The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Trade

  • Mr Major’s Joint Briefing with Ian Lang – 14 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint briefing with the President of the Board of Trade, Ian Lang, held en route to London on Tuesday 14th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought we might just round what has been happening and maybe just possibly look forward, a little, before you ask me to do so. But let us do the round-up first. I will get Ian to speak on the business side.

    MR LANG:

    This has been a very successful trip from the business point of view and I hope that you will take a further opportunity to speak to some of the businessmen who have been negotiating long-standing negotiations and advancing them a bit further. You have been given a list of the deals that have been concluded and the signings that have taken place in the last week. That is not a special exceptional situation, that is a slice out of what is a continuing process of deal-making and contract winning which is happening in India and Pakistan, as it is all over the world. And this mission, although it has been very successful and has had a high profile because the Prime Minister has led it, and you have been on it, is one of a large number of such missions that Ministers lead around the world. There will have been about 60 in the past year, led by myself, by Tony Nelson, by Peter Fraser, to a range of markets. They help enormously because they open doors for businessmen that might not otherwise open; they raise the profile of British industry and companies in the markets concerned; and they help to clinch deals because of the timing of the visits. And that is why our exports are at an all time high, building on the competitiveness that we have achieved.

    In India, as you know, our exports have risen by 80 percent in the last 4 years and we are the biggest investor from abroad. In Pakistan we are just overtaking the Americans as an investor and our trade with them has risen in the last few years and is broadly in balance. It is a tough market but one of immense potential. We are supporting 300 trade fares in the next year. We will be supporting a similar number of missions. And tomorrow I shall be launching the Central European Campaign, and in a few weeks time a Latin American campaign. So in the broad context this is part of a massive continuing effort that is repaying the action that the Prime Minister and the Government have taken at home in the last few years, and repaying at a level which has never been surpassed and which has led our standing in these countries and the other markets around the world, to a very high level indeed, as I am sure you will have heard yourselves during your visit.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, would you expect to step up the number of delegations like this that you take overseas?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, they are accelerating. And we would set them up, not because we have suddenly invented the thought of doing it, we haven’t, but because the way the British economy is growing, there will be greater opportunities. There are a whole range of parts of the world where the scope, both traditionally and because of what is going to happen in those economies for greater British involvement, is very real. The whole of the Asian sub-continent, South Africa, parts of Latin America, quite apart from our traditional markets – some of those are our traditional markets – quite apart from our European market I should more accurately have said, so the answer is yes.

    [small section missing]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we had better see what he has said. I think it is important to see what the guy has said. Let us carry on, shall we go on? Let me just consult my aide memoire to remind me of the things I want to raise with you boys.

    What is the reason for the trip, one or two of you asked me earlier. Well I would say contacts and contracts. The more we have contacts between our companies and their companies, our government and theirs, the greater the chance of getting contracts. That is the situation today and it is going to remain ,the situation in the future. That is why the answer to your question of a moment ago is yes, there will be more Of this, a good deal more if it. We have accelerated it a lot in the last few years and will go on doing it.

    On the question of drugs, I will answer questions about drugs if you want me to, but I have not really a great deal more to say than what I said yesterday, but if you wish me to answer questions I will.

    One thing I think has come out of this trip quite clearly is a pretty good realisation of the work that ODA do. People often think of ODA in terms of disaster relief and matters of that sort, but I think the practical work that they do, they and the British Council, that actually hits people who are in very severe circumstances sometimes, and in the case of British Council and education is as good as anywhere you will get in the world, and that is why we constantly talk about the quality of the British aid programme, as much as the size of the British aid programme.

    I think we have had a pretty good trip. It has been very enjoyable, I also think it has been hugely worthwhile and I think it has sown the seeds for some extremely fruitful business relationships in the future. So I am pretty buoyant about the trip. And as one or two of you reminded me in interviews just before, we are getting close to an election, I don’t know how close to it, I am not going to tell you how close to an election, but I am looking forward to that. I like elections, I am raring to go when we get back on the domestic scene. I daresay there will be a fair amount to be done. What you have seen on this trip is the extent to which the UK is well received overseas. Sometimes our perception of ourselves is not as generous as the perception of ourselves that the rest of the world have. And hope on this occasion that you have seen the perception of Britain by a very large and important part of the rest of the world.

    When I say the perception of Britain, I don’t just mean the politicians, I mean the business community as well. We are a big overseas investor. We have a very large investor presence, one of the biggest in the world, and that is now going to accelerate. When we get back tonight I daresay it will be quite an interesting period domestically in terms of politics. I look forward to the issues that we have got to discuss. There is still an amount of work to be done before the election. There is the Finance Bill which cuts taxes in a way our opponents would never have done; there is the Education Bill which carries forward reforms that our opponents would not have carried forward; there are the law and order measures that carry forward a very tough law and order programme, that is, despite all they have said, being opposed root and branch by the opposition; there is the work we are proposing on reforming social security, which would not have been done under any other government and would not be carried forward under any other government. So there are some very hard and fast areas of clear cut policy difference between the two sides.

    Now I am going to continue to talk about government policy, I am going to continue to talk about government policies and the way in which we begin to change them, to make sure that families have more opportunities to take their own decisions, with less of those decisions actually being taken by government, national and local. That is an instinctively Conservative view and it is one we are going to follow. We are going to continue to concentrate on the main policy issues up to now and the election. And as an adjunct to that, we will expose what we see as the danger of the Labour policies, and the Liberal policies, insofar as their policies are clear.

    If I may take some of those policies. What is very striking is that they are very keen to talk about almost anything except the detail of how they would do what they have promised to do. Detail seems to be a forbidden subject for them. Let me give you two examples of that. The details on their constitutional changes in Scotland cannot be seen, even with a very long telescope on a very clear day.

    What are they going to do in Scotland about what has become known as the West Lothian question? Why is it right for Scottish MPs to decide – in a Scottish Parliament, were there to be one – on education in Scotland, and then come down to decide on education in England? Where is the merit in that? What is the justification for that? What, equally, is the justification, if there were to be a Scottish Parliament, for the continued very large representation – over-large representation – of Scotland in the Westminster Parliament? Now those are just two, Ian could add a long list of other questions, to which, despite repeated questions, the answer comes there are none.

    When asked those questions, leading members of the Opposition say the answer is the same as they have always given. Well I am offering a prize for someone who can tell me what the answer they have always given is. Because the answer they have always given is evasion, not information.

    And then of course there is the windfall tax – this wonderful golden money tree that hangs at the bottom of a putative Labour Chancellor’s garden. Well who are the companies to be taxed? Do you not think it would be a good idea if they were told? what is the rate of tax they are going to face? Is every company undertaking that sort of business going to be taxed, or do the smaller companies that are now providing competition in the utilities, are they going to find they face taxes as well?

    If they are not, how do Labour propose to deal with the unfair distortion of competition in that market, if some companies are taxed and others are not taxed? And then perhaps, since they tell us they are certain it is legal, this tax, when some lawyers seem to think it is not – I don’t know whether it is legal or not, but some lawyers think it is not, the Labour Party say it – well perhaps since they are so keen on open government they can publish the information and advice they have had to explain why it is legal and why the lawyers who think it is illegal are wrong. In the interests of open government, in the interests of transparency, in the interests of competition and in the interests of telling companies what taxes they will pay if they are going to run a straightforward campaign, perhaps we should hear about these things. So I think those are some of the issues that are going to arise during the weeks that lie ahead.

    As far as Europe is concerned, I talked to you about that the other day. I understand you wrote quite a lot about it. There is not a great deal more I wish to say on this occasion. I will be engaged in the negotiations. I will be seeing Juppe very soon; Prodi, the Italian Prime Minister, I think I see both Juppe and Prodi in the next two or three weeks. Malcolm Rifkind will be fully engaged with our European partners and will be seeing Aznar, the Spanish Prime Minister, very soon.

    So those are some of the things that are appearing on the political agenda and I hope it will provide you with the odd snippet between now and polling day, whenever it might be.

    QUESTION:

    Tony Blair recently, on the Frost Programme, derided you for weak leadership. What is your reaction to that kind of personal attack?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If he doesn’t want to talk about politics, he has got to deal with the politics of insult, and that is what the Labour Party have been doing. When he accuses me of that, he then goes on to state exactly the same position as far as this single currency is concerned for his party. So perhaps he should look in the mirror before he advances charges like that. But the essence of it really is that if he doesn’t want to talk about policy – you can always be sure when they don’t want to talk about policy, they wheel out Tony Blair, or John Prescott or Brian Wilson in order to abuse – well I don’t think that will wash with the British electorate.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see leadership as an important issue in the campaign? As the previous questioner said, your opponents are saying that your leadership has not been sufficiently decisive and powerful, and they are trying to make leadership a big. part of the campaign. Are you prepared to do so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is the politics of insult, isn’t it? Leadership is about what actually is achieved. I will actually refer you to the front page of the Guardian just a few days ago, which was absolutely exemplary, I think it was first-class. It listed what interest rates were in 1992, what unemployment was in 1992, what growth was in 1992, and it indicated how much all those things had improved. Leadership is the outcome of policy, leadership is what determines the policies that are followed and whether it is successful depends upon whether those policies prove to be successful. I am indebted to the Guardian for showing that it has been successful. I am sorry the Labour leadership no longer read the Guardian.

    QUESTION:

    That same front page in the Major-supporting Guardian also indicated that you weren’t getting any thanks from the public in the opinion polls for all those improved statistics. How are you really going to turn that round? You offered a few words in an interview just now of general summary, but it really is a problem for you between now and the election, isn’t it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think people are beginning to see what is happening in the economy. For a long time people have been in a mode where they have felt Britain wasn’t doing as well as she might have done. I think it is now apparent that we are doing much better than we have done for very many years, and much better than any other country of remotely comparable Size in Europe. Now we all operate in the same economic conditions around the world. People should ask themselves, will ask themselves I think, why is Britain doing better. And the reason that Britain is doing better is because we have followed different policies, and we have followed different policies because the leadership of the Conservative Party has decided those are the right policies. Events have shown those policies are right.

    Now if we had followed the policies advocated by successive Labour leaders, we would not have unemployment falling, we would not have growth rising, we would not have low inflation, we would not have the borrowing requirement falling, we would not have record exports, we would not have the best economic scenario for generations. I am happy to go in the election on the basis of the best economic scenario since any of you were in short trousers.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, it is going to be a 20 hour day.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no, no, Michael, it is going to be longer.

    QUESTION:

    Longer than 20 hours, 20 hour plus days, how many more of those are you prepared to put in between now and the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As many as are necessary until polling day?

    QUESTION:

    The Sunday Telegraph reported that they are going to send you to bed early [inaudible] get up late?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nobody has told me that.

    QUESTION:

    It was the Sunday Telegraph.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not yet in the Guardian and if I were you I wouldn’t print it.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not anticipate getting to bed especially early, no. Much too much to do.

    QUESTION:

    When the Cabinet meets on Thursday, will you be seeing the revised report from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I doubt it will be this Thursday.

    QUESTION:

    So does that mean it will be discussed at the Special Political Cabinet at Chequers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Possibly, I will have to wait and see. I will see how far the Chancellor has got when I get back and then it will come to Cabinet fairly soon. When it will be, I will decide over the next couple of days.

    QUESTION:

    On the subject of the single currency, do you believe there is any prospect of a change of government policy before the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am tempted to follow Tony Blair and say my answer is the same I have given you a hundred times before.

    QUESTION:

    I am tempted to give the same answer you gave a couple of moments ago to that reply.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But you know the answer I have given you, you can look it up.

    QUESTION:

    But what is your current position on the single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You know what our position is on the single currency, we went all through this the other day, I am not being side-tracked again, lots of other messages today.

    QUESTION:

    And the prospects of it changing before the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You know the answer to that question, I am not getting side-tracked on that again today.

    QUESTION:

    I wouldn’t be asking you if I knew the answer.

    QUESTION:

    That is all you are getting today.

    QUESTION:

    On Europe the other day, you suggested that you had found a way of unlocking the principal problem of let us call it modernisation of the Europe Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was the IGC I was talking about.

    QUESTION:

    Yes, but at the same time you said you thought it would be something that for some EU member states would be difficult to swallow. Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Lots of things are difficult to swallow, but the negotiations at Amsterdam will have to be agreed by unanimity. And the only way in which the European Community can develop is the way I have set out. Now some people are very federalist because they see it as being in the interests of their country. Well that is fine for them, but it isn’t fine for the European Union as a whole. And have to look at the British interests and the European Union as a whole and centralism, or federalism – call it what you will, federalism means different things in Europe so it is a confusing term – isn’t very appropriate for us, so we are not going to go down that route.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that if you are still Prime Minister in June that you will be throwing your weight around and saying that we are not giving ground, take or leave it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wouldn’t call it throwing my weight around. If you mean will I negotiate toughly for what I think is the British interest, the answer is I will, yes, of course.

    QUESTION:

    You are going back tonight to take part in the Finance Bill. There is obviously quite a long period of guerilla warfare if you like from the Labour Party with the breakdown of the pairing arrangements. Are you worried that that might have an effect on your own troops, on their moral in the run-up to the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I am not. The Conservative Party is getting ready for an election. It is a very important election. There is a lot at stake, as there always is in elections. This instance, in many ways, has more at stake than there usually is, because the state of the economy will open up more options for the next parliament than traditionally has been the case over the last 25 – 50 years. So I think the Conservative Party in Parliament and beyond it will recognise that.

    QUESTION:

    You have spoken about the need for Labour to flesh out more detail on its policies. Do you have any intention in the campaign to give a firm date by which you might reach your goal of reducing the base rate of tax to 20p or reduce capital taxes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t have a firm date. We are setting out an objective, much as we originally set out the objective from 33 pence to 25 pence in the basic rate of tax without a timescale, we are setting out the objective. We will do it prudently, I am not going to put a timescale on it, but that is our objective to reduce taxes in that way and as and when it is financially possible to do it, we will do it. But I am not going to tie myself to an artificial timescale, neither do I think it would be politically wise to do so.

    QUESTION:

    What sort of manifesto are you looking for, are you looking for a radical manifesto or a fairly cautious safety-first manifesto?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you will find some interesting things in the manifesto when it comes, perhaps I can just say that.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Bangalore Airport – 9 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at Bangalore Airport on 9th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted, at the invitation of Prime Minister Deve Gowda, to be visiting his home state of Karnataka and its capital, Bangalore.
    Karnataka, and Bangalore in particular, have become synonymous with the growth and economic dynamism of the new India. British business is keen and well placed to play a significant part in that growth. Many leading British companies, such as Rolls Royce, British Aerospace, Coats Viyella, Brooke Bond, Lipton India Ltd, to name but a few, are already well established in Karnataka. Others, like Kvaerner John Brown Engineering (India) and Courtaulds Coatings, are more recently arrived. The President of the Board of Trade and a group of some fifty very senior representatives from a wide range of British business are accompanying me. They will be looking for further opportunities to expand the two-way trade between India and Britain that has flourished so successfully under the Indo-British Partnership.

    During my visit, I look forward to visiting:

    – Hindustan Aeronautics, with whom both Rolls Royce and British Aerospace have a long-standing and successful relationship;
    – Kvaerner John Brown Engineering (India), at the cutting edge of computer-driven design engineering;
    – Standard Chartered Bank, to inaugurate the Bangalore-based headquarters of their new all-India credit card operation.

    I also look forward to meeting representatives of the British charity Action Aid, who celebrate their 25th anniversary this year and have their all-India headquarters in Bangalore. Action Aid are cooperating closely with the Indian associate of the Prince of Wales Young Business Leaders’ Forum in launching a CD-Rom which will make more widely available crucial information on health, education, training and other development issues.

    In short, my visit will be an excellent opportunity to identify new business and investment opportunities in Karnataka, which can be developed to the mutual benefit of our two countries.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing en route to Calcutta – 8 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing en route to Calcutta, on Wednesday 8th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to take your time for more than a second. Just really to say that I hope you will enjoy the trip, you know where we are going, I think Jonathan has taken you in detail through the agenda, so I won’t traipse through all that again.

    The genesis of this visit was a meeting I had with the Confederation of Indian Industry at Downing Street last summer, June/July, I forget precisely when it was, it was the day that Ganguly was taking a very large 100 off England at Lords, I can tell you that, but I can’t remember the exact date. And they invited me to come and address their main event of the year, which will be their seminar on Thursday afternoon, when I hope to deliver a fairly substantial speech, largely about international trade, markets and business-related matters.

    When they invited me to come, and I accepted, it seemed a suitable opportunity to bring with us a business delegation and I think you have seen the size and composition of the business delegation.

    It isn’t the biggest ever to leave the United Kingdom, but it is probably as high powered as any that has ever left the United Kingdom, I think Ian Lang and Michael Heseltine have both taken larger numbers of businessmen but I don’t think there has been a better quality in terms of seniority of British businessmen travelling abroad on a single trip in the past.

    This isn’t a trip to look for short term contracts. There will be quite a few contracts signed when we first get there, but they are not the product particularly of this visit, they are the product of a great deal of work over the last few months. The businessmen who are here are largely here looking for long term contracts. The Indians are extremely good to do business with, but contracts don’t get signed and sealed in a day, so they will be here as part of a long term relationship with India and I hope we will be able to open a few doors for them that otherwise might have remained closed. Certainly we are discussing with some of the businessmen the sort of things that we can do that might be helpful for them.

    While we are here also we will take an opportunity of looking at some of the aid projects. We want to look at some of the drug liaison effort that is going on, that is one of the principal reasons for going to the Khyber Pass, apart from its historical significance, and a chance for seeing the Khyber Rifles. So hope it will be both a worthwhile and an interesting trip.

    We are going on also to Bangladesh, I have never visited Bangladesh before, and on to Pakistan. In each of the three countries the purpose of the visit is predominantly trade, perhaps a little less so in Bangladesh, but certainly a trade interest in Bangladesh as well.

    I don’t think there is really much more I wish to say at the outset. If you have any questions on business-related matters, or the visit, I will happily try and answer them, or pass them on to Ian if they fall into his bailiwick.

    What I would just suggest in conclusion, if it appeals to any of you. I suggest when we have finished this brief discussion that we might go a little back in the plane and have a glass of champagne, or two, and we will try and persuade the businessmen to come and join us and you will be able to get a feel perhaps from them if you wish to of the advantages that they see of the visit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    There were a couple of pieces in the paper today about how tense the situation is in Pakistan. Is it your plan to see Benazir Bhutto and obviously people are going to ask would you be willing to meet Imran Khan if he was available?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there are any plans for me to meet Imran Khan, though I have met him before in the past of course. I know Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto quite well, we have met many times in the past, and I think it is highly likely I will see both of them. I should add that I don’t intend to get involved in internal Pakistani domestic politics, but I have known both of them of old, it would be extremely odd if I didn’t meet them.

    QUESTION:

    A few question marks have been raised about the fact that you should be going abroad when there is so much happening at home and the election campaign is under way. Do you think that it is a bit odd to leave things without you in charge while so much is going on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think helping our trade effort abroad is quite important as well. The election is important when it comes in due course but the normal activities of government have to go on in the interim. And here we have the 50th anniversary of Independence in India, I think that is a pretty significant event in India and it is a pretty significant event as far as the United Kingdom are concerned too, so I certainly wish to mark the beginning of that with a visit, and of course the trading interest which continues.

    So I think it is quite right. Government and the normal activities of government have to proceed. The election is important, it will come in due course, but it doesn’t dominate or eliminate all other activities in government, I think it is quite right to come.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Way Forward Dinner – 3 February 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Way Forward Dinner on 3rd February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When you first invited me to address this dinner some six months ago, I was delighted to accept.

    Your very name begs questions we are wise to address: I’d like to set out some thoughts tonight on the way forward on the economy, on Europe and on Northern Ireland. But before I turn to these, let me touch on the wider question.

    There’s often the tendency to search for a new Holy Grail – a single big idea to enthuse the mind and attract the millions.

    In truth, one idea – however big – won’t do.

    The world changes continually – faster today than ever before – and we must catch and mould that change. That is why I have put in train Policy Groups not only to provide the widest possible review of the right policies for the next Election, but for the new Millennium as well.

    These groups will look at Britain’s role in the world, and the opportunities that lie ahead.

    This will be wide-ranging. And I would certainly welcome contributions from Conservative Way Forward.

    Of course, some will say “We’ve won 4 successive General Elections. Why change?” The answer is we won 4 successive General Elections because we changed. We changed the way governments fought inflation, fought union power, reduced punitive levels of personal taxation and increased our prestige in the world.

    These changes played to our natural instincts. They also reflected what people wanted – articulated what people felt. They put the country first and they increased choice, opportunity and freedom. Now and always, that is always the right way forward for the Conservative Party.

    We are different from other political parties. We are not interested in the nanny state. We’re not interested in managing a graceful decline for our country. We have faith in Britain and in the talents of the British people. We believe Britain’s influence can grow. We plan to make it grow. And we have a lineage and maturity unmatched by any other British political party.

    Our broad objectives are simply stated. First, to build a more powerful economy without which all our other ambitions fail. Second, to lift our national ambitions, and exercise our influence both in Europe and the wider world.

    Over recent years, national morale has been bruised. The recession hurt. It was longer and deeper than anyone expected. But the point is, we’re through it. It’s over. Its time for Britain to be more confident. To reassert our merchant venturing spirit. To be more outward looking and assertive. And we’re right to be so because we’ve come out of our difficulties in better economic shape than anyone imagined.

    That hasn’t happened by magic, by chance. It’s happened because we’ve taken economic decisions to build long-term success, not short-term popularity. We ignored siren voices with quack remedies; those who said don’t worry about the deficit, it’ll go away; go soft on inflation, it won’t rise. We said no.

    And because we did we are now on track to deliver stable growth and low inflation for the long-term. The prospects are good. The pessimists are being confounded. They said

    – manufacturing was dead. It’s expanding.

    – The trade gap would widen. It’s narrowing.

    – Inflation would take off. It hasn’t.

    – Unemployment would reach 5 million. It’s half that and falling.

    The pundits have recast the old phrase “no news is good news”. Now it seems to be “good news is no news”. Well, let me offer an alternative news summary.

    Last year we had growth of 4 per cent. More than anyone else in Europe. That 4 per cent growth went into investment and exports. It packaged the feel-good factor and has cut unemployment by 500,000 over the past two years.

    Exports are booming. Month after month new records are set.

    Not many years ago our motor industry was a basket case. Now we are set to be a net exporter of motorcars.

    A few years ago the British steel industry was at death’s door. Now it is one of our top ten exporters.

    A few years ago the British motorbike industry was ridden off the road. Now British companies are exporting high value motorcycles to the Japanese.

    The fact is British industry is hugely competitive. It’s penetrating markets more deeply than ever before and it is doing so while its markets are still coming out of recession. As they grow, so should our exports.

    Let me just offer one final thought for our alternative news summary. It illustrates our changing circumstances very vividly. When you put visible and invisible trade together, the United Kingdom is now in surplus with Japan.

    All this is important because economic success not only creates jobs, but yields taxes to enable us both to meet our social ambitions and diminish the impact of tax.

    It means as the economy grows, we can return to our tax cutting agenda.

    The policies of the other parties are to put taxes up. The Liberal Democrats have kindly pointed that out by costing Labour’s programme and calculating it would put 5p on the standard rate of tax. The fact is; as Labour head for 30p, I tell you this: we’re still heading for 20p.

    Let me turn now to Europe.

    Europe is important. It is important for our security, and for our industry. Economic well being is at the heart of our European policy. The European market is half of our trade. It is the main reason why companies in Japan, Korea, the United States choose to invest in the UK. It’s one reason why the City remains the world’s leading financial centre.

    So Europe’s future matters to us. To our livelihood. To our living standards. To our jobs. We should debate it. And we have an obligation to shape it and make it congenial to us. The basis of our approach is the framework I set out at Leiden. Let me hammer home some of the points.

    We must have an intelligent, informed and commonsense debate about what is best for the United Kingdom and for the prosperity of Europe as a whole. I believe we are developing a policy that will command the support of the broad mass of the British people.

    It is high time we de-mystified next year’s Intergovernmental Conference. We want it to succeed. We should strip away the speculation and the scare stories and look at the realities.

    I know many people fear the IGC is going to take a leap towards a centralised, high-spend, interventionist Europe.

    But it isn’t. It is not what the people of Europe want. It is not what their economies need. And it is not what a growing number of Europe’s leaders expect. And it is not what Douglas Hurd and I will accept.

    Popular opinion across Europe can’t be ignored.

    Ambitious schemes for centralism simply will not get through. Britain for one will not accept them. Nor will electorates across Europe, where in many countries a referendum would have to be held.

    What we will aim for is a more flexible European Union. That is the only way forward which makes sense as Europe enlarges.

    A Europe of 15, possibly 20 around the turn of the century and more than 25 beyond that, cannot be the same as a Europe of 6. Talk of fast track and slow track misses the point. We do not all have to do the same things at the same time in the same way and we shall resist pressure to do so. Unless Europe is flexible it will simply grind to a halt.

    In the negotiations, a balance will have to be found between competing interests. I’ve set out recently some areas where our position is firm. Ken Clarke made the point again yesterday. We cannot accept that sterling should be part of a single currency in ‘96 or ‘97. We don’t believe anyone could sensibly want to go ahead then but, if they do, we wouldn’t be with them. Nor can we accept a prejudgement – one way or the other – about some unknown time in the future. The right for our Parliament to take the decision it wants when it wants is undoubted.

    That lies in the future. To say “yes” now or “no” now is to operate on hunch not facts. No one knows what future economic circumstances will be. I will tell you my fear: unless economic conditions were right, a single currency would tear the European Union apart. And, by the right economic conditions, the Government does not only mean the Maastricht criteria – they are a necessary but not a sufficient condition to justify a single currency. Ken Clarke will go into further detail on this next week. The plain fact is that the powerful forces of free markets will massively determine these events. And they cannot accurately be foreseen now.

    Nor will we agree to a more prescriptive, centralist Europe, or removal of the nation states veto. The Cabinet are clear about that and our European partners know our views. Moreover, although they may only mutter it sotto voce, a number of our partners agree with us on these points.

    But to categorise this position as though it was our only view on Europe, and therefore – to use the buzz words – “sceptical” or “negative” or “anti” European is just plain wrong. We have our own vision of Europe and we are going to set it out and fight for it just as does every other nation in Europe.

    We will have a detailed menu of positive changes to improve Europe; to make it more responsive to the needs and concerns of its peoples; to make it more effective and more efficient; to make sure it works to our advantage.

    For example, the Single European Market is of huge importance to Britain. We were pioneers in creating it. We have to make sure that its rules are kept.

    We need also to improve the common European contribution to NATO and Malcolm Rifkind and Douglas Hurd have worked long and hard on our plans to do so.

    In this area, Britain must lead Europe and we are well placed to do so. For the Community itself, we need fewer laws but better laws; and we need those laws properly enforced right across the Union. For example, we are rightly concerned about fraud. We know it takes place in nation states. So we need a better mechanism to stop it. Clearly the UK cannot stop fraud in another EU country, so we need a cross-European mechanism to do so. We will need to provide those powers and Michael Howard’s proposals will help achieve this.

    We need recognition that those who make the largest contribution and have the largest populations should have a larger say. So voting weight and patterns need to be considered.

    We need to re-examine and review the institutions of the European Union.

    To re-inforce the democratic authority of the Council of Ministers as the voice of the nation states.

    To make the role of the European Parliament more relevant. To ensure it exercises effective scrutiny of the Commission’s work. And we need also to involve national parliaments more in the legislative process.

    We need fewer Commissioners and a more efficient, cost-conscious Commission. We need to continue to reduce the burden on business and to oppose unnecessary intervention and regulation.

    This list is simply illustrative of the matters we must consider as we approach the IGC.

    One thing above all rules my approach to Europe. Not impractical, elitist opinion, pro or anti. Not dogma or emotion. But a hard-headed view of what is best for this country and for Europe.

    I know there are plenty of things wrong with Europe that we must change. But there are also plenty of opportunities in Europe that we must take.

    We would not help our national interest by turning away or simply trying to obstruct. We help our national interest by changing what is wrong and convincing people of our case. We have a good case. One that suits this country. One that will improve Europe for all its participants. We should not shrink from putting that case and we will not.

    Next year’s Conference will give us an opportunity to do so and we should approach it in that spirit.

    From Europe, let me return to the UK.

    This has been a difficult week for Northern Ireland.

    People have been unsettled. Rumours and fears have swirled around that could damage the prospects of peace.

    I’ve never promised that the present initiatives would lead to a permanent peace.

    I hope they will.

    I pray they will.

    But I’ve never promised.

    These negotiations are difficult and delicate. We’re seeking to overcome generations of mistrust and put in place a better future.

    In preparing a Framework Document, we’re doing what the parties asked us to do. Proposing ideas to help the political talks. And that is what they are – ideas. There’s not a prescription that is going to be imposed.

    I believe it would be a tragedy if this process failed – and a double tragedy if it failed on the back of a misconception. So let me deal with some of the points that worry people.

    Are we going to remove British citizenship from those who cherish it?

    This is inconceivable.

    The people of Northern Ireland are British.

    But they also have long had a right – if they so choose – to citizenship of the Republic.

    We have no intention of changing this.

    The birthright of Northern Ireland’s people, from either tradition, is not an issue.

    Is it true, as The Times said, that a North/South body will “make policy” towards the European Union?

    This is nonsense.

    The European Union deals with all sorts of people right across the United Kingdom. It is helping in Northern Ireland.

    But making policy is a wholly different matter. The Government of the United Kingdom represents Northern Ireland at all levels in Europe. We shall continue to do so. There’s no question of surrendering control of European policy to any other body – in Northern Ireland or elsewhere.

    But what about this plan for the British and Irish Governments to intervene jointly in Northern Ireland? For some over-arching mechanism?

    Let me put it very simply. There will be no joint sovereignty, no joint authority between London and Dublin, and no joint intervention by the British and Irish Governments. I cannot be clearer than that.

    If problems arose, and I naturally hope they wouldn’t, it would be the United Kingdom Government’s responsibility to deal with them – and ours alone. That is our role, and our responsibility.

    Are the people of Northern Ireland going to be on a slippery slope?

    Of course not. The consent principle is our foundation stone.

    The parties must consent to any outcome. And when they have done so the people must consent in a referendum.

    Am I going to be a “persuader” for a united Ireland?

    The answer emphatically is – No.

    Some time ago, I said about Scotland that “no nation can be held within a Union against its will”.

    Equally, the people of Northern Ireland cannot and will not be forced out of the Union against their will.

    They have a constitutional guarantee.

    For my part, I cherish the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland’s part in it.

    So I take the view it is not for the Government to tell the people of Northern Ireland what their future should be. It is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide that future for themselves.

    To all of these concerns, there is one fundamental answer.

    The sole purpose of the Framework Document will be to help the parties reach agreement. There will be no outcome to these talks unless the parties agree. And the outcome will not be implemented unless the people of Northern Ireland vote for it.

    That is why I repeat that they have nothing to fear.

    Let me also mention the exploratory talks with Sinn Fein and the Loyalist representatives.

    This is an unprecedented dialogue with an unprecedented backcloth.

    In the past 5 months, two murders have tarnished the peace.

    But during the “ceasefire” of 20 years ago, there were around 150 violent deaths.

    A different climate is being established.

    Our assurances have been critical to the dialogue.

    We said that there had been no secret deals to favour one side over the other.

    We promised a level and open playing field – for all who would live by peaceful, democratic rules.

    And on this basis, talks are taking place.

    What matters is that everyone should be ready to talk about all these issues, however difficult.

    Then we can make progress.

    I have no illusions about the task.

    But we shall not concede to the fear of failure.

    For what is the alternative?

    As Archbishop Robin Eames said yesterday:

    “I cannot see an alternative to a political process, an alternative to patient groping on the way forward. The price of failure is to return to where we have come from, to constant human cost in lives and everything else.”

    There is no more to be said.

    At the next election the stakes will be high. There are differences between we Conservatives and the opposition on the economy, on Europe, on the constitution, on health, on education. Right the way across the present Government agenda.

    No one should fear that there is not a distinctive choice to be made.

    The next election will determine whether our world-beating industries stay competitive or sink under a morass of rules from Whitehall and Brussels.

    It will determine whether the state will take ever more money out of the pockets of the people, or whether we will get back to the natural Tory principle of reducing taxes as fast as possible.

    It will determine whether we continue to be a self-determining nation state or not.

    In the 1990s we can build on the great achievements which we have made since 1979 – or we can throw it all away, giving power to the very people who resisted each and every one of the changes that have revolutionised the lives of Britain’s people.

    This fight matters as much as any we have conducted before. These are the policies I believe in. These are the policies I am going to fight for and with which I believe we’ll win.

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MICHAEL HESELTINE:

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

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

    DAVID HUNT:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MICHAEL HESELTINE:

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

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, why do you look so grim?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    DAVID HUNT:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    DAVID HUNT:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    DAVID HUNT:

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

    JOHN PATTEN:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    MICHAEL HESELTINE:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MICHAEL HESELTINE:

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

    PANEL SPEAKER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    WILLIAM WALDEGRAVE:

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

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

    KENNETH CLARKE:

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    DAVID HUNT:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    KENNETH CLARKE:

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    MICHAEL HESELTINE:

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

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

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

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

    JOHN PATTEN:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    DAVID HUNT:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    JOHN MACGREGOR:

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

    JOHN GUMMER:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the 1993 GATT Negotiations – 16 December 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on 16th December 1993 on the GATT Negotiations.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the successful conclusion of the world trade negotiations.

    In Geneva yesterday, trade negotiators from 117 countries reached the most wide-ranging agreement ever. After seven years of long, hard and often fraught negotiations, it is a superb outcome. It is a result for which industry, commerce and consumers alike have pressed; it is a conclusion for which this Government have worked tirelessly through many crises, when protectionism threatened British markets and British jobs.

    The new GATT settlement will help British industry by bringing down barriers to exports of manufactured goods and services. It will give manufacturers greater protection against piracy of their copyright, patents and designs. It will bring down prices for consumers – particularly of food, electronics and other manufactured goods; and it will strengthen the world trading system against unfair practices by individual countries.

    Britain is the fifth largest exporter in the world of goods and commercial services. We export more per person than either the United States or Japan. Our markets are already among the most open. We stand, therefore, to be one of the biggest gainers from cuts in worldwide tariffs, quotas and other restrictions.

    Sharp reductions in some very high tariffs in the United States and Japan will help Britain in strategic markets. The overall tariff reductions, across all countries of the world, will be around 40 per cent. An independent study by McGraw-Hill has indicated that a new GATT agreement could add up to 4 per cent. to our national output, generating up to 400,000 extra jobs over the next decade.

    The European economies, as a group, are estimated to be the biggest single gainer; so the GATT deal can be expected to give a much-needed boost to confidence and recovery in our biggest export markets.

    As late as last weekend, there was a real and frightening danger that negotiations might unravel. The world faced a choice between a retreat into protectionism, slump and higher unemployment, and free trade, growth and jobs. Happily, the right choice has been made. The director general of the CBI has rightly called this outcome ‘a momentous and welcome event”.’ This Government have fought consistently to keep the negotiations going. It has been a long struggle. Last year, we faced the prospect not only of failure, but of a lurch into trade war between Europe and the United States.

    Exports from Europe were threatened by new and punitive American tariffs. We were able to use our presidency of the European Community to get both sides back to the negotiating table and make progress on farm trade. We encouraged the new United States Administration to extend congressional authority in order to permit the GATT round to be concluded. We pressed for the agreement on tariffs at last summer’s Tokyo summit – another crucial meeting and another crucial building block in the final result.

    At this autumn’s Commonwealth summit, we launched a special mission to all the key Governments of the developed world. This sent the clearest possible signal on behalf of one quarter of the world’s population that free trade was a prize for developing countries too. Trade, more than aid, is the most certain route to economic development.

    I believe that very great credit is due to Sir Leon Brittan, the European Community’s negotiator; and to Peter Sutherland, the director general of GATT. But others have played a crucial part, including the United States negotiator, Micky Kantor. All three had the courage to take on their tasks at a time when it was far from certain that they would be rewarded by success.

    Let me outline the main features of the agreement. First, excellent progress has been made on industrial goods but final details are still being worked out. A number of our largest export markets will move towards the total abolition of tariffs in industries which include pharmaceuticals, steel products and spirits. For example, the Scotch whisky industry, which already has exports totalling about £2 billion a year, will benefit from the complete abolition of Japanese tariffs.

    Cuts in high United States tariffs on scientific equipment, chemicals, steel and ceramics, for example, will help in one of our biggest markets. Our textile manufacturers will gain from tariff cuts in the United States, and gain greater access to many economies along the Pacific rim.

    Secondly, for the first time agriculture will be fully covered by GATT rules. Tariffs are being cut and subsidies reduced substantially, offering families in this country the prospect of lower prices of staple foods. In Europe, we have already begun the process of reducing farm production subsidies. Overall, those subsidies cost every family around £20 a week. The changes to the common agricultural policy which are already agreed, should – if passed on to the consumer – over a period lead to price cuts equal to 20p off a pound of beef or 6p off a pound of butter. Under the GATT agreement, other countries – notably, Japan and the United States – will now have to cut their agriculture tariff subsidies as well.

    Thirdly, for the first time we have an international set of rules for free trade in services – the fastest growing sector of the world economy. Services account for two thirds of our output in the United Kingdom but only about one quarter of our exports; so, if we can break down barriers to trade, there is great potential for growth. The services covered range from insurance to consultancy. Many countries have made commitments on financial, telecommunication and transport services. This is only a start. Further negotiations with the United States must follow on maritime and financial services. But in the meantime we have maintained the City of London in a position in which it will attract new international business.

    Fourthly, with regard to so-called intellectual property, the law of the jungle still rules in too much of the world. Expensive research and development by British pharmaceutical companies can be pirated – in effect, stolen – by countries which offer no protection for patents. The same is true of Britain’s record industry, which estimates that as much as half of its market in the developing world is stolen by pirates. For the first time, we now have an agreed set of international rules on which we can begin to rely in our fight to give these industries the markets which they have a right to expect.

    Free trade increases the need for businesses to be internationally competitive, but in Britain, we have world-class companies ready for the challenge. This new GATT settlement removes the threat of collapse in the world trade system – a system on which economic growth has been based for nearly half a century. It extends the benefits of trading rules into vast new areas of business. It brings further welcome reductions in tariffs on British goods. it is a platform for recovery, growth and jobs in Britain, the European Community and the rest of the world. I commend it to the House.

    Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East) I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The Opposition also welcome the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. It has been a long and torturous negotiation, but the result, although long overdue, is an important step forward for the world economy. Having had responsibility for the Tokyo round, I know how difficult and detailed such negotiations can be.

    Preserving an open and fair trading system is vital for growth, jobs and prosperity not just in this country but round the world. The dangers of beggar-my-neighbour protectionism must always be resisted.

    The GATT agreement is, however, only a start. Does the Prime Minister agree that, for Britain to succeed, we must put far more effort into promoting our export performance in manufacturing and services? Will the Government recognise that following the deal, it is now even more vital that we invest in people and in their skills to ensure that we succeed in international trade by competing on the quality of the goods that we produce and the skills of our work force rather than on low wages and a self-defeating spiral of low skills and poor job security?

    On the details of the Geneva agreement, I welcome the new agreements on intellectual property, which tackle the piracy of counterfeit goods and provide security for British companies that invest in the research and development of new products.

    On the failure to reach a settlement on trade in financial services, is it the case that access to trade in those services in the United States will remain restricted? That is clearly a matter of considerable concern to the financial services industry in Britain. What steps do the Government intend to take to push forward negotiations to include financial services fully within the GATT framework?

    On the environment, will the new Multilateral Trade Organisation be given a remit to recognise the importance in the modern world of linking economic development with environmental protection?

    What changes have been made to the Blair house agreement to accommodate French agricultural interests? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the deal in no way prejudices the urgent need to continue to reform and control the costs of the common agricultural policy? In relation to the proposed MTO, which will supersede the GATT secretariat, are we satisfied with the procedures for trade disputes? Can we be assured that the MTO will cover concerns for environmental protection and fair employment standards?

    Does the Prime Minister agree that steps should also be taken to strengthen the role of the International Labour Organisation, and in particular to encourage enforcement of its conventions on fair labour standards and especially to help stamp out child labour? Although we welcome the benefits to consumers at the prospect of reduced tariffs on textile imports, surely no one in this country wants to buy products made by children in sweatshops that have no concern for basic human rights.

    Although GATT offers important trading benefits for the developing world as a whole, do the Government recognise the special difficulties for Africa, which will probably gain little from this specific agreement? For that reason, can I urge the Government and the international community to do much more to reduce and write off the outstanding debts of the poorest countries? While trade is vital to the expansion of the world economy, can more be done to encourage new lending, investment and official aid so that all regions in the world can participate in the economic growth that we hope will occur?

    The Prime Minister Let me deal with the specific points that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has raised.

    On the question of promoting exports, I am delighted to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, at present, our exports are running at record levels. As he will know, we have provided more extensive and cheaper export cover to assist our export promotion. We have reorganised most of our overseas postings to ensure that greater assistance is given to British business men abroad.

    A large number of trade missions have been led by senior Ministers and others in the Government, most of whom have come back with substantial order books. At the moment, we are examining what further measures can be taken to provide an even better service for our exporters in the future. I have no doubt that, with the reduction of tariffs overseas and the increased scope in services and in manufacturing, there is a remarkable opportunity for British companies, at a time when they are competitive and in a position to take advantage of that opportunity. We shall certainly proceed with that.

    I share with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the regret that we did not get further on financial services, because it was not possible for the various countries to agree on a final conclusion. Some progress has been made. The sector is now covered by trade rules and there have been a number of major gains for United Kingdom companies. For example, United Kingdom banks and insurance companies will be guaranteed the right to do business in Canada on the same basis as United States and Canadian firms, although it is disappointing that a fuller result for that sector has not been achieved. We have fought hard to ensure that openness in the European Community market will be maintained and we won that battle in Brussels.

    There is no question that development will be at the expense of the environment, and I do not believe that anyone seriously imagines that that will be a problem.

    There were detailed renegotiations on Blair house at the margins some time ago. There were no changes to the Blair house agreement as a result of the European Community meeting over the weekend and expenditure on the common agricultural policy will be restrained under the ceilings that were agreed at the Edinburgh summit, in terms of the financial perspective of the Community.

    I do not have any quarrel with the outcome on the trade dispute mechanism. I do not have the same affection for the ILO as the right hon. and learned Gentleman – that is a difference between us, as I am sure that he knows – but I share his views about child labour–[Interruption.] I am about to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman precisely what has been done about it, if he will listen. The activities of child labour lead to dumping. In the Community we have powerful mechanisms to act against dumping and they were improved so that action could be taken more speedily at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    As for Africa, it is the view of the African states that this GATT round is of assistance to them. They made that perfectly clear at the Commonwealth conference where a large number of African states, both rich and poor – [Interruption.] Hon. Members may be interested to know that those members of the Commonwealth wholly support the outcome of the GATT round. The area of greatest difficulty, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who is not in her place, has said, is sub-Saharan Africa. As I said to the hon. Lady, if it turns out that the sub-Saharan countries face particular difficulty, our long historical connection means that we shall certainly do what we can to provide further assistance, both bilaterally and in other ways.

    To ensure that they get further assistance with their debt, Opposition Members may be aware of the Trinidad terms initiative that I launched in 1989-90, which is by far the most generous write-off of debt that the world has ever seen. We have written off a large amount of debt under than and we are still pressing some people in the Paris Club to do so. I believe that we shall be successful. It is the view of the countries that benefit under those Trinidad terms that it is by far the most comprehensive and most generous write-off of capital and revenue debt that has ever been proposed and carried through.

    Mr. Paul Channon (Southend, West) Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is a long time since the start of the negotiations, when I spent a happy week in Punta del Este with Mr. Alan Clark, among others? He has not yet described it in his diaries. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the achievements of the British delegation? I especially congratulate Sir Leon Brittan, as my right hon. Friend rightly did, and we must not forget Mr. Arthur Dunkel, who was the director general of GATT for many years, and who was a tremendous support in the early days of this round.

    In agreeing with my right hon. Friend about the importance of the conclusions to trade throughout the world and to prosperity, may I ask him to say a little more about what will happen to financial services? At the start of the negotiations, the American delegation was among the keenest that there should be freedom of trade in financial services. What has happened? Are there now proposals to proceed with the negotiations at a later date in some other forum? What will happen on financial services? It must be very much in the interests of Britain, as well as of many other delegations, that the process should not come to an end and that further steps should be taken.

    The Prime Minister I agree with my right hon. Friend about that point. He is right in his supposition that there will be further negotiations on financial services; I hope that they can be carried forward speedily. It is unsatisfactory that we did not get further on financial services on this occasion. Having voiced that disappointment, I believe that one should not lose sight of the fact that this is by far the widest and most comprehensive world trade settlement, with large areas previously not within GATT now brought within it. It provides for a much more liberal world trading system and it is the biggest single advance in free trade for many years.

    My right hon. Friend speaks with some knowledge of the matter. He was Minister for Trade and President of the Council of Ministers during the early stages of the GATT round. I join in his congratulations to Sir Leon Brittan and to Arthur Dunkel. They can both be proud of what they have achieved.

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) The Prime Minister is right to say that this is a good day for the world and a good day for Britain. However, is it not the case that, for Britain to take advantage of increasingly open world markets, we shall have to do much more to build a high-value-added, high-investment, high-skill economy than has been done so far under this Government?

    The Prime Minister is right to welcome the extensive debt write-off and the development assistance. However, if third-world countries are to have access to the opportunities that the end of the Uruguay round has presented, more attention will have to be paid to that area.

    Many people will have greatly welcomed the Prime Minister’s comment to the leader of the Labour party that he recognised that development damaged the environment. Does he, therefore, agree that almost the first task of the new Multilateral Trade Organisation should be seriously to consider environmental factors and the means by which we can incorporate environmental costs into the world trading system?

    The Prime Minister The fact that our exports are growing at a remarkable rate while overseas markets are very flat, especially in the European Community, suggests that to an extent greater than that for which the right hon. Gentleman gives them credit, our British exports are adding substantial value and are penetrating markets deeply as a result. One illustration is the German market. It is in substantial decline at the moment, yet British exports to Germany have increased; we have taken a much larger share of a much smaller market. That is substantially because of our competitiveness and because of the high-value-added nature of so many British exports.

    There is sometimes a tendency – I do not attribute this to the right hon gentleman – to think especially of manufacturing in the old sense of large, labour-intensive manufacturing industries. In the constituencies of almost every hon. Member, there are now small, medium and high technology businesses which are, in essence, manufacturing industries. They now export around the world, not least to such places as Japan, against very stiff competition.

    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about debt write-off. The original Toronto terms, introduced by Lord Lawson when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Trinidad terms have been well ahead of what the rest of the world was prepared to contemplate in terms of debt write-off at that time.

    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the third world. One of the most comprehensive ways in which we can help countries in the third world is not to close our markets to their exports. That is why I welcome so much of the Uruguay round outcome. It opens markets to the third world to a far greater extent than ever before. The outcome is not perfect; it does not go all the way. However, it does a great deal more than ever before and offers substantial incentives to third-world countries to develop their exports.

    Mr. John Townend (Bridlington) I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the enormous effort that he has put into the agreement which is of great benefit to Britain. Does he agree, however, that there is considerable resentment in this country at the intransigence of the French, who demanded compensation for their farmers from the Community budget as a condition of agreeing to the GATT talks? Will he tell us how much that that will cost the EC budget, and what our proportion will be?

    The Prime Minister A number of countries during the round were pretty intransigent from time to time, although perhaps the difficulties faced in France got rather higher profile publicity than most. I know that the GATT agreement has caused the French Prime Minister considerable domestic difficulties. I do not particularly wish to add to them now. It is worth looking at what the agricultural agreement does: it reduces Community tariffs by 36 per cent. and cuts exports subsidies substantially. That was the essence of the Blair house agreement, and that has been maintained despite what may be said in other capitals.

    Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside) Where does the British aerospace industry stand? What is the fate of the airbus? Why was the issue of aerospace taken out of GATT? Is the vendetta by the American President against airbus now over?

    The Prime Minister The reason why those aspects of civil aviation were taken out of the round at the last minute was simply that agreement on them could not be reached. But the British aerospace industry will continue to be covered by the present Community and United States bilateral arrangements. That means that the position stays as it is now and that it has not – as the hon. Gentleman and many others feared–been worsened by the outcome of this round.

    It has been agreed that the Community and the United States will now negotiate for another year. I should say, for it might reassure the hon. Gentleman, that the United States has agreed to negotiate on the basis of the GATT Committee chairman’s draft text, which currently provides for a reduction in United States indirect support for its industry. The Commission, as our negotiator, will continue to insist on the inclusion of aero engines and indirect support. The outcome should protect United Kingdom interests. The hon. Gentleman need have no doubt that we will press our negotiators very firmly on that point.

    Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) My right hon. Friend will recall that my constituency in Leicestershire has many farmers and many people who are engaged in the knitwear, hosiery and textile industries. Does he recall that, following the Tokyo summit, he informed the House about his hopes for a reduction of the United States tariff barriers for British textiles? Will his hopes that we shared when he returned from Tokyo be realised following the GATT agreement? I join other hon. Members in congratulating him and his team, particularly Sir Leon Brittan, in their achievement.

    The Prime Minister The changes to the textile industry are helpful, but not as helpful as we expected them to be when we returned from Tokyo. The changes since Tokyo have meant that the extremely favourable changes that we had then are now less favourable. Securing improved market access for our textile exports was a priority for us in the negotiations.

    The agreement that the industry negotiated some months ago improved market access. We have been able to build on that in the Uruguay round and significant cuts have been agreed in a number of United States textile peaks. That is very valuable for our textile exporters and it is something that they have long sought. That is undiluted good news. It is not as good news as it looked as though it would be after Tokyo. Good news it is; superb news it is not.

    Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) Will the Prime Minister explain the phrase “unfair practices” which, according to his statement, are controlled under GATT? Does it, for example, include any control of child labour, or is he relying entirely on anti-dumping practices? He should know that, when dealing with the EC, most industries find it dilatory and inefficient in dealing with anti-dumping practices. Should not GATT have a social clause to give people in other countries health and safety at work rights, and trade union rights to ensure that they are employed under proper and decent working conditions? Are we not exploiting workers and child labour badly in order to receive their products in this country?

    The Prime Minister As I said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, just today the Community improved its mechanisms for dealing with dumping, in terms of producing a more speedy response. I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that, sometimes, across the Community, it has taken longer to respond to dumping than might ideally have been the case. I believe that that was corrected in the agreements made by my right hon. Friend the other day. We are trying to deal with the problem. The other circumstances that he set out lead to goods being produced and then sold at below the proper world market level. That is the definition of dumping, so I believe that we shall catch the practices about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

    Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on what has been achieved, particularly in agriculture, heralding as it does the end of competitively subsidised dumping on the world market and, we hope, the gradual phasing out of price support and the iniquitous set-aside scheme with which we in Europe have got stuck. While I recognise that it was probably inevitable, although regrettable, that the French had to be bought off with extra compensation, if necessary, for their small farmers, will he ensure that not only does that not exceed the guidelines already laid down for expenditure but that it is not paid out at the expense of compensation already agreed for British farmers?

    The Prime Minister Perhaps I should make clear to the House what happened with the French over the weekend. No agreement to provide the French with what I saw described in one Sunday newspaper as “billions of pounds” was made last weekend. The agreement reached was that the ceilings on expenditure in the Community will remain as agreed at Edinburgh before the Blair house agreement was renegotiated. The view of the Commission and most of the member states, is that the GATT agreement is compatible with common agricultural policy reform, so the question of extra compensation will not arise.

    Even if it were to arise, it is agreed that there is no question of increasing the sums of expenditure. It is a free expression to suggest that there will be billions of extra pounds for French farmers. That flatly is not the case. When asked, after the conclusion of the European Council, whether French farmers had won extra money during the Council, I replied, “Not a penny.” I reply again, “Not a penny.”

    Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) I congratulate the Prime Minister on his recognition that sub-Saharan Africa will benefit little if at all from the GATT negotiations. That is a positive start. Will he look at the wretched rules of origin, which cause so many difficulties for such countries as Guinea-Bissau and Guinea-Conakry in terms of the export of their agricultural and fishery products?

    The Prime Minister I am not familiar with the details of that problem, but I shall seek advice on the rules of origin and have a look at them. To pick up the earlier point about the poorest countries – as I said, a large number of them are sub-Saharan countries – 19 of them have benefited from the reduction of $1.75 billion of their debt, under the Trinidad terms.

    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) Is European culture really such a pathetic withering little flower that it needs protection by the state? If French films are so good, surely people will flock to see them without state intervention. While the role of Great Britain and the Prime Minister in securing the GATT round was crucial, is it not a shame, given that we believe in free choice and open markets, that we backed that French demand which, in whatever sophistry it is cloaked, is nothing more than an unpleasant combination of censorship and protectionism?

    The Prime Minister As my hon. Friend knows, we would have preferred to have reached an agreement on audiovisual matters. A number of others would have preferred such an agreement to be reached. It was not possible. In the circumstances, the only option to protect the gains in the round was to take the audio-visual matters entirely out of the GATT agreement. Like my hon. Friend, I regret that. I hope that we can negotiate a satisfactory arrangement soon.

    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Cunninghame, South) Given the Prime Minister’s earlier answer to the question on the aerospace industry, can he tell us how small aircraft will be affected? There is a potential problem with Jetstream in the Ayrshire area. Will the Prime Minister assure us that that matter will be included in any negotiations with the United States?

    The Prime Minister Small aircraft and engines are included in the discussions. As I understand it, until those discussions are concluded there is no change from the present position.

    Sir Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West) Does my right hon. Friend agree that this settlement of the GATT round comes at a crucial time to give the world economies that extra boost to get them moving again and that, as he has said, we shall benefit from it? Will he use his influence as Prime Minister to continue to encourage through the export services with the President of the Board of Trade the many – rather too many – small and medium-sized companies that could but do not yet export? If their hand were held a little, they might do that much better.

    The Prime Minister On that last point, my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are making a special effort through the business link scheme to do precisely that. My hon. Friend touches on an important point. One should make it clear that the GATT round now having been agreed is not immediately implemented. There will be a ministerial signing session, probably in April 1994. The final Act will need to be ratified by a number of countries. Then it will come into force, probably in late 1995 but conceivably as late as the beginning of 1996.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) How can everybody be with us? There are 113 countries that have signed the agreement. Some are bound to be losers. Why does not the Prime Minister admit that the multinational companies are the driving force behind GATT? Britain will be gatted. Of the top 500 multinationals, 278 are either in the United States or Japan and the rest are divided between all the other industrial countries on the Pacific rim. It is a joke if the Prime Minister is trying to convey to the people of Britain that we will benefit. He said the same when the multinationals wanted the common market in 1973; unemployment increased. He said the same about the single market four years ago; again unemployment increased–

    Madam Speaker Order. This is not the time for speeches. This is the time for questions. If the hon. Gentleman has a question to put to the Prime Minister, he should do so and then sit down and let us hear the answer.

    Mr. Skinner Why does not the Prime Minister answer this question: since Britain’s manufacturing base is now down to 4 million, how on earth can this country leap across the boundaries to increase production? Why does not the Prime Minister tell the truth about what he said about jobs the other day? When I asked him how many jobs had been created, he said 400,000. Already he has stretched the number.

    The Prime Minister The hon. Gentleman has taken leave of what passes for his senses. I said 400,000 the other day and I said 400,000 today. He should get his facts right for a change. He is wrong again on other matters. Not only is he wrong, but he does not seem to carry with him his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) or the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who have said precisely the reverse.

    Mr. Skinner So what? [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh.”] I shall be proved right.

    The Prime Minister If anybody else were as confident about anything as the hon. Gentleman is confident about everything, we would all be rather well off. I for once am prepared to make common cause with the hon. Member for Livingston. I entirely agree with him when, in welcoming the GATT trade deal, he said: ‘This will create substantial opportunities for developing countries.’ Not only does the hon. Gentleman think that, and he is entirely right, but so do the developing countries. But they, of course, also know less about their interests than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If perhaps the hon. Gentleman had listened a little more carefully – he clearly did not listen the other day about jobs either – he would know that the developing countries in the Commonwealth sent a number of representatives to the main capitals to say how important it was for them to have a GATT agreement. Every single thing that the hon. Gentleman said was copper-bottomed, gold-plated rubbish.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) I warmly welcome the successful outcome of the Uruguay round and pay tribute to the Government for the role that they have played in bringing it to a successful conclusion. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a downside to this agreement – he referred to it when answering some supplementary questions earlier? Does he accept that, if Britain is to be successful and competitive, it is important that for industries such as textiles and clothing – I could name others – the Government assist by providing an investment incentive? Will my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade do what they can to put pressure on the Treasury to ensure that there are incentives for investment so that British industry can take advantage of the Uruguay round and its successful outcome?

    The Prime Minister We certainly wish to ensure that British manufacturing industry both invests and exports. While my hon. Friend is right that the outcome for the textiles industry was less satisfactory than we had hoped it would be some time ago, the successful conclusion to the round does include a reduction in tariffs in the United Kingdom’s main export textiles markets, most crucially, of course, in that of the United States. Therefore there is a better circumstance for textiles, but, as my hon. Friend implied, it is not as good as we had hoped it would be.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) Does the Prime Minister accept that there will be a general and warm welcome for the decision to reduce tariff barriers against Scotch whisky – an important, high-quality export-winning product, not least in my constituency, where so many jobs depend on it? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a need to build on the agreement to eradicate the internal excise discrimination in Japan, which continues to breach the 1987 GATT agreement because scotch is protected by a much lower level of tax than Scotch whisky? I believe that the differential between the two products ranges between six and nine.

    The Prime Minister The hon. Lady is right on both points. The tariff reduction on whisky in Japan is from 250 per cent. to zero – it has gone entirely. That is only part of the barrier against Scotch whisky exports in Japan. There are still substantial internal tax barriers. I raised those with Prime Minister Hosokawa when I was in Tokyo some time ago and we wrote to him again last week. We hope to see some movement in the comprehensive tax reform that the Japanese Government are now planning. The present position on internal tax discrimination against Scotch whisky is not satisfactory, and the Government continue to pursue it with the Japanese Government.

    Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith (Chingford) I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the successful conclusion to the GATT round, which is a great success for Britain, particularly Conservative Britain which believes and is foremost in free trade. May I press my right hon. Friend on the common agricultural policy? We all believe that the CAP is far too heavy and costs far too much. In many respects, that may have restricted our negotiating position on the financial services area. Will he assure hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, that we will now press further for greater reductions and a greater freeing of the financial services business in the world?

    The Prime Minister We shall certainly press for greater freeing of financial services. It is very much in our interests. We are one of the world’s great providers of financial services, and the more that we can open up European markets – which is now happening – and Japanese and United States markets in particular, the greater the opportunity for the export of British financial services. My hon. Friend is quite right: it is a matter of critical interest to us and I give him my undertaking that we shall pursue it.

    Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South) May I pursue the downside a bit further and refer the Prime Minister to the McGraw-Hill study that he mentioned earlier? What did the study say about identifying the sector of British industry that can now anticipate job losses, and what will be the scale of those job losses?

    The Prime Minister As the hon. Gentleman knows, the net position is estimated to be a growth over 10 years of around 400,000 jobs. Beyond that, it is not really possible to identify in any great detail where there will be growth and contraction. That depends on too many factors for the statistics to have any real value. The calculation of 400,000 jobs is derived from the growth of world trade generally and the implications that that will have for manufacturing industry and the service sector in particular.

    Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark) I compliment my right hon. Friend on his mastery of his brief this afternoon. Many countries gain an unfair competitive advantage by subsidising their exports. Did the new GATT settlement deal directly with that hidden barrier to free trade?

    The Prime Minister Yes, there are new rules on subsidies, anti-dumping and safeguard action. There are texts in all those areas to deal with unfair practices. They are a good outcome for Britain in particular, and the EC more generally. Disciplines, including a reasonable constraint on developing countries, have been tightened, but the texts are a great improvement on the current GATT rules.

    Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) If, as the Prime Minister claims, the Government champion free trade as a means of helping the developing world, why did Britain abstain in the recent overwhelming vote at the United Nations condemning the United States Government for its illegal and inhuman economic blockade of the Republic of Cuba?

    The Prime Minister I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is comparing like with like. I do not know of any country that would deny that this British Conservative Government is one of the most free-trading Governments, in philosophy and practice, of any Government in the world. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) nodding in agreement. He may not necessarily approve, but he does agree.

    Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr) Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his outstanding statesmanship during the past two days? Does be accept that his earlier comments on aviation policy suggest that the advantage of current levels of launch aid for aircraft manufacturers who manufacture planes of 100 seats or fewer will remain despite strong USA pressure to do away with that? Does he further accept that my constituents will warmly welcome that on the basis that Jetstream Aircraft is a manufacturer of turbo-prop aircraft?

    The Prime Minister I can confirm that there will be no change and I reiterate that the Commission will continue to insist on the inclusion of aero engines and indirect support. As I said a moment ago to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), the outcome should be to protect the legitimate interests of the United Kingdom industry.

    Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South) I share the Prime Minister’s relief at the outcome of the GATT negotiations and his view of the need to reduce support and subsidies for agriculture, but how does that square with the fact that, on 15 November this year, the Government agreed to an increase of half a billion pounds in the draft EC budget for 1994, most of which will subsidise agriculture? Will the Prime Minister give us a clear commitment that there will be no extra support for French agriculture, either within the guideline or otherwise, and that, if there is any prospect of such support, it will not be transferred from other areas of the EC budget, such as the structural fund that is designed to encourage employment?

    The Prime Minister A number of other countries apart from the United Kingdom, such as Spain, Portugal and Greece, would strongly resist any suggestion that money to support agriculture should come from the structural or cohesion funds. In our discussions at the weekend at the European Council, Prime Ministers of some of the southern states made it perfectly clear that, were there any suggestions from any of the northern states-it would certainly not come from this northern state – that money to fund agriculture should come out of the structural or cohesion funds, they would strongly oppose that, and they would be right to do so.

    Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) Is not the consequence of the GATT that third-world countries will be able to earn far more foreign exchange for themselves and therefore far more self-respect? Is not that better than the begging bowl approach so favoured by the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Independent calculations are that the gain to developing countries from opening markets under these GATT round considerations will be greater than the total amount of aid from all the western democracies and Japan added together.

    Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East) With all the euphoria following the GATT, may I remind the Prime Minister that, some ten years ago, there was a traumatic upheaval in the British steel industry, when many thousands of people were made redundant and whole communities were decimated? The same development does not appear to have taken place in Germany, France or Italy, where subsidies still abound. When will the Government take firm action to look after our steel industry and prevent further redundancies?

    The Prime Minister I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not draw the conclusion that most other people would have drawn, which is that British Steel is now a world-class company trading profitably because it is under private ownership. I hope, therefore, that there will be a good deal of support from Opposition Members in future for the privatisation of industries. The large number of industries that were in the public sector and very expensive to taxpayers are now in the private sector yielding resources to taxpayers.

    Several hon. Members rose –

    Madam Speaker Order. I am sorry, but we must now move on.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1993 Conservative Party Conference – 8 October 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool on 8th October 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam President, as I walked through the Winter Gardens during Conference Week, I passed the bookstalls and what do I see, I see memoirs, memoirs to the left of me, memoirs to the right of me, memoirs in front of me, volley, volley and thunder. Madam President, let me say right away I’m not about to write my memoirs, not for a long time.

    There’s a job to be done, a job of service to this nation and I believe in service. There’s a job to be done, a job I was elected to do and I propose to go on doing it. Madam President, there’s one aspect of the memoirs that I may write in future that you needn’t wait for – I can tell you now, straight away, precisely what I think of my Cabinet.

    Do you think any of them look worried? Apprehensive? Touch concerned? They needn’t be, they’re a first-class team, they’re steady under fire, they’re united and they’re serving Britain superbly.

    And isn’t it good to see Michael back?

    Did you see those exercises? I dare say they’re going to enliven quite a few Cabinet meetings in the future.

    Madam President, I’ve been coming to this conference on an off for about 30 years. It’s a very great event in the political calendar, but it’s something else as well. It’s a family gathering and like all families, from time to time, we have our squabbles. So today, before I turn to other matters, I want to say something to you, specifically as leader of the Conservative party. Our party has served our country in Government more often and better than any other democratic political party in the world. We’ve done so because we’re the broadest based political party this country has ever seen. Our support comes from all classes, all income groups and all parts of the United Kingdom. Madam President, I know our party. It can bear many things – unpopularity, deep controversy, setbacks – we’ve seen it all before, but there’s one thing that demoralises our workers and that breaks apart our support in the country and that is disunity.

    We’ve always known where it leads, and so, in this private gathering we have today, we might as well state it plainly. Disunity leads to opposition. Not just opposition in Westminster, but in the European Parliament and in town halls and county halls up and down this country. Of course we won’t agree on every single aspect of policy. No one expects that. We’re a democratic party with a whole range of lively ideas. But I think you’ll agree with me upon this – people look to us for commonsense and for competence and we have a responsibility to you and to the people who put us in Parliament to show those qualities day after day. And that means we have to have our agreements in public and our disagreements in private.

    And if agreement is impossible, and sometimes on great issues it is difficult, if not impossible, then I believe I have the right, as leader of this party, to hear of that disagreement in private and not on television, in interviews, outside the House of Commons.

    Madam President, the last year has shown how hard every part of our party can fight for what it believes in. Let the next year show that we can channel all that energy together in a common effort against our opponents and for the policies we care about.

    This week, an unusual week, this week we had two conferences for the price of one. First, there’s the one we’ve been at.

    And then there’s the one we read about.

    You know, I’m not absolutely sure that everyone’s caught up completely with the current mood of our party, so I’m going to ask you three questions and I want to hear the answers loud and clear so that no one can doubt where you stand. They’ve very simple questions and very straightforward.

    Aren’t you fed up with people running our country down?

    Aren’t you fed up with people writing our party off?

    When people ask, “Will the Conservatives win next time?”, what do you say?

    I didn’t quite catch that.

    Yes. Yes. And yes again. And you don’t need shorthand to get that down.

    You see, Madam President, this is a family gathering, just as I said. But now I want to reach out a little further to speak not just to you, but to those outside this hall who may be listening. I want to share some thoughts with you and see if they strike a chord with your own experience. I think that many people, particularly those of you who are older, see things around you in the streets and on your television screens which are profoundly disturbing. We live in a world that sometimes seems to be changing too fast for comfort. Old certainties crumbling. Traditional values falling away. People are bewildered. Week after week, month after month, they see a tax on the very pillars of our society – the Church, the law, even the Monarchy, as if 41 years of dedicated service was not enough. And people ask, “Where’s it going? Why has it happened?”. And above all, “How can we stop it?”.

    Let me tell you what I believe. For two generations, too many people have been belittling the things that made this country. We’ve allowed things to happen that we should never have tolerated. We have listened too often and too long to people whose ideas are light years away from common sense.

    In housing, in the ’50s and ’60s, we pulled down the terraces, destroyed whole communities and replaced them with tower blocks and we built walkways that have become rat runs for muggers. That was the fashionable opinion, fashionable but wrong. In our schools we did away with traditional subjects – grammar, spelling, tables – and also with the old ways of teaching them. Fashionable, but wrong. Some said the family was out of date, far better rely on the council and social workers than family and friends. I passionately believe that was wrong.

    Others told us that every criminal needed treatment, not punishment. Criminal behaviour was society’s fault, not the individual’s. Fashionable, but wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Madam President, on all these things, received opinion with the wisdom of hindsight, received opinion was wrong. And now, we must have the courage to stand up and say so and I believe that millions and millions of people are longing to hear it.

    Do you know, the truth is, much as things have changed on the surface, underneath we’re still the same people. The old values – neighbourliness, decency, courtesy – they’re still alive, they’re still the best of Britain. They haven’t changed, and yet somehow people feel embarrassed by them. Madam President, we shouldn’t be. It is time to return to those old core values, time to get back to basics, to self-discipline and respect for the law, to consideration for others, to accepting a responsibility for yourself and your family and not shuffling off on other people and the state.

    Madam President, I believe that what this country needs is not less Conservatism, it’s more Conservatism of the traditional kind that made us join this party.

    This week, this week we’ve made a start. Now we must see it through. It’s time for this party to return to its roots. Madam President, our economic roots are clear. We’re the party of Adam Smiths, not John Smith.

    And Adam Smith was the apostle of free markets and that is why we regard the present world trade talks as so important. At meeting after meeting, we have battled to keep those trade talks alive against difficulty after difficulty, because nothing will do more for growth, nothing will do more for jobs, nothing will do more for confidence in our future than agreement in those trade talks. But if other governments don’t play their part, if they hold back, if they won’t face up to their domestic difficulties, then those talks could collapse and the dangers of that happening are devastating. They could unlock protectionism, poverty and unemployment on a scale that we have not seen since the 1930s. A great deal is at stake. And because a great deal is at stake, I don’t believe we ought to be mealy-mouthed about the dangers. Today, on this issue, is not a time for holding back. So let me say to some of our European colleagues, “You’re playing with fire”. Or, to put it more bluntly, “Get your tractors off our lawn”.

    People accuse us – accuse us – people accuse us of being the business party. Well, you bet we are. We’re for small business and we’re for large business. We’re for more business, not less business. When business booms, Britain booms, so we’re for private enterprise and we’re proud of it.

    Over the last three years, the whole country has sweated and slogged and suffered to turn this economy around. Now, steadily, it’s happening. Recovery is under way. That’s the message from British business. The economy’s growing. You may not see it yet, but it clearly is growing and it will show. And as the economy grows, the family budget will follow, so people have every reason to begin to start feeling better again. Inflation’s down. Interest rates are down. Exports are up. Productivity’s up. Retail sales are up. Manufacturing output is up. And the number of people in work is up. Madam President, it’s the opportunity cocktail we’ve been wanting for years and it gives this country a head start on prosperity for the rest of this decade.

    So, let’s try and build up that confidence, instead of forever seeing it knocked down. Why don’t we try something different? Why don’t we tell people about Britain’s successes? And let me tell you about them, in the strictest confidence…

    … so they’re sure to leak out.

    Who says we can’t make things in this country? Manufacturing industry is one of our great national assets.

    Three weeks ago – sometimes it seems longer – three weeks ago I was in Japan, the industrial wonder of the world, and there with me were British manufacturers, selling solutions to problems that Japan hadn’t solved. Successful British firms, international leaders in their own fields, firms at the leading edge of technology, selling successfully to the world technology leader. Two days later, I was in Malaysia, and we came back with £1 billion worth of orders for British companies. They didn’t buy British to do our companies a favour. They did it because we made what they wanted and we made it better in this country than anyone else in the world.

    Fourteen years ago, Britain was going nowhere. Now it’s going everywhere and selling everywhere. We’re making goods, making profits, making waves, right across the world. But despite that, despite the growth we’ve had there and the growth to come there, I must warn you, it’s still going to be tough and everyone in business here today, or everyone who listens to what I say today, knows how hard they have to compete. At present, Europe, our biggest market, is stuck deep in recession. It’s held back by social costs it can’t afford. It’s losing markets to Japan and to America and to the Pacific Basin. And that, Madam President, that, amongst other reasons, is why I refuse to accept the Social Chapter. It’s not a chapter of rights, it’s a charter for unemployment and we don’t want it here.

    What we do want is more of our best brains going into manufacturing industry. Let’s see them give politics, the City, journalism a miss and go into manufacturing industry where their skills can be so badly needed.

    And let’s see our great manufacturing centres humming with activity as we move towards the millennium. Let’s turn British inventions into British industries, British factories and British jobs. Let them make pounds for us, not dollars, marks, and yen for other people. Ministers are told, whenever they go abroad, part of your job these days is to open the door for British business. We’re backing exports with cheaper credit, more Government muscle and a new breed of diplomat – people who know as much about exports as they do about etiquette.

    At home, at home we’re taking the ridiculous burden of red tape off business and off citizen alike. And I can tell you, in the next session of Parliament, there will be a big deregulation bill to show how seriously we take that.

    Here’s a good old British maxim you can all remember: if the price is right and the goods are good enough, then sell abroad and buy at home. That’s the way to make sure that British industry continues to boom.

    But there are other things we need to do for industry. Industry isn’t asking us for handouts and special help. It’s asking us, as the Government to play our part in creating the right economic environment for industry to let loose its own energies and compete on a level basis with the rest of the world. So here, Madam President, is another ambitious target for our country: not months but years and years and years of sustained growth without the curse of inflation. That is at the heart of our economic policy for the 90s. It’s a prize for which British Governments have struggled for 30 odd years and yet now, it’s within reach and we are not going to throw it away.

    Just remember, only three years ago, inflation was over 10%. Now it’s under 2% and it must be kept low. Inflation is in check but it’s never in checkmate. Back in the 70s, soaring prices destroyed savings. We all remember that. We all want to make sure it never happens again. But to do that, to make sure it never happens again and destroys businesses and livelihoods and savings, sometimes we may have to hold back our ambitions for tax and spending.

    Madam President, let me get one thing entirely clear. Our views on tax are different from those of the other parties. What the Conservative Party is aiming for is a Government that lives within its income and without your income. Other parties tax because they want to. We tax only because we have to. So come rain or shine, taxes will always be lower under us than any other kind of government.

    But success has another vital ingredient, getting public finances back under control. At the moment, largely because of the recession with the great collapse in come than that created, we have a huge gap between what Britain spends and the tax we take in. We have to narrow that gap. It is true – Government has spent more over the last two years. We had to help the weak and protect the vulnerable through the recession. And that, Madam President, is an important part of Conservatism as well.

    But now Britain’s recovering so we have to cut the deficit. We all agree on that but it’s no good agreeing on the principle unless you take the action and it’s no use people urging us to take the action unless they are prepared to back us when we have taken it for it may often be difficult.

    There are tough choices ahead and we must make them and we will make them because it is in the interest of our country to make them and we have that responsibility.

    Of course, people’s opinions will differ. Some say tax more, some say tax less, some say spend more, some spend less but stay out of my backyard. All that’s perfectly okay for the opposition but it won’t do for the Government party. We can’t have a lobby against every difficult decision. Decisions are what government is for and we have to take them.

    So, once the debate is over, once Ken Clarke has announced out budget proposals, we Conservatives must work together and take that message to every single part of the country. But there is one thing I can tell you that you can take with it: high income tax is no part of this party’s programme.

    It never has been and, as far as I’m concerned, it never will be.

    Madam President, high on every Conservative list is raising standards in our schools. That’s why John Patten’s first concern is with what parents think and what our children need. There are tens of thousands of excellent teachers up and down the country and I’m proud to pay tribute to all they do on behalf of our children. But there is bad teaching as well and many parents and many pupils know that only too well. Our children must be taught what they need to know. That’s why we need a national curriculum. It’s why we need national testing. Not just for the sake of it but to find out what our children have learnt and what they have failed to learn. And when we know what they’ve failed to learn, we can put it right. But without those testing, we fail those children because we never learn what they haven’t understood at an early stage in their school career.

    The principle of tests is not negotiable. We don’t need reams and reams of complex papers that take hours for teachers to handle. What we do need is those simple pencil and paper tests that this party has always asked for and that is what John Patten is going to deliver for us. Because unless we teach a child to read, to write and to add up, then we hobble that child for the rest of his life. Take John Prescott. For the audience at Brighton last week, his speech was a religious experience, mainly because it passes all understanding.

    But push him to one side. I saw a letter recently from over 500 university teachers of English. And they say in their letter that it’s disastrous and harmful to teach standard English, great literature and Shakespeare in our schools. Apparently, teaching Shakespeare threatens to reduce a living language to a dead one. They say – and believe it or not, this is a quite – they say, “It would do serious damage to the moral and social development of our children and to the cultural life of society as a whole and all who are concerned with such matters should oppose in the strongest possible terms.” What claptrap!

    Well, I’ll answer them in words, perhaps, they might approve of. Me and my party ain’t going take what them on the Left says is okay, right.

    Madam President, over the past few months, in meetings with party workers – many of them I think will be here today – I’ve made it clear in private that the attack on crime would be the centrepiece of next year’s legislation. On Wednesday, after one of the best conference debates I have ever heard, Michael Howard delivered the first instalment. Lord Archer, if I may call him that…., made it clear how much we’ll have the support of the whole country in that programme. But don’t let’s pretend that we’ve been idle over the last 14 years; we haven’t. We’ve increased sentences, built more prisons, spent more, recruited more police, and those police have served us magnificently. And no other party would have done as much.

    But we know now, it was not enough. In many parts of the country, crime figures have risen remorselessly. Crimes once confined to the cities have spread out into the rural areas, bringing alarm where alarm was never before. And that is the reason for our new approach. We have tried being understanding. We have tried persuasion. Madam President, it hasn’t worked.

    I know criminals are a problem in a cell but they’re much more of a problem on the street. And policy must be dictated by the needs of justice, not by the number of prison places we happen to have available on any given day. If someone belongs in prison, when that is where they should be and that’s why we’re building more prisons. Better the guilty behind bars than the innocent penned in at home.

    Let me tell you how I see things. We need tougher rules on bail and no bail for the worst offenders. An end to the right to silence, as Michael Howard announced earlier this week. And more information for the police from DNA testing. We’re going to use science to help catch the criminal and not let silence protect the criminal.

    Here too it’s back to basics. For some, punishment seems to be a dirty word. Well, you’ll find it in my dictionary and I strongly suspect that it’s in yours.

    Some time ago, I said we should condemn a little more and understand a little less. And I meant that for this reason; if we let young people at an early age think crime is a normal part of growing up, if we let them off with a caution, a caution and a caution, it is small wonder if they feel there is no peer pressure turning them to law and order, and they turn to bigger crime later.

    And if we extend those parameters of leniency so far, we betray our children, for we do not give them the values that we expect them to live up to when they become an adult part of our society.

    There’s one other issue in the range of measures that Michael announced in his remarkable speech the other day that didn’t find room for it, for there was, even for the Home Secretary, a limited amount of time at this conference. But it’s an issue upon which I feel very strongly and I can tell you today that we plan a big crackdown on the loathsome trade in pornography that offends so many people in this country.

    There will be new powers of arrest and search, new powers to seize videos and other material, and – something I personally particularly support – a new offence to make the possession of child pornography a crime that can lead to imprisonment.

    Yes, Madam President, it’s tough. And so it should be. There’s no place in a civilised society for that sort of exploitation of our children.

    But don’t let us delude ourselves. Fighting crime is not just a matter for the police or for the Government. We can legislate, we can provide the resources. We can do all that and the police can perform miracles on the resources they have. But Governments can’t make people good. That is for parents, for churches, for schools, for every single citizen.

    Like many people in this hall today, as a boy I knew people who had nothing, who expected nothing. They didn’t commit crime because they did have something. They had values, dignity, pride, respect for their neighbours, and, above all, respect of the old.

    And in the long-term battle against crime, that respect needs building every bit as much as Michael Howard’s new prisons. Madam President, let me make it clear beyond a doubt. I simply do not accept that crime can be excused and under this Government, I give you my word, it never will be.

    Madam President, from the serious to the less serious: our opponents. Our opponents can’t string two policies together but they can cook up a scare. And of course there’s a ready market for scares. Every day I’m told what I think that I don’t think, what I’ve done that I haven’t done, what I’m planning that I’m not planning. Hearing the news day after day is a voyage of discovery for me.

    Voyage of discovery for me, but very unsettling for many others, many of them elderly, more of them, not very rich, and most of them very worried. So let me offer some reassurance, not rumour, fact. Next time Labour and the Liberals say we’re going to charge for visits to the doctor, you can tell them confidently, “No, we won’t”.

    Next time they say we’re going to charge for stays in hospitals, tell them, “No, we’re not”.

    And when they say we’re going to introduce prescription charges for pensioners, you can get right out on the doorsteps and tell them, “No, we’re not”.

    They say we’re going to force older people to go to the bank, not the post office, to collect their pensions. Well, really. I have 500 square miles of Huntingdonshire in my constituency and heaven knows how many rural post offices. I know their value to local village life. I know their value to the community. I know how much pensioners rely on them and that’s why I promise you they’ll be able to go on picking up their pensions at the post office.

    So go out and knock all that nonsense on the head. And yes, I know the concerns – nobody could possibly have missed them – the concerns that people have about their fuel bills. They believe they’re going to face massive rises. They aren’t. And the most vulnerable fear they’re going to be left without compensation. They aren’t. Kenneth Clarke made that clear yesterday and I’m happy to repeat it today.

    This nation owes a huge debt to its pensioners. it’s something this Conservative Party will never forget. So, it’s our duty to keep our country a place in which they feel both safe and secure.

    So when you hear people saying this, that or the other, don’t always swallow it wholesale. Remember, in the immortal words of Sporting Life in Porgy and Bess, “It ain’t necessarily so”.

    Madam President, scares take me naturally to the Labour Party. I’m not going to be savage about Labour, I think the people of this country would welcome an end to the bad-mouthing between politicians.

    So, as a man damned every Sunday for his moderation, I think I shall stick to my own civil instincts. But that doesn’t mean I can’t have a bit of fun. Did you hear John Smith’s speech last week? He’s a good man, is John, but Lord doesn’t he go on about it?

    He rather reminds me of a Scottish Buddha, the very essence of immobility with a faint smile of perfect self-contentment upon his face. And the Buddha has watched his Shadow Chancellor, Gordon Brown, Labour’s gift to melancholia, he’s watched him run from not sure about taxes, to no more taxes, to lots and lots more taxes in just six weeks, and there’s a long time before the next election. And the Buddha said nothing. The Buddha has left his Northern Ireland spokesman say, “Stop tests, cover up school results and scrap A Levels”, and what did he say? The Buddha said nothing. One hears that the only sign the Buddha ever gives is a slight shake of the head… if anyone proposes a new idea.

    Madam President, we saw something rather remarkable in Brighton last week. They called it a “famous victory”. Famous victory? I would call it John Smith’s political Munich. Here it is, composite – I beg his pardon, composite 55 and 56. Let me read you the victory roll – the trade unions will now only make 70% of policy and choose on third of the leader.

    Which one third is unclear. Perhaps they don’t think it matters. After all, they’ve long had the bit above the neck.

    What we have out of last week is a minor reduction in union influence in the Labour Party and the promises of a huge increase in union power in Britain, if there was a Labour Government. One small step for the Buddha, one giant step leap for the brudders.

    Whatever the trade unions ask for, they got. And they asked for was unconditional surrender. Remember what Mr Smith said, “The country needs strong unions today, as never before”. Madam President, after all we fought for over the last 14 years, I think this conference would beg to differ with that judgment.

    Madam President, there’s another strange party in British politics. It gives a different answer to the same question in Cornwall or London, in Ryedale or Eastbourne, on Monday or Tuesday. They’re against VAT on fuel in the morning, and for a carbon tax in the afternoon. But they are consistent about two things, the first of them is tax. They are the other high tax party – income tax, local income tax, carbon tax, regional tax, Scottish tax, Welsh tax, and given half a chance, Euro tax as well. If they thought it would raise money, they’re produce revenue from syntax and tin tacks.

    And the second thing they’re consistent about is federalism. Centralism in Europe. The Liberal Party is a federal party. Don’t take my word for it, this is their conference agenda – “The autumn”, it says, “the autumn conference of the federal party” – that is the Liberals in their own words. And look what they called for in this conference for a federal Europe – turn to page 99, though I would not recommend to you pages 1 to 98….

    This is what they called for on page 99. They called for sensible application of the social protocol and they had an amendment – “delete sensible” was the amendment.

    I agree. Sensible stands out like a sore thumb in every Liberal conference. But their leaders are fanatics for federalism. They have been out of government for so long, they have forgotten how to take decisions. The only decision they can take is that they want someone else to take the decisions for us in this country.

    Next June, we will have European elections in Britain. Let me say to all our candidates who are present, and everyone here who will work in that campaign, that will be a national campaign. We are going to fight those elections on a clear and distinct British Conservative manifesto for the future of Europe.

    Madam President, I have risked and sacrificed more than most for what I passionately believe in, a strong Britain playing a leading role in a strong and growing Europe, a wider Europe, a free trade Europe, a less intrusive Europe, our vision of an independent confident Britain, giving leadership with our partners in the European Community. And in our elections, in this country, next year, we will be the only mainstream party that is not prepared to move towards a centralised Europe and take that message to every doorstep in the country.

    And tell them this too, tell them that any vote against us, for whatever party – Labour, Liberal, makes no difference – any vote against us for whatever party would be seen in every capital in the Community as a signal that the British people want a centralised Europe. We know they don’t. You know they don’t. They know they don’t. We must make sure the people of Britain vote to show the rest of Europe that we don’t.

    The Liberal leader says, rather nervously I thought, that the guns are turning on him. Too right they are, and not before time. Let the Liberals loose and the prospect of a federal Europe could be a reality again. In this country, they are federalism’s fifth column. Away with them next June in the elections.

    Madam President, before I leave the Liberal leader, I want to say a word about his posturing on Bosnia. I find it distasteful. No, no words suffice for the sheer dreadfulness of Bosnia.

    The violence that has torn apart what used to be Yugoslavia has deep and bloody roots. They go back to the Middle Ages and beyond. People there have suffered great wrongs and unimaginable cruelties. We have given, as we always will, help, food, medicine, technical aid. We have sent British troops with humanitarian aid; the first country to do so. And those troops have saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives, men, women, children who would be dead from cold and starvation, are still alive, thanks to the activities, the skill and the bravery of those troops we sent to Bosnia.

    Madam President, right at the start of this war, I said that I was not prepared to put British troops into combat to hold the various sides apart. It’s my responsibility, my responsibility as the Queen’s first minister, to advise when soldiers should be sent to fight and to risk being killed. It’s all very well to call from the sidelines for a huge military commitment to Bosnia but I listen with respect to the views of the senior professional soldiers and airmen. They know the depth of the problem. They know what we would be asking their men to do. They know that while the threat of air strikes is a good deterrent, you cannot finally settle a guerilla war by bombing. They know that. We saw it in Iraq after the biggest Armada of bombing for week after week after week. it was not until we sent in ground troops that Saddam Hussein finally lost. And those senior servicemen warn me against trying to separate three sides, three sides that hate each other, in a cruel civil war, in some of the wildest hill and forest country in Europe.

    There is another form of intervention, which we may have to contemplate. Intervention, not to impose a settlement on parties at war, but to implement a negotiated peace. Right now, alas, the peace prospects are thin and speculative. Too speculative to risk the life of a private in the Cheshires or the Prince of Wales’ Own. The negotiators will go on trying. I earnestly hope they will succeed, but I shall not ask a British private to risk leaving his mother without a son his wife without a husband unless there is a real settlement.

    Unless there is a real will by the people of Bosnia to stop fighting, not some ploy to suck outsiders in and then start the war again. I have never been in doubt about Bosnia. Though one cannot always speak one’s mind plainly, I have understood that to intervene is to risk an intolerable number of British dead. A war is easily started. The boys are always going to be back for Christmas, but wars, particularly wars in the Balkans, have other ideas.

    So, let me make clear. I leave the talk of a quick away-day outing for the commandoes with everything sorted out in a couple of weeks to the commentators, and to the royal corps of columnists. Yugoslavia is tragic. I consider all the options but I must think first of the lives of British soldiers.

    And I will not put them at risk for the sake of talking big and striking attitudes. I will not rush into war.

    Emotion says yes, logic says no. I say no.

    Madam President, an unstable Yugoslavia is one thing. An unstable Russia would be quite another. So, let me say a few words about the events of the past week. We should be under no illusions about the real motives of the rebels in the Russian Parliament. They were out for blood, the blood of democrats and reformers and, had they won, the consequences for Russian and for the rest of the world would not have borne thinking about. Yesterday morning, Boris Yeltsin told me that the courts would now deal with his opponents. Madam President, that is not how they wanted to deal with him.

    The Russian people have twice voted for President Yeltsin and for reform. Now he plans further election, free elections, not rigged Communist elections. He invited me, yesterday, to send British observers to ensure those elections were fair. I agreed and promised that we would certainly do so. Those elections in December will be the surest test that democratic reform remains on track. We backed Boris Yeltsin against the 1991 coup. We were the first to do so. We backed him last weekend and I promise you this, we shall go on backing reform in Russia in the months ahead.

    When we speak of the threat of violence, there is one other place that is never far from our minds. Each day, every day this week, whilst we’ve been gathered here in Blackpool, thousands of young men and women risk their lives in the Army and in the security services in Northern Ireland. They stand in the defence of democracy and of the rule of law. Under a Conservative Government, they will continue to have all the support that they need.

    Northern Ireland is part of our democracy. We are not going to bargain away the people’s democratic rights, or any part of them, in order to appease those who seek to rule by bullet or by bomb.

    Do to do, to do so, would betray the people, and, in particular, those of every party, many of them brave, who take a part in constitutional politics in Northern Ireland. So, no Government that I lead will negotiate with those who perpetrate or those who support the use of violence.

    There is only one message for them to send. We have finished with violence for good. Madam President, we are and we will remain the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    At the heart of our philosophy is an abiding belief in the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future. Unlike the Labour Party, we are not in the business of securing the break-up of the United Kingdom.

    For us, the union and all it means is immensely important. In all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, the union has the decisive support of those who live there. So, I give this assurance to the brave and resilient people of Northern Ireland, for our part, we will always back your democratic wishes.

    Madam President, before I sit down, I want to congratulate all of you in the hall, all of you who are the backbone and the strength of our party, for your cool, your warmth and yes, your resilience during a remarkable and, how shall I put it, most diverting week in Blackpool.

    Throughout the 1980s, the political energy of this country came from the Conservatives. That energy must go on through the 90s and not only go on, but grow and develop, driven not just by those in Government but by you who work on our behalf for our philosophy, for our party, in each and every part of the United Kingdom. And if you feel, as I do, refreshed and recharged by our work in Blackpool this week, then go home and help us restore the fortunes of our party, through hard work and a passionate belief that what we Conservatives stand for is more true, more deep, more enduring, more in touch with the basic instincts of the nation we love, than all the words of all the other political parties rolled together. We stand for self-reliance, for decency and for respect for others, for wages that stay in the pay packet and don’t drain away in tax. We stand for money that keeps its value, for a country united around those old, commonsense British values that should never have been pushed aside.

    The message from this conference is clear and simple, we must go back to basics. We want our children to be taught the best, our public services to give the best, our British industry to be the best and the Conservative Party will lead the country back to those basic rights across the board. Sound money, free trade, traditional teaching, respect for the family and respect for the law. And above all, we will lead a new campaign to defeat the cancer that is crime.

    Carry out that message. Reach out, not only to those who already think as we do but to all those with no special party allegiance who care for what we care for and who love this country as we do, for the same reasons we do. Do that. The fight goes on, the waverers will return and yes, a fifth victory will be ours.

    And one final word. Thank you, thank for for something that has been quite fantastic, your loyalty to this party and your loyalty to me.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Kuala Lumpur – 22 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Kuala Lumpur, held on Wednesday 22nd September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted that Jim Prior is here – he is the leader of an extremely high-powered business delegation here with me in Kuala Lumpur – and also that I have Richard Needham, the Minister for Trade, with me. Richard has worked long and hard to make sure that we are able to increase our exports and our trading relationship with Asia and he will be returning to Malaysia with a large business delegation in November to follow up the numerous openings that have been identified in various meetings today.

    I think there is no doubt that the trip has proved very fruitful with the signing this afternoon of five very important agreements. These involve potentially hundreds of millions of pounds of business for the United Kingdom. Overall at the moment business currently under discussion is worth at least a billion pounds over the forthcoming years and our current and continuing exports to Malaysia are estimated to support around 25,000 jobs. Today’s contracts of course should secure many more jobs in Britain in due course.

    I think it is worth remembering that South East Asia is one of the most rapidly-growing economies in the world and Malaysia, as a result of policies over many years, is in the forefront of that growth. We have doubled our exports to Malaysia over the last four years but I think we can and will do a good deal better.

    It is equally true to make the point that the trading relationship has expanded in the other direction with a very substantial growth of Malaysian exports to the United Kingdom.

    Within the Community, we will continue to fight very hard indeed for the vision that we have of a free, open, outward-looking Community and the relevance of that is that it will ensure that countries like Malaysia will have access to the Single Market which is worth around £350 billion even before enlargement.

    To perhaps give you a practical example in concrete terms, the Community provides a massive market for Malaysian products like the Proton car that I was able to have a look at this morning.

    I also had the opportunity of looking at the Connaught Bridge power station, a very impressive example of Rolls-Royce’s capabilities. Today, British Gas have signed an agreement for a joint venture for an even bigger power plant and the project overall is worth around £550 million. What staggered me was that the plant is expected to start producing power by the end of 1994 and that is very remarkable progress indeed – no wonder British Gas refer to it as “Project Maserati”.

    Our pursuit of business, of course, and our wider social and educational links inevitably go hand-in-hand. There are at the moment around 13,000 Malaysians studying in the United Kingdom and possibly a good deal more who have gone there privately where we don’t necessarily have an indication of the numbers. John Laings are planning to increase the number of students we can help by establishing a college of the University of London here in Kuala Lumpur and Laings are also about to construct twelve hospitals here so there is a substantial amount of work there as well.

    As we approach the end of my trip to Tokyo and Malaysia, I am absolutely certain that we were right in our decision to give greater priority to our policies relating to the Asia Pacific region. I think this trip alone demonstrates what that means in practice and what more can be achieved in the future.

    It was equally clear from my discussions this afternoon that there is a very wide range of international and bilateral issues that are of concern to both countries. In my discussions with Dr. Mahathir this afternoon, we spread very broadly our discussions and it was remarkable that we had so many areas of joint concern and interest. The primary purpose, however, of this meeting was to expand and make clear to everyone the sheer scale of the economic and trading relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and Malaysia and I will, if I may, ask Lord Prior, as leader of the business delegation, just to give his impressions of the trip and then we will be happy to take any questions you may have.

    LORD PRIOR:

    As most members of the British press will know, I am not given to sycophancy in my remarks about prime ministers but I would just like to say that I believe that the efforts made by the Prime Minister both here in Malaysia and in Japan as well and in a number of other places are an enormous help and example to British industry and I think you will find that all the industrialists who have been on both these really quite difficult tours are full of praise for the attitude of the Prime Minister and welcome enormously the efforts he, Richard Needham and others are making for British industry.

    The Prime Minister has mentioned a number of important projects and he has been, quite rightly, very conservative in the figures he has put on them. If I can just add a little to, for example, the airport, it is a British consortium which has been given the task of organising and carrying through this massive project which is a real prestige project in south-east Asia; it is the biggest single project which Malaysia has ever undertaken and which we hope will be a great credit to a nation which has made such marvellous progress in the last few years. That project, which will be carried out predominantly with Malaysian contractors and Malaysian labour but at the same time with project management and technical help from both British and Japan, will bring to Britain a large quantity of work, for example to my own company GEC Marconi it will bring at least 100 million pounds and probably more and the figure for Balfour Beatty and Trafalgar House Gannon [phonetic] will probably be in excess of something like £500 million so that alone is a very big project.

    The Prime Minister has already mentioned the two power station projects, one of which he opened this morning. Sir Desmond Pitcher of the North West Water. Board has a project that he would like to mention to you a little later on which again is a very big project and he has a press kit to hand out for those who would wish to have it.

    So altogether, Prime Minister, we think this has been a very successful tour from your point of view. You have opened a number of doors for us and it is up to British industry now to get their feet in so that they don’t close again and manage to get some very big orders. We think we will.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will ask Sir Desmond Pitcher to take up Jim’s invitation and perhaps say a word on some other events that have occurred today.

    SIR DESMOND PITCHER:

    We formed a consortium with our Malaysian partners a few years ago to study the sewage problems in this country. We made a recommendation to the Government for a national sewage programme to provide sewage for 14 million people, which is roughly double the number of people who live in the north west of England. As a consequence of that, the Malaysian government this year have passed a special act to privatise all sewage activity and transfer responsibility of that to our company. We are in the final details of signing the so-called “Consortium Agreement” as a franchise agreement and we have to make a privatisation agreement. In effect, the capital investment for starters is 1.25 billion pounds. We have the contract for 28 years and by the time we have done the main construction work, we will have changed the whole dimension of sewage and environment in this country. We have done it of course with tremendous help from our Malaysian colleagues and more particularly all the money is coming from Malaysia with a small amount of investment in equity from our country.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Mike Webster, ITN):

    Prime Minister, if I could first ask you a question on the international stage, today President Clinton, like yourself, has given support to President Yeltsin in Russia. However, he added a proviso that he didn’t want to see President Yeltsin use force in order to put down his opponents. Do you make the same condition, despite your support for him, that he must keep the troops….

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are several points to be made. Yeltsin is the first, indeed the only leader in Russian history to be elected freely. He is carrying forward a reform process, he wants a properly elected parliament that actually can express the will of the people with clarity and with a fresh mandate.

    Since President Gorbachev gave them the chance some time ago, the Russian people have consistently acted to show that they believe in the reform programme; that is the reform programme that President Yeltsin is trying to carry forward.

    We have given consistent support to the reformers. At the time of the 1991 coup, it was Britain that denounced it first and made it clear we were on the side of reform. We have made it absolutely clear right the way through that we are on the side of the reform process and the reformers will need to operate by rule of law and with parliamentary sanction so I think it is our view that we want it to proceed peaceably but let there be no doubt whatsoever that the reform process is best likely to go ahead under President Yeltsin, that he has our support and we very much hope that that will be acknowledged by people throughout Russia and the process can continue.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC):

    But how likely do you think it is that President Yeltsin will be overthrown and that Russia will revert to totalitarian rule?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Consistently in the last few years the Russian people, when asked, have acted with very considerable maturity. I don’t think there is any conceivable doubt that given the chance they will continue to act with maturity and that does mean a democratic reform process so I both hope and believe that President Yeltsin will continue and will be able to carry that reform process forward.

    I not only believe that that is very much in the interest of the Russian people; I don’t have a shred of doubt that it is very much in the interest of the rest of the world to have a stable Russia settling down as a secure democracy not just for months but for years ahead, decades ahead. That is what all of us wish to see. I believe it is achievable but I believe now is the moment for the rest of the world to make it absolutely clear that they support the continuation of this reform process and they do not support any attempts illegally to knock it off course.

    QUESTION (Richard Bestick, Sky News):

    From your remarks at lunch-time today about the rearguard Soviets, it would seem that if Mr. Yeltsin isn’t successful you would be prepared to see a return to the Cold War rather than accept a dialogue with his successors.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I have made it clear in the past, if I may refer back to the remarks I made about the potential coup some time. Britain didn’t sit back and consider what might happen if things went wrong; we were out there first making it clear that the reform process had to continue. That is the first prize for the rest of the world. Nobody should be in any doubt about that. It is clearly our policy that it is in everybody’s interests – Britain’s, the rest of the world’s, Russia’s – for there to be the maximum amount of support for those people who will carry on the reform process and I will rest my answer on that.

    QUESTION:

    When Lady Thatcher was here about two weeks ago, she said that the situations in Iraq and in Bosnia should be treated exactly in the same manner. How does your Administration see the difference between the two situations and should they be treated differently by your Administration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I didn’t hear what may have been said on that occasion and I am not going to comment directly on remarks I didn’t myself hear and haven’t seen in context. I think I have learned over the last ten years or so that it is very unwise to do that.

    As far as Iraq is concerned, I think the whole world remains appalled at the behaviour of Saddam Hussein. Both in the north with the Kurds and in the south in the marshlands, his attitude continues to be repressive, dictatorial and wholly repugnant to the rest of the world.

    Insofar as the UNSCOM investigations are concerned, until and unless he actually removes these weapons of mass destruction, he cannot expect in any way the sanctions to be removed so our position on that has been perfectly clear.

    On Bosnia, I think it is right for me to say that everyone shares very hot feelings – very emotional feelings – about the dreadful circumstances that have arisen in Bosnia. We were the first country to put in troops on a large scale to help the humanitarian aid. It is certainly the view of the United Nations that without the British effort it could not have continued and many thousands of lives would have been lost. We have continued to do that. We have continued to seek a peaceful process. We believe a peaceful political settlement is desirable because it is more likely to be enduring and I think that is the prize everyone wishes to seek so in Iraq we sought peace, in Bosnia we seek peace but we have to determine the way to achieve it dependent upon the individual circumstances.

    QUESTION (Philip Johnstone, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, later today you are off to Monte Carlo to bang the drum on behalf of Manchester. How confident are you that the city can win the Olympics for the year 2000 and do you think China’s human rights record disqualifies Peking from holding the Games?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have always been concerned throughout the whole of this to promote the aims of Manchester rather than comment on the aims of other countries. I think Manchester’s bid is technically excellent. Manchester has the total support of the Government. I believe that were the Games to come to Manchester in the year 2000 they would be memorable Games matched against any we have seen in the past so I have no doubt about Manchester’s willingness or capability of producing the Games.

    As to whether they will win or not, we are now within a few hours of the 90-odd members actually making up their minds. I don’t know what individual motivations they will have in that decision. I can only say that on merit I think Manchester will be very hard to beat and I would be delighted to see them win.

    QUESTION:

    How do you see the US refusal to renegotiate the Blair House Accord reforms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe if you have entered into an agreement you don’t re-open it and the European Community collectively and the United States reached an agreement on Blair House. The United Kingdom don’t want to re-open Blair House.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    How is your morale at the end of the second leg of this trip? You have obviously had a lot of success with the business side of the trip over here but there are still some rumblings back home from what we hear. How is your morale tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My morale is very high, John.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Have you talked to President Yeltsin yet and do you intend to try before you take off tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I haven’t talked to him yet. We have been in touch with Moscow but I haven’t spoken to President Yeltsin yet. I think it is very likely I will over the next few days but I have had meetings continually through today, they go through till late tonight, I will then be flying off later on this evening to Nice. I think it is unlikely I will speak to him before tomorrow but I have no doubt over the next few days I will.

    QUESTION (Colin Brown, The Independent):

    Will you be suggesting any initiative that world leaders can take in addition to giving vocal support to President Yeltsin and given that his Foreign Minister in Moscow called in all the G7 ambassadors is there anything that they are asking for in addition to support, for instance financial support?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. The G7 ambassadors were called in so that it could be explained to them what President Yeltsin had in mind. It was a question not of asking for assistance but of passing on information.

    This is a matter that is going to be determined within Russia but I think the role of other countries around the world is to make it clear what they believe is the right thing to happen and we have done that and a large number of other countries have as well; I hope more will.

    QUESTION:

    Sir, you said earlier that the UK was not likely to allow a renegotiation of the Blair House Accord but France has managed to get the EC to open further discussion on the Blair House Accord. How does the UK feel about this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is outside Blair House. It is not a question of renegotiating what was agreed at Blair House. It was agreed there are other areas outside Blair House that people can look at it but it isn’t a renegotiation of the agreement that was reached at Blair House.

    QUESTION (Stephen Cook, Financial Times):

    Dr. Mahathir made a very strong speech last night about Bosnia in particular. Were you surprised at the strength of Malaysia’s feeling on Bosnia and were you able to reassure him at all in your private discussions today or what was your feeling of the Malaysian policy today during your private discussions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone can be surprised about the fact that people across the world have an emotional feeling about what is happening in Bosnia, that impact exists in the United Kingdom as well. Certainly, Dr. Mahathir and I discussed the matter and I think we both have a very clear understanding of each other’s position.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia, do you think that the ball is at the Bosnian Muslims’ feet now that the three factions have agreed to give them some kind of an outlet to the sea?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think an outlet to the sea is needed perhaps at Flotje [phonetic]. I don’t see immediately where else it would be. I think there will need to be an outlet to the sea in the negotiations but I think the responsibility for reaching a conclusion rests not just with the Muslims but of course with each of the groups. What we have seen over a number of occasions in the last few months is putative agreements that have been broken very shortly after they have been entered into. We need all sides to reach an agreement, they need to stick to the agreement.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Japanese Prime Minister – 20 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Japanese Prime Minister, Morihiro Hosokawa, given on Monday 20th September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER HOSOKAWA:

    I and Prime Minister Major had very candid discussions together with other representatives of Great Britain for a couple of hours and it is indeed a great honour that we have been able to welcome Prime Minister Major as the first: prime minister to visit as an official guest after I assumed the post of Prime Minister and I therefore express my warmest welcome to him.

    We covered the entire ground of our bilateral relations and discussed important themes for both of us and we reaffirmed the importance of our bilateral relations for each of us, We have seen the growth historically of very good relations between our two countries politically, economically as well as culturally and we both agreed that we must together work to further bring these relations to a mature state.

    In the economic sphere, “Opportunity Japan” and then its successor campaign “Priority Japan” are under way and we agreed that we must continue to promote such campaigns in order to bring our trade relations to a better balance of expanded two-way trade.

    We also agreed that early next year in January we shall hold a Japan-UK 2000 Conference with an eye towards the opening of a new era between Japan and Great Britain and I should like to have Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Hata attend that symposium if at all possible and deliver a keynote address together with Foreign Secretary Hurd. I also expressed my hope – and in fact I think we agreed that there shall be a regular Foreign Ministers meeting of our two countries at that time.

    Furthermore, in order to promote interchanges between our two countries at the intellectual level, we agreed to carry out an exchange of young diplomats between Japan and Great Britain and at the same time we confirmed that we shall together make an effort to achieve a successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round of the GATT talks before the end of the year.

    As far as the former prisoner of war question is concerned, I did confirm that legally, at the government-to-government level, this question has been settled but I took this opportunity to once again express my deep remorse as well as apologies for the fact that Japanese past actions had inflicted deep wounds on many people including former prisoners of war.

    Last but not least, we also saw eye-to-eye that we together must make an effort to make our bilateral relations even more mature with an eye set on the future and I believe that our talks today have been very meaningful and useful..

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I won’t add a very great deal to what the Prime Minister has had to say except to say they were extremely useful talks and to touch briefly on one or two of the most important points amongst them.

    In his remarks, the Prime Minister spoke of a mature relationship between our two countries. I think that is exactly right. A close and friendly relationship has developed over the past fifteen years and it continues to develop both at an economic and at a political level. I think this first official visit is very well-timed; it has enabled Mr. Hosokawa and me to get to know one another. He is of course an old friend of the United Kingdom; he made a number of visits to Britain as a member of the UK-Japan 2000 Group but it is nonetheless valuable to develop a personal relationship.

    We spent some time discussing the Uruguay Round and related trade issues. I won’t go into all the technical details of those discussions except to say they were extremely useful and I set out the British approach to today’s Joint Council in Brussels. The Prime Minister set out the bilateral initiatives we have agreed today and I think there is nothing to add to that except in one respect: I think the UK-Japan New Century scholarship is a remarkably innovative idea and I would like to express my gratitude to the private sector British companies who sponsored the initiative; it will enable a number of Japanese post-graduate students to attend Oxford and I think that will be a matter of great help to both our countries.

    We discussed at some length the important trading and investment relationship between our two countries and the advantage that we both saw in continuing that: We touched on a range of international issues – China, the United Nations, Russia, the Middle East and political and economic reform in Japan.

    As the Prime Minister indicated a few moments ago, during our discussions I did make plain the strong feelings that exist in Britain about the issue of the former British prisoners of war. I said that very great interest had been aroused by Mr. Hosokawa’s formal expression of profound remorse and apology for Japanese actions during World War II. The Prime Minister said he wished to reiterate those sentiments to all those in Britain who suffered as a result of Japanese conduct. We noted that the question of compensation had legally been settled by the San Francisco Peace Treaty. I told Mr. Hosokawa that if in future the Japanese government contemplated taking steps to redress the matter, it would be necessary for the situation of those concerned in Britain to be fully taken into account. I informed Mr. Hosokawa that we were also examining whether non-governmental measures would assist in solving this problem. Both of us thought that this approach was worth examining. While we recognised that immediate solutions were not possible, we agreed to keep closely in touch about this matter and contact will therefore continue.

    The final word I wish to add before we take any questions you may have for a few moments is to say how much I welcome the initiative of holding the Japan-United Kingdom Conference in London in January 1994, We commissioned a certain amount of work for that Conference and I think it will prove to be an important landmark in our closer relationship but I think now, with the Prime Minister’s consent, we might be able to take a few questions.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Colin Brown, The Independent):

    Mr. Major, Mr. Hosokawa has said that he thinks that being in power for more than ten years breeds corruption. Do you think that after fourteen years in power it would be healthy for the Conservatives to have a spell in opposition?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Neither healthy for the Conservatives nor the country.

    QUESTION:

    In Japan, for the first time in 38 years, we now have a new coalition government with an end to a one-party monopoly by the Liberal Democratic Party and I wonder how, Prime Minister Major, you assess the political change in this country?

    Secondly, having met the new Prime Minister here, Mr. Hosokawa, what are your personal impressions?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    On the first point, it is not for any foreign politician to comment in too great detail about Japan’s government or Japan’s internal system, I can only say I have had very pleasant and cordial relationships with successive Japanese Prime Ministers and I have absolutely no doubt after today’s meeting that I will have pleasant and cordial relationships with Mr. Hosokawa and his government and I wish them and Japan every success in the political reforms upon which they are embarked.

    CHARLES WRIGHT:

    [Very indistinct but question regarding remarks of one of the businessmen accompanying the Prime Minister saying that the continuing doubt regarding the Prime Minister’s position was undermining the mission and making life difficult for the mission. Could the Prime Minister comment?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made my views about that clear yesterday and I don’t see any particular need to reiterate them, I am concerned in making sure that this is a success. You must take your own samples but I suspect very strongly that if you talk to any of the senior businessmen who are here on the trip they are finding it a very worthwhile occasion. I think it is proving itself to be a success and I hope that will be their verdict at the end of our discussions here.

    QUESTION:

    There is much talk about what Japan might seek in the United Nations General Assembly that has just started with regard to a possible indication of its willingness to become a permanent member of the Security Council and that sort of thing. To date, Britain has not shown a forthcoming attitude on this question regarding Japan or the Federal Republic and I wonder what your current stance is on that issue and whether this matter was discussed in your meeting today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, we did discuss it today and I set out the British position fairly comprehensively at a speech over luncheon. I think the prime concern we have is to make sure that the United Nations works effectively. There is now a debate about reform proceedings and as that proceeds I have no doubt that in one form or another Japan will be a beneficiary of that particular debate but the primary concern that we have had right the way through is to ensure the continuing efficiency of the United Nations, not to hold back reform either in the interest of Germany or Japan or anybody else. We are content with the debate about reform; we think it will come to a conclusion but as that debate proceeds – and I think Japan will benefit from that debate very materially – we must all the time have in mind the efficiency of the United Nations operation itself.

    QUESTION:

    Do you agree with your Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, that your Government is still in a dreadful hole and if you do, how are you going to get out of it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you only have a partial quote from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear we were now backing growth, that we would have the largest growth in the European Community this year and I strongly suspect the Chancellor shares my view that we will have the largest growth in the European Community next year. The point about the hole is that we are on our way out of it!

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct but regarding whether Primo Minister Hosokawa, when he discussed the Uruguay Round, discussed the threatened French veto regarding the Blair House Agreement]

    PRIME MINISTER HOSOKAWA:

    We did in fact discuss matters related to the Blair House Agreement, In that connection, I might say that every country has its own difficult issues, especially the agricultural issue, and we mutually reaffirmed the need for efforts by all of us to override these difficulties and bring the Uruguay Round talks to a successful conclusion.