The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Sunday Times Environmental Conference – 8 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Sunday Times Environmental Conference, made in London on Monday 8th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to begin this morning, if I may, by congratulating the Sunday Times on its sense of timing – as crucial I think for a newspaper as it often is for politicians. We at the moment are in a period of intense international activity on the environment. The past few weeks have seen negotiations on climate change, biodiversity and Antarctica. Next month will see further preparations for the UN Conference on Environment and Development and in a few days of course the leaders of the G7 countries will gather in England for our annual summit when the environment will feature very strongly on the agenda. So I welcome this chance today to set out where Britain stands in advance of these further discussions. For those reasons and for many others this conference could not possibly be more timely.

    Just a few years ago it would have been unthinkable for hardheaded world leaders to debate the environment, but not any more. A global environmental vision is no longer a luxury for idealistic dreamers. What it is these days is an essential compass to guide our society. The reason for that of course is very simple, the scale of human activity is now so great that it affects the whole world environment, we are realising that what unites us is far greater than what divides us and in that respect I was delighted with President Bush’s announcement last week that the United States would after all join the other members of the Antarctic Treaty in signing the environment protocol.

    Your theme for this conference today is apt: the global environment. That is I think the essence. We must be global, we cannot wrap the environment up into neat national parcels, we cannot say this is mine, that is yours. What happens in Darlington or Detroit today may affect Accra or Djibouti tomorrow, and indeed vice versa. We can do no more to protect the planet on our own than we can ensure our security or develop our economy on our own and I think no problem shows this more clearly today than that of global warming.

    Personally, I have always thought it wrong to call it the greenhouse effect, I dislike the term, I dislike it because the image is too cosy, too domestic and far too complacent. Begonias and petunias it most certainly is not, the threat of global warming is real, the spread of deserts, changed weather patterns with potentially more storms and hurricanes, perhaps more flooding of low lying areas and possibly even the disappearance of some island states.

    Of course more research is needed, needed to increase our understanding of this problem. But research cannot excuse inaction because the threat is too serious for inaction. And so without panic but with determination we must start now to make our dispositions for tackling this threat as the information about it improves. The United Kingdom has committed itself to act. We have said that provided others do their part we shall return emissions of CO2 to 1990 levels by 2005; we shall monitor our action to achieve this target and if possible improve on the target. But it has to be a shared vision if it is to be truly effective.

    The desire for a common resolve is not simply idealism, it is in fact enlightened, mutual self-interest. No cordon sanitaire protects any country from climate change. It is perfectly true that we in the industrialised countries can build defences against rising sea levels, we can construct desalination plants, we can install sophisticated irrigation schemes if our land starts to dry out. We can do that, many other countries cannot afford these things. But is the plight theirs alone, frankly I think not. Quite apart from the moral imperative to help less fortunate nations, it is in the interest of the industrial world to do so. As countries become poorer so world trade diminishes, instability grows, the threat of regional unrest becomes more real.

    In last year’s White Paper on the environment we set out the first set of measures to limit our CO2 emissions in Britain. In the autumn we shall publish a report showing how our efforts are now being put into practice. Our initial measures concentrate on energy efficiency, on developing renewable energy sources, on transport and on forestry. These are measures which will also bring a worthwhile economic pay-off to the country, to business and to ordinary people. Energy efficiency in particular is an area where we in Britain could do more, we should do more. For our part, we in government will continue to examine our existing efforts to encourage more efficient use of energy, we will improve and augment these as necessary.

    All these measures make good sense, not only good sense, they are often cost-effective. Other measures will involve costs, that is unavoidable. Here too we have said that if other leading countries will do their part we will not shirk more difficult options. The price will need to be balanced against the perceived level of threat.

    But action by this country alone will not even dent the problem. We produce only 3 percent of the world’s CO2 so we are working with our Community partners to develop a wider European strategy. But even the Community accounts for only 13 percent of global CO2 emissions. The United States accounts for 23 percent, the world looks to them for decisive leadership on this issue as on others.

    Nor is that enough. The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe must make real efforts to control their greenhouse gases and we must encourage and assist the so-called third world to develop in an energy efficient way. And I say so-called for this reason, because in environmental matters especially there is no third world, we have only one world and China and India are major industrial nations by any standard, it is in their national interest too to develop their energy efficiency, it saves their resources and global warming will be felt at least as keenly in the non-industrialised countries as here. China has recently indicated its intention to join the Montreal Convention to protect the ozone layer. I hope that China will be equally positive in tackling with us the problems of climate change. I shall certainly raise those matters with them when I visit Peking later on this year.

    In Britain we accept that the industrialised countries will have to give a strong lead as well as an example. Britain and the rest of the European Community are doing so, we must continue our efforts to ensure that all of the world’s leading economies pull together.

    But global warming is not the only challenge to our sense of inter-dependence. Take destruction of tropical forests for example, Brazil’s loss or Malaysia’s loss is our loss too. We are destroying the world’s lungs and we are burning the knowledge bank. We voyage into outer space yet much of the natural world on our doorstep remains unknown. Thousands of plant species have edible parts yet we use only a few dozen and we may be destroying plants that could help us to adapt to environmental change, we are losing species faster than we can catalogue them. It is as if the owner of a great gallery of pictures were to slash or destroy a Renoir or a Rembrandt every day, such destruction betrays our future.

    And that is why we must help developing countries manage their forests, for their benefit and for our benefit. In just over two years Britain has doubled the number of forest projects we finance for developing countries and I welcome the willingness of Brazil under President Collor to collaborate with other countries on the Amazonian rain forest. Britain was the first country to sign a special agreement with Brazil on environmental cooperation and the key will be for Brazil to design the right policies involving local people and we look forward to working further with them on their ideas.

    We must also learn to live within our environmental means, that is the simple message of sustainable development. If we live beyond our means future generations pay for our present extravagance. The living standards and mobility that we in industrial countries expect all have an environmental price, we can no longer consume without reckoning the costs as we consume.

    I was asked recently to contribute one of my early childhood books to an auction for a children’s charity. I sent along a Bunter book, many of you no doubt will have read them years ago, and it occurred to me as I did so that we may have been a bit too much like Bunter, we have happily consumed without reckoning the cost and we have been waiting for a postal order to turn up. But not any more, we are no long waiting, we are doing and we should not underestimate our capabilities.

    The Stockholm Conference brought these matters to our attention almost 20 years ago. Then there was not much national or international law on the environment, the public knew little about it, the environmental lobby was weak and regarded with suspicion and parodied as beards and beads and not taken seriously. Politicians generally paid only fragmentary attention, the time-spans involved were too long. Sometimes, as those of us in politics know only too well, 24 hours can be a long time, the ability to look beyond the next election is not something historically for which politicians have been renowned.

    But that prospect has changed beyond all recognition. Today there is a large body of environmental law; the public is alert to environmental abuse and quick to demand action; the environmental lobbies are large and influential; politicians pay attention and then act.

    In exactly 11 months time there will be another global meeting on the environment, I look forward to being there myself, I hope that national leaders from every country on earth will attend the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil. Fittingly it has become known as the Earth Summit, there could be no greater sign of the serious attention which governments accord the environment than that it should be the occasion of the first ever meeting of all the world’s leaders.

    We have three main goals for the conference. Firstly, international agreements on tackling climate change, safe-guarding tropical forests, maintaining biological diversity. These measures would represent an historic extension of the rule of law to the global commons. And secondly, an agreement to strengthen the international institutions responsible for the environment, in particular the United Nations environment programme in Nairobi and to strengthen the arrangements for ensuring that the United Nations machinery takes account of environmental concerns. And thirdly, more effective help for developing countries to take part in meeting the global environmental challenge. Britain has already committed 40 million pounds in addition to the existing aid programme to the new global environmental facility of the United Nations and World Bank and we are integrating environmental concerns into all bilateral and multilateral aid programmes. At our meeting next week I will be working with the leaders of the other main industrial countries to give added impetus to these aims.

    Let me turn now to the national and to the local scene because we cannot sensibly talk about the environment globally without considering the national and the local scenes as well. The environment embraces the street corner as well as the stratosphere. It is the government’s task to provide leadership on the environment, to set a clear framework of expectations within which every one of us can best contribute to our common good and leadership is what this government has set out to provide over the last few years. We did this perhaps most emphatically with our white Paper, this common inheritance. This was the first ever comprehensive statement of environmental policy by a British government. Indeed we are still one of only a handful of governments anywhere in the world to have published such a document. It sets out 350 action points for government, we put our money where our ambitions were and announced a 33 percent increase in expenditure on environmental protection and improvement last November – an extra 130 million pounds.

    The White Paper sets out the direction in which the nation must move. It also puts environmental concern at the heart of government. Margaret Thatcher set up two Ministerial Committees to consider environmental policies: one which I now chair lays down the overall strategy; the other, chaired by Michael Heseltine, keeps up the pressure to deliver the detailed policies in the White Paper, it is an unrelenting pressure to deliver those policies.

    In addition, each government department now contains a Green Minister, specifically responsible and answerable for that department’s environmental performance. Departments will now publish regular reports on their environmental stewardship and objectives. So the environment is no longer an optional add on, peel off extra, it is no longer the easy option, the option it was easy not to take.

    Our recent Green Paper on health policy for example includes a significant section on health and the environment and keeping up the pressure is vital. We have already issued an interim report showing our progress on over 100 of the White Paper’s action points but I can tell you today that in September we will publish a report to mark the anniversary of the White Paper, it will take stock, it will indicate further ways forward and I intend that this should be the first of a regular series of reports accounting for the government’s stewardship of the environment. And these reports will enable the nation to audit our progress towards our environmental objectives. The White Paper is a start, not a full stop, it is a foundation upon which we propose to build.

    I can tell you today of one way in which we intend to do so. The Environmental Protection Act established integrated pollution control, a new approach to the environment which Britain has taken further and faster than anyone else and we have created strong new agencies to protect the environment. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution controls all the major emissions to air, land and water from the most polluting industrial processes. The National Rivers Authority protects and improves the water environment. These arrangements, with integrated pollution control, have given a keen cutting edge to our environmental efforts in this country.

    But there is scope I believe to achieve even better integration between the different agencies as foreshadowed in last year’s White Paper on the Environment. I can announce today that we plan to set up an Environment Agency, this will bring together Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution and related functions of the National Rivers Authority to create a new agency for environmental protection and enhancement; it will have responsibilities for monitoring the state of air and water; it would make proposals to the government on standards; it would regulate emissions and discharges to achieve the standards set by government; and again, as foreshadowed in the White Paper, we are also minded to give the new agency responsibility for regulating the handling and disposal of waste which is currently under the combined supervision of local authorities and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution. It is right I believe that the integrity and indivisibility of the environment should now be reflected in a unified agency and I am confident that this will be a significant step forward.

    We will issue a consultation document setting out our thinking more fully later in the year but the new agency will not affect the current balance of responsibilities between the pollution enforcement agencies and the health and safety executive. The Secretary of State for Scotland has also been giving consideration to the position in Scotland where the institutional framework is quite different, he will announce his proposals in due course.

    Thus far I have talked about action by government but much more than that is needed. One of the most marked changes in the environmental debate over the last 20 years has been the changing view of the role of government. Before, most people thought that government action would green the world. Now people are likely to see governments as one of the main perpetrators of environmental problems. It is no accident I believe that this perception has changed just when the failure of socialism to deliver either economic or environmental success has become so dramatically apparent to all the world.

    The fact is that the success of market-based economies is a necessary pre-condition for protecting the environment. Look, for example, at the environmental disaster zones of Eastern Europe. The key to our planet’s future lies in harnessing the great creative energies of the market place to a new task, not in some futile and self-defeating attempt to bind up this That is why we will provide a new fund of 5 million, specifically directed to environmental work in Eastern Europe, it will help those countries to harness market forces and private sector skills to environmental improvement.

    Here in Britain we are developing new market-based policy instruments. let me quote just three examples. First, tax differentials have massively boosted the sales of lead-free petrol. Second, the measures in the last budget to increase petrol duty and to change the tax treatment of company cars continue to bring home to people the social and economic costs of motoring and help to improve the relative attractiveness of public transport. And third, a new system of recycling credits will increase recycling and reduce waste. These are just three ways of helping the market work for the environment.

    As promised in the white Paper, we will continue to look for new ways to control pollution cost, we will do so by making pollution cost-effective by working with the grain of the market and not against the grain of the market, that invariably and inevitably adds to the costs that otherwise need not be met. For it is now clear that the principal task of delivering sustainable development will fall to business. I am immensely heartened by the way the business community has responded to this challenge in recent years and I am optimistic that we are on the way to forming that green alliance between companies and governments which Frances Cairncross envisages in her recent book: “Costing the Earth”.

    It is wrong I believe to see modern business as the enemy of the environment. A recent study by Touche Roche shows that over two-thirds of companies now have environmental strategies compared to less than one-third lust over a year ago – a very remarkable change that indicates the seriousness with which business now takes environmental matters.

    These companies, these businesses, are building the environment into their calculations and into their success. Our leading firms, collectively, are now shaping the necessary new approaches to environmental management. Excellent work has been done by the business and environment group and the new advisory committee on business and the environment which Michael Heseltine and Peter Lilley recently set up is poised to make a big impact too.

    Environmental concerns are not a drag on business, commercial instincts could do as much, if not more, to advance the cause of the environment as government regulation. Regulation must set a level playing field, it must set minimum standards and stimulate new environmentally friendly technology, but business ingenuity must have maximum scope to find the best way of reaching the goal at least cost both environmentally and economically. One recent estimate put the size of the market for environmental goods and services in the UK alone at 140 billion pounds over the next 9 years, that is a sizeable business opportunity by any standards anywhere in the world. Someone will seize those markets, British business must be in a position to do so.

    Nor is it always the case that higher standards involve higher prices. After initial development a new and greener product may actually cost no more to produce, but these opportunities will only be available to those companies geared up to take them and I am immensely encouraged by the way in which British business is gearing itself up to take those opportunities and to play its part in protecting our future environment.

    But in the final analysis, the future rests not in the hands of government or of business but in the hands of each one of us. It depends on our every day decisions, in our homes, at work, when we go shopping or when we do the garden. Companies, schools, churches, trade unions, women’s organisations all must put the environment on their agendas. So too must each one of us as consumers, employees or parents. Quite simply, at the heart of our environmental problems are people, that is why I welcome the emergence of the green consumer.

    Last year over half the population made a consumer choice on environmental grounds. I know very well of the strength of those choices and the strength of the green consumer from within my own family. I hope the strength of the green consumer will grow in the years to come in everyone’s family.

    This government sets great store in giving back the power of choice to consumers. In housing, health, education and elsewhere we must go on extending that power. The emergence of a green market place means that consumers can now exercise their power to choose in ways that can benefit the environment. Retailers and manufacturers have not been slow to notice the enormous purchasing power this represents, it can be seen in the ranks of green products now to be found on any supermarket shelf in the country – tangible proof of how we can harness the power of the market place to our moral purposes.

    But we are not only important as consumers, we also matter as citizens. No government has done more to help the citizen help himself or herself to obtain a better environment, we have opened the door to environmental information, every individual, every group will in future have access to the information they need in order to act as an environmental watchdog. That information is the citizen’s right and the active citizen will use that right constructively.

    Legislation passed last year gives the public new powers to take their council to court if it does not clean its public areas and keep them litter-free. These powers are a citizen’s right and the active citizen will use that right constructively. But as citizens we have obligations too, obligations not to drop litter, obligations to recycle our household waste where possible, obligations to conserve energy, obligations to help protect our common inheritance.

    There is a Victorian picture which many of you may know, it is called: “The last day in the old home”. The ancestral home has been sold up to pay for the father’s debt, the removal men are in the hall, the feckless father is toasting the future while his wife weeps, his small son and heir stands at his knees half excited, half bemused. I do not want to be in the position of that father, squandering my children’s global home and inheritance for my own immediate wants, nor I am sure do you, nor I am sure do any of our fellow citizens.

    Environmental issues touch all of us and every aspect of our lives, they touch our hopes for our children and our fears for the future, they are global challenges which require global responses. But they require local responses too. Each of us as individuals must do his or her part. I can promise you today that we in government will do ours for we share with you the importance of protecting our environment in the future.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Local Government Finance

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister why he decided to require local authorities when setting their poll tax levels to cover the cost of unpaid poll tax bills; and if he has any plans to change this requirement.

    The Prime Minister : As part of its budgetary process and in line with proper accounting practice, every local authority has to estimate the level of non-recoverable charges for the forthcoming year and then set a community charge which takes this into account. In this respect, the community charge is no different from the old domestic rating system.

     

    Government Bills

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on recouping losses arising from the non-payment of Government bills from the subsequent payers of such bills.

    The Prime Minister : Departments are advised in “Government Accounting”, the Treasury’s guide on accounting and financial procedures for Government Departments, that all reasonable action should be taken to effect recovery of losses.

     

    Health Care Corporation Ltd.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister what legal costs have been contributed by Her Majesty’s Government either directly or indirectly towards the legal costs of either party in the case of Regina v. Elmridge Borough Council, ex parte Health Care Corporation Ltd. and another.

    The Prime Minister : In civil cases the costs are a matter for the parties involved. There has been no Government involvement in this case.

     

    Holy Loch

    Mrs. Ray Michie : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 June, Official Report, column 9, if he will make public those parts of the agreement between the United Kingdom and United States Governments to establish the United States Navy base at Holy Loch in 1960 which pertain to (a) civilian safety in the area; (b) the local community and (c) the local economy; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 17 June.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    National Identity Cards

    Mr. Bernie Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the Government’s policy towards issuing national identity cards to (a) immigrants and (b) all citizens.

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary informed the House on 10 February 1989, the Government are not persuaded that a compulsory national identity card scheme should be introduced.

    In the Government’s view the disadvantages of a policy of issuing national identity cards, notably the high financial cost, the risk of harming the relationship between police and public, and civil liberty objections, would outweigh its benefits.

     

    Child Benefit

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to use the post code information held by the Benefits Agency to analyse child benefit to obtain and publish up-to-date information on the numbers of children in lone and two-parent households by area.

    The Prime Minister : This information cannot be obtained using child benefit records, as post codes necessary to allocate claims to local authority areas are not available for some 2 million, out of 6.7 million, payees. The objective could be achieved by other means only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson : To ask the Prime Minister whether the initiative taken by the three EC Foreign Ministers who visited Yugoslavia on peace-keeping missions was undertaken at the request of the Heads of Government meeting; whether the decision to send them was unanimous; what were their terms of reference; to whom they were to report back; and whether the agreed policy precluded individual Heads of Government from expressing separate national views.

    The Prime Minister : I and my EC colleagues decided at the European Council in Luxembourg on 28 June to send the troika of EC Foreign Ministers to Belgrade and Zagreb to try to negotiate an agreement on the terms of a ceasefire which would allow negotiations between all the parties involved in the crisis in Yugoslavia. They reported back to us on the results of their mission on 29 June. The decision to send the troika was taken by consensus, as are all decisions in the field of foreign policy co-operation among the member states of the Community. The speed and unity of the Twelve’s response reflected a convergence of national views on this subject. We shall, of course, continue to express our views bilaterally to the various Yugoslav parties.

     

    Hot Pursuit

    Mr. Bernie Grant : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on allowing police officers from other EC countries to enter the United Kingdom in hot pursuit of suspects.

    The Prime Minister : There is currently no provision for police officers from other EC countries to enter the United Kingdom in pursuit of suspects.

     

    UK-US Relations

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on current United Kingdom relations with the United States of America in regard to (a) the future role of NATO, (b) the development of free trade and the GATT negotiations, (c) the strategic defence initiative, (d) the halting of nuclear weapons testing and (e) the future of Antarctica and the Antarctic treaty.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom and the United States are in full agreement with each other, and with the rest of the alliance, on NATO’s future role as the cornerstone of European security. We are both committed to securing an open world trading system. We and the European Community are working closely with the United States in the GATT negotiations, which we all hope to conclude successfully by the end of the year.

     

    Lone-Parent Families

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make arrangements for the Department of the Environment to arrange with the Benefits Agency the means of obtaining up-to-date information on the numbers of children in lone-parent households by local authority area for the purpose of assessing standard spending.

    The Prime Minister : The standard spending assessments include indicators based on the most up-to-date information which is reliable at a local authority level on numbers of children and numbers of persons living in lone parent households. It is not possible to obtain more recent information by using child benefit records because the necessary post codes are not available for some 2 million out of 6.7 million, payees. An analysis of child benefit payments will not, in any case, identify all lone parent households since some parents in receipt of income support do not claim one parent benefit as there is no financial incentive to do so.

     

    Immigration and Frontier Controls

    Mr. Bernie Grant : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library the papers on immigration and frontier controls used during the Luxembourg summit and by his press officer subsequently to brief journalists.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the honourable Gentleman to the statement I made in the House on 1 July, and the conclusions of the European Council which have been placed in the Library of the House.

     

    Immigrants (Criminal Activity)

    Mr. Bernie Grant : To ask the Prime Minister what research has been undertaken into the incidence among the immigrant population, relative to the non-immigrant population, of criminal activity, in particular (i) drug trafficking and (ii) terrorism, and of contribution to racial tension.

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of any research of these specific matters.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 4 July.

    The Prime Minister : 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.

     

    Immigration

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place the official record of the briefing concerning immigration given on his behalf during the Luxembourg meetings of the European Council in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made in the House on 1 July, and the conclusions of the European Council, which have been placed in the Library of the House.

     

    Disability Manifesto

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards the recommendations of the “Disability Manifesto : An Agenda for the 1990s”, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 3 July 1991] : The aim underlying the Government’s policies for people with disabilities is to enable them to take a full part in the life of the community. Considerable progress has been made towards this goal over the past 12 years, and, while much remains to be done, we are continuing to build on these achievements.

    This Government will continue to work towards enabling people with disabilities to live independently as far as possible, and to contribute fully to all aspects of the life of the community. As the right hon. Member has asked similar questions of a number of my right hon. Friends, I have asked them to outline the major initiatives of their departmental programmes for people with disabilities.

  • PMQT – 4 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Beaumont-Dark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

    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. Beaumont-Dark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that strikes are now at a 30-year low and that, except for a few wretchedly greedy people in privatised monopolies, most people are now accepting wage restraint? Would not all that be upset by a minimum wage policy, which the trade unions and the next Labour Trade Minister have set and which would add two points to inflation and at least 600,000 to the unemployed? How can that be good for Britain?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The recently announced record on strikes is excellent news, the figure having fallen to a very low level indeed. It is also extremely good news, particularly for those without jobs, that wage settlements are falling to a level that the economy is more able to bear. The economy could certainly not bear a minimum wage–not least in the West Midlands, where, as the Reward Group pointed out just overnight, it would cost very many jobs right in my hon. Friend’s own backyard.

    Mr. Kinnock : When the Prime Minister supported the establishment of private water monopolies, did he realise that he was agreeing to the establishment of private monopolies that would turn out to be machines for printing money for their chairmen?

    The Prime Minister : The share options to which I assume the right hon. Gentleman is referring–[Hon. Members– : “No.”]. If the right hon. Gentleman is really referring to salaries, I remind him that we have discussed that matter on more than one occasion and he knows very well that I disapprove of those salary increases, but it is not the policy of this Government to act to legislate upon everything with which we disagree, as would the Labour Government. That is the way to give maximum centralist control and that is why socialism is such an outdated philosophy.

    Mr. Kinnock : Since privatisation, customers’ bills have increased by an average of 30 per cent. and chairmen’s salaries have gone up by 50, 70 and even 119 per cent. Against that background, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the conduct of the private monopolies amounts to a public scandal?

    The Prime Minister : I am very happy to join debate with the right hon. Gentleman on utility prices. It was, after all, the last Labour Government who put up electricity prices by 2 per cent. every six weeks. Under this Government, electricity, gas and telecommunications prices have fallen.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister says that he condemns the huge salary increases. He does that in words, but, in practice, he actually condones them. If he says that he does not have the power to put right that which he says is wrong, why does not he get the power?

    The Prime Minister : The difference between those of us who believe in a market economy and those who do not is that we recognise that it means giving people responsibility for their actions even if they exercise it in ways of which we do not approve. The right hon. Gentleman makes it clear once again that any prospect of a Labour Government means that they would seek to control the whole of the private sector centrally. We saw what happened when he did that last time and we know with his minimum wage policy what would happen again.

    Sir Thomas Arnold : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to re-emphasise the importance of compulsory competitive tendering for the provision of local services? Would not that be the best way of delivering that provision in Liverpool?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree. I think that compulsory competitive tendering in Liverpool, Lambeth and elsewhere would be very much in the interests of the people in those areas. The difficulty with the Opposition is that they do not know whether they support competition or not. In a recent interview, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said first : “I am against privatisation.” Then, when he was asked why it was necessary in Liverpool, he said :

    “Because the Liverpool people deserve a proper service.”

    If it is right in Liverpool, it is right everywhere.

     

    Q2. Mr. Patchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Patchett : After 12 years of this Government, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports today that Britain is at the bottom of the league for growth, employment and investment. Does the Prime Minister agree that if Britain were a football team, the manager would be sacked?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, even the legendary Bill Shankly would be proud of a record that had us top of the European growth league through the 1980s and that is where we will be in the 1990s.

    Mr. Pawsey : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent education speech yesterday? It underlines the difference between the achievements and intentions of this Government and the failures of the Opposition.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are very concerned about choice, diversity and standards. We have the policies to ensure that they improve.

     

    Q3. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Does the Prime Minister recall that when the Labour Government introduced equal pay legislation in 1974 there were a large number of Jeremiahs in the Tory party who predicted that equal pay would decimate the catering and retail industries and cost about 1 million jobs? Will the Prime Minister confirm that that did not happen? On the basis of that evidence, and following his criticisms, why will the minimum wage produce the same problems? Might it not, like equal pay, simply produce social justice in this country?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may be unwilling to take my views on a minimum wage, but he might consider the views of many external commentators, including yet another overnight–Phillips and Drew which show that the first stage of Labour’s policy would add 1 per cent. to the rate of inflation and destroy 400,000 jobs and that the second stage would add 2.5 per cent. to the rate of inflation and destroy 1.25 million jobs. Those are not my views, they are Phillips and Drew’s. The hon. Gentleman might also ask the long list of Labour trade union leaders who also attacked the minimum wage policy.

    Mr. Butcher : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the German secondary school system is still predominantly based on selection and that pupils are allocated, according to their ability, to technical schools, grammar schools or to high schools? At the heart of the system is the realschule or technical school. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in due course we, too, should have in every town in this country a state-funded technical school?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly wish to see a very dramatic growth in the number of state-funded technical schools. There is no doubt–and it is most clearly illustrated by the demand from parents for places in them that the city technology colleges have been an enormous success and will be a greater success in future. It is interesting that the Opposition deride a policy for which the parents vote with their feet.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Michie : When will the Prime Minister wake up to the reality that, without a strong manufacturing base, there is no way in which we can compete with our competitors abroad, which means that the economic decline will continue, bringing poverty, homelessness, joblessness and hopelessness? Will he accept that he has no idea about how to stop the rot, and will he go to the country while we still have a nation and stop us being a sitting duck for overseas predators?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone seeks to improve the position of manufacturing industry. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman when manufacturing was in decline–it was when the Labour Government lost control of inflation.

     

    Q5. Mr. Squire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Squire : Will my right hon. Friend consider tightening the law to protect those hon. Members who might otherwise be intimidated by the press? I refer to the Liverpool Echo, which has tried to force the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) to state which Labour party they are supporting in today’s by-election in Walton.

    The Prime Minister : That is certainly an ingenious proposition. I have been following the by-election in Liverpool with some interest. I was also interested in the answer given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) when he was asked for whom he would vote. He replied

    “I am not prepared to answer a ballot is a secret thing.”

    And so it is. If the Leader of the Opposition is serious about Militant, he should start by withdrawing the Whip from the Militant members on his own Back Benches.

    Mr. Loyden : The Prime Minister may be aware–he should be aware– that the problems facing Liverpool are deeply rooted in the policies that have been pursued by the Tory Government for the past 11 years. Does he agree that it is a pity that the Tory party did not pay the same attention to Liverpool that it has paid it during the past week or two when it took £62 million out of the coffers of the city of Liverpool, thus causing the problems that exist there today?

    The Prime Minister : The problems of Liverpool over the past 11 years are certainly deeply rooted, but which party–perhaps I should say parties–have been in control of Liverpool for the past 11 years? Why is Liverpool such a unique shambles? It is because the Labour party, whether under Militant control or, as it now likes to claim, under moderate control, has made a complete shambles of the lives of the people who live in Liverpool.

     

    Q6. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

    Mr. Nicholson : Given the tragic evidence this week of instability and uncertainty in eastern Europe and the continuing power of tyrants outside Europe, which is why Royal Marines from my constituency still remain in northern Iraq, will my right hon. Friend pledge that during the current reviews the Government will do all that they can to maintain the effectiveness and the morale of our armed services, which will ensure that the Conservative party can show strength on this issue, compared to the weakness of the Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister : I am entirely happy to give my hon. Friend that copper-bottomed assurance–and that applies both to conventional forces and conventional weapons, and to nuclear weapons. That is in sharp contrast to the Labour party with its policy of placing all Britain’s nuclear capability into disarmament negotiations with the intention of eliminating it in concert with action taken by the super powers–in other words, Labour Members remain unilateral disarmers.

    Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I wish that were true.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is the Prime Minister concerned that even after a period of recovery–whenever that might come–unemployment is predicted to rise to 2.8 million, and stay there? Does he intend to do anything about that, or will he simply abandon the unemployed to pay with their jobs for his failure?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke more effectively about Labour’s defence policy than his Front Bench does.

    The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) well knows our concern about unemployment. He is aware of the mitigating measures that we have introduced, and he should be aware that the greatest single destroyer of jobs is inflation. We are getting on top of inflation and bringing it down, and I am not prepared to take short-term action that would cost jobs tomorrow. Our policy is to get inflation down to ensure that there is growth and also secure, sustainable, permanent jobs tomorrow in every sector of industry.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Education to Centre for Policy Studies – 3 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Centre for Policy Studies at the Cafe Royal in London on Wednesday 3rd July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    EDUCATION – ALL OUR FUTURES

    Some of you may wonder why I have selected the theme of education today. There are so many other developments, not least in Europe, preoccupying Parliament and public. But I make no apology. As you know, education is at the top of our agenda for the 1990s. As a matter of principle – and as a matter of practical need. For every year it becomes clearer that the strength of the British people will depend on their skills.

    You may say it was ever thus. Disraeli declared that the fate of the country depended on education, and almost every subsequent prime minister has echoed that sentiment. But it only seems to galvanise us into action just about every 30 or 40 years. The 1870 Education Act established universal education in England and Wales. Balfour’s Education Act came in 1902, and Butler’s Act in 1944. Now we are embarked on an even more radical series of reforms, which began in the 1980s and are continuing into the 1990s.

    Some people might feel tempted to say: “Look: we’re not daft. We know about the importance of education. We knew there was a lot to be done. But you’ve been in power for over a decade. Why haven’t you done it?”

    Politicians are sometimes accused of not answering the question.

    Be that as it may. In this case, I am prepared to be generous.

    I will give you not just one answer – but four.

    The first is that the problems we are grappling with today go back a long time. For all our efforts to catch up over the past century or so, most historians would agree on one thing. The origins of our nation’s insufficient regard for education, and particularly education for work, lie deep in our culture.

    On the one hand, we were suspicious of brain power. It made the squirearchy uncomfortable. Only in Britain could it have been thought a defect to be “too clever by half” – the epithet applied, most famously, to the late lain Macleod.

    This ancient prejudice was then reinforced by the left, with its mania for equality. Equality not of opportunity, but of outcome. This was a mania that condemned children to fall short of their potential; that treated them as if they were identical – or must be made so. A mania that undermined common sense values in schools, rejected proven teaching methods, debased standards – or disposed of them altogether. A canker in our education system which spread from the Sixties on, and deprived great cohorts of our children of the opportunities they deserved. I, for one, cannot find it easy to forgive the Left for that.

    On the other hand, we have inherited an almost equal disdain for vocational training – a superior attitude to industry, and a mild contempt for the practical man and woman. Compare the status of the engineer in Germany and in Britain and you are half-way to understanding this side of the problem.

    While respecting and enhancing academic values, we must infuse education with greater awareness of the needs of the economy. We are therefore tackling not one problem but two. It is not merely a matter of adjusting the curriculum, or restructuring institutions – important though those changes may be. We are changing a culture – and cultural changes take time.

    My second answer is this. No one can say that we have not made a bold beginning. More has been done to modernise our education and training in the 1980s than in the previous three and a half decades since the second world war.

    Let’s take, to begin with, the vocational side. Just remember for a moment where we started from.

    In 1979, there was no requirement to teach science or technology in our schools. No National Curriculum to ensure that every pupil studied maths and science, up to a required level of attainment.

    No imaginative schemes, such as the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative, to bring business into contact with teachers and pupils. No City Technology Colleges, such as the superb Harris CTC at Norwood, which I visited this morning.

    There were grant-maintained schools, such as the one I am looking forward to visiting later today. These are schools which have real responsibility for their own affairs. They will lever up standards by giving parents real choice, teachers real motivation, and pupils wider opportunities than ever before.

    There were no Training and Enterprise Councils to link the worlds of education and work. No national training schemes. No coherent structure of high-level vocational qualifications; nothing to compare with the system of National Vocational Qualifications that the Government is presently engaged in streamlining.

    And it was this Government that gave the polytechnics their independence. The results are plain. They have flourished. They have attracted ever greater levels of interest from highly-qualified students. And they have attracted praise for their work from all-corners.

    In recognition of their success, we have – as you know – recently announced that we are removing the artificial “binary line” between universities and polytechnics. That will help to give the polys the status they deserve, not just in this country but in the rest of Europe. And I know they will not take it as a signal to imitate the universities, but as a vote of confidence in their own distinct and practical mission.

    And then they ask what we have been doing, for the past 12 years!

    My third point is this. In education Governments have been – in that fashionable phrase – largely confined to the role of enablers. We can direct a larger share of resources to education – and that we have done. In the 1980s, spending per school pupil trebled. Even after allowing for inflation, it rose by 40% in the decade.

    But that could not guarantee higher standards. Government, parents, inspectors, examiners, employers – but most particularly, teachers – all have a part to play. The drive to raise standards in all our public services is moving forward under the banner of our Citizen’s Charter, whose principles will be unveiled later this month. I will return to its relevance to education in a moment.

    The fourth and last part of my answer to that question on our Conservative record goes back, again, to our culture. For it would be a poor sort of country that abandoned interest in its past, in the race for technological expertise. A Conservative society is one that knows about and respects its roots, while having the self-confidence to embrace new ideas. A society that values learning for its own sake – as well as for its economic benefit.

    Education is more than the acquisition of skills. The intrinsic worth of a trained mind was summed up by Aristotle with immortal conviction. “The life according to reason”, he wrote, “is best and pleasantest, since reason more than anything else is man.” A truth, perhaps, not universally acknowledged in the House of Commons.

    We have therefore been engaged in the struggle to resist insidious attacks on literature and history in our schools. It is a struggle that must continue. That is why I attach great importance to the study of English. It is also why I am suspicious of the claim that this can be done with minimal regard to the structure of the language – or with only the most cursory acquaintance with pre-twentieth-century literature.

    It is why I have resisted calls to scrap A-levels – though I understand the arguments for widening the curriculum, and we have acted on them. It is why I would like to see all those responsible, at all levels, insist on higher examination standards in arts subjects, as well as more directly vocational studies.

    I say this not out of some romantic attachment to the past; but out of a conviction that past values and future needs complement each other. Those who argue that spelling should not be corrected ignore the world we live in, as well as the language we inherited. A world in which it matters to fill in a job application correctly. In which numeracy is a necessity. And in which vital export orders depend on the ability to communicate effectively, first in one’s own language and then in other people’s.

    Our educational reforms have been driven by three interlocking ambitions. To raise standards. To widen choice. And to increase the accountability of the system to those who use and pay for it. These principles will drive our reforms forward in the 1990s, too. For there is still much to be done.

    Too many youngsters reach 16 without any sense of where their education has been leading; without the motivation to take school learning forward into further education or training.

    Too often teachers’ expectations of their pupils are too low. It is particularly disturbing to find that it is less able children who have suffered most from the zealous adoption of fashionable theories. It is they who have suffered from excessive reliance on mixed-ability teaching and from hostility to testing. And it is the least able who have most to lose from left-wing waste of precious education resources. There are, I fear, city education authorities employing more bureaucrats than teachers. And the shameful state of affairs in Lambeth speaks for itself.

    To deliver higher standards, more choice and greater accountability in education will require a professional and highly-motivated teaching force. Teachers with the confidence to face rigorous and independent inspection, and to provide full information to parents about the results of their work. Let me say a little more about how we aim to bring that state of affairs about.

    First, standards. The introduction of the National Curriculum has been the fundamental first step. It is providing – for the first time – a clear framework setting out what pupils should know, understand and be able to do, at each stage of their schooling.

    This change is truly revolutionary. It requires the organised teaching of facts and skills. It provides a guarantee that science and technology will be taught in our primary schools; that history and geography will enjoy their rightful place in the syllabus; and that every pupil will have to study a foreign language for five years. It puts special emphasis on the fundamentals in maths and English.

    But it needs to be implemented flexibly. The National Curriculum must be a framework, not a straitjacket. It must be a guide for teachers, not a substitute for good classroom teaching. We are introducing refinements as it is brought in. On one, in particular, I lay great importance: allowing some young people, after the age of 14, to specialise in technical subjects, as they are able to do in so many other European countries.

    It is already clear that the National Curriculum has brought a new sense of purpose in schools up and down the country. At first the idea met with blind hostility in predictable quarters – and more understandable apprehension in others. But an impressive consensus has quickly emerged as to its value. Parents, teachers, employers and even our political opponents – winning the wooden spoon as always – agree that a great advance has been made.

    But to set standards is not enough. In the interests of children, we need to know whether standards are being met. This requires regular assessment of their progress.

    Let there be no doubt about the Government’s position. Tests are essential. And tests are here to stay. Of course, tests are not the be-all and end-all of education. We are not in the business of putting pressure on our children. But we must be able to measure their progress in an objective and regular manner.

    Tests for seven year olds and eleven year olds must deal precisely with the core skills – the “three Rs”. We need to know where things are going wrong, at an early age – or we will never be able to put them right.

    It is early days – and I readily accept that we may not have got the process right yet. Where it is wrong, we will change it. Testing must not dominate the classroom. It must not swamp schools in paperwork. Nor should it be driven by too theoretical an approach. We need to shift the emphasis towards shorter, standardised tests, which the whole class can take at one time.

    We must also make sure that the established systems of testing older children maintain their value. This means addressing those criticisms of GCSE that give rise to a suspicion that standards are at risk.

    It is clear that there is now far too much course work, project work and teacher assessment in GCSE. The remedy surely lies in getting GCSE back to being an externally assessed exam, which is predominantly written. I am attracted to the idea that for most subjects a maximum of 20 per cent of the marks should be obtainable from coursework. This, of course, is the sound principle we have recently proposed for A-levels.

    And we must also ensure that GCSE is properly calibrated to challenge the most able. We short-change our brightest children if we devalue the currency of the exams they take.

    The same principles apply to that higher benchmark of excellence – the A-level. If the transition from GCSE to A-levels is causing difficulties, we must level GCSE up, not lower A-level standards.

    But it is equally vital to raise the esteem in which vocational qualifications are held. As you all know, the Government has set out radical proposals. These are designed to break down artificial barriers, which for too long have divided an academic education from a vocational one.

    This is a crucial reform, and I am delighted by the very favourable reception that it has received. Challenging vocational qualifications are now being developed. The new diplomas announced in the White Paper will pull the two streams together, recording achievement in either or both, or in combinations of the two.

    Providing a wider range of examinations, which lead to worthwhile qualifications, is a way of creating real choice in education. Choice and diversity are central to our aims. For uniformity is the curse of giant public services. The monolith must be broken up, and made more responsive to parents and pupils. I am glad to say the revolution is well under way.

    – Next term, there will be 91 grant-maintained schools, and I am delighted to be told that there are many more ballots in the pipeline.

    – Next term, we shall have 13 City Technology Colleges up and running. They are meeting head-on a demand for technical education, which as a country we have neglected for a century past.

    – Under local management – pioneered in my own county, Cambridgeshire – schools are now in command of their own resources. By 1993 local authorities will be obliged to have delegated 85 per cent of their potential schools budget. I compliment those that have seen local management as an opportunity not a threat, and are above this target already.

    – Go-ahead local authorities are busy innovating. Wandsworth, for example, is working to achieve the following choice of secondary schools: two City Technology Colleges, three “magnet” specialist schools, three voluntary-aided church schools and two grant-maintained schools. Lincolnshire, which has perhaps gone further than any other long-standing LEA to encourage schools to take advantage of independence, is also planning to sponsor its own CTC.

    – In 1993 further education and sixth form colleges will follow polytechnics into freedom from local authority control.

    – Last, but by no means least, there is the thriving independent sector, whose peaks of excellence set an example to the whole education system.

    I see a special future for grant-maintained schools. I would like to see more of them in the Inner Cities. We need new institutions to break the mould of political extremism and bureaucratic inefficiency that too often characterises these areas. It is deprived children in the bad schools in the worst boroughs whom I most want the Government’s reforms to help.

    In time I am quite sure that the grant-maintained concept will win hearts and minds in every community. But maybe something more needs to be done to prepare the ground.

    I can therefore tell some further legislation is needed. We must ensure that the wishes of parents and governors are not thwarted by unreasonable behaviour on the part of education authorities.

    We propose to smooth the path to grant-maintained status. Too many local authorities are spending too much on campaigns against applications for grant-maintained status. Some are even campaigning against the wishes of parents. So we will severely limit the amount of taxpayers’ money an education authority can spend on such campaigns. And we will reimburse governing bodies, up to the same limit, for their own campaign expenses.

    Nor will this be all. We shall be putting forward a number of other measures to help the fledgling grant-maintained sector. Today I will single out but two. First, we will stop local authorities removing or disposing of a school’s assets while it is applying for grant-maintained status. And second, we will require primary schools to provide information about admission to all publicly-funded secondary schools, including grant-maintained schools.

    We will also legislate to remove the technical and legal obstacles that stand in the way of those voluntary-aided schools that wish to become City Technology Colleges.

    We will go one step further, creating another new kind of school. We will enable existing schools to transform themselves into grant-maintained technology colleges. These will incorporate the key characteristics of CTCs – a focus on technical education, supported by private sector sponsors.

    Which leads me back – again – to accountability. Accountability, first and foremost, to parents. For what the CTCs have shown plainly is just how frustrated many thousands of parents are in their search for excellence. There have been over 8000 applications for the 2600 places available at CTCs this September. Parents know what is on offer: high standards of work, attendance and aspiration. The CTCs can give a good account of themselves to parents – and they do. At the Harris CTC, for example, I’m told that 2000 turned up for a prospective parents’ evening.

    We have sought to make room for parents within the cosy relationship between local education authorities, their schools and their advisers and inspectors. Governors and heads have been given the freedom to run their own schools, but there must be parents on the governing body. Schools now have the freedom to break away altogether from the local authority if they wish – but it is votes of parents which decide the matter.

    I have never yet come across parents who did not want to know how their children are doing at school both in relation to their own ability and in relation to the rest of the class. But far too many have the devil’s own job finding out. And the country needs to know how schools as a whole are doing. Parents and taxpayers – parents who are also taxpayers – have a common interest in knowing what is being achieved in our schools.

    So as part of our plans for the Citizen’s Charter – we will be obliging schools to provide better and more accessible information about their performance. Exam and test results, of course. And – from next term – information on attendance rates, a change which I regard as long overdue. But I want to see more: for example, information about numbers staying on at 16. I also want to turn the school inspector into the parent’s friend. Too much of the valuable information in inspectors’ reports is effectively hidden from those who most need to know. As part of our Citizen’s Charter reforms, we intend to increase the independence – and openness – of the inspection process.

    All this is part of our long-standing intent to empower parents within the education system, so they can make better-informed choices about what is best for their children. But – as no-one knows better than parents – the quality of education depends on the quality and commitment of our teachers.

    My main message to teachers is simple, but important. We wouldn’t be doing half what we are doing if we did not have a high regard for the profession. I have made it very plain that I do. Indeed, I married into it. But before anybody says that the proof of the pudding lies in the pay, let me remind you of two central decisions taken since I became Prime Minister. The first was the Government’s decision to honour in full, during the course of this year, the recent pay award – at a time when pay settlements in the rest of the economy were coming down to much lower figures. And the second was the decision to establish a Pay Review Body for teachers, intended to provide peace in the classroom and fair pay for teachers for many years to come.

    We must also ensure they have the best training. We are now looking hard at teacher training. The course criteria are now much tighter than they were. Much less theory. Much more practice. All teachers must now have direct classroom experience and a proper grounding in the basic subjects. They must be able to recognise the problems of children with special learning difficulties. This is good progress.

    We want now to see more of the training based in school. Teachers must have the training they need, not what the colleges think they ought to have. Over 600 mostly older teachers have now been licensed to teach -without having to go back to college. By this autumn almost 1,000 teachers will be in the classroom, through the Articled Teacher Scheme. This is more progress. We need also to make it much easier than it is now for older people to qualify as teachers, through part and full-time training courses which build on their life experience rather than being identical to the courses which are offered to school leavers.

    The changes I have outlined – as well as the ones still to come – have of course thrown a large burden on schools. There are, and will be, teething troubles. But the critics of government action cannot have it all ways at once. The accusation that we have not done enough about education sits ill with the complaint that too much is happening.

    All change is, of course, unsettling. And I have said enough today to make it plain that we are at a time of enormous change – change in both the forms and ambitions of our education system. But the best teachers will, I know, recognise the opportunities this offers.

    I have barely touched today on higher education, which is the area of our education system where expansion is most spectacular – and we have a great story to tell. Our university and polytechnic courses are admired around the world. Our academic community has achieved a great deal in teaching, scholarship and research. Many of you here are well-placed to know that. And the proportion of our young people benefitting from higher education is rising sharply. In 1979 it was 1 in 8 of our 18 and 19 year olds. It is now better than 1 in 5, and on current trends will be approaching 1 in 3 by the year 2000.

    This success story prompts me to emphasise one important and topical point. An integral part of the single European market is mutual recognition of qualifications and diplomas. Much progress has already been made on this. The ability of young people to make use of their qualifications throughout Europe will play a key role in fostering an unforced sense of closer European identity. The esteem in which our higher education is held gives us pole position in this process and I intend to keep it that way.

    The ambitions I have shared with you today can only sketch the outline of the system we may see by the year 2000. For this time, the pattern of reform is being coloured in by millions of individual choices.

    This means parents’ choices of the kind of education they want for their children. Teenagers’ choices of courses and qualifications. School leavers’ choices of further education or training, provided by the new credits we are offering them – “smart cards” to spend on training as they see fit. And wide choice in a rapidly expanding, newly united higher education sector.

    The outcome will not, as too often in the past, depend entirely on government decree. So it cannot be predicted with the same certainty. But three consequences can be forecast with confidence.

    First, with higher standards and greater accountability in education, teaching is set to be one of the most challenging careers of the decade. Nothing less than the best will do – and the best can be sure they will be satisfactorily rewarded. Secondly, education will be a growth industry. Our appetite for good quality education expands with affluence and international competition. And finally, carrying through the reform of education will be a challenging task for the Government. I am privileged to lead in the 1990s. It is a challenge we accept with enthusiasm.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministerial Correspondence

    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will remind all Ministers of the requirement that with all ministerial replies to Members’ letters, a copy of the Minister’s letter must always be enclosed.

    The Prime Minister : I have asked my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to write to Ministers’ offices.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 2 July.

    The Prime Minister : 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.

     

    University Funding

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet Sir Edward Parkes, chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, to discuss university funding.

    The Prime Minister : I have told the CVCP that I am ready to meet them in due course to discuss their proposals for achieving the desired expansion of higher education with greater efficiency.

     

    Information Bulletin

    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and the assembly of the Western European Union which has been sent to him.

    The Prime Minister : I have done so today.

  • PMQT – 2 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Harry Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

    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. Ewing : Is the Prime Minister aware that the prospectuses for PowerGen and other privatised industries say that Her Majesty’s Government do not expect to use their shareholding to vote on resolutions before the annual general meetings of those companies, but–this is the important point–that they reserve the right to do so? Will the Prime Minister, for once, act decisively, do as he did in the case of the chairmen of the banks and call in the chairmen and chief executives of all the privatised industries and make it clear to them that he will use the power given to him in the prospectus to intervene and stop the obscene salary increases that they are granting to themselves–or is this yet another example of all talk, all dither and no action?

    The Prime Minister : I have made clear my view on the large increases on a number of occasions. I have also made it clear that the freedom given in the prospectus is not to be used in that fashion. The hon. Gentleman has been told that before and I reiterate it now.

    Mrs. Roe : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to look into the effect on the employment of women of implementing the provisions in the social charter which relate to part-time work? Will not the social charter, which is fully supported by the Labour party, destroy job opportunities for women and restrict the flexibility of part-time work from which so many women benefit?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. We are able to support parts of the social charter, but the draft directions on part-time work would add substantially to the cost to British industry and, in so doing, cost the jobs of many people.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister still certain that, as he promised just two weeks ago, Britain will come out of recession in the second half of this year?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I still believe that we will see the economy move out of recession during the second half of this year. That view is echoed by a number of independent commentators and I see no reason to revise our previous forecasts.

    Mr. Kinnock : The engineering employers, steel makers, car manufacturers and retailers are all telling the Government in clear terms that the serious losses of jobs, output and capacity will continue for the rest of this year and even into 1992 and beyond. What evidence does the Prime Minister have to demonstrate that those people, who certainly live in the real world, are wrong?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the latest CBI survey is precisely in line with the Red Book forecasts, which show that the economy will come out of recession in the second half of this year. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the G7 Finance Ministers agreed that the world economy was moving out of recession and back into growth. The impact of that will certainly assist our recovery in the second half of this year.

    Mr. Kinnock : As for the forecasts of recovery from the world recession, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which other major industrial country has had a zero-minus-growth rate this year– [Interruption.] Under the policies of this Government– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Interruptions take a lot of time.

    Mr. Kinnock : Under the policies of this Government, a zero growth rate would be an improvement.

    Can the Prime Minister tell us which other major industrialised country has has a growth rate of minus 2 per cent. this year? What sort of recovery can the right hon. Gentleman look forward to, when every manufacturer in Britain clearly records a loss of capacity and of confidence that have eroded the British manufacturing base for the second time in 10 years?

    The Prime Minister : As for the long-term strength of British industry, the right hon. Gentleman should read the recent comment by the director general of the CBI. He said :

    “Virtually everything associated with our manufacturing base is better today than it was in the so-called golden era’”

    to which so many people look back fondly. The director general was right– that was the era of strikes, loss of delivery, lost market shares and Labour.

    Sir Ian Lloyd : My right hon. Friend will doubtless have had reported to him the serious news that the Japanese research and development total exceeded £9 billion for the first time last month. Of that sum, £1.5 billion is spent by the five largest semiconductor firms in Japan, exceeding the total research and development expenditure on semiconductors of the United States and western Europe. Had this matter been considered by the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, which my right hon. Friend chairs? If it has, does that committee share the views of the congressional committee on semiconductor dependency about the serious implications that that has for the defence and the industrial base of the western world?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend rightly makes the point that the huge research and development in the private sector has brought about the remarkable improvement in Japanese productivity in recent years. I shall chair a meeting of ACOST in the near future and I expect that that is one of the matters that we shall discuss.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Nellist : Is the Prime Minister aware that 16-year-olds on youth training have had their allowance frozen at £29.50 for several years and that, had their allowance risen since 1978 in line with average earnings, it would be £68.60 today? How does the Prime Minister think that those youngsters feel when they again read reports in the press that the heads of newly privatised industries such as PowerGen are awarding themselves pay rises of up to 163 per cent? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that those youngsters are worth so much less than Mr. Wallis?

    The Prime Minister : As I said a few moments ago, I have made my opinion on these large increases perfectly clear. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have a more substantial employment package for young people than this country has ever had and it was added to just a fortnight ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

     

    European Single Currency

    Q3. Mr. Janman : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the benefits accruing from a single currency in the European Community to the United Kingdom and other European Community countries either now or in the future.

    The Prime Minister : Theoretically, a single currency within a single trading area can save industry the risks and costs of exchange rate transactions. It also saves ordinary travellers cost and inconvenience. Of course, all those advantages apply to a common currency such as that which the United Kingdom has proposed. But the economic benefits of a single currency can be exaggerated and they carry economic risks with them. If widely divergent economies are forced into the straitjacket of a single currency, the strains in the system may be unsustainable.

    Mr. Janman : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Was he in the Chamber last week to hear the critical but interesting observation that a federal state bears three distinguishing marks? One of those marks is the existence of a single currency and of a central bank. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sentiments behind that observation, made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), fly in the face of the Labour party’s policy on Europe?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that the Labour party is split on the question of Europe.

    Sir Russell Johnston : If the Prime Minister is saying that he agrees that a single currency is acceptable in principle, is not it also logical that a European central bank should control European-wide interest rates?

    The Prime Minister : What I have said repeatedly about a single currency is that if it is market driven and if it is required, it is acceptable to us in principle. However, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say yesterday, we have maintained our reserve on the prescriptive single currency which is at present before the Community.

    Mr. Favell : With my right hon. Friend’s successful Luxembourg conference behind him, will he reject any new proposals to interfere with the Government’s right to tax, to spend and to fix interest rates, as otherwise the non-imposition of a single currency could be but a hollow victory?

    The Prime Minister : We are still at the very early stage of negotiations on economic and monetary union. I have already made it clear that I am as jealous as any other hon. Member of the rights of the House.

    Mr. Spearing : Is the Prime Minister aware that last Friday I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what studies had been made into the benefits for the United Kingdom of economic and monetary union? He answered by referring in column 541 to a written answer that he had given to me on 7 December at column 216. Both answers showed that no study had been made of the benefits. As the First Lord of the Treasury, will the Prime Minister tell us why that is so?

    The Prime Minister : I set out in my original answer to my hon. Friend a few moments ago what the theoretical advantages of a single currency would be. The hon. Gentleman may care to read that answer.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Hayward : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Hayward : Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the impact on income tax of a massive increase in public spending? Will he in particular say whether he has received any detailed written response to the analysis of the Labour party’s programme which was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about a fortnight ago?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend makes a telling point. I can confirm that I have received no such written response. The Opposition are remarkably coy about their spending plans. These days they set great store by the Financial Times, but, as that newspaper said recently :

    “Any Labour Government would face clear choices : either unsustainable borrowing, or significantly higher taxation, or a great many disappointed hopes for higher public spending”–

    or, of course, all three.

     

    Q5. Mr. Eadie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Eadie : In view of the Government-inspired vendetta against the miners and their union, which is now in disrepute, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that we are not on the verge of another scandal? As the Government have authorised Rothschild bank, Touche Ross and Geoffrey Chancer to advise the Government on the privatisation of the coal industry, will the Prime Minister give us an assurance today that the £6.5 billion miners pension fund will not be used as bait to sell off our coal industry?

    The Prime Minister : There is no vendetta against the miners. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to Question Time a few days ago, he would have heard of the number of miners in Nottinghamshire, for example, who now earn well over £20,000 a year, so little is the vendetta of the Government.

     

    Q6. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Field : May I refer my right hon. Friend to my ten-minute Bill on 29 June 1988, at column 399 of the Official Report, when I proposed financial penalties on parents of perpetual truants? In the process of introducing the Bill, I referred to the 1985 Home Office report on parental supervision and delinquency. Has not the case been proved that if parents are careless of the whereabouts of their children, the children are more likely to offend? Is not it high time that we tightened up the rules on truancy? As my old friend, ex-prison governor and Isle of Wight broadcaster C. A. Joyce used to say, “I never met a criminal from a loving and caring home.”

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is vital that parents fulfil their duty to secure their children’s education. As my hon. Friend will know, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, the maximum fine for the parents of truants will rise to £1,000. We are very concerned to bring an end to truancy and, through that and other policies, we will seek to do so.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet Mr. Kenneth McGinley, chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 18 April 1991 at column 568.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Luxembourg European Council – 1 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the 1st July 1991 on the European Council held in Luxembourg held from 28th-29th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.

    It was clear from the events there that Yugoslavia must be the first item on our agenda. I discussed the overnight position with Prime Minister Lubbers and with Chancellor Kohl before the Council opened. We were able to reach rapid agreement in the Council on invoking the emergency mechanisms of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and a meeting is taking place in Vienna this afternoon. We also agreed to dispatch to Yugoslavia the Foreign Ministers of the troika–Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy. Their visit brought some respite in the conflict, but the situation was very fragile yesterday and the Foreign Ministers returned to Yugoslavia yesterday afternoon. They secured agreement to the appointment of Mr. Mesic of Croatia as the next President of Yugoslavia and to other measures to defuse the crisis. The situation remains very volatile and the Community will need to be closely involved over the coming weeks. In the meantime, Community aid to Yugoslavia has been suspended. British citizens have been advised to leave Slovenia.

    The main item of scheduled business was to discuss progress in the two intergovernmental conferences launched last year, one on economic and monetary union and the other on political union. Discussion centred on the issues raised in a draft treaty text circulated by the presidency, though there was no detailed negotiation of the text itself.

    This European Council–as we had wanted–was a stocktaking. It was not the occasion to take decisions, but we have registered the considerable progress made in the Luxembourg presidency as well as our collective will to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December. The conclusions, which have been placed in the Library of the House, incorporate a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom.

    I made it clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, although some other partners in the Community disagree with it strongly. The present text means that some things are done on the basis of the treaty of Rome but others on the basis of intergovernmental action in which the treaty of Rome does not apply and the Commission does not have the sole right of initiative. I welcomed the concept of a common foreign and security policy set firmly within the context of the Atlantic alliance and stressed the need to work by consensus in this crucial area.

    There is agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law. That reflects a British proposal that would enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states that fail to comply with Community legislation. We have long argued for a level playing field and for full respect of the rule of law, and we are determined to get it. We have a good record on implementation and we believe that all states that sign up to Community law should implement it.

    The conclusions call for early progress on the remaining legislation needed to complete the single market. This means in particular measures on insurance, and air, sea and road transport, which are of importance to this country.

    The Council discussed the need to strengthen the Community’s external perimeter boundary if free movement of people is to be able to take place within it. We also agreed to better co-ordination in the fight against international drug trafficking and organised crime through the establishment of a European Criminal Investigation Office.

    The conclusions also commit us to strengthening the Community’s links with the countries of central and eastern Europe. This will initially take the form of association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Government hope that those countries–and probably others–will be ready for full membership in due course.

    I also made it clear that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree, and it was understood that nothing could be agreed until everything is agreed at the conclusion of these discussions. I explained that even though to many federal union implies decentralisation, the term carried the reverse implication in this country and would not be acceptable in a text to be agreed at the end of the year.

    I explained our reservations about the existing text on the role of the European Parliament. We see a strong case for an increased role for the European Parliament in areas such as control over the Commission through audit of expenditure and measures to safeguard the rights of Community citizens, including the appointment of a European ombudsman. The text entirely reserves our position on the issue of co-decision. The present proposal, involving a complicated conciliation procedure, would not in our view improve Community decision-taking.

    In the discussion on economic and monetary union I maintained our reserve on a single currency and a single central bank. We discussed the issue of economic convergence. The need for such convergence is increasingly recognised by our partners, but the nature and extent of that convergence and its relationship with possible target dates for moves to stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union are still for negotiation. All other member states understand that there must, in any case, be a separate decision by the Government and this House on whether the United Kingdom would move to a single currency and, if so, when.

    The European Council has issued a number of political declarations which are also available in the Library of the House.

    The Council endorsed the initiative that I took in April to establish a United Nations register of conventional arms transfers, and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the United Nations General Assembly.

    The Council also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the co-ordination of disaster relief within the United Nations system. We envisage the appointment of a high-level co-ordinator, with direct access to emergency funding and with the authority to pull together the whole disaster relief operation. We are taking that initiative forward in the United Nations now. At British initiative, the Council agreed a text on human rights, the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. The Community will use its leverage to promote human rights through the economic and co-operation agreements which it makes with third countries.

    We welcomed the abolition in South Africa of the remaining legislative pillars of apartheid. We also declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case-by-case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been set up. The establishment of such an independent and non-racial body for cricket was announced on the same day.

    I believe that this European Council was a good example of the Community at work. We took rapid action to respond to the crisis in Yugoslavia and will continue to work together for a peaceful settlement. We took stock in a businesslike way of the progress made under Luxembourg’s chairmanship. There are difficult issues still to be resolved. As in any negotiation, there will have to be give and take and a judgment will have to be made by the Government and by the House on the overall package at the end of the negotiation. There was a common determination in Luxembourg to work for an agreed outcome to the negotiations by the end of the year. I shall continue to argue for what I believe to be in the interests of our own country and the interests of the Community as a whole.