire

    But I recognise that, for all the progress since 1979, some parts of Scotland have managed these changes less easily than others. Lanarkshire is one. At Ravenscraig, and elsewhere in Lanarkshire, British Steel has already announced a number of job losses. That has come as unwelcome news to all who live and work in the area. And I am well aware these are by no means the first job losses in Lanarkshire.

    Allan Stewart will shortly receive the report from the working party we set up to examine the problems of the area and see how they can best be overcome. Ian Lang and I will study that report carefully and speedily.

    There will be no delay. We will take the necessary steps to help Lanarkshire become, once again, an area that will be attractive to new investment and new jobs.

    But even before we see the report there is some preliminary work we can put in hand. Today – before we have seen the report – we are making a further 15 million available now to Scottish enterprise to enhance work on site clearance and to ‘green’ over the worst areas of industrial dereliction. For I want to see Lanarkshire as a thriving, successful part of the Scottish economy. I believe the extra resources I have announced today – together with the other support for Lanarkshire already committed – will be a further step towards bringing about that resurgence.

    Labour’s tax on skills

    Whatever we do, when it comes to regeneration, what areas like Lanarkshire need, will be men and women of energy, skill and vision. Good managers, trained professionals, skilled workers. They are the people who will build new businesses and create new jobs. And we need them here – not abroad.

    Only one thing could discourage people like that – a Labour Government. They plan a special tax on the hardest-working and most skilled people. 72 a month extra national insurance stopped from the pay of a family doctor in Dundee, and a secondary head teacher in Glasgow. A quarter of a million Scottish workers and their families, would be caught in Labour’s trap – before we even begin to consider their tax increases.

    Those people already pay nearly 1650 a year in national insurance. But that’s not enough for Labour. 1650? Labour would spend that in less than one hour on a new state-led body. A typical Labour proposal. The men from the ministry picking winners in technology – the boomerang that won’t come back, the aircraft too heavy to fly, the computer that could make Labour’s policy plans add up. Labour picking winners? They would have a better chance in sporting life. Yet it is to fund quangos like that – 71 of them – that Labour now want to attack the most enterprising people in our country with a new tax on skills.

    Many of Scotland’s top business managers would be facing bills of 250 a month and more. Why should they stay in Scotland when Labour’s new policy would drive them abroad? Such a policy would be a disaster. Indeed, for Labour, it is a disaster. Publishing it was the beginning of the end of their prospects of power.

    Economic revival

    The industrial changes of the ‘80s have helped Scotland resist the present world recession better than most other parts of Britain. Things may seem difficult. Unemployment is rising. I regret that. I know what it means to the people and families involved.

    But there are still far more people in Scotland with jobs than when we came to power. Britain’s unemployment levels remain below the EC average. But I know also that this is not much comfort to those looking for jobs who want them. What is of comfort is that we are winning the battle against the cause of the problem – inflation. That we have put in place policies to prevent it. And that our policies will mean more jobs in Scotland as Britain grows again. More secure jobs. In modern industries. For this generation and the next.

    If we are to grow again strongly, we need to get inflation down. That we are doing. Eighteen months ago we took tough action against price rises. I knew it wouldn’t be popular. I knew it might not be ‘electorally convenient’. But I also knew it was right.

    As a result inflation is now tumbling in Britain when it is climbing elsewhere. It will tumble further throughout this year. Scottish families and Scottish business will benefit from that.

    It is not just inflation that we have in retreat. A few months ago we led Britain into the ERM. Since then we have made five cuts in interest rates. Yet the pound is as strong in Germany now as it was when we joined. Five cuts in interest rates. And the costs of mortgages falling as well. It is high time some of those who opposed entry into the ERM recognised the benefits it has brought.

    Local government

    There is another way in which we must help both people and business in Scotland. By improving the quality of local services. Reducing the costs of local government. And, where necessary, intervening through tougher capping powers to block excessive spending.

    I believe local residents must have more choice. Parents should have the right we gave them to choose the right school for their children, and have more say in how it is managed. Families should have more choice over the homes in which they live. This Party gave Scottish people the right to buy. Now we are going further by giving a new group of tenants the chance to buy their homes with our rents-into-mortgages scheme. Older people. Those on lower incomes. Single parents. They found right-to-buy difficult. Rents-into-mortgages is exactly for them. The response has been huge. Two weeks after the new scheme’s launch, 20,000 people had expressed their interest. People who thought that they would never be able to own a home. People who thought they would be renting for the rest of their lives. Now they will have something that is theirs; something they can leave for their children in the future.

    We are also extending choice into the future shape of local Government itself. There will be many different ideas – perhaps even a return to the old city corporations. But few will favour keeping artificial and impersonal regions like Lothian or Strathclyde. You can be certain. If people’s views, point to the scrapping of any authority, the next Conservative government will act to abolish it.

    Citizen’s charter

    I am determined to give power back to the people who use public services. I intend to help them secure improvements in quality. That is what our new citizens’ charter programme will work to achieve.

    The charter’s principles are already in action. When we privatised British Telecom we insisted on competition and tough regulation. And compensation too, when standards weren’t met. The results were dramatic. Then, a quarter of callboxes were unusable; now it is just one in twenty. Then, under three-quarters of line cuts were repaired in two days. Now it is over 96%. But we should do better still. So we are bringing in more competition to help the consumer. As a direct result there will be a cash cut in BT charges this autumn. Then take gas. There, too, we set up a regulatory regime. But the system was not tough enough. So this month OFGAS has acted. If inflation falls as we expect, gas charges next year will actually be cut. When did that last happen? Did it ever happen when gas was in state hands? It will now. And, again, the public will gain.

    Ian Lang has told you how he will develop the Citizen’s Charter in Scotland. Already, some forward-thinking services have brought in the kind of reforms I want to see throughout the public sector. In the health service; in Scottish homes; and in education. They must go far further.

    We will be developing our charter programme throughout the summer. Make no mistake. I intend it to bite. And to do so in the interests of parents, pupils, passengers and patients alike. This summer we will be publishing a white paper which offers the citizen nothing less than a revolution in the way public services are delivered. It will be the most comprehensive quality initiative ever launched. New and tougher standards of service will be set. We will introduce a wide range of mechanisms to ensure they are met, to the citizen’s satisfaction. But it should also point the way to new pride and purpose for those who work in public services. They too believe in a job well done.

    We do not fall into the trap of supposing that better service must always and everywhere mean spending more. That is Labour’s expensive fallacy – peddled by those who would rather take the money than deliver the service. We never forget it is the citizen’s money government uses; and it is the citizen to whom the public sector must be accountable for every penny it spends.

    The whole public sector will be expected to commit itself to this process. Whitehall, the new Next Steps agencies, local Government, public services, and nationalised industries. And I will keep it under the closest scrutiny as it does. There must no longer be any hiding place for sloppy standards, lame excuses and attitudes that patronise the public. Our programme has four main strands – more competition, privatisation and contracting out, to ensure that complacent services are shaken up; new approaches to pay and budgeting which mean that good performance is rewarded and low standards penalised; a complete review of all the mechanisms for helping the public to get the standards they deserve – truly independent inspectorates, tough auditing, ombudsmen and effective complaints procedures; and insistence on the publication of detailed targets for performance and how nearly those targets are achieved. Services and their users must know where they stand. And, where possible, as the new electricity companies have already found, we intend to look for ways of direct compensation to the public when standards fall far below what the public should be entitled to expect.

    For each public service we will select the most effective means of delivering the best. For each service the techniques will be different. But the citizen’s charter will have just one common aim – achieving the highest possible standards of performance for those who rely on public services in this country. Once complete, it will be the most comprehensive of its kind in Europe.

    Health

    No-one should doubt our commitment to good services at every level, including the NHS. I believe in the health service. My family and I use it. We will go on doing so. Because I have confidence in the NHS and admiration for what it achieves. It is well over forty years since the health service was formed. And everyone knows how dramatically it has grown. But hang on. For most of that time Britain has had Conservative governments. So who do the government’s critics imagine has been pouring resources into the NHS over that time? Nearly 33,000 million a year, four times as much in 1979. Treatments unheard of in the 1970s routine today. Health spending in Scotland some 24% above the UK average. It wasn’t Labour that achieved all that. They weren’t in Government. We were.

    And what of this? At every recent election Labour promised a 3% real annual growth in NHS spending. They never got near that in office. Just 1.5% a year between 1974 and 1979. Nurses’ pay cut by 21%. The hospital building programme slashed by a third. A very modest performance. Indeed shameful. The more so when measured against their own immoderate boasts.

    Yet while they’ve blustered, we have delivered. Spending is up, year after year after year. 3.1% a year over twelve years. And levels of patient treatment up as well. Our performance has gone far beyond Labour’s promises.

    And the fact is that if Mr Kinnock’s 2+% growth formula had been applied this year, the NHS would have had 500 million less than it has had from us. 500 million? That would have meant 500,000 fewer patients treated in hospitals, according to the Labour leader’s official plan. It must be one of the biggest own-goals in British political history. Yet more evidence that Labour doesn’t and can’t add up.

    There is just one more thing I want to say about the health service. I do not accept that there cannot be change in the NHS. I do not accept that every pound in nearly 33,000 million cannot be better spent. Our reforms are about achieving better patient care – and better patient care alone. We will see them through.

    European Council

    I want Scotland to play a leading role in international affairs. Our place in the world begins in Europe. As I said recently, it lies ‘at the heart of Europe’ . I believe that Scotland’s experience is essential to that. I was delighted that Glasgow made such an impact as Europe’s city of culture for 1990. Next year I want to put Edinburgh, like Glasgow, at the centre of European events.

    Edinburgh is already the European Community’s fourth largest financial management centre. And it is moving up the world league close on Chicago’s heels. But a historic capital like Edinburgh should be a diplomatic centre as well. I can tell this conference today that when a Conservative Government chairs the European Council in 1992, we will bring the European council, and the summit meeting of European leaders, to Scotland. I want it to be in Edinburgh that Europe signals the final completion of the single market, on which so many countries have laboured for so long.

    Scottish Assembly

    But I don’t just want Britain to be in Europe. I want Britain to be a leader in Europe. That means being confident and secure as a people as well. I believe passionately that our country must stay united. The United Kingdom draws together, in partnership, the traditions of four proud nations. We have much to give each other. Much to learn from each other. The Scots have always played a great part in the government of Britain, and always will. I know there is sometimes a feeling – not just in Scotland, but in Wales and England too – that Westminster can be too remote. I believe that government should be – must be – more receptive to the aspirations of people throughout the united Kingdom.

    But I do not believe those aspirations would be met by the creation of a further tax-raising body in Scotland; by more Government and more taxes that would disadvantage this part of the island. I don’t want industry and investment to be driven out of Scotland by the highest level of tax in Britain, destroying jobs and smashing hopes. Nine out of ten of Scotland’s business leaders oppose the kind of revenue-raising Assembly the convention proposed, and surely we must listen to that warning.

    Ever since the union of the crowns of Scotland and England in 1603, it has been as a United Kingdom that we have made our incomparable mark on the history of the world. And in this century it was as a British people that we fought in two world wars. And, more recently, as part of the British armed forces, that so many young men and women from Scotland went to the Gulf to throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. I was proud to meet them when I visited our forces in the Gulf, and proud, too, last weekend that it was here in Scotland that Britain gave thanks for what they had achieved.

    Britain in the world

    At that service there were readings by children from differing traditions – Christian, Muslim and Jew. All Scottish children. It was very moving. They spoke of common thankfulness and a prayer for peace. It is a peace that for the sake of all our children we must buttress with new safeguards.

    Britain did not sell arms to Iraq. Others did. Saddam Hussein built up his supplies until he had twice as many tanks as Britain and France put together. That is why I have called for a register at the United Nations of all conventional arms sales. I can tell you today that I have asked our representative in New York to press this issue as a high priority. And let me also give more details today of what I want this register to do. It needs to require countries selling arms to declare what they sell, to whom they sell them and in what quantity. I shall be working for that register to be agreed this year.

    Achieving agreement on a register will be an ambitious objective. But we are getting used to breaking new ground. For example, the safe haven for the Kurds in the north of Iraq. And the United Nations special commission, which in the coming weeks and including British scientists, will search out and destroy the weapons of mass destruction still held by Saddam Hussein after the war. Both those ideas were without precedent. Both were British proposals. A Conservative Government s proposals.

    Today, at this conference, I can give the country two further assurances:

    First, Britain will veto any UN resolution designed to weaken the sanctions regime we have set in place, for so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power;

    Second, that we shall ensure, by whatever means it takes, that Iraq can never again build a capacity to threaten her neighbours with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

    Conclusion

    Mr Chairman, we have come a long way together these last seven months. Do you remember what the critics were saying last autumn? They said that our government was finished. We were 16 per cent behind in the opinion polls in the UK as a whole, 33 points behind in Scotland. Well, seven months on we have silenced those critics. Now we are ahead in the polls overall, and we have increased our support by a third in Scotland.

    Last autumn we were facing a world recession. Now we are on the road to recovery. Then inflation was rising. Now it is plummeting. Then mortgage rates were locked at a high level. Now they are coming down and poised to fall further. Then disputes over local government finance seemed insoluble. Now they are solved.

    And I have not even mentioned our progress in Europe, or our help for the Kurds. That is not bad for just seven months work.

    So we should be confident about our party’s future. And, what is more important, we can be confident about the future of Scotland as well.

    This party has the right vision for Britain’s future. Our priorities are to care for those who can’t, to encourage those who can, and to make our country a better place to live in for everyone.

    And that message must ring out from this conference. Our Party in Scotland – the Conservative Party – is on the way back. We are not talking any more about holding on in Scotland. We are talking about regaining seats in Scotland from Labour, Liberal and Nationalists, too. And we will not be easily satisfied. Not satisfied at all, until we have what once we had – a majority of seats in Scotland, safe and secure in the Conservative interest. Nothing less will do. And with your support, whenever the election comes, we will begin that work.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Young Conservatives Conference – 9 February 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 31st Young Conservatives Conference, held at the Spa Complex in Scarborough on Saturday 9th February 1991.

    [Text is from a Conservative Party News Release, some small portions are missing from the original speech]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In each of the last three General Elections well over a million young people voted Conservative – three times as many first time voters supported us for every two who voted Labour in 1987.

    That is good, but not good enough.

    Why did we enjoy that support? It was because young people shared the values that we care about. I believe we want to strengthen and deepen that commitment.

    I want them to know that the Conservative Party is open to them and to their ideas.

    They will be welcome – and we need them.

    Their idealism.

    Their willingness to challenge accepted wisdom.

    Their readiness to try new ways. And we must respond to their hopes as well.

    To their concern for the sort of life they want to build for themselves.

    Today the world is changing at an unprecedented rate. We cannot be immune from that.

    Our principles and our philosophy are firm. But we must still adapt in order to thrive.

    We must be open to originality, to innovation, and to change. And so long as I am able to ensure it, we will.

    In a few moments I want to share with you some of my thoughts about our priorities for the future.

    But first I want to speak of one group who are uppermost in our minds at present – those in our armed forces in the Gulf.

    A few weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting many of them. They made a lasting impression.

    They had no doubt that the task they had been set was just. And they left me in no doubt that they were wholly equal to that task.

    And since then – night after night and day after day – we have seen them prove that with a skill and courage we can only admire.

    They deserve all the support they can get – and they will get from us all the support they need.

    And when they have done their job we will bring them back home – as soon as we can.

    For here, at home, there are deep anxieties faced by their families.

    I have received in recent weeks many letters from them.

    Some are worried. Some emotional. All proud.

    I believe the whole nation shares those feelings.

    We did not want this war.

    But we have it.

    And we face a difficult period ahead.

    But Saddam Hussein must know what he faces.

    He faces defeat.

    The timing maybe uncertain.

    But the outcome is absolutely certain.

    Because we intend to complete the job they have begun.

    The British people understand very well the key principle underlying the Gulf conflict.

    Throughout history the instinct of Britain has always been to defend freedom.

    To uphold the rule of law.

    That above all is why our troops are in the Gulf.

    For our troops back home and all over it is not enough simply to protect the rights and freedoms that we have inherited. We must look beyond the present.

    We must extend them.

    In the last ten years tremendous advances have been made. Now we must move forward again.

    We must look now at the opportunities that should be there and are not.

    At the choices we do not yet have.

    And at the people who have not yet benefited from change. The success of our Party since 1979 has sprung from our readiness to reform – our willingness to make the changes necessary to produce a better quality of life.

    And I promise you today that great programme of reform will continue in the years ahead

    In our Party we know you have to produce wealth before you can use it.

    Like many other nations, Britain faces economic difficulties at present.

    The next few months will be uncomfortable.

    I regret that.

    But short term expedients won’t do.

    They will only lengthen and worsen the problems themselves.

    We must follow a policy that will cure those problems, not simply mask them.

    That is precisely what people expect of us.

    Every time we have faced economic difficulties we have brought the country out of them.

    We have a good track record.

    And we will come through our problems yet again.

    The centre piece of any strong economy is low inflation. And in that there are good signs for Britain.

    Inflation is coming down, and will continue to fall throughout the year.

    It will halve from its peak.

    And we will still be driving it down.

    There are some who that say inflation doesn’t matter so very much.

    What that shows is that to them people don’t matter so very much.

    Well, people matter to me.

    I know that inflation is the enemy of personal security and peace of mind – for people of all ages.

    It gnaws away at the hard won savings of the pensioner. It disrupts business and destroys jobs.

    It betrays the basic trust in the value of money that lies behind every transaction in our daily lives.

    That is why we must and will defeat inflation as our first priority

    But, you know, when we talk of efficiency, of competition, and of economic success, we do it not for its own sake.

    Not for material reasons only.

    But for what we can achieve with the resources we create.

    In the year ahead we will set out our ideas for the 1990s and beyond.

    We have an agenda to work through.

    Some of those ideas will be tried and tested.

    Some will be new.

    Some will involve novel concepts.

    But all of them will have one thing in common – the long-term needs of this country and the people that live in it.

    Our Party exists to give more people more choice, more independence, more control over their daily lives.

    We know that the role of government should be limited. At present it is still too big.

    But let there be no question about one thing.

    We must never accept the contention that limited Government means lower standards.

    That state services must be second-best.

    I want to see an unending search for better quality in all our public services. When we deprive people of their money in never taxes, they have a right to ensure that it is never wasted in government.

    So I want to see new ideas flowing into public service. More privatisation, yes, of course.

    But also more partnership with the voluntary and private sectors.

    More use of the best private skills.

    For far too long we have tolerated public services that are just not good enough.

    Council house repairs that are shoddy and slow.

    Hospital appointments that take all day.

    Trains that run late and buses that travel in packs. Children refused admission to the schools to which their parents wanted them to go.

    In all of these areas we have been investing enormous sums – in health, in transport, and in education.

    But are we getting proper value?

    We must make those services operate better for the people who use them.

    And operate with the same efficiency within the public sector as we would expect outside the public sector.

    At the top of my personal agenda for the 1990s is education.

    Education is the key to opening new paths for all sorts of people, not just the most gifted and for doing so at every stage of their lives. And it is also the key to the Tory ideal of a mobile, dynamic and diverse society.

    So my objectives are straightforward – improving quality and standards.

    More pupils staying on in education after 16.

    Much more choice, and better training for all young people. I want to see more vocational options in schools of equal rigour and repute to the academic courses.

    And this must go hand in hand with greater coherence and quality in post-school training.

    There has been great progress over the last ten years. Some parts of our education system are unrivalled.

    But others clearly are not.

    Right back to the 60s and before, serious mistakes were made. Tried and tested methods were swept aside.

    Unproven theories were foisted on our children.

    And as a result, standards were lowered. And as a result of that the status of teachers was undermined.

    As a nation we cannot be proud of what has been done over the last thirty years for many of our children.

    Too many of them have been allowed to expect too little of themselves and too many other people have expected too little of them.

    Over a decade ago the Labour Party recognised all this to be true.

    They launched what they called a “great debate” about education.

    But of course it was not debate that was needed.

    It was action.

    As usual, it was left to a Conservative Government to take it up after 1979.

    In 1979 we set ourselves to tackle those problems.

    And since then, we have introduced a great range of reforms in our schools.

    Given more choice and influence to parents.

    More responsibility to governors.

    Set out the building blocks of a new system with better education in the National Curriculum.

    These policies are working.

    More pupils are getting more out of their education.

    There are now five 16 year olds staying on at school for every four just two years ago.

    Ten years ago only one person in eight went on into higher education.

    Now it is one in five.

    And soon it will be one in four.

    We have many more young people graduating from our universities than ever before in the past.

    Those are the real tests of success. And the policies of the Conservative Government have passed them in the last ten years.

    And we are passing them.

    So the 1980s have seen an opening of freedom and choice.

    But I for one have no intention of resting on the Government’s achievements.

    I want to bring the benefits of the best possible education to all. We cannot accept a situation where in some places nearly 40 per cent of school leavers get at least five higher level GCSEs, while elsewhere, less than ten percent do so. The Conservative Party has never accepted the notion that excellence for the few excuses mediocrity for the many.

    It is, of course, the teaching profession that must lead the drive to higher standards and aspirations in our schools. I want to see dedicated teachers rewarded fairly.

    But I also want to see more effective scrutiny of performance in schools.

    And I want the most rigorous standards applied in teacher training.

    We must ensure that every subject is taught to a high standard.

    Teachers may need to be better trained in the subjects they are going to teach.

    It is no good having hours of study of the theory of education if you actually fall down in the practice of teaching it when you get into the classroom.

    So we want to see an educational system that is the equal of anything abroad.

    Doing the basic things well.

    It is not only a question of reading and spelling.

    Although it is most emphatically a question of every child having the right to be taught how to read fluently and spell accurately.

    And it is also teaching to a good standard with the right combination of factual knowledge and critical understanding in every subject.

    And of training people for worthwhile qualifications in job related skills when they choose a vocational course.

    And so what is it we seek? In summary we seek a system of education and training able to equip the children of today for the twenty-first century.

    That is the objective that we will be seeking in our education policy throughout the 1990s.

    And we need that for a variety of reasons, we need it because we need that education, that excellence in education to maximise our success both domestically and in Europe. And also of course, because that education equips people so much better to enjoy all the aspects of life both in work and in leisure, that will be opening up before them in the years to come.

    Above all in the 1990’s we will face a competitive future in a world that is becoming increasingly competitive and most especially in a European community that will become increasingly competitive. There will be no hiding place for inefficiency, no hiding place for the shoddy and the second-rate once we get into the Europe of the 1990’s. That will all change as the reforms of 1992 increasingly come to place. Those who are well equipped and do well, work well, think well, produce well, are efficient and effective will be the leaders of the Europe in the 1990’s. And we are, and will remain, an important and enthusiastic part of the European community. It is simply not enough for some people to say, ‘I don’t really like Europe, but I will tolerate it’, for if we take that view about Europe we will never be the centre of it and can not lead it in the direction which we wish it to go.

    It may be true in some ways that we need Europe but by golly it is equally true that Europe needs us and we had better make sure we are a key part in it.

    It is not only the opportunities in Europe, though I will return to those in a moment. Look at the opportunities opening up in other parts of the world, the increasing democratisation of so much of Eastern Europe, a part of the world that for a very long time indeed we have seen subjugated, and unable to open itself up to a free enterprise system and all the opportunities that will flow from that.

    That is all changing and has been changing in the most dramatic fashion in recent years.

    And then you see the extent to which throughout the whole of South East Asia and elsewhere there are growing industrial giants with whom we will have to compete in the future and then there is the increasingly growing and important market throughout the whole of Latin America. Those are the opportunities that lie there for British industry, British commerce, and British people in the future.

    And to return to the central point, providing we have the education system, the skills and the enterprise we will be able to win in those markets and winning in those markets will mean a much higher standard of life and living for all people who live in this country in the future.

    And nowhere will that competitiveness be more needed than within the European community itself.

    And that is why I say again that we must remain an enthusiastic partner in Europe.

    It is not for nothing that we led the way in the drive for the Single Market. It was not without good reason that we took sterling into the Exchange Rate Mechanism. We propose to play a leading part in Europe’s future and no-one should doubt that for a single second.

    And Britain will have a strong voice in the new Europe. Strong because of our commitment.

    Strong because we have hard heads as well as soft hearts. Strong because Britain under a Conservative Government has firm principles and a very clear idea of where it wants to go and what needs to be done to get there.

    And we will also resist the unworkable.

    Set realism in place of impractical dreams and protect the diversity of Europe while removing obstacles to partnership and enterprise.

    Necessarily you in the Young Conservatives must look to the long-term, to the year 2000 and beyond.

    And so you should.

    It is your future for a good deal longer than it is mine. Your Government has the same instincts. We will set our sights on the same horizon and so we should because it is our responsibility to do so.

    Mr Chairman, I have a total faith in Britain and in its future.

    I don’t accept for a second the craven argument that we cannot compete with the Germans and the French.

    I don’t agree with the pessimists who always believe we must devalue in order to remain competitive and I despise the defeatists who run down this country and write off its future. Defeatism is always an excuse for doing nothing. But we have no intention of doing nothing. In the months ahead our agenda will unfold. Throughout the last decade Conservative Governments have proved successful to an extent beyond most peoples’ imagination. I believe that will be increasingly recognised.

    Throughout the past decade Conservative Government’s have shown very clearly what it is possible for the British economy and people in this country actually to achieve and do. That is a record that people will look back on, I believe, in years to come with some envy and with a considerable amount of pride.