The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Unemployment

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Copenhagen – 22 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Copenhagen, given on Tuesday 22nd June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In some ways this was a refreshingly different sort of summit. I say that because it did face up, in a way previous summits I do not believe have done, to the problem of 18 million people in Europe without jobs and the negative growth that confronts 4 or 5 of our partners this year. And I think that the discussion we had on economic matters was the most thorough and the most frank that I can remember in the period I have been coming to these summits.

    We reached broad agreement on competitiveness and the importance of that for the future. We did not waste a great deal of time on Euro-theology, that was despatched to the sidelines where personally I believe it belongs. It was a time in this discussion to get down to some brass tacks, for us to consider what might actually be done to help get Europe back to work.

    At the end of our discussions the Council has come out with a clear message, and I think the clear message is this – tackling unemployment and restoring competitiveness will be the top priority.

    In his presentation to the European Council, the President of the Commission elaborated two facts known to many of us but brought out in discussion in this summit in a very stark way. The first of those was that Community unemployment has been on a steadily rising trend throughout the last 20 years. It has risen and dipped with growth and lack of growth but the underlying trend has been a rising trend of unemployment since the early 1970s. The second stark fact is another unpalatable fact for those of us in Western Europe and that is the reality that the Community’s share of the world market has been falling throughout the last 10 years.

    I agree with the diagnosis that the President of the Commission set out, even though I do not agree with all the remedies that he proposed in his paper. But I do think he was absolutely right to put the Community’s need to compete at centre stage of our consideration. The simple reality is that if we do not compete and compete successfully, we will contract, and that means less jobs and it is as simple as that.

    We agreed in the summit on a number of measures designed to improve Europe’s economic prospects. First, we agreed it was vital to keep inflation low for sustainable growth and cost competitiveness. Second, as we agreed at Edinburgh last December, we agreed again to give priority to growth and investment in our public expenditure programmes. Third, we agreed to expand the European Investment Bank infrastructure lending facility from 5 billion ECU to 8 billion, I personally would have been prepared to go a little higher than that, but 8 billion was the figure that we settled upon. And fourthly, it was agreed that we had to get fiscal deficits down right the way round the Community, without which much of Europe will be in no position to get its interest rates down and of course for many European colleagues that is still an acutely important matter.

    We touched on some other sensitive issues in our discussion. We are all facing the problem of the rising cost of social provisions. All of us, without exception, want to protect the elderly and the vulnerable and the cost therefore of overall provision has to be kept under control so we can pick the right priorities and deal satisfactorily and comprehensively with those priorities.

    I have argued strenuously, and I have to say with a great deal of support, that the Community has to keep down the cost of jobs so as to help those people without jobs, those people who need new jobs. And it was for that reason that I have argued against what I think is quite muddle-headed meddling which has led to directives like the working time directive. I would like nothing better, across the whole Community, to have the Community as a whole described as a paradise for foreign investment. Alas that is not yet the position across the whole Community.

    But getting Europe to take competitiveness seriously, I think we have done that at this summit and I think that is a start. And there are two very important elements to follow. Over the next 6 months we are going to work on structural reforms to combat unemployment, to scrutinise non-wage costs, to boost flexibility in labour markets, to improve training and education. Those are aims for all of us and I hope that will lead to a genuinely radical report from the Commission at the December Council. All of us will examine the proposals put forward by the President of the Commission, we will comment on them, agree with them, disagree with them and add other things to them. And I hope the sum total of that will be a radical report in December.

    We also, both in the conclusions and in the Council itself, spent some time on subsidiarity on its various aspects. And we have here another very welcome dose of realism. We are pushing ahead, with very strong support from France, from Germany and from a number of other member states. This morning the Commission produced a list of areas where, as a result of subsidiarity considerations arising from previous agreements at summits, they have decided not to legislate, legislation that would have happened, that now will not happen because of the new atmosphere created by subsidiarity.

    We are still examining existing legislation that should either be removed entirely, axed, or perhaps in some cases amended, and I expect we will have a significant list of specific measures in December. There are differing traditions in each country, especially on labour market measures, and they must be restricted. I do not think we should seek uniformity for its own sake.

    On the external side of our discussions we discussed GATT. If we want growth then we need an agreement to the Uruguay Round, we have waited too long for it. Year after year we have expected an agreement by the end of the year and year after year the deadline has been extended yet again. We need to go a long way in what is now a relatively short time if we are to get a comprehensive Uruguay agreement this year. I remain convinced that we all stand to benefit from a successful end to the Uruguay Round.

    Let me highlight three other external points before turning to Bosnia, each of them takes a big step forward towards a long held goal that Britain has been concerned with. The first is very clear cut. We have now set a very clear target for the enlargement negotiations and I hope we will see Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden in the Community by 1 January 1995, earlier than many people expected, and the Community in my view will be stronger for their membership. Secondly, we have agreed in our discussions in the last two days that the 6 countries of central and Eastern Europe will join the Community. To help them down the road to membership we will develop closer political links and open our markets more rapidly to their goods, and that I believe is desperately needed from their point of view. Thirdly, a word about Russia. Russia’s weight and its international standing is important for all of us and that is reflected in the new proposal, a British proposal that I made during our discussions, for six-monthly summits with the President of Russia between the President of Russia and the Community.

    Let me now turn to our discussions on Bosnia. I think many of you heard last night, from sources that I cannot possibly guess at, that we had a lively debate on Bosnia last evening. That is certainly true and all of us of course are deeply anxious about the situation there, it has noticeably deteriorated on the ground in recent weeks, the vulnerability of the Muslims and the risks to those who are helping them worry all of us, but especially those of us with first-hand experience and the commitment of large numbers of troops on the ground providing humanitarian relief.

    I expressed the view last night, and reiterate it today, that I firmly believe that now is not: the time to abandon negotiations and to adopt the council of despair which lifting the arms embargo would represent. Lifting the embargo would lead, I believe, to an even bloodier war but without at the end of that producing the prospect of a better settlement that can only be obtained by negotiation.

    The European Council has not made that fundamental change to our policy. The declaration on Bosnia-Herzegovina rightly does not call for the embargo to be lifted, indeed it reaffirms our confidence in Lord Owen and Mr Stoltenberg whose determination in the cause of peace is remarkable and rightly is widely acknowledged. So we have encouraged them to pursue further a fair and a viable settlement.

    I would underline the vital point, and it is a vital point for all of us, that that settlement must be acceptable to all three constituent peoples of Bosnia Herzegovina. We shall not accept a territorial solution dictated by Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Bosnian Muslim if a settlement can be found which meets these criteria, which is based on the principles of the London Conference and the Vance/Owen plan, and which is accepted by the Muslims as offering fair and viable conditions and the prospect of an early end to this terrible war, that must be the best outcome. I for one believe we should continue to pursue that outcome, not move precipitately to lifting an arms embargo which amongst other matters would pour more arms into an area torn by warfare, would increase the bloodshed, would increase the risk of the war spilling out of its present boundaries, would open wider the risk of a third Balkan war, and perhaps very speedily indeed, if not immediately, would also lead to the total end of humanitarian relief in Bosnia. The time for that is not yet. I expressed that view last night, I reiterated that view this morning and I am happy to confirm to you in public that that remains the position we have taken.

    Let me just sum up this summit. Rows of course, and there has been the occasional exchange over the last couple of days, rows make catchy headlines, they are quite good fun for those who participate in them and for those no doubt who report them, but shared realism and determination are to me the story of what this Council has really been about. The best Community debates are not about institutions, they are about practicalities, and the debate that we have had in the last day and a half has been a very practical debate, a debate about developing a new economic approach, an approach designed to cut red tape and regulation and help create new jobs, a debate about: significant progress with enlargement, enlargement to the north and enlargement also to Austria, and the prospect also of subsequent later enlargement further east. The debate has also been about a new relationship with Russia and one that I personally believe is merited and welcome.

    These are big changes, especially big changes if you compare this Council with those of just a few years ago. What it seems to me has happened is this, under the pressure of serious economic problems across Europe the Community is taking an increasingly pragmatic approach, it is addressing today’s needs and not tomorrow’s dreams. I believe that is the right way to go.

    It may be a little late but it is very welcome that the Community are now doing that. And I think to that extent we may look back on this summit in the last couple of days and regard it as a watershed in the way the Community addressed its business and its future.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    You haven’t mentioned this request in the final communique for member states to comply with the UN Secretary-General’s request for more troops, which rather surprises me. Does Britain intend to send more troops to Bosnia? If not, where will those troops come from? Do we expect Germany to pay for the dispatch of more troops, for instance? And do you agree with President Mitterrand that if troops are not sent, then the embargo should be dropped?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Those questions, I think Boris, are really for Germany and for others, not for me. We have our troops there, we have made our contribution and I don’t envisage that changing. Others felt across the Community that perhaps they could make a greater contribution but it is not for me to say what they would have to do.

    We have made our contribution, it is a very substantial contribution, it is there, it has been there for months, it has been doing an excellent job. If others believe they may be able to make a further contribution, I welcome that if they can. Certainly, we would all like to see the extra troops there that are needed for the safe areas plan; perhaps some of those can come from Community countries, some perhaps from countries beyond the Community but Britain, I think, has made its contribution.

    QUESTION (Steve Doughty, Daily Mail):

    Prime Minister, should negotiations towards a fair settlement in Bosnia fail, are you prepared ultimately to consider the lifting of the arms embargo?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is a rapidly-moving scene. I don’t like the counsel of despair that it would fail. If, at the end of the day, it fails we will have to look afresh at what the situation is. At the moment it hasn’t failed, there are negotiations that can still continue. I think that is the right way to go ahead. To judge what might happen beyond that would be to play a part in helping the negotiations fail and I for one would not wish to do that.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, The Guardian):

    Prime Minister, half an hour or so ago, the Danish Presidency and the President of the Commission made it clear that as a result of the discussion at this summit there would be no question of any rolling back of the Community’s social dimension let alone any existing social legislation. The Presidency said that would send a very negative signal to wage-earners in Europe. Are you reconciled now with having lost the argument for the roll-back on the Community’s social aspirations in view of your arguments on competitivity?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we have not the lost the argument about the roll-back; that is a curious interpretation of the discussion over the last couple of days. You have been attending these summits for a long time, John, you have been attending these press conferences for a long time; when before in all the long years in which you have endured these great occasions have you seen the European Council actually address the difficulties across Europe of rising social costs leading to lack of competitiveness? The answer is you may have heard it from the British, you may occasionally have heard it from one or two other nations but that is about all. On this occasion, it went right the way round the table and the fact of the matter is if you look around the Community, Italy, France, Holland, a whole range of other countries are actually taking action on social costs for precisely the reasons we have set out and that everybody acknowledged in the debate.

    Nobody is suggesting that there is no social dimension to the Community. Nobody is suggesting, except those at the extremes of argument who wish to squash sensible debate, that we would wish to end the social provision that exists in the Community. I am not saying that and nobody else is saying that. I wish people would address the matter sensibly.

    What we are saying is that if we go on piling cost upon cost upon cost in the European Community, there can only be one effect and that effect is that we will become less competitive in Europe and what we will export most will not be our goods but our jobs and one of the striking aspects of the Delors presentation was firstly that rising line of unemployment over the last twenty years in the Community, secondly the declining line of competitiveness and thirdly, the fact that across the Community there is a strikingly high number of people with modest skills who are unemployed for very long periods indeed.

    The point that I am making is this so that it is not misunderstood by anyone: we have to look at the social requirements of people who are not in work. Our first priority must be to get as many as we can of the 17 million European citizens without work back into jobs. That should be our first priority – I don’t want that rising to 20 million or beyond as people have forecast and if we simply look at ever-increasing social provision for those in work, we will do so at the expense of being able to help those people out of work. I don’t want to be misrepresented or misunderstood by anybody. That is the British position and I hope it is entirely clear.

    QUESTION (Raymond Lloyd, The New Internationalist):

    The British Government has justified its low acceptance rate of Bosnian refugees in part on the grounds that it was desirable that they stay as close as possible to their homeland. Now that these homelands are disappearing by the day, will Britain now accept as many Bosnian refugees as, say, the 10,000 Hungarian refugees given asylum in 1956 and 1957?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think, if you take the British record over a lot of years, not only in Bosnia but in other areas, that anybody can legitimately criticise Britain for not taking its share of people who found themselves in difficulty around the world or playing its part in helping them on the ground so I have no further change of policy to announce today.

    QUESTION (Graham Leach, BBC):

    Chancellor Kohl a short time ago was referring to the great moral issue at the centre of this Bosnian crisis, the fact that the Bosnian Muslims are in the weakest position of the various parties there to defend themselves and he is clearly hosting the view of deep unhappiness about, this new proposed settlement which he believes is being dictated largely by the Serbs and the Croats.

    How much moral disquiet do you have that the focus of the negotiations now is merely or appears merely to be salvaging what you can for the Muslim population?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My moral disquiet was actually evidenced last August when we were the first to put troops in to deal with the humanitarian effort. My moral disquiet has been there throughout the whole of this episode.

    One has to understand the reality of what has happened and what the options are. With the collapse of the old Yugoslavia and indeed the collapse of the discipline exerted by the old Soviet Union, the genie of old hatreds came out of the bottle in Bosnia-Herzegovina. There was brutally a choice. We – by “We” mean not just the European Community but the rest of the world – perhaps through the United Nations could have decided to put in several hundred thousand troops – for that is what it would have meant – to hold the combatants apart, Heaven knows for how long, six months, a year, five years, ten years. We have been in Cyprus for 28 years. Nobody was prepared to do that; it would not have been a practicable military proposition without huge loss of life and there was no enthusiasm for doing it. Many great states still don’t have any troops on the ground there.

    Once that was pushed to one side, there was only one effective route to take; that was to seek humanitarian aid to minimise the suffering and minimise the loss of life and I would argue that that humanitarian assistance led by the British and the French – the French have been remarkable and the Spanish have done very good work there as well – has saved an unknown number but a huge number of lives over the winter. Allied with that, we needed to seek a political settlement. It is very easy to stand back and say: “Why not do something else?” but there was no other way to deal with it other than to seek a political settlement and that is what repeatedly we have been doing.

    I set out my reasons a few moments ago why I am reluctant to see the arms embargo lifted and I think they are compelling reasons – I won’ t reiterate them again today. I still believe the first prize both for Bosnia as a whole and for the rest of the world is to maintain the humanitarian aid, not destroy it with a single gesture, and to see even now whether we can achieve a satisfactory political settlement that will bring the fighting to an end.

    There is a moral issue. The first moral issue is to stop the killing. We must all make our own judgement about how that is best done and I have set out my judgement quite clearly.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    There has been a danger from the very beginning of this of exaggerated expectations of what people outside the former Yugoslavia could do and therefore exaggerated criticism when they don’t do it and the British Government, whether in the Security Council, in NATO or here in the Community, consistently said from the very beginning that it is not possible for outsiders to impose a just and durable peace. It has to be negotiated. The only possible way of imposing a peace would be, as the Prime Minister said, in effect to declare Bosnia and perhaps indeed Croatia as some kind of UN protectorate or colony and keep troops there for year after year. No-one is proposing that.

    There have always been limitations on what we can do from outside and much of the criticism and disappointment has been from people who did not at the beginning understand those limitations. What we have done is, as the Prime Minister said, provided a political framework, provided pressures, sanctions, to encourage those concerned – and particularly the Serbs with their special responsibility – to negotiate, provide humanitarian help and keep people alive. Those are the things we have been doing and within their limits we have been doing them successfully.

    Now it has moved on a stage in the sense that Lord Owen reported two nights ago to the foreign ministers that it looked as if the Serbs and Croats were considering a plan, beginning to put forward a plan. It is not for us in this Community to endorse that plan; we have not done so, it is not our plan. It is not for us to tell the Muslims that they should accept that plan; we have not done so; we made that clear to President Izetbegovic yesterday. But it is for them to consider – this is what I asked him – whether they should in fact find out, discuss and explore the possibilities. Whether they will do that or not I don’t know but it is reasonable that they should.

    One could imagine a situation, as the Prime Minister said, where it all collapsed, it was too dangerous to keep British troops there, the UN effort could not continue, negotiations collapsed. That is a different situation which is why in the Washington statement we did not exclude harsher measures but to end the arms embargo now, to involve the withdrawal of the UN effort, stop the effective effort of keeping people alive, in fact arm Croats as well as Muslims and Serbs, those are the consequences of the lifting of the arms embargo now and because those consequences are fairly clear a very substantial view here was that we should not change our policy.

    QUESTION (Japanese Newspaper):

    What sort of message or guidelines is the European Council to take to Japan for the economic summit and G7 in a few weeks time although Japanese politics are in turmoil?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a difficult thing! The European Council did not discuss a collective view for the G7 summit though a number of European members, France, Germany, Britain and the Commission itself of course will be there but we didn’t over the last couple of days agree a concerted line for what we might discuss in Japan.

    There is a good deal of preparatory work still going on as I am sure you will know and I think it will be a few days yet before positions are taken. It was not discussed in the last day and a half.

    QUESTION (Peter Snow, BBC TV):

    Are you going to fully participate in the creation of the European Monetary Institute with a view perhaps to participating in the ECB at the end of it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is agreed in the Maastricht Treaty that everyone, whether they are operating within the Exchange Rate Mechanism or not, remains within the European Monetary System so of course we contribute to the decision-making.

    As to when we will return to the Exchange Rate Mechanism, we have made it clear that it isn’t imminent; it will probably be some years before we are able to do that. I have made that clear, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that clear and that hasn’t changed at all as a result of our discussions in the last day and a half.

    QUESTION (Peter Snow, BBC TV):

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh yes. If by “in that” you mean will we have a say in where it goes, what it does and in the governing of it, the answer is Yes.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    Prime Minister, I was wondering if you are now in a position to deny categorically the allegation made in the “Guardian” that the Tory Party received £7 million from the Saudi royal family before the last election. I was also wondering if Mr. Mates is still a member of your Government and is going to stay there.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to the first point is that the story is total fantasy from beginning to end. The Conservative Party doesn’t accept money from foreign governments or from royal families and it hasn’t done so. I don’t know what the sources of those stories were. If there is any firm evidence, I hope someone will bring it to me to see. I don’t myself deal with these matters but I am assured that the story is utterly and completely unfounded.

    As far as Mr. Mates is concerned, I made the position clear this morning. Nothing has changed since then.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC TV):

    Do you accept, Prime Minister, that it is part of your responsibility as Conservative party leader to make sure that the party is funded from proper sources and wouldn’t that task be made much easier if it was made a condition of giving large donations to a political party that the donor’s name should be made public by the party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Conservative Party is funded by individuals, by companies and by its own party activists. Overwhelmingly most of it comes from its own party activists. There are people who donate money to the party who require anonymity. That is the position, has always been the position and I don’t see any logical reason for changing that position.

    What we have seen in the last couple of days goes back really to the last question. It is very easy for the most extraordinary stories to run around rather like the one that appeared this morning which I am assured, though I don’t have a direct responsibility for these matters, is totally untrue. I appreciate that it is always possible for quite absurd stories to be put up, run around and given a good deal of publicity but the fundamental choice is this; political parties could of course be funded by the state. That is really what the Labour Party would like because their only funding at the moment comes from trade unions many of whose members are not supporters of the Labour Party though nonetheless their money no doubt goes to the Labour Party; they have no organisation in the constituencies to speak of, they have no means of raising money in the constituencies and businesses are so hostile to their policies no-one would give them twopence halfpenny so clearly they are very much in the business of making sure there is state funding. They are very keen on state funding; they have always liked more. I don’t like the principle of having our political parties principally funded by the taxpayer compulsorily – I don’t like it – and I have to tell you that I don’t think the taxpayer would like it either.

    That being so, I think a free and open democratic party should be funded in the way we have traditionally been funded. We have made it clear we don’t accept money from foreign governments, we don’t accept money from foreign royal families. In the event that any money handed to us turns out to be tainted, we will return that money but people who contribute to political parties do have a right to anonymity just as they have a right to anonymity if they contribute to charities or other things. That has been the position and I see no logical reason for changing it.

    QUESTION (BBC Hungarian Service):

    Could I just go back to one aspect of Stage 1 which hasn’t been touched yet, that of enlargement? As the UK is one of the supporters of enlargement, can I ask you Prime Minister whether you envisage that some of the six former socialist countries or indeed some of the Visegrad Four can be granted full membership earlier than others and if so, have you got a preferable candidate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think any of them are remotely ready to come into the Community now. I wish they were because Britain is a foremost supporter of having them join the Community but the fact of the matter is they aren’t economically ready to join and it will be some time before they are. It was for that reason that we wanted to ensure that they had Association Agreements, it was for that reason that we wanted to open some of the trade barriers so they can export more easily to us and help make themselves ready to join the Community.

    As to whether they could join individually or whether they have to join collectively, I think it is inevitable that they will join individually. Whatever the past thought may have been that they will all come in at the same date, the fact of the matter is that one or two of them will be ready for membership of the Community in advance of the others and I for one would not then wish to close the Community door on them. If one is ready and the others are not, I think we should let that one in and then the others as and when they are ready to join the Community but I have to say to you I think it is some years ahead.

    QUESTION (Michael White, The Guardian):

    I know approximately where the allegations are sourced in this morning’s “Guardian” report, Prime Minister and accept that they should be taken seriously. Therefore can I, in the light of your remarks this morning, press you a little further?

    You said that yours was a democratically-funded, largely domestically-funded party but the difficulty with your position is that so much of your funding admitted and reported in the annual accounts isn’t readily accountable for so therefore can I press you a little further?

    You said this morning no donations from the Saudi Government, you said this afternoon no donations from the Saudi royal family. I wonder if your knowledge of the situation goes far enough to enable you to say no donations came from either private individuals or corporations in Saudi Arabia which though it is an ally of ours is scarcely a democratic ally of ours, and if you consider that to be fanciful, I wonder if I could extend the question a moment and say what is in the public domain is that your colleague, Mr. Heseltine, was taken ill in Venice at the weekend. The DTI thought he was going to be in Germany and he was meeting with Lord McAlpine whom I think we all know is not a kissing cousin politically speaking of Mr. Heseltine. Do we know what he was doing with Lord McAlpine?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have absolutely no idea. I don’t know what sort of “Guardian” you now represent but the concept that Michael Heseltine shouldn’t spend a weekend in Venice with his wife and meet someone he has known for twenty years seems to me rather an extraordinary proposition.

    If you have evidence of the sort that you printed this morning in the “Guardian” bring it to me and show it to me. I am assured that your story this morning was total and utter fantasy. If you think it wasn’t, until you are sure bring the evidence to me and see. I make that offer to you. You bring the evidence to me, I will examine it. Just let us have a little less innuendo and a little more fact. Bring the evidence to me, Michael, or don’t print it!

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Copenhagen (II) – 20 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Copenhagen on Monday 21st June 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could we ask you about the prospects now, particularly with regard to the social chapter and a possible argument with Jacques Delors, are you prepared to take on the federalists in this discussion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My position about the social chapter is perfectly clear, it has been made clear for months and it certainly is not going to change this morning. The reality is not just for the United Kingdom but for the whole of Europe, Europe must compete or it will contract, if we price ourselves out of world markets we will lose exports, but worse than that, we will lose jobs. 17 million people unemployed, rising in most countries throughout the European Community, it is folly to keep piling costs on employers, making ourselves uncompetitive, losing exports and losing jobs. That is not an ideological point, it is a very practical point for 17 million people who are unemployed.

    QUESTION:

    But aren’t a lot of the people here going to say that you are trying to kill off the spirit of Maastricht, that the whole idea of the Maastricht Treaty was to grow closer together in social policy as well as everything else.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Growing closer together with more people unemployed is not a very attractive policy, and there is nothing novel about the British position on that. Right from the outset I have claimed that the social charter was a job destruction programme. Now I am taking a very pragmatic view and unless we are able to contain our costs in the Community we will lose our markets, if we lose our markets, we lose jobs, now you cannot ignore that reality, I shall address that reality this morning.

    QUESTION:

    What about the timetable to a single currency, is that at all possible under the Maastricht rules?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You know I have had a great deal of reservation about the timetable for a single currency, that is not new, I expressed my reservations about that at the time of the Maastricht debate. At that time there was a feeling across Europe that the European economies would converge and make the timetable more realistic. I think most dispassionate observers would say that the economies have diverged and not converged and I think one draws one’s own conclusion from that.

  • PMQT – 17 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Evennett : I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he join me in welcoming today’s unemployment figures which show the fourth consecutive fall? Does he agree that that is good news for the unemployed, the economy and Britain?

    The Prime Minister : Yes ; above all, it is good news for those workers and their families who find themselves back in work. I am delighted at the fall of 26,000–the fourth fall in a row. I concede that unemployment remains far too high. It has fallen by nearly 80, 000 since the beginning of the year. Equally encouraging, vacancies are at their highest level for two years. A few months ago, many people expected unemployment to rise throughout the year. Instead, it has fallen in Scotland, Wales and every English region.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister explain–his Minister was asked this question–why only last week the Department of Social Security claimed that the number of people on low incomes who would be worse off as a result of the national insurance increases in the Budget was only 500,000, but yesterday was forced to admit that that was wrong and the real figure was 2.25 million? What sort of advertisement is that for the competence of his Government or their understanding of the effects that his policies have on so many people?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is operating under a misapprehension. Suggestions of a mistake are wrong. My hon. Friend was asked about the number of people below the basic rate tax threshold who will pay more national insurance in 1994-95. The answer he gave on 7 June related to people whose earnings fall below the 20 per cent. tax band. The answer he gave on 16 June related to people whose earnings fall below the 25 per cent. tax band. [Hon. Members :– “Ah.”] Therefore, naturally the figures are different.

    Mr. Smith : The Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. We must hear not only answers, but questions.

    Mr. Smith : The Prime Minister seeks to defend his Department on the basis that it cannot read the questions. The question was the same in both cases, but it received different answers. Leaving that matter aside– [Laughter.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. We are using up valuable time.

    Mr. Smith : It relates to precisely the same issue. Does the Prime Minister recollect saying on that very issue during that election campaign :

    “taxpayers with the lowest incomes will benefit most”?

    Why, then, has he imposed a higher national insurance burden on over 2 million low-paid people? Does he admit that, once again, he has broken his word, or was it just another of those throwaway lines delivered on a wet night somewhere in Dudley?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s suggestion that it might be wise to put that aside is an answer which many people will recall for some time. If he looks at what has happened, he will see that we have raised the threshold for the 20 per cent. band by £500 in the Budget and by a further £500 from next year. Most taxpayers in the lower rate band will gain more from the 20 per cent. lower rate than they will lose from the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister still not understand, as millions of low-paid people do, that putting 1 per cent. on national insurance for people who do not pay income tax is putting up the tax on their income? Why did he say on page 7 of the Conservative party election manifesto :

    “We have reduced the burden of national insurance on low earners”? Was the whole manifesto written on a wet night somewhere in Dudley?

    The Prime Minister : I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it did not sound any better the second time, so perhaps he should put that aside as well. He should look at what has happened, with the introduction of a 20 per cent. tax band and the raising of a 20 per cent. tax band, and I reiterate–as he clearly did not hear it the first time–that most taxpayers in the lower rate band gain more from the 20 per cent. rate than they lose from the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions. In short–so that the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly understands–they are better off under our plans than they ever would have been under his plans, which would have involved the largest increase in direct taxation ever seen this century.

    Mr. Sims : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the current issue of the journal of the Royal Society of Medicine? Is he aware that it includes a survey carried out by a distinguished doctor of general practice in 12 countries in Europe, north America and the far east in which he reaches the conclusion that British is best? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as we proceed with the implementation of the NHS reforms, that will continue to be the case?

    The Prime Minister : The immediate answer to my hon. Friend is no, I have not seen that survey, but, as he has drawn it to my attention, I shall take the opportunity of looking at it. There has been a dramatic improvement both in the resources available to the health services and in the quality of health treatment provided in recent years by the people who work in the service. It is our intention that that should continue– [Interruption.] –and I am sorry if the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) thinks that it is nonsense that the people in the health service are providing a better service. I believe that they are.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is it not the case that in the 17 or so years since the decision was taken to build THORP–the thermal oxide reprocessing plant –at Sellafield, the economics of THORP have collapsed, the risk of nuclear proliferation has increased, international opposition has hardened and the threshold of safe nuclear emissions has been substantially reduced? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, before a decision is taken to put THORP into operation, the widest possible consultation and debate will be conducted on that dubious project?

    The Prime Minister : THORP is a substantial engineering and export success for this country. It supports some 3,000 jobs and has £9 billion-worth of contracts, which is a powerful vote of confidence in the plant from people around the world who will be its customers. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are considering the inspectors’ reports on the proposed new discharge authorisations for the site. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge their considerations.

    Mr. Stephen : Is my right hon. Friend aware that visiting the House today is a very special group of 21 men who served this country in the Army, Navy and Royal Flying Corps during the great battles of the first world war? Does my right hon. Friend agree that all of us who live in freedom today owe everything we have to those gallant men and their comrades who died in that most terrible of all wars?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. I have sent a message to those very welcome guests to the House today. I am sure they will be welcomed by everyone in the House.

     

    Q2. Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Llwyd : Given the widespread alarm among millions of constituents about the proposed imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel, which will result in an increased incidence of hypothermia and even more poverty among middle-income groups, will the Prime Minister urge his colleagues to reconsider this pernicious and indiscriminate form of indirect taxation? In so doing, he might just assist his albeit fragile, political future.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern. We have set out a policy that we believe is correct and we have stated that we will take action to assist vulnerable groups. That assistance will be in place before the extra charges are introduced. The hon. Gentleman utterly fails to mention that the cost of fuel has been falling as a result of our policies, not rising astronomically as it did before we came to office.

    Mrs. Roe : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is typically British for commentators and Opposition Members to talk British industry down, yet totally ignore the best manufacturing output figures for five years?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend understates her case a little. They do not just talk Britain down–given the chance, they do it down and do it in. Opposition policies would impose an extra tax on jobs and would be no good for British industry. Raising employers’ costs and introducing the social charter would be no good for employment prospects or employers. The minimum wage would further damage job prospects. Yet again, the use of flying pickets would be legalised. [Hon. Members :– “Boring.”] That is the Labour party’s policy. Labour Members may regard my comments as boring, but people in work regard their policy as a job destruction programme.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Mr. Pink on winning his case for unfair dismissal against the Stockport health authority? Does he agree that whistleblowers play a very important part in a democracy? Will he urge the Stockport health authority to reinstate Mr. Pink and ensure that resources are available to improve the staffing of the geriatric wards at the hospital in question?

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of the details of the case, but if justice has been done I am delighted.

     

    Q4. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Fabricant : Following his Cabinet meeting this morning, will my right hon. Friend unequivocally assure the House that–despite the rumours and smears from the Labour party, which preys on the fears of the most vulnerable in our society–the national health service and welfare state always were, are, and for ever will be safe in Conservative hands?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated a moment or so ago, the health service has improved dramatically during recent years, partly as a result of the increased resources made available to it and partly as a result of the activities of the many dedicated people who work in it. I have no doubt that will continue to be the case in the future. [Interruption.] It is thriving.

     

    Q5. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Has the Prime Minister given the President of the Board of Trade a list of the companies that have donated to the Conservative party since 1979? Will the Prime Minister confirm that if the President finds that they have not declared those donations in their accounts, they will all be repaid?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman must understand that British business supports the Conservative party because it believes that our policies are right for British business, the British future and British jobs. Perhaps it is because business understands and applies that test that precious little money from companies goes to the Labour party.

    Sir Jim Spicer : Would my right hon. Friend remember today that, over the past year, the wild and sometimes woolly Members of this House have said that the Government should intervene more directly in Yugoslavia? Will he accept the thanks of most sensible Members for all that he and the Government have done, on behalf not only of the United Kingdom but of the world, in not allowing such intervention to take place?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In my judgment, there is no doubt that it was right to assist with the humanitarian operation, and I believe that the activity of our troops has been widely admired, not just in this country but around the world. They have certainly done a magnificent job.

    There are only two ways of settling the dispute. One is to put in hundreds of thousands of troops for an indefinite period–no one wise wants to do that, and no other country would be prepared to do it. The only alternative is to seek a diplomatic solution allied to the humanitarian aid that we and others have been providing. We still seek that diplomatic solution.

    I understand that Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg had a useful meeting yesterday with the Presidents of Serbia and Croatia. They will continue their negotiations next week. Lord Owen will brief me on Saturday before I go to the European Council. His determined efforts over recent months have done as much as those of any other individual to keep alive the prospect of a political settlement.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Economy – 9 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 1993 in the Economic Debate.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I beg to move, to leave out from House’ to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof : welcomes the widespread indications of economic recovery in the United Kingdom at a time when many other major economies are in deepening recession ; recognises that the interests of industry are at the heart of the Government’s policy and acknowledges the comprehensive programme of training and employment opportunities for unemployed people that the Government has put in place; welcomes the Government’s commitment to its Manifesto pledges including its commitment to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services through the Citizen’s Charter ; deplores the scare-mongering stories about public spending peddled by the Opposition ; and applauds the Government for its determination to maintain low inflation, sound public finances and firm control over total public expenditure upon which a sustainable economic recovery depends.’. As the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) sits down, I have little doubt what is in his mind : “That’ll keep John Edmonds quiet for a week or so.”

    Before I turn to the substance of the debate, I wish to say a word or two to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) regarding his remarks at the commencement of today’s debate. In his speech, my right hon. Friend spoke of a number of matters of very great importance, including the case that we have discussed on many occasions over the past two years for an independent central bank.

    I share my right hon. Friend’s loathing of inflation. That is an issue that we discussed frequently. We both saw the case for an independent central bank, able to take decisions on the implementation of monetary policy. There is a genuine case for that. I do not dissent from my right hon. Friend’s remarks about it. The very real concern that I have always faced is one that I believe is spread widely across the House : the need for accountability to Parliament for decisions on monetary policy matters. Were a way to be found to get the benefits of an independent central bank without the loss of parliamentary accountability, my views would be very close to those of my right hon. Friend, but I have to say to my right hon. Friend–I believe, from our many discussions, that it is a view he shares– that what is more important than the institutional arrangements is the underlying policy that is actually being followed. On that, I do not believe that an independent central bank would have brought down inflation any more rapidly than we have been able to achieve.That is something for which I am happy to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend.

    Also, I entirely share my right hon. Friend’s vision of the economic goals of this Government and of the difficult path that we have had to follow to achieve and maintain low inflation and restore sustainable growth and employment. My right hon. Friend and I– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down. Hon. Members do not have to listen, but whoever is speaking has to be heard. There is a great distinction between those two statements. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend and I faced crises both before and after September last year. We worked together towards objectives that we shared, and we were always agreed as to our main goals : low inflation, sustainable economic growth, an increase in prosperity for all our people as medium and long-term objectives. I believe that history will look favourably on my right hon. Friend’s economic and financial skills, but a strong Government need political skills as well– [Interruption.] –when leading a democratic society and, in particular, when handling a lively House of Commons with a small majority.

    Dealing with the problems of a small majority is a fundamental fact of democracy that no one dare or should even attempt to overlook. However, as we have shown in the battle over inflation and in our pursuit of European policy, against great difficulties in this House, we were not prepared in the Government to allow short-term difficulties to deflect us from what were the right long-term policies for this country. That was the position, and it is the position.

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support and help throughout the past two and half difficult years. I acknowledge the difficulties that he has faced and the courage with which he has faced those difficulties, and I accept the support that he has offered to the Government for the future. I welcome the opportunity to debate economic policies at a time when output is up, exports are up, productivity is up, confidence is up and, as announced today, when business starts are up.

    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has just made the speech that we expected of him. At the end of it, we are no better informed about his economic policies than we were at the beginning of it–or even about whether he has any economic policies or whether he has progressed beyond the sound bites that so frequently construct them. We do know something about the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We know that he is the man who announced the biggest tax increase in peacetime history, just before the general election. He is the man who said confidence would carry on falling, just before the CBI announced the highest level of confidence in 10 years, and he is the man who calls for a debate on the economy just as the economy is recovering. I hope that, with timing like that, the right hon. and learned Gentleman never takes up boxing, because it would be very painful. Many things can be said about him, but “floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee” is clearly not among them.

    What does seem right about the right hon. and learned Gentleman was said by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman what his right hon. Friend said about him : “I do not think that Members of Labour’s Front Bench would have even two ideas about what to do with the economy if they came to power a series of sound bites glued together and called an economic policy is not an economic policy.”–[ Official Report, 20 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 420.] That remains as true at the end of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech as it was before.

    Today’s debate goes right to the heart of the fundamental divide between the Conservative party and the Labour party. The Labour party stands for higher public spending, higher taxation and more state interference in business and industry. We stand for controlling public spending, bringing direct taxation down where we can and getting the state off the backs of businesses and individuals. Let me deal with one matter that was fundamental to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech. Let me turn immediately and clearly to social policy. I did not come into politics to dismantle the welfare state. I have no intention of doing so and neither does my party. At the moment, in different parts of the country there are many vulnerable people who are worried. They are worried because the Opposition systematically, day after day, leak after leak, sound bite after sound bite, have sought to frighten them. The Opposition have peddled scare after scare–

    Several hon. Members rose —

    The Prime Minister : I will give way later. The Opposition have peddled the man to spread scare stories; surely not a man to condone scare stories, so let me be charitable to him. Perhaps he did not know–had no idea–when the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) swore that we would privatise the national health service, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have known that that was untrue. He could not have known about that, because he is an honourable man.

    What did the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) say? He said that the Government were “threatening to cut pensions and benefits for the worse off.” In the autumn statement 13 days later, pensions and benefits rose. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not know what his hon. Friend would say, because he is an honourable man and would not have sanctioned it.

    It was the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s party that repeatedly claimed that trust hospitals were leaving the health service. They were not : the Labour party knew that they were not, yet it needlessly scared sick people for a vote or two, time after time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have authorised that, because he is an honourable man–or so I had thought. But then I discovered what he had to say : “What’s going on will lead to the privatisation of the NHS.” That was flatly untrue, of course, and another scare. I wonder who could have spread it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman spread it. In the Labour party the scares come from the top and behind that moral righteousness is someone who has no scruples whatever.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that the Conservative party won the election by telling untruths. Let me remind him about that election. It was his party that published 10 patient case histories and had to withdraw them when it turned out that it had made them up. It was his party that made up untruths about a sick little girl and spread them across the country. That is the party that dares to talk to us about standards. There is a word for that, but it is not parliamentary.

    Let me turn to the subject of public spending. The Government know that, if the economy is to grow, the tax man cannot take more of the proceeds than the country can afford. In the Conservative party, we understand that people want more money in their own pockets and do not want the Government to spend their money for them. Of course, in the recession, spending had to increase. I do not apologise for that increase in spending–it was necessary in the recession and it was necessary to protect the vulnerable. I saw no support from Labour Members for any expenditure reductions throughout the recession and every support for dramatic increases week after week from every Member of the Opposition parties.

    Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : Later. During that recession, not only did expenditure necessarily rise but income necessarily fell and that added to the borrowing requirement. Even though a great deal of that will reverse as growth returns, it is going to take time. That is why we have embarked on the public spending review. Governments have to take difficult decisions. We have to face structural increases in public spending, as any Government would. There are demographic changes, changes in student numbers and more elderly people, especially the very old. As we address those problems, the Opposition gaily spread mischief–a little fib here, a little scare there–yet as it does so it is carrying out a review into social expenditure. It does not have the courage to do it directly ; it has farmed it out to the commission on social policy. The only form of contracting out that the Labour party approves of is contracting out difficult decisions to other people.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot run away from what he said : “We” –that is, the Labour party– “should be prepared to re-examine everything. I have not ruled anything out”. That is its position on social policy and Labour Members nod in agreement. Daily, the Labour party invites us to rule things out, while it examines everything–pensions, child benefit and every other aspect of social policy.

    How responsible the right hon. and learned Gentleman is. I suppose that that comment shows that he wants to grapple with real problems, but when he faces other audiences, he wants to rule everything out. Which is the real right hon. and learned Gentleman? The gritty, determined facer of problems who wants to examine everything where nothing is ruled out, or the wriggler, twisting and turning, saying one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience?

    Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) : Could the Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury, tell us what he was doing during the long period of recession, which has caused so much misery throughout the country? Was he looking the other way? Was he train spotting? Was he walking into cupboards? Has there ever been a more wimpish approach to the problems that face this country than that which he has shown?

    The Prime Minister : I shall tell the hon. Gentleman directly : we have been presiding over a policy that brought inflation down to 1.3 per cent. and interest rates down to 6 per cent. so that this country is now poised for the largest growth in the European Community this year, next year and probably for the years beyond that. We have been taking the long- term view, not the short-term, option. That is what we have been doing–I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to point that out–while he has opposed every policy that has brought down inflation and interest rates.

    The Opposition will be glad to know that our review of public spending will be careful and thorough. There will be two criteria : are any changes fair, and are vulnerable people protected? When the answer is no, we shall not make the changes. When the answer is yes, we shall set out to the House the implications of those changes. There are no soft options. The Government’s duty is to examine them all and pick the right ones. We know that we need to reduce public borrowing, which is why, in the last Budget, we decided that some increase in revenue was necessary.

    We decided to introduce value added tax on fuel and power, not least because it would help meet our Rio commitments, commitments that the Opposition urged us to extend. We had every reason to expect cross-party support. The Liberal Democrats had stated in their green paper : “Liberal Democrats advocate as a first priority the imposition of a tax on energy The UK is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT on domestic fuels we would press forward by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel”. Where were those men of principle in the Division Lobbies after the Budget?

    What did the Labour party say? It said : “Zero rating on items such as food, fares, books and children’s clothing should remain as an essential part of the VAT system.” That was quite clear. It continued : “We will also use the tax system, as well as regulation, to help protect the environment.” That can mean only one thing. In the list of zero-rated items, there is no reference to zero rating for domestic fuel. The Opposition intended to put it up, and they know it. If they did not, will they tell me now why it was not in their list of zero-rated items? The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East does not answer–no doubt, as a QC, he believes in the right to silence for an accused.

    When we introduced VAT on fuel and power, we made it clear that there would be extra help for less well-off pensioners and others on low incomes. I am glad to repeat that commitment. In recent months, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a great deal of the VAT increase, as have his hon. Friends.

    Ms Harriet Harman (Peckham) : So have the voters.

    The Prime Minister : So did the voters, says the right hon. Lady. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention is that he was the Energy Minister who let electricity prices rise. What was the increase–5 per cent., 10 per cent., 15 per cent.? No, it was 30 per cent. over and above inflation.What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman do to help the less well-off? I shall tell the House what he did–absolutely nothing. The position is clear. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cares about pensioners when he is in opposition–how he cares about pensioners in opposition–but in government he disregards them absolutely. One may think that that was a single lapse but, in case anybody thinks that that is so, let me say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the Government who twice held back the Christmas bonus and cut capital spending on the health service. That is his record, and he should be ashamed of it.

    There is another case where the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s actions do not match his words. Today, he again attacked our borrowing levels, but his election promises would have put up borrowing way above the present level. He is still at it. “Let’s spend £6 billion of capital receipts,” says the right hon. and learned Gentleman. “Let’s spend an extra £1.5 billion on public sector pay.” The shadow Chancellor says, “Let’s renegotiate our rebate and pay more to the European Community.”

    Is there any area of Government spending that the Opposition are prepared to cut? Perhaps the shadow Chancellor can tell us. Perhaps we could have another sound bite to tell us where he would find the necessary savings. Or perhaps the deputy leader of the Labour party can tell us; after all, she came into government to implement the cuts in education that her hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) refused to make.

    Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Will my right hon. Friend explain why, if the Opposition are sincerely worried about the disadvantaged people of this country, they demand more and more overseas aid, day in, day out? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. We all like a little bit of fun and hilarity, but we also want to hear the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : The fundamental point about overseas aid is that, in order to sustain it as the Government have done, one needs to pursue the right economic policies, as we have also done. I am glad that the motion mentions manifesto promises–glad, but a little surprised because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has scrapped all his election promises. We stand by our manifesto policies. We promised action on trade unions, housing, lotteries, railways, education and asylum, and we have kept our promises. Bills on each of those matters have already passed through the House. We promised to uprate pensions and benefits, and we have done so. We promised to maintain child benefit, and we have done so. We promised to increase real resources for the health service, and we have done so; year on year, spending is at record levels. They are the promises we made, and we have kept each one.

    Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) : When the Prime Minister went on his trip down memory lane to Brixton and other ethnic areas, did he tell the people that he was going to take away the right of appeal for visitors?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member that the great improvement in race relations in this country is directly related to the firm but fair immigration policies pursued by this Government. I am surprised to hear him venture down that track, in view of his record of favouring good race relations. We promised to deliver low inflation, and we have delivered on that promise. We promised to resume economic growth, and it is now resuming. Inflation, at 1.3 per cent., is at the lowest level for 30 years. Interest rates, at 6 per cent., are the lowest in the Community. There are now too many signs of recovery for even the Opposition to ignore them. Manufacturing output has increased for months in succession and unemployment has fallen three months in a row. It is too high–I share that view–but it is moving in the right direction, and sooner than most people expected.

    It is certainly sooner than the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) expected, because, after the Budget, he said : “I make one Budget forecast–that, after the Budget, unemployment will rise this month, next month and for months afterwards”.–[ Official Report, 17 March 1993 ; Vol. 221, c. 289.] One day later, unemployment fell. The next month, it fell again, and the next month, it fell again. Another sound bite is needed, I think. The recession has been damaging, and recovery has not come easily, but it is now under way– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must come to order. The bawling and shouting coming from the Back Benches this afternoon is utterly disgraceful. [Interruption.] I know who the Members responsible are, and I need no one to point them out for me.

    The Prime Minister : Some time ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East admitted : “we change our policies as we move towards a different election, we’d be a very foolish Party if we went into an election in 1995-96 with exactly the same policies”. That is certainly true. But whose policies were they? They were the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s. He was the undisputed author of Labour’s defeat. He was the man who drew up the disastrous shadow Budget. Hon. Members may remember the hype, the fake presentation, as if it were a real Budget, and the responsible tone–the right hon. and learned Gentleman even posed for photographs outside the Treasury. Lots of passers-by do that, but they never get into the Treasury. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks of broken promises, as does the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. That is a good sound bite, but for the wrong party. The Labour party has broken every promise that it made about future policy at the election. Every one has gone to the social justice commission. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said : “We must be prepared to examine in an open-minded way some of the fundamental features of our approach. What is the right balance between universal and selective benefits”.

    It was not Milton Friedman who said that, nor my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, nor even Lord Desai–no doubt he would have been sacked if he had said it. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East himself said it. Yet time after time he accuses us of examining aspects of public expenditure that any responsible Government would need to examine. He is the man who said that his planned increases in pensions and child benefits were essential, and that his tax proposals were fair, reasonable and popular. They have been so popular that he has dropped them all. So much for his promises. I would rather listen to the late Robert Maxwell on pension probity than to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    I know that the exchange rate mechanism and economic and monetary union are matters of some importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Since we left the ERM, there has been substantial debate about monetary policy and the possibility of economic and monetary union. In the negotiations at Maastricht I sought and secured an opt-out on the single currency because I was sceptical of its economic impact across Europe and its artificial deadlines, and because I believed that such a decision was for the House to make. Since then, economic developments in the European Community have strengthened the reasons for caution that I set out. The European Community economies have diverged rather than converged. As we come out of recession, our main partners are heading into a recession. Some of our European partners remain keen on early monetary union, although many of their central banks are less keen. Even the keenest must now see the difficulties. The criteria for monetary union will simply not be met. When I was negotiating at Maastricht, the idea of a monetary union in 1997 looked ambitious, perhaps even a little dubious. I have to tell the House that it looks wholly unrealistic today.

    The economies of Europe are not remotely ready for one currency throughout the 12, soon to be 16, countries, and I believe that they will not be ready –if they ever will be–for many years. That is not an anti-European view; I simply do not believe that the economic circumstances will be right, and if they are not right the damage that proceeding would cause the Community would be profound, and I should not wish to see it occur. If some of our partners decided to go ahead prematurely, that would be an economic mistake. I do not believe that we should go with them.

    We have sought reform of the exchange rate mechanism. I make no secret of the fact that I prefer stable exchange rates, and so does industry. But I cannot accept that the present operation of the ERM is satisfactory. Sterling was forced out, in the circumstances described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames, but so was the lira. The franc, the peseta, the escudo, the punt and others have at different times been put under great pressure. Certainly, I could not recommend that sterling return at present. We should need greater convergence between the monetary policies appropriate for all the Community economies, and we should need to be satisfied that the system would be operated to the benefit of all its members.

    In January, I made it clear that those circumstances would not apply this year. I now doubt whether they will apply for some years ahead–possibly they will not apply in this Parliament.

    Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey) : There will be a widespread welcome throughout the party for what my right hon. Friend has just said to the House, and there will be great support for the policies that he has enunciated throughout his speech.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and delighted to have a party at ease with itself. It is clear that the Labour party has no policies at all, and certainly no economic policies. When it had policies, they lost it the election. As the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) put it–rather cruelly, I thought–the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East “bears the primary responsibility for tax and economic policies that lost Labour the election.”

    And now Labour has none. That is not my view alone. It is clearly shared by Mr. Edmonds of the GMB, the union that sponsors the Leader of the Opposition–or at least, it sponsored him until last Sunday. I am not sure whether things have changed since then. Mr. Edmonds says that Labour has an identity problem and asks whether the voters “know what Labour stands for”. He says that Labour must shake itself out of its lethargy. He asks : “Where was the Labour movement” during the past few months? He may well ask.

    The Labour leadership cannot have been examining economic policy, because the shadow Chancellor would not recognise economic policy if it gripped him by the windpipe. The Labour leadership may have been absorbed in its falling membership, or it may have been trying to fight off the defeat of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s party reforms. There is one area of total agreement between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself : he wants one man, one vote–a novel concept for Labour. He is right about that, and he has my support. Unfortunately, he does not have Mr John Edmonds’ support. Mr. Edmonds wants one member, one vote, so long as he can be the member and he, and nobody else, can exercise the vote.

    So long as the Labour party remains subordinate to the trade unions in policy, a paid for and wholly owned subsidiary of the trade unions, Labour Members will sit on that side of the Chamber. I shall tell the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East why he and his party fail to convince even the leader of the union that sponsors him. It is because Labour is a party without policies and without principles that it will remain, in the short and the long term, a party without power.

  • PMQT – 8 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. McKelvey : Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity in the course of his very busy day yesterday to have a look at Scotland’s national newspaper, the Daily Record, which carried an article stating that the former Chancellor claims that the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, was responsible for imposing VAT on fuel? Did he impose it on his own ; and will he answer without waffle?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is that in the course of my busy day I certainly did not read the Daily Record. The answer to his second point is that the House of Commons imposed the VAT by its vote.

    Mr. John Carlisle : Is my right hon. Friend aware that a head teacher of a school near my constituency, having received a salary increase that had been denied to several thousand other citizens, wrote to the Secretary of State for Education telling him that he could stuff his pay rise? If head teachers take that attitude and use that sort of language, is it any surprise that they are denying 14-year olds school tests which they themselves would probably fail?

    The Prime Minister : That is an unusual position to adopt on pay rises and not one generally taken by head teachers or by anyone else. I very much regret that there is difficulty carrying these tests forward. They are very much in the interests of the children and it is in the interests of the testing system, which the head teachers support, that the tests should go ahead this year so that Sir Ron Dearing can deal with the difficulties with them.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell the House why Ministers in his Administration have seen it as part of their duty as Ministers of the Crown to intervene on behalf of Mr. Asil Nadir, a person charged with serious offences and now a fugitive from justice?

    The Prime Minister : I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given me the opportunity to correct a misassumption in his mind. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has explained that he raised certain matters with the Attorney-General following an approach from a constituent of his who was then an adviser to Mr. Nadir. My hon. Friend was originally approached 18 months ago, before he became a Minister, and it is perfectly proper within the “Questions of Procedures for Ministers” that Ministers are free to make their views about constituency matters known to the responsible Minister, either by interview or in correspondence. As I understand it, that is what my hon. Friend did.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister confirm that Mr. Nadir is not and was not a constituent of either the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) or the President of the Board of Trade? Is not it strange that a man charged with serious offences should be considered so important that Ministers make personal approaches on his behalf to the Attorney-General, who is responsible for his prosecution?

    The Prime Minister : No doubt in the hubbub, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear what I said to him. I made it clear that my hon. Friend approached the Attorney-General–following an approach from a constituent who was then an adviser to Mr. Nadir–18 months ago. That was entirely proper. Let me equally make it clear– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear both questions and answers.

    The Prime Minister : Let me equally make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so that there is no misunderstanding, that I am assured by my hon. Friend that he has had no financial involvement with Mr. Nadir, his companies or his advisers, either before he became a Minister or since. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks it was appropriate behaviour for a Minister to give a watch to Mr. Nadir inscribed with a very supportive inscription, to put it mildly? Does the Prime Minister think that that is the way that he wants Ministers in his Administration to behave? Was not it bound to undermine the work of the Serious Fraud Office in pursuing financial crime? Is not it the case, as the country clearly understands, that this is a shoddy, unseemly affair that does no credit to this Administration?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was unwise. I think that that is the view taken by my hon. Friend and he has said so in public. I know my hon. Friend recognises that, with hindsight, it would have been better if he had not done it. It was a misjudgment, but it is not a hanging offence.

    Sir Dudley Smith : In view of the experiences of many Warwickshire residents over recent months, particularly in my constituency area, is my right hon. Friend aware that they are looking to him to introduce good and effective legislation to curb the so-called new age travellers? Will he tell us what urgency he is applying to that particular problem?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises a problem which has been faced in many parts of the country. It is one that I hope and believe we will be able to deal with in the next Session of Parliament.

     

    Q2. Mr. Khabra : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Khabra : Will the Prime Minister personally condemn the speech made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill)? It has done a great deal of damage to good race relations in this country and it has also encouraged the fascists and racists to indulge in destructive activities. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to give a positive answer to the community.

    The Prime Minister : Neither of the epithets used by the hon. Gentleman applies to my hon. Friend and I hope that he will recognise that. I have not read all the speech to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have read some of the reports of it, which I understand were not accurate. On the day that it was published it did not represent my views or those of the Government. My commitment and that of the Government to good race relations is well known. I welcome without reservation the positive contributions which all communities make to life in this country and, as long as we maintain firm but fair immigration controls and refuse to tolerate racial discrimination, we shall keep the race relations which have been steadily improving over recent years, much to my pleasure. I hope and expect them to continue to improve.

     

    Economy

    Q3. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received about the state of the economy; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations on the economy. There is growing evidence that recovery is under way across a broad front.

    Mr. Thurnham : Will my right hon. Friend praise north-west exporters such as Rotocold in my constituency, which has gained record export sales and cut local unemployment to below the national average? Is not that in stark contrast to the failed union-dominated policies of the Labour party, which saw unemployment in the north-west double between 1974 and 1979?

    The Prime Minister : That is true. Unemployment is always a tragedy when it occurs and it has occurred under every Labour Government we have seen in this country. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the company in his constituency. It is good news. I understand that it has had more export orders recently and that will add to jobs in the region. There is no doubt that British manufacturing industry is now exporting at record levels and I welcome that. It is not unrelated to the fact that we now have policies of low inflation, low business taxation and trade union reform which have removed many of the difficulties in management that so bedevilled firms in the 1960s and 1970s.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

    Mr. Byers : Will the Prime Minister say whether he wishes to see shipbuilding continue on Tyneside? If he does, will he confirm that the Royal Navy work presently at Swan Hunter will be completed there and that full Government backing will be given in order to secure vital export orders? Is the Prime Minister aware that if his Government stand to one side and do nothing, we shall witness the death of shipbuilding on Tyneside and the loss of thousands of jobs as a result?

    The Prime Minister : I know of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about Swan Hunter, which are shared by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), all of whom have made representations to me about it in recent weeks. I cannot confirm the details that the hon. Gentleman seeks today, but I hope that the firm will be able to put itself in a position in which it will be able to continue. That depends on its being able to obtain and produce orders at a price that the market will pay.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : As one of the most helpful means of helping the growing army of unemployed in Europe would be to conclude the GATT discussions and as the Prime Minister has played such a positive and helpful role in that, will he explain to the country why the EC is being so difficult about concluding those discussions? It could bring down unemployment and put people throughout Europe back to work.

    The Prime Minister : I think that I have some news that my hon. Friend will undoubtedly welcome. I understand that the French Minister for European Affairs has announced at today’s meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council that France will be accepting the agreement on oil seeds, signed between the European Community and the United States last November. It is an issue which I discussed at my two meetings with the French Prime Minister last month. I am delighted at the decision that has been made. I hope that it will enable the Community to go forward to other agreements relating to the Uruguay round. Although that is a separate issue from the oil seeds agreement, such an agreement was a necessary preliminary. It now removes one of the road blocks to a comprehensive GATT agreement.

     

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

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

    Mr. Beith : Is the Prime Minister beginning to regret that his reshuffle a couple of weeks ago was not more extensive and did not see the departure of Ministers responsible for education, shipbuilding and undue and extensive assistance to those who give large donations to the Conservative party? Does he realise that it is likely that the next reshuffle will involve himself?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the substantive part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is no.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Lait : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

    Mrs. Lait : Will my right hon. Friend remind trade unionists that the hard-won democracy that they have achieved over the past 14 years is thanks to Conservative legislation? Will he tell them that only the Conservative party not only believes in but has legislated for one member, one vote?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly the case that we have more luck with trade union reform than the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) does.

    Throughout the 1980s the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against each and every one of our reforms to strengthen the rights of individual trade union members and the Labour party still wants to oppose rights for individual trade union members. While Labour Members continue to hold those views we will continue to sit on this side of the House.

    Mr. Hume : Given that this generation is going through the greatest economic revolution in the history of the world–the technological, telecommunications and transport revolutions–and that the wealth of society is being created by fewer people, does the Prime Minister agree that, logically, the state should be taking a greater role in the welfare of people instead of moving in the opposite direction towards the survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle? Given that they have already privatised heat and light, is there any truth in the rumour that the Government are about to privatise fresh air?

    The Prime Minister : I have news for the hon. Gentleman. It is not owned by the Government and does not need privatisation.

    Mr. Hume : What about water?

    The Prime Minister : On his earlier point, the hon. Gentleman clearly overlooked the 67 per cent. real terms increase in social security, the additional uprating next year of £2.5 billion, the extra expenditure on benefits of 40 per cent., the exemption for people who cannot pay council tax, the fact that the Government, unlike our Labour predecessors, continue to pay the pensioners’ bonus and the increase in consumer goods for the bottom 10 per cent. of the income scale. Those changes were made under this Government because of our economic success and social concerns.

  • PMQT – 20 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Bennett : Does the Prime Minister recall his big idea of the citizen’s charter, aimed at giving individuals swift redress? Can he explain why veterans of the atomic tests which took place on Christmas island and elsewhere over 30 years ago, who suffered the horrendous effects of radiation, have still not received compensation? People in the United States who suffered in a similar way have been compensated. The Prime Minister assured the House as long ago as 4 December 1990, in reply to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), that the matter was to receive his urgent attention.

    The Prime Minister : Yes. About 10 days ago I wrote again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and other hon. Members who expressed an interest in the matter. We are still waiting for medical reports on which we can make our judgments. I have sought to have the medical reports expedited, but there is further examination to be done. As soon as these medical reports are received we can reach a decision.

     

    Q2. Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Following his statement yesterday, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to earlier interpretations of the Maastricht treaty and its protocols, he is now advised that the opt out from monetary union extends to the exchange rate mechanism and that Britain has no obligation, under the terms of the treaty, to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism unless and until we decide to seek to enter a single European currency?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. In essence my hon. Friend is quite right. I have had no fresh advice, but that has always been the position. Nothing in the Maastricht treaty obliges us to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism. What the treaty does is make it explicitly clear that we retain responsibility for monetary policy in stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union as long as we do not participate in a single monetary policy. As my hon. Friend knows, because of the opt out that I negotiated at Maastricht, we would not enter into a single currency until and unless the House had specifically approved it.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister give the House a guarantee that the Government will not make millions of pensioners and children pay for prescriptions?

    The Prime Minister : I had optimistically thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might welcome a third successive fall in unemployment, but I should perhaps have known him better. May I explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman–so that there is no doubt either to him or millions of people throughout the country–exactly the review that is taking place on public expenditure? My answer to every scare story that the right hon. and learned Gentleman produces will be the same–I hear that he was peddling them earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been instructed to examine all our public expenditure to ensure that it is well targeted and that it delivers value for money, and to see where savings in taxpayers’ money can be found. However, he knows that in doing so he must protect the position of the most vulnerable members of society, and that is what he is doing. At the moment, my right hon. Friend is being presented with options. He has not yet considered the options or selected those worth further consideration.

    No decisions have been made, and no decision is imminent. Decisions will not be made until the public expenditure round in the autumn. Many options will need to be discarded, but we need to examine public expenditure, and we shall both maintain our manifesto commitments and protect the most vulnerable people in society. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now give up his tedious weekly shroud waving.

    Mr. John Smith : I should have known better than to expect a straight answer from the Prime Minister. No one in the country will know whether his answer means yes or no. The Prime Minister talks about his manifesto commitments; may I remind him that millions of ordinary families are already deeply worried about having to pay another £8.50 per week next year and even more the year after, despite his tax pledges. Now families face the threat of an additional tax on being ill. Why are the Government so intent on making ordinary families in this country pay the price of their economic incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should not peddle those scare stories and frighten people. I have made it absolutely clear that we shall protect vulnerable members of society. “We should be prepared to re-examine everything ; I have not ruled anything out”– [Interruption.] Those are not my words but those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was speaking about his review of social policy.

    Mr. John Smith : Just over a year ago the Prime Minister promised lower taxes and no cuts in public expenditure. We know that he has broken one promise already, and clearly he is planning to break another. Is it any wonder that no one any longer believes anything that he says?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman should stop trying to frighten vulnerable people for his own party advantage. I say to him in all friendliness that it will do him no good in the end. We shall honour our manifesto commitments. Since the general election the right hon. and learned Gentleman has publicly junked all his manifesto commitments. The contrast is obvious, and the public will know which party keeps its promises, for its members sit here, and which party seeks week after week to frighten people with scare stories, for its members sit over there.

     

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

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

    Mr. Kynoch : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures show a further fall this month, for the third month in a row? Does he agree that that is a further welcome sign that the recovery is starting to work through to where we all want to see it, in the job-centres and in a meaningful and stable reduction in unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, that is welcome to everyone. There are those who mention unemployment when it is going down as well as when it is going up. Unemployment is still too high, but today’s figures offer further hope for unemployed people. Not only has unemployment now fallen for the third month in a row, but the number of people employed in manufacturing industry has risen for the third consecutive month, and the number of new vacancies notified to job-centres is more than it was a year ago. If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wishes to continue with his smears, perhaps he will put up or shut up.

    Mr. Foulkes : Following the Tory party conference in Scotland, is the Prime Minister aware of the extent of opposition to water privatisation in Scotland, even among Conservatives? Will he now end the uncertainty and give a clear and unequivocal pledge that there will be no privatisation of water in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he wished to make, and he knows as well as I do that the options are set out in the consultation paper “Investing for the Future”. We are considering those options. When we have finished our considerations, we shall announce the result.

     

    Q4. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : Will my right hon. Friend confirm his view, stated during the last election, that first-past-the-post is the best electoral system ; one which has served us well for centuries? Is it not typical of Opposition Members to want to introduce a proportional representation system–a desire reinforced by their decision to abstain on the historically important European vote this evening?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that I remain in favour of the first-past-the-post system. I am against proportional representation, and I do not need a referendum to tell me what my view on the matter should be.

     

    Q5. Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Sir David Steel : Has the Prime Minister been able to examine the workings of the community care schemes since they came into operation on 1 April? Is the confusion and anxiety as great in Huntington as it is elsewhere? Will he promise a full review of the schemes at the end of the first three months of working?

    The Prime Minister : The scheme is, with the consent of hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the community care system, a great advance. People have wanted care in the community for a long time, and they now have it. It is a very substantial change. We shall, of course, keep the matter under review to make sure that it is working satisfactorily. There are bound to be some difficulties at the beginning of a change on this scale. It is a welcome change, one for which we have looked for many years, and we intend it to be a success.

     

    Q6. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing suffocation of London by heavy traffic, which is now damaging job prospects in the capital? Will he accept the congratulations of my constituents in Ealing and of the whole of London on his determination to go ahead with the crossrail project? Will the Government do everything possible to expedite the passage of the enabling measure through the House? May we have an assurance that the construction of the project, which will bring jobs to all parts of London, including Ealing, will start yesterday, if possible?

    The Prime Minister : That might be rather difficult. Crossrail is important for London and for jobs throughout the country, and I know that it will be particularly welcome to hon. Members with London constituencies. It will be a joint venture with the private sector and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill will take place in the House next month. Crossrail will obviously make a dramatic difference to London’s transport system, as will the Jubilee line extension, to which the Government are also committed– [Interruption.] –as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is heckling, may wish to know.

    Mrs. Bridget Prentice : The Prime Minister may recall that I wrote to him on 30 March about assisted area status for London. I have since received a holding reply. He will know that if London were to receive assisted area status, the support of the Government would be needed and that 13 London boroughs, including Lewisham, would be affected. When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give me a positive reply?

    The Prime Minister : I very much hope that we will be able to reach a decision on changes to the assisted areas map before too long. We are well advanced with our examination of it and are looking at the various criteria that need to be considered. I would certainly hope that we would have a decision, and announce it, well before the House rises for the summer.

     

    Q7. Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Winterton : I warmly welcome the reduction in unemployment for the third consecutive month, for which Government policies are in part responsible. Will my right hon. Friend give me, the House and the people of this country an assurance that he will not undermine the recovery in our economy by re-entering the exchange rate mechanism? In addition, will he give the pensioners and children of this country an assurance that he will not permit prescriptions to be paid for by the retired or by the young?

    The Prime Minister : I warmly welcome part of my hon. Friend’s question : I share his pleasure at the fall in unemployment. We now have the right conditions which I hope will lead to a consistent fall in unemployment. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are saying that the figures are a fiddle may be interested to know that the Department’s director of statistics, a civil servant, today issued a statement which said :

    “I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claimant count figures.”

    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) may sit there giggling and making accusations, but he ought not to attack public officials who are not in a position to answer back. My hon. Friend will have heard me say earlier this week that we had no imminent intention of returning to the exchange rate mechanism because the circumstances for doing so were by no means appropriate at present. As for his second question, he clearly heard the detailed statement that I made to the House some moments ago.

  • PMQT – 11 May 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Smith : Madam Speaker– [Interruption.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

    Economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [small section missing]

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

  • PMQT – 4 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Smith : Will the Prime Minister comment on the views of the European Commission’s chief legal adviser that the so-called Danish opt- outs from the Maastricht treaty were worthless? Does not that coincide with the views of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who said that

    “it does not alter, either the text on European union, or the obligations taken on by those who ratify the treaty.”–[ Official Report, 30 March 1993 ; Vol. 222, c. 126.]

    Does not the constitutional question now being put to the Danish people remain unchanged?

    The Prime Minister : All that was set out carefully at the time, but I shall reiterate it for the hon. Gentleman. It was made perfectly clear from the start that what was agreed was an interpretation of the treaty, an intergovernmental agreement binding in international law. That was the case, is the case, and has never been in doubt.

     

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

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

    Mr. Booth : Does my right hon. Friend share the feeling of many Conservative Members that unit fines are not working well? Does he also share the feeling of many of us that the fact that previous convictions cannot adequately be taken into account by the courts is a great shame and will he therefore change the rules so that persistent offenders can be identified by the courts and punished severely?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he shares the concern expressed about some, although not all, aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. He has made it clear that he wants to see amendments and to introduce them as soon as is appropriate. As my hon. Friend may know, my right hon. and learned Friend met the Magistrates Association this morning to decide how best to proceed.

    Mr. John Smith : As there is now overwhelming opposition from parents, teachers, governors and experts to the Government’s insistence on imposing tests on schools this year, why does not the Prime Minister for once admit that he is wrong, do the sensible thing and withdraw the tests for this year?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have exchanged views on that subject before. We believe that it is important to proceed with the tests, not least so that Sir Ron Dearing can draw on that experience, as he has said that he wishes to do, in order to improve the tests. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall frequently calling for this country’s work force to be better trained. Why does he consistently oppose measures designed to bring that about?

    Mr. John Smith : If the tests are so important that the Government are prepared to go well beyond the limits of reason and common sense to impose them, why are private schools, to which many Conservative Members send their children, exempt completely from them?

    The Prime Minister : It is reason and common sense to test pupils. It is reason and common sense to know how well they are doing. It is reason and common sense to have that information so that we can put right the matters that are not being dealt with adequately in those schools at the moment. That is our responsibility in the state sector and that is what my right hon. Friend is seeking to do.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister now answer the question that I put to him? What reason and common sense is there to impose them on the public sector, but to leave the private sector untouched?

    The Prime Minister : We have a direct responsibility for making sure in the public sector that pupils are taught adequately and well. In the private sector the results of the schools have been very good– [Interruption.] –and many of them have their own tests. We have a direct responsibility in the public sector and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the tests, for example, of seven-year-olds, have been successful. They have been good for pupils, good for teachers and good for schools. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would join forces with those who want industrial militancy to end the tests, irrespective of what he has said in the past about having a well-trained work force. Words only from the right hon. and learned Gentleman which he will not back up with action when necessary.

    Sir James Kilfedder : Will the Prime Minister, on behalf of this country, express our deepest sympathy to the people of Sri Lanka following the horrific and callous murder of President Premadasa and many others? Will he express the hope that that and other atrocities will not undermine the stability of that beautiful country, which is an essential member of the Commonwealth?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend sets out views that will be shared widely across the House and the country. It was a particularly brutal and pointless assassination which will have done immense damage to Sri Lanka around the world. I wish the very best of good fortune to the new president in due course and to the Government in restoring stability after that dreadful event.

    Mr. Ashdown : If the House votes to end the opt-out of the social chapter, will the Prime Minister refuse to ratify the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to respond to a hypothetical question– [Interruption.] –to which I have responded on previous occasions. I refer him to my previous answers.

    Mr. Spring : Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that housing repossessions are down 24 per cent. on last year? Does he agree that that is excellent news which bodes well not only for the housing sector but for consumer confidence and for continuing revival in the economy?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, it is excellent news. It is also excellent news that, in the view of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the action by the Government and lenders last year prevented over 50,000 repossessions that would otherwise have taken place. There are now clear signs of recovery in the housing market. That can only be helped by interest rates of 6 per cent. and mortgage rates at their lowest for over 30 years. I believe that that, together with other economic indicators in the last few weeks, point firmly to real recovery.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mike O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : Will the Prime Minister accept the congratulations of many on these Benches that his Government are now in full retreat on his citizens charter for criminals, the Criminal Justice Act 1991? Does he now admit that he got it wrong to pass that law, which restricts the ability of the courts to send to prison people who have committed serious offences– that at a time when crime has doubled and when he has been imposing a freeze on future spending on the police? Will he now accept that his credibility as the leader of the party of law and order is in tatters?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully a few moments ago he would know that I said that I shared the concern about some, but not all, of the aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and we have made it clear that we are prepared to change those. The hon. Gentleman may recall that a great deal of cross-party advice on the 1991 Act was given, not least by many Opposition Members.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly recognised the importance of our manufacturing and construction industries in this country’s economic recovery. Competition is essential, but does my right hon. Friend accept that a level playing field is equally important? Will he state what further steps he and his Government will take to improve the ability of manufacturing and construction to contribute to the recovery of our economy?

    The Prime Minister : I share the view, which has for a long time been expressed by my hon. Friend, about the importance of manufacturing industry. He will know of the remarkable improvement in manufacturing exports over recent months and the remarkable improvement in productivity of manufacturing industry. They are now biting deep with exports into the European market and beyond. My hon. Friend is right about the need to have a level playing field in Europe and beyond. As my hon. Friend will know, that will be improved by the Maastricht treaty.

     

    Q4. Mr. Roy Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the report issued over the weekend that the much-trumpeted decrease in the unemployment figures is little more than a piece of spring cleaning of the figures by officials at the semi-privatised employment and benefit offices? It has been said that falsehood has a perennial spring –would not it be wiser to recognise that Britain’s true unemployment rate is now in the region of 4 million? Is not that a national disgrace? When will the Government take some effective action to put people back to work?

    The Prime Minister : The requirement to put people back to work is felt at least as keenly by Conservative Members as in any other part of the House, which is precisely why we have taken the difficult measures to make it possible to get people back to work in secure jobs. That is why we fail to understand why Opposition Members consistently support matters like the social charter, which would keep people unemployed for a long time.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this weekend the citizens of Gloucestershire were again subjected to an invasion of new age travellers? Is he further aware that the Gloucestershire police have done a first-class job in breaking up the convoys and keeping them on the move? Is there any chance of introducing any legislation or further measures to restrain those unwelcome visitors between now and the summer? They call themselves new age travellers, but in Gloucestershire they are known as new age vermin.

    The Prime Minister : I sympathise strongly with the citizens of Gloucestershire over the trouble that they have faced with new age travellers. I warmly congratulate the police on the action that they have taken. We are examining what further legislative measures can be taken to give the police more powers, but I cannot promise that they will necessarily be introduced before the summer.

     

    Q5. Mr. McWilliam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. McWilliam : Is the Prime Minister aware of any group of teachers who have said that they will not either teach or assess their pupils?

    The Prime Minister : That is a question better directed to my right hon. Friend, but I am aware of teachers’ leaders who seem to be encouraging their members to take industrial action against the interests of the pupils of those schools, which I regret.

     

    Aberdeen

    Q6. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Aberdeen in the near future.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Scotland among them.

    Mr. Robertson : If my right hon. Friend is able to visit Aberdeen at the end of the year, will he consider allowing his visit to coincide with the first wave of civil service relocations from the Department of Trade and Industry’s London-based oil and gas division to Aberdeen? Will he consider opening the DTI’s new Aberdeen office, which so vividly demonstrates the Government’s commitment to Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland and the North sea oil and gas industry?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly consider that invitation if it comes to me through the appropriate sources and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating it. The fact that we are opening that office shows that we are committed to expand as and when companies move key functions to Aberdeen. It certainly shows our faith in the future of the North sea industry and the north-east of Scotland. The division will begin moving there in the autumn. I know how welcome that news is to my hon. Friend and how hard he worked to bring it about.

    Mr. Robert Hughes : If the Prime Minister visits Aberdeen, will he recall that the petroleum revenue tax changes he proposes will give large windfall profits to very large companies, but will savagely attack small companies, especially those in the drilling and exploration sector? If he wishes to express his confidence in the North sea, would not it be better to change that to allow people to develop fields and exploration as and when they come?

    The Prime Minister : As it happens, the reform improves the incentives for further development of existing fields and new development of important fields that would have paid tax at 83 per cent. That is good for investment, jobs, Aberdeen, the north-east, Scotland and the United Kingdom.

    Madam Speaker : Order. Time is up. Ten-minute rule Bill, Mr. Anthony Steen. It would be helpful if hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quietly so that we may get on with our business here. I am sure that Mr. Steen is in good voice this afternoon.

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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