Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Text of the Queen’s Speech – 23 October 1996

    Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech, held on 23rd October 1996.


    Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to receiving the State Visits of His Excellency the President of Israel in February and of the President of Brazil in December next year. We also look forward to our visit to Canada in June and July and to our State Visits to Thailand later this month and to Pakistan and India in October next year, the fiftieth anniversary of their independence.

    National security continues to be of the highest importance. My Government will continue to play a major role in NATO’s adaptation and in decisions on its enlargement, and to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. The United Kingdom’s minimum nuclear deterrent will be maintained.

    Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a priority. Early provision will be made for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. My Government will pursue negotiations on a Convention to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive purposes.

    In the European Union, my Government will work for an outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference which supports an outward-looking, economically liberal and flexible Union based on a partnership of nations. They will promote policies designed to improve the Union’s competitiveness and economic well-being. They will work towards the opening of accession negotiations with countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

    My Government will promote the further global liberalisation of trade, in particular at the Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation, and will continue to work for transatlantic free trade in this context.

    My Government will continue actively to support peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, encouraging full compliance with the Peace Agreement and promoting reconciliation between the former warring parties.

    Support will continue for the search for a durable peace in the Middle East.

    My Government will continue to work for a successful transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997. They will work on behalf of its people to preserve their way of life and to promote the territory’s continued stability and prosperity, founded on a high degree of autonomy and the rule of law.

    Preparations will be made for the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government to be held in Edinburgh in October 1997, and for the second Asia-Europe Meeting in London in 1998.

    Support for the United Nations remains a priority. My Government will continue to work for a United Nations that is more effective, efficient and responsive to the needs of its Member States.

    The fight against terrorism, organised crime and drug misuse and trafficking will remain a priority as will action to protect and improve the environment.

    My Government will continue to promote respect for human rights and the international rule of law.

    A substantial aid programme will be maintained to help improve the quality of life in poorer countries, by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.

    In Northern Ireland, my Government’s priority will be to maintain progress towards peace, prosperity and reconciliation, based on a comprehensive political settlement commanding widespread support. They stand ready to introduce legislation to provide for the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives in Northern Ireland. They will maintain close and friendly relations with the Republic of Ireland.

    Members of the House of Commons,

    Estimates for the public service will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    My Government will continue with firm financial policies designed to support sustained economic growth and rising prosperity, while maintaining low inflation. Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term. My Government will reduce further the share of national income taken by the public sector. They will continue to promote enterprise and further improve the performance of the economy with the aim of creating the strongest industrial economy in Western Europe in the medium term and doubling living standards over the next twenty-five years. They will promote fewer, better and simpler regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on business.

    My Government will continue to support competitiveness through advancing knowledge, improving educational and skill levels and promoting a flexible, efficient labour market. Legislation will be introduced to widen choice and diversity, improve discipline and raise standards in schools.

    A Bill will be introduced to reform the sentencing and supervision of serious, dangerous and persistent offenders so as to provide greater protection for the public. Legislation will be introduced to support the fight against organised crime, including establishing a National Crime Squad. A Bill will be introduced to strengthen controls on the ownership of firearms.

    Legislation will be brought forward to strengthen the powers to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. A Bill will again be brought before you to authorise the construction and operation of a high speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel.

    Legislation will be introduced to improve and develop primary health care services. A Bill will be brought forward to combat social security fraud.

    Legislation will be introduced to implement proposals contained in the English and Welsh Rural White Papers in relation to parish and community councils and to provide rate relief for small village shops.

    In Scotland legislation will be introduced to abolish automatic early release from prison and to make other changes in the criminal justice system to improve public protection. A Bill will be brought forward to enable the transfer of publicly-owned crofting estates to crofting trusts.

    My Government will introduce legislation to enable reform of the procedures of the civil courts, and other measures of law reform.

    Other measures will be laid before you.

    My Government will also publish Bills in draft for consultation on the introduction of voluntary identity cards and on measures to help people make better provision for their long term care needs in old age.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview on the Referendum Party – 18 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview on the Referendum Party, held on Friday 18th October 1996.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would lose sleep over the Referendum Party].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I won’t lose any sleep over them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was concerned about their impact on the General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’m not really quite sure what the Referendum Party are about or even what they’re for. We have indicated that if Britain were to go into a single currency – if a future Cabinet were to decide to go into a single currency – there would be a full scale referendum specifically on that question for every adult in the country. So that is the European matter people are most concerned about and that is a clear-cut longstanding commitment. What the purpose of the Referendum Party is on the back of that, I am frankly baffled.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if their standing would still damage the Conservative Party at the General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think so, I don’t think so at all. I think people completely understand the potential impact of the Referendum Party. Firstly, I don’t believe they will get very many votes. They’re a fringe organisation. Secondly those votes will be spread across all the parties. I frankly don’t agree with the assessment that it would do any one particular party any damage.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sir James Goldsmith should not be getting involved in the political process].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, politics is open to anyone who wishes to be in politics. If Sir James wishes to spend his time in politics, that’s a matter for him.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the attacks the Conservatives made on the Referendum Party simply gave them more publicity].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, if one gets into politics, one must expect to be attacked.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 October 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th October 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Rail Privatisation

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement of 10 October in Bournemouth concerning improvements to rail passenger services from privatisation, if he will (a) give specific examples and (b) show that criteria he used for coming to this general conclusion.

    The Prime Minister: Rail franchising is leading to extra investment, additional train services, better passengers charters and improved passenger care. The new franchisee on South Eastern, for instance, is committed to replacing its existing trains with modern rolling stock, at a cost of up to £400 million. The franchisee for Midland MainLine plans to introduce an extra 22 weekday services each day between Leicester and London, and InterCity East Coast intends to invest some £17 million in improvements to rolling stock performance, passenger security and disabled access. These are just some of the improvements which franchising will bring to the passenger rail network at less cost to the taxpayer.

     

    Royal Travel Expenditure

    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have for the future funding of royal travel by rail and air.

    The Prime Minister: The Government propose, with Her Majesty the Queen’s agreement and following consultation with the Leader of the Opposition to invite Parliament to approve next year a single grant in aid on the Department of Transport’s vote for official royal travel by rail and air. The royal household will use this to purchase the services of the royal train, of No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron or suitable commercial providers.

    At present, these costs are met by the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as part of their general expenditure. The aim of the change is to have one focus–the royal household–responsible for securing the best value for money from this public money and to improve accountability to Parliament through the Department of Transport.

    The grant in aid from the Department of National Heritage, under which the royal household takes on first line of responsibility for property services on the occupied royal palaces, provides a suitable model. It has enabled savings in excess of 25 per cent. in real terms to be achieved since it was introduced in 1991. An annual report on the new grant in aid for royal travel will be presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Transport. Once the new system is established, targets for savings will be agreed and performance against them published in this annual report.

    The new grant in aid will not cover expenditure on the royal yacht, which is due to be decommissioned in 1997.

    I am confident that these measures, which are consistent with modern financial management, will improve the cost-efficiency and public accountability of this expenditure.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the President of Chile – 16 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview in London with the President of Chile, Mr Eduardo Frei, on Wednesday 16th October 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly say how delighted I was to see the President here at Downing Street today. We have had the opportunity over the last two hours of some fairly wide-ranging discussions both on bilateral matters and also on international affairs. The relationship at the moment between our two countries is very good, very good politically and very good in terms of trade and investment. But the first thing we discussed was how to improve mutual trade and mutual investment and we set out a practical programme to achieve that. We both believe that there is tremendous scope for improvement and we are determined to achieve that improvement.

    We also discussed a range of other bilateral matters and some international matters as well. I think rather than elaborate upon these, I will ask the President to say a few words and then we will answer any questions you may have. So in reiterating my very warm welcome to the President, I would like to invite him to say a few words to you.

    PRESIDENT FREI:

    [Interpretation inaudible].

    QUESTION:

    [Interpretation inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have to foster greater contact, that is the underlying point. We have put together a detailed programme about how that contact can be accelerated, we are looking at greater bilateral trade missions, greater bilateral investment missions, mutual exchanges of top businessmen, more exchanges of senior officials in government and a detailed examination within both governments of the opportunities, first for British investment in Chile and Chilean investment in Britain, but also the prospects of using Britain as an investment centre for the rest of Europe and Chile as an investment centre for the rest of Latin America. The President and I are both determined that this shall happen, so we have both said to our Ministers that we expect them to report to us what has happened and what has resulted from that so that this is not an initiative that fails to proceed. I think the scope is very great and I am determined that we take the opportunities that exist.

    QUESTION:

    [Interpretation inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will ratify it very speedily. Having said that, we British are a little disappointed in the agreement with Chile because it is not as far-reaching as we would have wished. We would have been more pleased if our European partners had agreed firstly a more far-reaching agreement, and secondly an agreement that came fully into effect more speedily. Nonetheless, we are pleased with the agreement that we have got, we just had hoped it would have been an even more wide reaching agreement, and we will work with the Government of Chile to try and improve a better agreement in the future.

    QUESTION:

    [Interpretation inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Whisky is usually a source of pleasure in the United Kingdom, not of conflict. The President and I have discussed that, of course, as you would imagine and I know the President is looking at more proposals to deal with the domestic problem he has and also international obligations under the World Trade Organisation. So it was certainly a subject of discussion and the President may wish to add something to that.

    PRESIDENT FREI:

    [Interpretation inaudible].

  • Government’s Official Response to the Inquiry into the Dunblane Shootings – 16 October 1996

    Below is the text of the Government’s official response to the Inquiry held by Lord Cullen into the Dunblane shootings. The response was published on 16th October 1996.


    The Government Response to the Lord Cullen Inquiry

    Introduction

    On 21 March 1996 it was resolved by both Houses of Parliament that it was “expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the incident at Dunblane Primary School on Wednesday 13 March 1996, which resulted in the deaths of 18 people”. The Hon Lord Cullen was appointed as a Tribunal:-

    “To inquire into the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the events at Dunblane Primary School on Wednesday 13 March 1996, which resulted in the deaths of 18 people; to consider the issues arising therefrom; to make such interim and final recommendations as may seem appropriate; and to report as soon as practicable.”

    The Report of Lord Cullen’s Inquiry (“The Public Inquiry into the Shooting at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996” Cm 3386) has been published. This White Paper sets out the Government’s response.

    The Government is grateful to Lord Cullen for his full and clear report into the circumstances of the shootings and the lessons which should be learned from them. Lord Cullen has benefited from a large number of written submissions and 26 days of oral evidence. He has completed his Report with commendable speed – for which the Government is grateful, because of its determination to act quickly and decisively on his recommendations.

    Recommendations on the certification system relating to Section 1 firearms

    Officers carrying out enquiries should be supplied in advance with full information about any known change of circumstances and any reason for exercising particular caution.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. The Home Office Guidance to the Police stresses that the police’s decision about whether to issue a firearm certificate is their most important firearms licensing task. The main consideration is a person’s character – and police forces are expected to provide their officers with all the necessary information. The Guidance to the Police will be amended to emphasise the point.

    The use of checklists by enquiry officers is endorsed, subject to the need for them to be alert to and report anything which could be relevant to the suitability of the applicant or certificate holder.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and the Guidance to the Police will be amended to emphasise the point.

    Enquiry officers should be given as much training and guidance for their work as is practicable.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. Existing Home Office advice to police forces is that ‘enquiry, administration and decision making processes’ in each police force should all be controlled by a centralised firearms administration and that all inquiries should be made by nominated, trained staff. The Guidance to the Police will be amended to emphasise the point.

    The power of search with warrant under section 46 of the Firearms Act 1968 should be extended to cases in which there is reasonable ground for suspecting that there is a substantial risk to the safety of the public; and to include in such cases the power to seize and detain any firearm certificate which may be found.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will seek to amend section 46 of the Act accordingly.

    The power of search with warrant under section 46 of the Firearms Act 1968 should be extended to any civilian licensing and enquiry officer who is authorised in writing for that purpose by the Chief Constable.

    The powers enjoyed by police officers to inspect dealers’ registers and premises and approved clubs should be extended to civilian licensing and enquiry officers who are authorised in writing for that purpose by the Chief Constable.

    The Government accepts these two recommendations and will bring forward the necessary legislation.

    The steps being taken to enable police forces to hold and exchange information on computer as to the individuals who hold firearm certificates, and those whose firearm applications have been refused or certificates revoked are endorsed.

    The Government supports this recommendation and will discuss its implementation with the police service.

    The Guidance to the Police should advise that good reason implies intention; and that lack of past use prima facie indicates the lack of it.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. Lord Cullen criticises the Home Office Guidance to the Police, which says (6.8e) that a certificate for a handgun ‘should not be granted unless the person has regular and legitimate opportunity of using the weapon e.g. for target shooting as a member of a pistol club’. The Guidance will be amended to say also that the police should not generally renew a certificate unless it is clear that the person has actually been making use of his or her gun.

    Section 30(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 should be amended so as to provide for –

    the revocation of a firearm certificate on the ground that the chief officer of police is satisfied that the holder does not have a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the certificate is held; and for partial revocation; and

    in the case of the revocation of a firearm certificate in respect of the ammunition to which it relates, the power to substitute different quantities.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will bring forward the necessary legislation.

    Each club which is approved for the purposes of section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 should be required to maintain a register of the attendance of its members who are holders of firearm certificates, together with details as to the firearms which they used and the competitions in which they participated when they attended.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. The approval criteria for clubs will be amended (see recommendation 15).

    Every holder of a firearm certificate should be required to be a member of at least one approved club; and the firearm certificate should specify the approved club or clubs of which he or she is a member and the firearms which he or she intends to use in each of them.

    The Government accepts this recommendation, for holders of firearm certificates for target shooting. The Government will bring forward the necessary changes in primary legislation.

    Each approved club should be required to inform the police when a holder of a firearm certificate has ceased to be a member of the club for whatever reason.

    Each approved club should be required to inform the police when a member who is the holder of a firearm certificate has not attended a meeting of the club for a period of a year.

    The proposal that each club should appoint a person to act as a liaison officer with the police is endorsed.

    The Government accepts these 3 recommendations and will amend the approval criteria for clubs (see recommendation 15).

    Explicit statutory provision should be made for the laying down of criteria for the approval of clubs for the purpose of section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. The Government intends to give statutory force to the approval criteria for clubs (amended in line with recommendations 10, 12 to 14, 19 and 20).

    The language of section 30(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 should be brought into full correspondence with that of section 27(1); and each revised in order to achieve a logical and consistent arrangement.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will seek to amend the Act accordingly.

    Section 27(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 should include (as one of the conditions on which the granting or renewal of a firearm certificate is dependent) that the chief officer of police is satisfied that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with the firearm and ammunition to which the application relates.

    The Government accepts this recommendation which would replace the present test in Section 27, that the applicant can be entrusted to have the firearm and ammunition ‘without danger to the public safety or to the peace’. The Government will bring forward the necessary primary legislation.

    It is desirable that the (Home Office) Guidance to the Police should contain advice as to the scope of ‘fitness’ to be entrusted with a firearm and ammunition.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will amend the Guidance.

    Each approved club should be required to inform the police of the receipt of an application for membership; and the outcome of the application.

    Each applicant for membership of an approved club should be required to state whether or not he or she has submitted any prior application for a firearm certificate or a shot gun certificate which has been refused; and whether he or she has previously held such a certificate which has been revoked.

    The Government accepts these 2 recommendations, which will be implemented by a change to the approval criteria for clubs (see recommendation 15).

    The current requirement for a counter-signatory of a firearm application should be abolished; and replaced by a system for the provision of two references.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will bring forward the necessary primary legislation.

    The proposal by the Association of Police Surgeons for the provision by the applicant’s medical practitioner of information as to the applicant’s medical history and its consideration by a forensic medical examiner should be the subject of consultation with the interested bodies.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and will consult as suggested.

    Consideration should be given to the reform of the scope for appeal against decisions of the chief officer of police by restricting it to enumerated grounds which do not trench on the exercise of his discretion.

    The Government accepts this recommendation and, subject as Lord Cullen suggests to further study and consultation with interested bodies on the exact terms of the change, will bring forward the necessary legislation.

    Recommendations relating to the availability of section 1 firearms

    Consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre which are held by individuals for target shooting

    – preferably, by their disablement, while they are not in use, by either (i) the removal of the slide assembly/cylinder, which is to be kept securely on the premises of an approved club of which the owner is a member or by a club official; or (ii) the fitting of a locked barrel block by a club official;

    – or, if such a system is not adopted, by the banning of the possession of such handguns by individual owners.

    As recommended by Lord Cullen the Government has considered restricting the availability of self-loading hand guns. It has given careful consideration to Lord Cullen’s suggestions, which fall into two parts. It has concluded that neither would provide an acceptable level of public safety.

    First of all he has suggested two methods by which hand guns might be disabled. The first involves the removal of key components from the gun. While removal of key components is feasible for certain types of guns, it is not a practical proposition for others. Alternatively, Lord Cullen has indicated that weapons might be disabled by fitting a locked “barrel block” to the gun. He recognised however that such devices are currently manufactured only for shot guns. Even if they were available, the Forensic Science Service – which advises the Government on the technical aspects of firearms including their deactivation – is not convinced that a barrel block or similar device could not be removed by a determined individual and the Government does not, therefore, believe that it could rely on such a measure.

    Lord Cullen’s second suggestion is that if guns cannot be disabled, consideration should be given to banning the possession of self-loading pistols and revolvers by individuals. In the light of this the Government has decided to legislate early in the next session of Parliament to ban all hand guns of more than .22 calibre – including those used by Thomas Hamilton. This will mean that at least 160,000 guns – 80% of those legally held at present – will be destroyed. All hand guns chambered for .22 rimfire ammunition, including single shot guns, will also be banned unless they are kept in licensed gun clubs under conditions of the most stringent security.

    This means that, in two important respects, the Government intends to go further than Lord Cullen’s proposals: by banning all higher calibre handguns; and by prohibiting people from keeping even single shot handguns at home.

    Clubs will need a licence from the Home Secretary in England and Wales and the Secretary of State in Scotland. The Government intends to consult the police and other interested bodies on the stringent security standards which will be necessary to protect the public. These will be contained in guidance which the Government will issue and which will be enforced by the police. The standards will cover matters such as:

    – reinforced walls to ensure that thieves could not break into a club building;

    – the safes in which guns and ammunition would have to be stored;

    – strong perimeter fences;

    – burglar alarms linked directly to the police;

    – access control, including metal detectors, to prevent guns being illicitly removed;

    – regular and stringent inspection arrangements to ensure that club security was of an adequate standard.

    Very few, if any, existing gun clubs will meet these security requirements.

    Guns will be permitted to be removed only for very limited purposes which will be specified in law. Each time a gun is removed from a club a police permit will be required. Owners of .22 hand guns will have to hand in their guns to the police until they can find a licensed gun club. If, after a specified period, they cannot find a licensed club, their guns will be destroyed.

    The Government considers that these requirements are necessary in order to protect the public. The responsibility for meeting them will rest with those who wish to pursue the limited sporting opportunity which will continue to be permitted under these proposals.

    The Government recognises that it may take some considerable time to meet these standards. If an owner of a .22 calibre handgun is unable to keep his gun at a licensed club when the legislation comes into force, he will be required to lodge it with the police. If, after a specified period, he has not placed his gun in a licensed club, it will be forfeited.

    Recommendations relating to school security

    Those who have the legal responsibility for the health and safety of the teaching staff and pupils at school should prepare a safety strategy for the protection of the school population against violence, together with an action plan for implementing and monitoring the effectiveness of safety measures appropriate to the particular school.

    The Government supports this recommendation, and agrees that the safety strategy and action plan should take account of the situation at each individual school. This is consistent with the recommendations of the Working Group on School Security which the Government fully accepted in May this year. The booklet “Improving Security in Schools”, published in September 1996 by the Department for Education and Employment and issued to interested parties in Scotland by The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department, contains detailed advice to education authorities, boards of management of self-governing schools and proprietors of independent schools on managing risks and on possible security measures. In particular, it gives advice on carrying out the type of security survey and risk assessment which the Report recommends. School employers are familiar with these approaches through their management of occupational health and safety. In its discussion with those responsible for school management, the Government will continue to take every opportunity to reinforce the importance of reviewing security and safety in this manner.

    It is desirable that the guidance provided by the Education Service Advisory Committee in regard to violence to staff in the education sector should be extended to encompass the safety and protection of the school population as a whole.

    The Government supports this recommendation. The report prepared by the Education Service Advisory Committee (ESAC) “Violence to Staff in the Education Sector”, published in 1990, gave general advice to employers in all sectors of education and included a list of main factors which might be addressed in a plan of action (see recommendation 25). ESAC’s remit relates to hazards arising from education work; within this remit its guidance on violence could usefully be updated to complement the guidance “Improving Security in Schools” issued by DfEE in September 1996.

    Recommendations relating to the vetting and supervision of adults working with children and young people

    There should be a system for the accreditation to a national body of clubs and groups voluntarily attended by children and young persons under 16 years of age for their recreation, education or development, the main purpose of which would be to ensure that there are adequate checks on the suitability of the leaders and workers who have substantial unsupervised access to them.

    The Government accepts the need for co-ordination of information at national level about persons regarded as potentially unsuitable for work with children and young people. It also accepts the need to ensure that all voluntary youth organisations should have arrangements to check on the suitability of leaders and workers. The Government has decided that, following the proposals in the consultation document “On the Record in Scotland” published in June, access to criminal record checks should be extended to all voluntary youth organisations. It will also consult immediately with all interested parties in Scotland on the proposals for the establishment of arrangements for a national information and accreditation system. There will be parallel consultations in England and Wales.

    Consideration should be given to the development of a Scottish Vocational Qualification in respect of work with children, including the organisation of clubs and child development and protection.

    The Government accepts this recommendation. It is inviting the Scottish Vocational Education Council urgently to bring forward proposals for a qualification as recommended.

    Other matters

    Lord Cullen’s Report notes the concern of the casualties’ families at the delay in being informed of the fate of their children. He concludes that these delays were entirely unacceptable. The Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police made a written submission to Lord Cullen drawing attention to a number of procedural improvements designed to avoid the recurrence of these serious problems. The Government will ensure that these lessons, which were endorsed by Lord Cullen, are disseminated to other police forces.

    The Government also proposes to take action on four additional matters. They are

    – a ban on expanding ammunition, except for the purposes of shooting deer;

    – a requirement that firearms purchased by mail order will require to be delivered to a gun dealer and given to the certificate holder in person only;

    – a requirement that, in all circumstances, the disposal of a weapon (including its destruction) is reported to the police;

    – a requirement for all handgun shooters to obtain a firearms certificate from the police, ending the present system where a person without a certificate can shoot a handgun at an approved club. Special provisional arrangements would be made for new members.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 October 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th October 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

     

    Ombudsman

    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the offices of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England, for Scotland and for Wales.

    The Prime Minister: In accordance with section 1(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and schedule 1 to the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, Sir William Reid will be retiring from these offices on 2 January 1997.

    Her Majesty has been pleased to approve the appointment of Mr. Michael Sydney Buckley as Sir William’s successor as Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England, for Scotland and for Wales, with effect from 3 January 1997.

    I am sure all Members of the House would wish me to express their gratitude and admiration for the very able and thorough manner in which Sir William Reid has fulfilled these duties over the last seven years. He has made an outstanding contribution to our public life.

     

    Royal Family (Taxation)

    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister what changes are planned to be made to the memorandum of understanding of 5 February 1993 under which the Queen and the Prince of Wales pay income, capital gains and inheritance tax on a voluntary basis, to take account of the introduction of the new system of self assessment for income tax and capital gains tax.

    The Prime Minister: Yes, a change is required to reflect the new tax payment dates under self assessment. The memorandum of understanding has been amended, and I am placing a copy of the amendment in the Library.

    The memorandum of understanding provided that income tax and capital gains tax would be payable on 1 December following the end of the tax year. However, under self-assessment, 1 December will no longer be a tax payment date, and instead income tax will be payable on 31 January and 31 July and capital gains tax on 31 January. The memorandum of understanding has therefore been amended to make income tax and capital gains tax for 1996-97–the transitional year–payable on 31 January 1998; and income tax and capital gains tax for 1997-98 and subsequent years will be payable on 31 January and 31 July in accordance with the normal rules of self assessment.

    These new arrangements mean tax will be paid under the memorandum of understanding several months earlier on average than at present.

    Changes have also been made to the provisions relating to payments on account, and interest on tax underpaid or overpaid, to bring them into line with the new self assessment rules.

  • PMQT – 15 October 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th October 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

    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. Campbell: As a fellow working class warrior–I will take my coat off–will the Prime Minister confirm that he sent his children to a private school?

    The Prime Minister: I believe in choice. I do not seek to deny choice to other people.

     

    Q2. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

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

    Mr. Congdon: Which party controls the council with the worst GCSE results in England? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will take tough measures to tackle failing schools, rather than spouting about the family from thousands of miles away?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure which authority it is, but I know that the authorities with the poorest records are all run by the Labour party. That is undoubtedly true. As my hon. Friend intimated, we have now taken powers to deal with failing schools, and, when necessary, we shall use those powers.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the spate of reports of crisis in the national health service, culminating in a hospital refusing even emergency referrals of elderly patients because of a shortage of beds, are a disgrace? Will he accept the judgment of the head of the British Medical Association that that crisis is directly due to the Conservative Government’s internal market reforms, which have undermined the health service?

    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that for a second–nor do a large number of people in the health service up and down the country. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to travel up and down the country within the health service, where he will see in hospitals and in primary health care services the advantages that the reforms have brought about and will continue to bring about in the future. In particular, he may care to look at some of the group general practices that I have visited recently.

    Mr. Blair: What I am putting to the Prime Minister is precisely the view of the doctors and nurses who work in the national health service. Perhaps he will confirm that, since he became Prime Minister, there have been 20,000 more senior managers and 50,000 fewer nurses. Since he became Prime Minister, in London alone there have been 2,500 fewer acute beds, and half the casualty departments in London have closed. When even doctors and nurses with a lifetime’s experience in the health service say that that is due to the Government’s internal market reforms, can the Prime Minister not see the fundamental damage that those reforms are doing to the very principles of the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If he wishes to test whether the reforms are working, I offer him the one that was suggested by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when he was shadow Health Secretary: he said that the acid test was whether more patients were being treated. More patients are being treated; patient waiting lists have fallen; 1.5 million more patients are being treated than before the reforms; health expenditure has risen and been provided for by the Government; there are more doctors and more dentists; and waiting times have decreased dramatically. That is a health service providing a wider and better service. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman cherry-picks in order to criticise the health service when he should be supporting it.

    Mr. Blair: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute a single word I said. Furthermore, I do not know how he dare mention dentistry in the national health service after what his Government have done to it. He asked me to talk to those who work in the NHS. Does he recall what the chair of the consultants committee of the BMA said, just in the past few days? He said:

    “I fear the hospital service will be close to collapse this winter.”

    Do not people know from their experience that waiting lists are getting longer, people are still lying for hours on end on trolleys in casualty departments, acute beds are scarcer and staff and nurse morale is lower? The right hon. Gentleman simply washes his hands of it. If that is the experience–[Hon. Members: No.”] This is the experience of people in the Tory national health service. If that is their experience, is it any wonder that people today know that the Tories cannot ever be trusted on the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that most of what he has just said about the health service is completely misleading and, in many parts, totally inaccurate. Waiting lists are falling. Since 1979, the health service has had the largest sustained building programme of any stage in its history. There are more doctors–that is a matter of fact. There are more dentists–that is a matter of fact. There are more nurses and midwives–that is a matter of fact. I regret very much that he chooses to run down a service that the people who use it know from experience is a better service, which is improving day after day. Treatments that were never before available are provided more speedily and are improving. That is a record in the health service of which we can be proud. Unlike his party, we have not cut building and nurses’ pay.

     

    Q3. Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

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

    Mr. Banks: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the tremendous news announced today by Vauxhall at its plant in Ellesmere Port in north-west England of £300 million-worth of new investment and 200 jobs? Does he agree that that not only is good news but will create a raft of new opportunities for the region–opportunities that would not be there if a minimum wage and the social chapter were thrust on us?

    The Prime Minister: Today’s announcement is certainly more good news on top of a range of inward investment in different parts of the country that has brought a great deal of hope and employment to many parts of the United Kingdom. If we continue to pursue the same policies in future, I believe that we shall continue to attract very large-scale inward investment, partly using the United Kingdom as the base for operations in Europe and beyond, which I very much welcome. That will be lost if we follow the wrong policies. If Labour Members are so certain that the minimum wage will cause no harm, perhaps they will tell us what the minimum wage level will be, so that a judgment may be made.

    Mr. Ashdown: May I ask the Prime Minister a simple question of general principle? Is it right for a Government to seek to interfere in or manipulate the outcome of a Select Committee of Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: As you, Madam Speaker, said yesterday, allegations ought not to be bandied across the House. If the right hon. Gentleman has a complaint, he should put it to the appropriate Committee, and he will see that there is no one in this House more concerned than I am that it should be properly examined.

    Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the Prime Minister care to confirm to the House a statement that he made in a letter to me on 1 October? The letter stated:

    “The Coronation Oath is indeed regarded as a solemn undertaking by the Sovereign which is binding throughout Her reign. Ministers would not advise Her Majesty to sign into law any provision which contradicted Her Oath.”

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that that is my view of the Coronation oath.

     

    Q5. Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

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

    Mr. McAllion: On the day the FTSE index of the top 100 UK companies soared to record new levels, will the Prime Minister spare a thought for the 12,000 Scottish teenagers and under-25s every year who register as homeless? Will he remember that they are but the tip of an iceberg that spreads throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he resolve at least to stop preaching at them about decency, duty and responsibility, and instead begin to show a scrap of decency–a modicum of the duty and responsibility that his Government owe to them–by guaranteeing each and every one of them their human right to a decent and safe home to live in?

    The Prime Minister: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that an extra level of taxation in Scotland would help those people–I very much doubt it. Throughout the past 17 years, we have followed policies that will widen opportunity for people, whatever strata of society they may be in and whatever their personal circumstances may be. That is the policy that we have followed. It is the policy in which I believe, and it is the policy that we shall continue to follow.

    Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent examples of the way in which female victims are sometimes treated in court, particularly where sexual offences are alleged? Did he read of the cases in which one young lady was cross-examined for six hours by her rapist and another was cross-examined for 12 days by lawyers acting for six defendants? Should it not be a matter of urgency that court proceedings are reformed to spare female victims that cruelty?

    The Prime Minister: I think that there will be a great deal of sympathy for what my hon. Friend said. Certainly, the case in which the lady was cross-examined by the accused rapist struck deeply with many people throughout the country. I agree that it is something that we should examine.

     

    Q6. Mr. Brian David Jenkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

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

    Mr. Jenkins: Does the Prime Minister agree that the price review announced today by the Director General of Water Services shows that the Labour party was right all along and that consumers have been ripped off for years under weak regulation, weak government and weak leadership?

    The Prime Minister: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. It shows the Labour party to have been wrong all along. If the industries had remained in public ownership, we would not have had any regulator looking at price reductions, we would not have had a better service, and we would not have had the extra investment. We would still have had the massive amount of taxpayer subsidy to inefficient industries.

    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend disregard the London-based bleat of the Leader of the Opposition and come to my constituency, where he will find the best health service in Europe at all levels, as my postbag proves, week after week?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend speaks not only for himself and for his constituents but for the many millions of people who use the NHS each year and who know from their own experiences how well they have been treated in it.

     

    Q7. Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

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

    Mr. Martlew: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if we are to have a high-speed rail link on the west coast main line–with all its environmental advantages, including a reduction in road congestion, and with all the advantages for the western part of the British Isles–there will be a need for public money to upgrade that line? If so, have the Government given any consideration to this matter?

    The Prime Minister: We have put a great deal of public money into a number of rail lines–[Interruption.] I suggest that, if Opposition Members do not understand that, they go to look at the new services. I suggest that they also examine the extra investment after the privatisation of British Rail–a privatisation that they said could not be done, should not be done and would not be done. The fact is that it has been done, and that it is a great success. Investment is up, and the service is improving.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 October 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th October 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Departmental Salaries

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons working in (i) No. 10 Downing Street and (ii) the Cabinet Office are paid more than £43,000 per annum.

    The Prime Minister: The number of payees whose national salary is more than £43,000 per annum in No. 10 Downing Street, the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service and its agencies, is as follows:

    No. 10: 12

    Cabinet Office (including the Office of Public Service and agencies): 116.

     

    Oman University

    Mr. Meacher: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what reports he has received regarding the involvement by Mr. Mark Thatcher, in respect of companies in receipt of export credit guarantees from the ECGD, in the construction of a university in Oman; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) what reports he has received that part of the university of Oman has been used for the storage of military equipment or for other military purposes; if these purposes were known to Her Majesty’s Government when export credit guarantees were given by the ECGD in relation to the construction of the university; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: As far as my office is aware, none.

     

    Parliamentary Recall

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 9 September, if he will state the conditions in which he believes the public interest requires Parliament to be recalled, with particular reference to the involvement of British personnel on active service.

    The Prime Minister: A decision to recall Parliament depends upon the prevailing situation. It is made after consultation with colleagues and through the usual channels.

     

    Academy of Sports

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister what advice he sought from voluntary coaches and administrators in (a) athletics, (b) rowing, (c) canoeing, (d) swimming and (e) cycling (i) prior to and (ii) since his original announcements concerning his proposed academy of sports.

    The Prime Minister: Details of the Government’s proposals for the British Academy of Sport were included in the sports policy statement, “Sport: Raising the Game”, which was published on 14 July 1995. The policy statement invited the Sports Council to bring forward proposals on what the structure and content of the academy might be, and to consult widely with the sports world on the ideas that might emerge. On 6 December 1995, the Sports Council published a consultation paper on the academy and comments were invited by the end of January. The Sports Council also held a series of consultation meetings with groups of administrators, coaches, performers and specialists from all sports, including representatives of the sports listed.

    A prospectus inviting bids to establish the academy was published jointly by the Department of National Heritage and the Sports Council on 24 July. A summary of the consultation was published with it. Bidders have until 31 October to submit their bids.

     

    British Legion

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister what further correspondence has been received in his office from the Royal British Legion in relation to its call for the setting up of an ex-service affairs unit; what reply has been sent; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have received one recent letter directed from the Royal British Legion regarding the setting up of an ex-service affairs unit. A reply has been sent. The position remains as I detailed in my answer to the hon. Member on 11 March, Official Report, columns 434-35.

     

    Poverty Resources

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what policies Her Majesty’s Government have established in support of the 1996 United Nations Year for the Eradication of Poverty: and what additional resources have been committed in support of these policies.

    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom has extensive social protection and assistance arrangements, among the most comprehensive in the world. It is by working to maintain and improve living standards through economic and social policies that we will fulfil the aspirations of the United Nations Year for the Eradication of Poverty, and in a way relevant to our society. The most effective way of eradicating poverty is to promote flexible labour markets since this reduces the level of unemployment. Claimant unemployment has already fallen by over 125,000 so far this year. The UK has more of its people in work and a lower unemployment rate than any other major EU country.

  • Mr Major’s 1996 Conservative Party Conference Speech – 11 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s 1996 Conservative Party Conference speech made on 11th October 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam Chairman, we’ve had a good week.

    It’s been the week the Tory family came together – to renew the family contract with the British nation.

    And through the week, colleague after colleague has set out fresh, detailed, new policy for the future.

    There’ve been some marvellous speeches.

    It’s been 21 years since Michael Heseltine first got a standing ovation at this conference. And no one has sat down since.

    The well-being of our country is more important than any political party.

    And the well-being of the Conservative Party is more important than any member of it.

    So the lesson is clear. Everyone in the Conservative Party should work – and if I know them, will work – heart and soul, irrespective of personal interests, to secure the re-election of a Conservative Government.

    Over the last two or three years there’s been attempt after attempt – by our opponents – to sully the reputation of our Party.

    Well, I know this party.

    No doubt it’s not perfect – nor is everyone in it.

    But I grew up in it.

    And that campaign won’t succeed.

    Because this Party as a whole is straight and honourable and true and – like you – I’m proud to be a member of it.

    Unlike Labour, we aren’t ashamed of our past.

    Unlike Labour, we haven’t abandoned our principles.

    Unlike Labour, we haven’t had to reinvent ourselves. We’re proud of what we’ve achieved.

    Because, Madam Chairman, we’ve changed Britain – for the better.

    ENTERPRISE CENTRE OF EUROPE

    When I became Prime Minister, I set out to make Britain a low inflation economy.

    I knew what a fight it would be.

    But we went for it. We took the flak.

    No weakening. Heads down. We did what we always do when we’re challenged: we came out fighting.

    And, as a result, we’ve had the longest run of low inflation this country has seen for a generation.

    I want to thank my colleagues – and you – my party – for standing with me through that battle. Between us, we’ve transformed the prospects for our country.

    And we did it with raw political gut.

    We set out to create jobs. And we’re succeeding.

    Unemployment is lower here than in any comparable country in Europe.

    In Britain it’s falling.

    In Europe it’s not.

    Last year, this year, and next year we’re set to have higher growth here, in our country, than any big country in Europe.

    Curiously enough, the Labour leader didn’t mention these successes in his flight of fancy last week.

    Pages missing perhaps?

    He just said the country was falling apart.

    Inflation down.

    Mortgages down.

    Unemployment down.

    Some fall.

    Of course, there was a time when this country was falling apart. It was when we had a Labour Government.

    So I’ve got some friendly advice for Mr Blair. If you knock your country, you’ll never lead it.

    The plain truth is I’m the first Prime Minister for generations who can say “We’re the most competitive economy in Europe”.

    And I intend to be the Prime Minister who builds on that success after we’ve won the next General Election.

    Madam Chairman, at that election there’s a central question. It’s this: who can be trusted with the future?

    Labour try to persuade people it’s them.

    “We’re different” they say. “We’ve changed our name”.

    “Rely on us – you know we’ve always been wrong in the past”.

    Well, that’s candid – if a touch eccentric.

    Trouble is, they’re wrong in the present as well.

    And it simply won’t do for Mr Blair to say, “Look, I’m not a Socialist anymore. Now, can I be Prime Minister please?”.

    Sorry Tony. Job’s taken.

    And anyway, it’s too big a task for your first real job.

    Mr Blair’s handlers are trying to spread the tale that he’s a very fierce dog indeed. Indeed, but also that he’s quite harmless.

    Another eccentric messages, “Fierce dog – no teeth!”.

    By the way, have you noticed how the less a politician has to say, the more over-heated the language in which he says it?

    When every aim becomes – “a crusade”.

    Every hope – “a dream”.

    Every priority – “a passion”.

    Then it’s time to duck from cover.

    And when the whole show is laced with words like “tragedy”, “catastrophe”, “triumph” and “destiny” – terms with real meaning, but which, ransacked for political advantage, degrade the message – then I think of Ralph Waldo Emerson: “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.

    BELIEFS

    Madam Chairman, I came into politics to open doors, not shut them.

    They were opened for me.

    I was born in the war.

    My father was 66. My mother was – how shall I put it? Surprised.

    We were like millions of others. Not well off, but comfortable, until financially the roof fell in.

    Nothing special about that.

    But for us, it changed our life.

    My mother coped – as women do.

    I left school at 16, because 5 pounds a week mattered.

    I learnt something from that experience. In the game of life, we Tories should even up the rules.

    Give people opportunity and choice, to open up an avenue of hope in their lives.

    And by “people”, I don’t mean “some people”. I mean everyone.

    Opportunity for all.

    It’s in the bloodstream of our party.

    It was Shaftesbury who gave an education to thousands of children from poor homes.

    It was Disraeli who gave many working men the freedom to vote.

    It was Salisbury who brought free education within the reach of almost every family in England.

    All Tories.

    And it was Margaret Thatcher – another Tory, as you may know, who sold council houses and public industries, giving people a real stake in this country.

    Giving people opportunity marks the great divide in British politics.

    In its heart, Old Labour, New Labour, any old Labour still believe that Government knows best.

    I don’t.

    But then, I’m a Conservative.

    I believe we should give families opportunity and choice and a wider, warmer view of life.

    Our belief in choice is the driving force of our policy – its not a political ploy; for me it’s the core of what I believe in.

    EDUCATION

    I start with education.

    There are millions of children in our country. All unique. Everyone an original: different skills, different talents, different needs.

    Should each child – with all his or her originality – be made to fit into a regimented education system?

    Or should we design an education system to fit the originality of the child?

    We of course we should.

    So our task is to provide a rich choice of schools and colleges, giving the best to every child and demanding the best of every child.

    And who should choose the right schools for those children?

    The Government?

    The bureaucrat in Whitehall?

    The councillor in the Town Hall?

    Or the parents, who love and care for those children?

    Of course it’s the parents.

    Wherever possible, they should choose.

    We’re improving that choice every year.

    And we intend to widen it further.

    So, I make this promise:

    If parents want more grant-maintained schools – they shall have them.

    More specialist schools – we’ll provide them.

    More selection – they’ll have it. Why should government say “no” if parents think it’s right for their children?

    And if parents want grammar schools in every town – so do I, and they shall have them.

    We grammar school boys – and girls, Gillian – believe in choice for parents.

    That means parents shouldn’t face a choice between one bad school and another.

    What kind of choice is that?

    I’ll tell you.

    It’s the kind of choice you get in Islington – unless you move out of the borough.

    We’re going to change that. That’s why this autumn, as Gill Shepherd told you, we’ll turn today’s promises into tomorrow’s reality with a flagship Education Bill.

    We want high standards in every school.

    It’s why we set up the National Curriculum. It’s why we insist on tests.

    Without tests, how can you know what a child hasn’t learned?

    And how can parents be sure how well their children – of their school – are doing?

    When we insisted on giving that information to parents, John Prescott called it “Political Propaganda”.

    Just pause and think about that for a moment. It tells you a lot.

    Information to parents about their children – and the Deputy Leader of New Labour calls it “Political Propaganda”.

    Well, well. If education’s a passion for Labour, it’s a passion that dare not speak its results.

    SPORT

    While on education, I want to say a word about sport.

    Firstly, well done England on Wednesday. More please.

    And well done Scotland. I hear it was no effort at all. But you’d have won anyway.

    Last year, at this conference, I told you of my determination to restore sport, and particularly team sport, to the heart of school life.

    It’s natural and healthy for young people at school to have their sporting heroes and heroines: sportsmen and women whom they can choose as role models.

    So with the enthusiastic help of the Sports Councils, I’m going to set up a team of Sporting Ambassadors – widely drawn from the best role models in sports, our leading athletes, past and present – who’ll visit schools and talk to pupils, teaching staff, school governors and parents, to enthuse and inspire and encourage.

    To work up the scheme, I have asked that legendary England cricketer – that man for all seasons – Sir Colin Cowdrey – to chair a small committee whose members will be drawn from the elite of the sporting and academic worlds. Colin is here today and I want you to thank him for agreeing to do this.

    His committee will announce their conclusions by Christmas, and I intend that the scheme will be up and running in schools in the coming academic year.

    Colin scored nearly 8,000 runs for England. Now he’s going to inspire nearly 8 million boys and girls who might want to play, compete and represent their country.

    I want them to enjoy sport. And they’ll enjoy it more if they play to win.

    Take it from me – winning is fun.

    THE FAMILY

    There are those who believe in the self-before-everyone, grab-what-you-can school of thought. They may find opportunity for all an odd philosophy.

    But it’s ours.

    And for the last 17 years we’ve followed it.

    We’ve cut direct tax, given more and more people the opportunity to save, to own shares, own pensions, own homes.

    More than ever before, we’ve given families more independence and more freedom to choose.

    As a result, millions have become owners of homes, savings, shares and pensions.

    But not enough yet.

    Madam Chairman, in our next 5 years, we will seek new opportunities: an opportunity owning democracy.

    Helping more people save and build security for retirement.

    Helping people who need care keep more of those savings.

    We’re aiming for the least possible tax to give the greatest possible choice.

    As we can afford it, we’ll move to a 20p basic rate for all. That’s our priority.

    We know that cutting taxes isn’t government giving anything back to people.

    It’s the government taking away less of people’s own money.

    That’s why low taxes are right.

    We don’t want to soak the tax payer.

    Labour often say they want to soak the rich.

    But they’re the only party in history who also regularly manage to soak the poor.

    And sometimes no taxes are right. So, to encourage wealth creation for the future, we’ll reduce and then abolish Capital Gains Tax.

    Many people in our country build up savings long after they’ve enough for their own needs.

    One reason they do that is to pass on the fruits of their life’s work to their children and grandchildren.

    This is a powerful, human emotion.

    So, over time, our next target is to remove the burden of inheritance tax.

    Building wealth for the many, not for the few.

    WELFARE

    People treasure independence. Their own independence. The State is the last option, not the first.

    The more independence, the less reliance. The less reliance, the more we can help those in real need.

    There are many demands we must meet.

    Health – as science provides more treatment.

    Social services – as we improve care.

    We’ve always accepted this responsibility.

    But as we accept responsibility, so must people themselves.

    Dependency must be about needs, not culture.

    I can’t stand the welfare cheats. I’ll tell you why. They deprive those in real need.

    We’re determined that taxpayers’ money goes where it’s needed.

    Our task is to build a welfare system for the 21st century.

    A system for a self-help society – not a help-yourself society.

    And one way of building independence is to get more people back to work.

    We’re now doing that on a scale that’s the envy of Europe – partly because we refuse to make political gestures that cost jobs. That’s why I say “No” to the minimum wage and “No” to the Social Chapter.

    The minimum wage is the wage of the dole queue.

    It’s not a wage at all.

    How can you talk of a Social Chapter that makes it more difficult for people to find work.

    That’s why I say they’re no-go areas for jobs and no-go areas for us.

    It’s business not government that creates jobs.

    But government can help the unemployed.

    Last year I announced our plans to develop a Contract For Work.

    This week we Tories took a big step forward with the start of our new Job Seekers Allowance.

    We don’t want to pay people to stay on the dole. We do want to help them get back into work.

    So first we’re going to help those who’ve been out of work the longest. They’re the people for whom the barriers to opportunity are highest.

    First, we give them help to find a job and if that doesn’t succeed, they’ll be offered work on a community project.

    For many it’s just the motivation they need.

    But it also shows up those who don’t want to work. I think that’s right.

    So over the next year we’ll be extending the scheme to towns and cities across the country.

    This is part of building a welfare system we can afford. One that goes with the grain of the British nation. Fair to those in need. And fair to those who pay the bills.

    HEALTH

    Madam Chairman, every year, someone writes to The Times to say he has heard the first cuckoo of spring.

    And every year at the Labour conference, some cuckoo distorts out commitment to the National Health Service.

    Listen.

    Our NHS is unique.

    In this country, when you’re ill, we take your temperature.

    In other countries, they take your credit card. While I’m in Downing Street, that will never happen here.

    That doesn’t mean that National Health Service shouldn’t change. It must. If it were fossilised, it would decline.

    I saw that clearly the other day when Norma and I visited a doctor’s surgery – in Glossop actually.

    The family doctor is the gateway to the Health Service. More people see their doctor than anyone else.

    This was a fundholding practice – part of our reforms – and, in its own small way, an example of the quiet revolution of the NHS.

    Waiting lists have been slashed.

    People no longer have to trek to the district hospital.

    More services were available. Osteopathy, acupuncture, Alexander technique, counselling, nursing, physiotherapy and occupational-therapy posts created. Community Care improved. More money spend on patients, not paperwork.

    Tory policy working for the patient.

    Now, this practice is one of the very best. But that excellent service could be the future everywhere.

    Our task is to make it so.

    And this autumn, Stephen Dorrell will introduce a Bill to do just that – giving family doctors greater freedom to develop local services in their surgeries – creating a new generation of cottage hospitals all over Britain.

    And that’s only half of it. In the Autumn, Stephen will set out our ambitious plans to build the National Health Service for the 21st Century.

    And Labour’s vision? Stuck in the past and stuck in the mud – as usual. They plan to end fundholding.

    What ideological madness. Do you know what that would mean? I learnt in Glossop. It would mean that those new clinical posts, new nurses, new physiotherapists, the new occupational therapist – all these would go.

    New Labour, no new services.

    But, in the NHS we must always try to improve our services.

    So, before the end of this year, we’ll unveil new plans to help mentally ill people followed by new plans to reform social care for children, disabled people and the elderly.

    More practical Tory measures.

    And looking a little further ahead, I still hear too many stories of politically correct absurdities that prevent children being adopted by loving couples who would give them a good home. If that is happening, we should stop it.

    Madam Chairman, for over 17 years, through thick and thin, we Conservatives have found extra money for the NHS.

    It’s become a habit.

    So today, I give you a Health Service Guarantee.

    Our Manifesto pledge that the NHS will get more, over and above inflation, year … on year … on year … on year … on year … through the next Conservative Government.

    LAW AND ORDER

    Earlier this week, Michael Howard set out our new plans to fight crime. But there’s two things I’d like to add.

    Firstly, in a few weeks, we’ll published new plans to deal with younger offenders.

    They’re a real problem.

    We must spot school age children turning to crime and stop them in their tracks early on.

    One theme of our plans will be to make them repair the hurt they’ve done. And we’ll have some new ideas.

    But today, let me tell you of our plans for young tearaways who are out of control.

    We only want them in institutions if it’s really necessary.

    But if they don’t deserve that punishment – severe for young people – they mustn’t think they can offend and get away with it.

    Over the last year, we’ve been testing an electronic way of tagging offenders so we can confine them to their homes, and know that that curfew is being kept.

    It’s worked. We think it will work on younger offenders as well – so, we’ll try that too.

    If we know a young trouble maker is out there, night after night, disturbing the peace and committing crimes, we’ll make sure the courts have the power to order him to stay put. At home – off the streets.

    And the tag around his ankle – that can’t be removed – will raise the alert the moment he tries to go out.

    If he can’t go out on Friday and Saturday nights with his mates it might cool him down a bit. If he can’t watch his football team on Saturday, let me say it plain. That’s his fault. Not mine, not yours, his. And it’s time the buck stopped where the responsibility lies. No-one will miss the hooligan on the terrace.

    And he might just learn the lesson.

    And that will help him – as well as us.

    NORTHERN IRELAND

    Earlier this week, the IRA once spat their hate at the British nation.

    Many good people tell me I shouldn’t bother with Northern Ireland. “No votes in it” they say. Maybe not. But there are lives in it.

    And that’s why I bother.

    I don’t believe Northern Ireland will leave the United Kingdom, nor do I wish it to.

    But I know that there can only be a peace in Northern Ireland if all its citizens – Catholic and Protestant alike – feel their traditions have a welcome place in the United Kingdom. And there will only be peace of mind if we remove the causes that have given rise to so much conflict.

    This is a political task. Grindingly hard, I know. But that is what the multi-party talks are for.

    Progress has been slow – painfully slow. But progress has been made. And there is no other show in town.

    Bombs will not bring Sinn Fein into the talks.

    All they mean is that Sinn Fein has slammed the door on themselves.

    I applaud the way the Loyalists have maintained their ceasefire in the face of the IRA’s provocation. Their political leaders have gained in influence and standing as a result. I urge them to stand firm and not to throw away what they have achieved.

    The IRA’s latest betrayal of Northern Ireland means the demand for decommissioning of illegal arms is justified even more clearly.

    We must have decommissioning in parallel with the talks.

    And so that there’s no hiding place for those arms, missiles and explosives, Paddy Mayhew will introduce legislation into Parliament this autumn to set out how they can be taken out of circulation.

    I want those weapons off the street.

    And I want to remove the false excuses peddled by the men of violence for keeping their weapons. Let us expose these men to the world for what they are.

    I also want to make government in Northern Ireland more accountable and give MPs more responsibility. We have already given the Scottish and Welsh members greater ability to question Ministers.

    This autumn, I shall do the same for Northern Ireland. MPs from there should be able to question the Ministers and scrutinise Government policies directly in the Grand Committee, meeting sometimes in Northern Ireland. I will consult the parties about how best to achieve that.

    The IRA has always believed that Britain can be deflected by terrorism. They’ve always been wrong. And they’re wrong now.

    No-one will take Sinn Fein seriously ever again until they show a serious commitment to end violence for good.

    I believe in the politics of reason – backed by strong law enforcement. I know in the end it will prevail.

    And I promise the people of Northern Ireland this;

    For as long as there is a political breath in my body, I will fight for a secure way of life in Northern Ireland for a settlement fair to all.

    EUROPE AND THE WIDER WORLD

    Earlier this week, Ian Lang, Malcolm Rifkind and Ken Clarke set out exciting new possibilities for Britain as a global trading nation with interests around the world. Wonderful speeches, all of them.

    We have links and influence on every continent.

    We have given birth to a whole family of nations.

    I never forget that as I contemplate our future role in Europe.

    The sharpest element of the European debate is the possibility of a single European Currency.

    We Conservatives are in grown-up politics. We know that where Britain’s national interest is at stake, Britain’s national voice must be heard.

    Over recent days in articles, interviews and in this conference hall on Wednesday, I spelt out why we must play a full part in that debate.

    Madam Chairman, Europe is changing. The only thing that is certain is that it won’t be the same in the future.

    In a few years, Europe will have 26 or 27 members. They’ll be widely different. Many of them will never match the economic performance of the larger European nations.

    So, how do we cope with this?

    We believe Europe must become more flexible and responsive. That the only realistic future is a partnership of nations, not a United States of Europe.

    But some of our partners do see the future of Europe as ever closer political as well as economic integration.

    We don’t believe this is practical. Nor, to be frank, desirable.

    It’s not the Europe we joined and it’s not a Europe we can accept.

    This debate about the future direction of Europe is one of the most critical we have ever engaged in. We need to argue it fiercely but fairly.

    Europe is at a watershed.

    Britain is a great nation. Of course, we must be in Europe. But we are in Europe to help shape it – not to be shaped by it.

    NATION

    Madam Chairman, a buccaneering spirit, gritty resolve, give and take, a conviction that everyone is entitled to the same dignity, courtesy, and esteem because of what they are, not who they are.

    These are some of the values we all share. That’s what makes us a nation. Down the centuries, they have moulded our democracy.

    It’s not a concept of government copied across the world because it’s the oldest. It’s because it’s the best. We treasure it. That’s why we must hold on to it.

    The Union. Parliament. Our voting system. It’s naive to think that radical change would be easy or risk-free.

    And it’s revealing to look at Labour’s plans.

    Their priority would be to gerrymander the British constitution.

    They’ve avid for more parliaments, more assemblies, more regional assemblies.

    Their policy in in chaos. On Scottish referenda, they change sides more often than a windscreen wiper.

    What a message. “Vote Labour – for more politicians, more bureaucrats, more taxes, more regulations, more tampering, more meddling, more authoritarianism”.

    If this is the New Gospel, give me the old religion.

    In less than 1,000 days, Labour would vandalise nearly 1,000 years of British history.

    Once again, they show their true colours.

    Labour are the Party of the State. We are the Party of the Nation.

  • Mr Major’s Question and Answer Session at Conservative Party Conference – 9 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s question and answer session at the Conservative Party Conference in Bournemouth, held on Wednesday 9th October 1996.


    QUESTION:

    [small section at beginning of session missing] within the Caribbean and Ethnic minorities to vote Conservative and not Labour.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you were to scratch any politician down to the core, you would find some things that they instinctively believe. There are many bits of ideology we learn. That is part of our intellect that we accept them because they are right. And then there are the things that go beyond that. There are the things that go to the very instinctive heart of that particular politician.

    [Indistinct] that equality of people in this country, equality of opportunity and choice. Whether people are black or white or brown. Whether they are rich or poor, old or young. From the north to the south. Is the most instinctive part of the core of what I believe in in politics. I don’t have a shred of hesitation in saying to you I would like more people from the Caribbean background, more people from an Asian background. More people, whatever their backgrounds are, who are now living in this country as British citizens to realise that they are welcome here in my Conservative party. Not just as members, but to seek elected office, whether at local level, county level, parliamentary level, or to be appointed to the House of Lords. They are British citizens. They have the same rights as every other British citizen, and indeed they have a Prime Minister who will stand up for them.

    QUESTION:

    Good afternoon Prime Minister. Just what are we going to do with the idle scroungers and abusers of our welfare system? Thank you.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me ask you to reflect firstly on what has already been done. And then perhaps I might invite you to look forward to two speeches later this week. The first you will hear from Peter Lilley, who in my judgement, since he is not here, I will say so in his absence, in my judgement has done more to draw down unreasonable dependency on the state than anybody for a very long time. He has taken some very courageous decisions. And what is more, those courageous decisions have often involved legislation, controversial legislation, being taken through the House of Commons with a very tiny majority indeed. We have done that consistently, year after year after year. Because our interest is in the hard working classes of this country – not in the people who abuse and rip off the system in any way. So I invite you to look forward to two speeches later this week, Peter Lilley, and then perhaps be around on Friday as well.

    QUESTION:

    I am Babs Martin, Women’s Chairman for Warwick and Leamington Conservative Association. Prime Minister, I would ask you, nay, I would beg you, that when a person is condemned to life imprisonment for the murder of a policeman or a child, that life will mean life.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We now have provision to ensure that in many cases that is precisely what it can mean. Michael Howard set out a further range of issues yesterday where we propose to handle not just this question, this question of very serious violent crime, but a whole range of other crimes as well. It is not very long ago that this conference heard Michael outline a twenty-seven point plan some time ago, and it was much mocked by the opposition who opposed every part of it. It has now been carried out and we are moving beyond that so that there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that our determination is to act firmly but fairly with those people who commit crimes, but above all to protect those innocent victims of crimes.

    Now, you refer to one sort of crime. I would like to touch, if I may, on another. Because it refers to something we propose to do later this year. I guess if you ask most people around the country which is the crime that perhaps, a serious crime, that they perhaps are most concerned about, because they have seen it happen to someone near to them, or they know about it, or perhaps its has happened to them. I think many people would say it was burglary. Well, I wish to share with you some thoughts about that. I, many years ago, when I was in my late teens, maybe early twenties, had my flat burgled. I was a single man, I had nothing much to go, but I remember how I felt about it. If you then imagine how people feel, perhaps particularly elderly people, when someone has entered their house, stolen their possessions, ransacked through their personal belongings, and perhaps stolen mementoes that can never be replaced. And rifled through their clothes and other possessions. I vividly remember someone saying to me, I shall never feel safe again in my home now that it has been violated, in this fashion. I understand that. And when Michael and I discovered sometime ago that the sentence for a first act of burglary, upon being found guilty, was about fourteen months, of which seven were served. Well, prison is not a pleasant place to go to, we thought that was about right. But when we discovered that if it was a multiple offender who had perhaps committed ten offences of burglary, he did not get fourteen months in jail, of which he served seven, but about sixteen or seventeen months of which he served eight or eight and a half. Then Michael and I reached the judgement that that was not a fair response on behalf of society and on behalf of those who were burgled. So we will introduce legislation this November to correct that and more accurately reflect the penalty that I believe that crime deserves.

    QUESTION:

    Bill Garret from Buckingham Branch. It has been suggested Prime Minister, that if we don’t agree to join the Single Currency, our voice, or whatever, won’t be heard in Europe with the same weight as it is now. Is this true?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, it is certainly true. Europe at the moment is changing. And Europe is going to go on changing. I think that is the first point we need to filter into this great debate that there has been about Europe. It is a great debate. I will take a moment or two about this, if you don’t mind. And elaborate upon it because I know the passions and tensions that have been aroused by this debate over the last few years. So I want to put it in some sort of context. Europe is changing. And it is going to go on changing in one way or another. Our concern and our determination is to make sure that it changes in a way that is acceptable to the United Kingdom and not damaging to the United Kingdom. Now the central part of that debate is what should the European Union be doing. I think it should extending its boarders further to the East to take in those countries in Central and parts of Eastern Europe, who were for so long with the other side of the Iron Curtain militarily. And also economically. There are been an economic Iron Curtain down the middle of Europe as well. And we need to bring them into the free enterprise nations of Western Europe. Not just as a piece of autism, because in this generation of politicians, we have the chance to frame a new Europe that will never again lead to the conflicts that have twice decimated Europe and the rest of the world during this century. We can shape something for our grandchildren, that our grandparents would never have imagined could have happened. Now that is a very great prize. And Britain is one of the nations who believes that is the single most important thing that the European Union should be concerning itself with, rather than other institutional questions.

    But there is the second question, and clearly it was what was in your mind, and I know in the minds of many people in my party. The question of a Single Currency and what will it mean. Malcolm, I know touched on that this morning. And I will develop on that a little further if I may. If a single currency goes ahead, it will have an impact in one way or another way, upon every nation in the European Union, whether or not that particular country is in the Single Currency. Let us accept that fact. If it goes ahead, even if a particular country is not in it, it is going to have an impact upon it. If it fails, that Single Currency, then the fall out from a failed economic and monetary union, would make the fall out from the collapse of the Exchange Rate Mechanism look like a teddy bear’s picnic economically, right the way across Europe. So the first thing we have to determine is that the circumstances for that experiment, if it is to proceed, are right. That the conditions are right. Now this isn’t a new idea, that was why Britain, that is why Norman Lamont and I insisted on what became known as the Convergence Criteria – good economic conditions were written into the treaty some five years ago. They are still important today. And the decisions upon those have still not been made. We don’t yet know what the convergence, how the convergence criteria will be interpreted, to let anybody into the Single Currency. And yet is the wrong people go in, with the wrong economic circumstances, it might collapse and damage us. So we don’t know that yet. We don’t know what the legal circumstances of it are. We know that only a small part of the European Union will go forward. But what is to be the relationship between that part that goes forward and the bulk of the European Union that doesn’t. How does that affect the institutions? How does it affect who pays for what? What happens if the Single Currency circumstances mean that many others who perhaps wish to, join can’t? And give rise to structural unemployment. Perhaps in the Southern part of Europe. Who will pay for that? Will the European Union doing it the tradition way with money transferred from the richer Northern nations to the Southern nations. I don’t think that will happen. Because I don’t see who is going to transfer those resources.

    So this is an issue that if it were to go wrong, could crack wide open the European Union as we have seen it build up over the last twenty five years. And if it cracked it open, then it would impact upon this country as well, so we need to make sure in the national interest that we have Britain’s voice in this debate. I put it to you perhaps the other way round. Let us suppose I earned some easy applause from many by saying I am going to rule everything out immediately. If I did that, and I then had no British voice in this great debate that will effect us, what would I say to the British nation when they said to me, Prime Minister, how can you protect or advance our British position if you have unilaterally ruled yourself out of the discussion upon something that will affect us and affect the whole of Europe. It is very easy to say make up your mind and do this, but it is not wise to make up your mind when you have your country’s interest to protect, and you are in a position to protect them and advance views that may be of importance of your country and to the rest of Europe. And let me say one other things about the Single Currency if I may. We will make our judgement when we have all that information. There are advantages in it. There are disadvantages in it. We will be cautious but we will look both at the advantages and the disadvantages. But we have made one thing clear. Beyond any doubt, and I would like to re-emphasise it for you – if, if a future Conservative Cabinet decided that it was right to enter into a Single Currency, if it decided that, then there would be a referendum of the full nation specifically upon that particular question. We have made it clear that we would not have consent wrapped up in a General Election victory. This decision is going to be the biggest political decision economically that has been taken in this country, perhaps at any time, if a British Cabinet decided to go ahead. A British Conservative Cabinet, decided to go ahead, then I think it is right for us to put that question distinctly, clearly and unequivocally for the British nation to decide and that I promise you, we would do.

    QUESTION:

    Sharon Messey, Bexley Heath and Crayford. Prime Minister, I understand your wish to await reports following the Dunblane massacre. My view is, guns should be kept for the armed forces, but should they be wanted to pleasure, then may I suggest to them only being held on licences premises. In a secure environment, i.e. a gun club. But Sir, you did not get where you are today by awaiting to hear what your opinion should be. I ask you, as a fellow parent, does your gut instinct not say to you, and I crudely quote, “my child’s right to live is far greater than any man’s right to hold a firearm”.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No one could be unaffected by what happened in Dunblane. We were asked before the party conference season to delay the report from Lord Cullen so that it could be examined dispassionately, and dispassionate decisions taken in the interests of children up and down the country, families and everybody else. And we agreed to delay it and we will receive that report at the moment Parliament returns at the beginning of next week. We’ll ask Lord Cullen to report. I have my own very clear views, but we have asked Lord Cullen to report. When Lord Cullen reports, we will make a clear cut and firm decision within a matter of days of receiving that report. But I do not wish to examine that at the moment. I think we have asked for the report. There are many complexities as to how we do things as well as to what is done, and I hope we will have wise advice from Lord Cullen at the beginning of next week, and we will act upon it very speedily. But I do not in a public forum like this, wish to delve into those questions until we have received the Cullen report. And then the Home Secretary and I will be both advocating and explaining precisely the action that we personally, both of us as parents as well, believe is right to be appropriate for the future of gun law in this country. There are only a few more days to wait. I would ask you to be patient.

    QUESTION:

    George Richie, Shrewsbury Constituency. Could I say that I am Chairman of a ward which twelve days ago regained a seat from Liberals. Can I also say we did a very full canvas, and what is absolutely clear is traditional Conservatives are coming back home. Now for the question. It actually has to do with the Single Currency, but an aspect which you, Sir, didn’t actually mention. It is a fact that British pension funds total more than all the pension funds added together in the European Union – the Germans, the French and the Italians – to mention but three. All their pensions are funded from tax. Now if we go into a Single Currency, inevitably there will be a single taxation system and equally inevitably we will have to start having to fund German unfunded pensions. Now if the debt of the German pension, pension debt, was included in the convergence criteria, they would have a debt of something like 140% of GDP. There was no way that they could hit the criteria which is why I suspect they have left them out. Now Sir, we need to smoke the Germans out on this one and it seems to me that one, it seems to me that a hot button could be “Single Currency; your pension in danger”.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well Brian, I was saying earlier we had better bring in one of those cynical journalists to find out if the questions were rigged. I think they would be pretty cynical to imagine they are now. I am delighted to hear about your win in your ward. I hope there are a lot of constituency chairman here who are going to take back Liberal held constituencies at the next General Election as well.

    You’re right about the build up of British pensions funds compared to the rest of Europe. Because of action taken by Conservative Governments many years ago, we have a better gross aggregate of pension funds to look after people’s future security in any other nation in Europe. Indeed, than all the other nations in Europe added together. And that is one of the reasons why over the next few years our economy will become increasingly competitive because it will not have the same extra burden to build up secure pensions in the future because we have laid the ground work for that over very many years. But if I may say so, you illustrate one of the reasons precisely, reasons like that, why the British Government need to be in the negotiations to make sure the convergence criteria are appropriate. If I were not in the discussions, how could I examine your point and raise it with our partners in Europe. And I could offer you fifty other examples like that.

    QUESTION:

    My name is Barbara Stroud, I come from Poole, and I am Chairman of the Dorset and East Devon European Union of Women. In my Conservative work in my area, I am now being more frequently asked, or people more frequently saying, you know, there is hardly any difference now between the Conservative and the Labour policies. But we know from the previous question or two that there is this great fundamental difference that the Conservatives want to the United Kingdom united and Labour want to tear it apart. This message is not getting through to constituents, to the electorate. Not at all. Now we can all go away from here with the strong message that we heard in the debate in the union yesterday. But much much more needs to be done. My question now, can we make this vital issue fundamental issue in the election campaign, and on you place all the resources at your disposal into getting this message to the electorate day and night from now to polling day?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will tell you what will draw a distinction between our approach to the development of the nation states of Europe, and the Labour Party’s determination to bring policies they could not enact here back from Europe through the backdoor. I will tell you what will drive that distinction home to the people right across this nation. It would be if this party stopped conducting an internal debate with itself and began conducting a debate with the electorate and the Labour Party. And that I believe has happened. We’re not conducting an anti-European campaign. Let me make that perfectly clear. I am in favour of Europe, I am in favour of our membership of Europe. I wish to see that membership work and I wish to see Europe succeed. But my job is to take our ideas to Europe, not just hijack their ideas and bring them back here.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, Pierre Oxley, I am candidate for the Holland Haven district by-election next month. Prime Minister, what do you say to residents of that ward when Liberal and Labour run Essex county council cuts money off social services, whilst Conservative run Government increases money on such vital people in society?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I would say there is nothing unusual in that happening when you have Labour and Liberal councils. If you want to look at deprivation across a wide scale in this country, if you want to look at lack of opportunity and education in this country, go to the areas that are run and have been run for years by the Labour Party. The Labour Party tell us now they’ve got all sorts of wonderful ideas for education, but they control the education authorities. Why are they not putting them into practice if they really know what they wish to do, The Leader of the Labour Party says his priority is education, education, education. Well, ours is the same but perhaps in a different order. And I said it in ’91 so I am delighted he has caught up at last.

    But let me offer you a memory I have about education. It goes back a very long way. I went in the early ’80s, I can’t remember which year it was, so many events telescope together. On a brief tour of some countries in South America. I went to Peru, to Columbia and to Venezuela. I was just outside Peru, not one of the richest cities, one of the poorest cities of the world, menaced by a wicked terrorist group called Sendera Luminosa. And I went on the outskirts of that to a small school one morning. I was there, it was part of my visit. And it was adjacent to housing that really by any standards that we see in this country is truly appalling. Unbelievably poor circumstances for people to live. Just after eight o’clock in the morning, those front doors opened, and out of those front doors came a whole selection of moppets up to the age of ten or eleven. Nicely turned out. With satchels, not expensive ones, but satchels. Hair brushed, eyes bright, heading off to their school. And I stopped one of them and asked them what them what his ambition was. And he looked at me and said, I would like to be a brain surgeon. Can you imagine that, a boy from the slums of Lima, who had the soaring ambition to wish to be a brain surgeon. If you wish to know in a sentence what education is about, it is making it possible for boys or girls from whatever background to achieve that sort of superb ambition if they have the guts, the will power, the intellect and the effort to achieve it. That is what education is all about.

    QUESTION:

    Tom Wearing, Redditch. And may I say that Redditch Association is a loyal and united association. Can we have that on the record, BBC. My question, Prime Minister is this, if television advertising is effective, and there is little doubt that it is, why should television be less effective when in advertising gratuitous violence, pornography and permissiveness generally.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When you’ve finished your question just then, sitting down here, and shyly hiding himself away on the front row is the Home Secretary. I have just a shrewd feeling that when you finished your question, that he agreed with you. And shall I let you into another secret? I agree with you too. And we do need to look at those extra definitions of pornography and other matters in order to protect our children. I think sometimes the judgements that are made are not right. They’re not easy judgements. We’re not a party of censorship and pray God, will never become one. So there are difficult judgements to be made. I don’t believe the judgements always are right. Neither does Michael. And we will take what you say to heart.

    QUESTION:

    Ann Priestly, leader of the Conservative Group on Wycombe District Council. Prime Minister, in spring many people in this hail will be standing as candidates in the elections for local government. I know that you realise from experience how important it is that we return as many Conservative Councillors as possible. Can we be reassured that as much as possible will be done to return those candidates so that we see a sea of blue on the map of local authorities.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Gosh, that’s a tricky one. Yes, of course. I come from Local Government and I know how important it is and I know also how deep the roots of the Conservative Party are sunk in local government as well. From local government has come over the last century or so some of the great figures of Conservative politics, and out there in local government at the moment are young people in it or going into it who will be the great figures of Conservative politics in the future. I want a sea of blue right across local government. Don’t let there be any doubt about that. But I will just say this one thing, since this is a party meeting, and since I can speak to you in the discretion of a private occasion, I would just say one thing for you to take back to your constituencies. I look very carefully at the local election results and I see results in unpromising areas like Hackney where the Conservatives have done spectacularly well and I make enquires and ask what has happened. And I have to say to you, if the Conservatives are out on the streets, knocking on the doors saying we are the Conservatives, this is what we stand for – we win. And if they’re wringing their hands saying well, we’re behind in the opinion polls, we’re very unpopular, then they don’t win. Within a very few months, we have a general election to win. I believe that we will win that general election. I believe we deserve to win that general election.

    Here in this hall today, is the heart and soul of the Conservative Party in the country. Doesn’t lie in cabinet or in Parliament. It is here. You are the movers and shakers who make the Conservative party what it is in the country. You are the people as resentful as I am at the slurs that have been cast at the Conservative party. You are the people that did not join the Conservative Party for fame and fortune, but because you believed in what we stand for. Because you believe in what we want to do. I want you to go back and get every single person in your constituencies out on the doorsteps, reminding people that we Conservatives are not a party apart, we are a part of the nation itself. We have been for 200 years and no party has served its country in Government for so long, so often, and in my judgement, so well, as the British Conservative Party.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Chairman, David Leal, Treasurer, Conservative Association, Hornchurch in Essex, and Chairman of one of its branches. My question to the Prime Minister; information is being let out from EEC, EU, EM, I don’t really know what they call themselves from day to day, that Europe is moving towards federal Europe. Can the Prime Minister tell me that if federal Europe becomes a reality, it will not be part of it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are people in the European Union who would move for a more integrationalist European Union, because they believe it, that is what they think is right. They have a different perception on the way in which Europe will develop from us, that is what the great debate in Europe is about. But I don’t have to say anything fresh about that today because I said it to the conference last year or the year before. If Europe go ahead with integration, sometimes called federalist integration, of a sort that is unacceptable to the British, then we will stand aside from that integration. That has been our stated position for a very long time and it hasn’t changed, and it isn’t going to change under a Conservative government.

    QUESTION:

    Peter Fleet, PPC for Southampton ltchen. Prime Minister, whether I am meeting dockers at our port, ship builders at Bosba Thornycroft, or line workers at our Ford plant, one theme is consistent. These working Tories want to pay less tax. Can you assure us that the budget in November won’t be a budget for Europe, but one for Britain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Now tell me, hands up those who think I’m going to tell you what’s in the budget? I can tell you that we Tories are by instinct tax cutters. I can tell you that we believe money is better off in people’s pockets to make their own choices than in the Government’s pockets to make those choices for people. And I can tell you also that we are concerned to deliver right the way through the next Parliament the economic miracle that is emerging from those difficult years in the recession. We are now in a better economic position than we have been in this country since I can’t remember when. We are going to deal with that responsibly. That means if it is appropriate and prudent to cut taxes, our first instinct would be to cut taxes. But if it is not, if it would be imprudent, and would imperil the recovery that we have got, would imperil the falling unemployment that we’ve got, would imperil the low interest rates and low mortgages that we’ve got. Then we would not do so. We will make a judgement on what is right for the country, we will not make an imprudent budget judgement. But that we are tax cutters, all of us, every single member of the cabinet and the party is beyond doubt, it is one of our instincts because we believe that people’s money is best left in people’s pockets in the largest possible sums.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I am Councillor Sally Wilkes, a member of Christchurch Borough Council and very proud to have won my seat last year, as a Conservative gain in a seat that has not been held by the Conservatives for more than ten years. My question to you Prime Minister, is when canvassing for the next general election, what can we tell our voters to assure them that this nation is safe in our hands.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You have several hours? I said a moment ago that our economic circumstances were better than they had been for a long time. That opens up opportunities. I will not answer your question at length this morning, but I will answer your question in very great length indeed on Friday morning if I can invite you to be patient for just another forty eight hours or so. Because when one says safe in your hands, there are two elements to safe in yours hands. There is the domestic element, safe in terms of taxation, in terms of health, in terms of a fair and a good welfare system, in terms of making sure the money goes where it really should, in terms of a good police force, properly, effectively armed, armed forces. All these things are safe, safety on the streets. All those things are part of being safe domestically. There’s also the question of being safe internationally. I talked perhaps sufficiently enough this morning, as Malcolm did earlier, about the European Union, but there’s a wider world beyond that as well, in which Britain is a force of great significance. One of the great nations of NATO. A central pivot of the Commonwealth as well, one of the members of the Group of Seven, on the Security Council of the United Nations. That is, that element of the Nation also has to be safe. There is one difference you know between a British Prime Minister today, and a British Prime Minister of many years ago. For example, William Pitt when he was Prime Minister never moved more than 40 miles away from Downing Street in all the years that he was there. I must have visited 60 countries over the past six years, and I could probably pick up the phone and speak directly and personally to forty or fifty Heads of State around the world because we have met on more than one occasion. We know one another. That helps in its own way to make the world safe and to make it secure. It is very different. And that is true of the changing face of the world. We have seen the unbelievable changes that have been for example in what was the Soviet Union, the collapse of the complete empire, and an embryonic democratic state gradually beginning to emerge. And how I hope that Boris Yeltsin soon successfully has his operation and is fit and can go back to running that country.

    Now you may remember that he was my guest at Chequers with Naina Yeltsin. Norma and I had them at Chequers for the weekend about a year or so ago, and we had our talks on the Friday morning. And I said to Boris, well, we’ve finished some discussions, shall we go out for a walk. And Boris thought this was a very good idea. And he went upstairs and he changed into a blue and white tracksuit and trainers, and I slipped into a rather fetching Val Doonican sweater. And we went out for a walk. Just the two of us, with Norma and Naina, two ambassadors, about 40 security guards, large number of civil servants, for a private walk through the Chequers grounds surrounded only by the birds, the trees, the grass and four or five hundred photographers. It was a very instructive walk. Chequers, the grounds at Chequers, are lovely. And much of it is very hilly. We went over one hill, Boris and I, and there was a lady walking her dog up the hill, because part of it is public ground, and she suddenly looked up, and over the brow of the hill came the President of Russia in a blue and white tracksuit and the Prime Minister in a Val Doonican sweater. And she was undeterred. Magnificent. She swept through us saying “Good Morning Prime Minister, Good Morning Mr President”, and left us in her wake as she walked straight through. And Boris Yeltsin said, “Now I know why we won the war”. And we went on. And I said to “Boris, well, we’ve had a long walk. We’re got three choices; we can take the long walk back to Chequers, we can go down to the little village down there and we can get the cars back, or we could, you and I Boris, go and have a lemonade in the Bernard Arms.” And at this stage, the West Security Forces learnt that the President of Russia could speak English. “The Bernard Arms!” said Boris, “The Bernard Arms!” And we got there. And there were cars parked all outside, but the Bernard Arms was shut; the cars belonged to all the photographers still hanging in the trees! They were staying there. And the Bernard Arms was shut! This was something of a blow. And one of President Yeltsin’s interpreters went up to the door and went [knock, knock] “open up!” It’s the President of Russia”. And a voice came back “This is the Kaiser!”. Now you know why I want him to get well!

    QUESTION:

    Sylvia Tidy, Chairman of the South East Area and Countryside Forum, and a member of Wealden Constituency. Prime Minister, there are a group of farmers in this country that are suffering the most severe hardship they are known for decades. Can you please do your best to see that we get the ban lifted in Europe because our beef and our food is the best and the safest in the Community.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had a meeting yesterday for around about an hour with Sir David Naish, the President of the NFU, and representatives of farmers who had come for the demonstration yesterday. And I understand the concerns that they feel. Through something that is not within their control, and decision that are collectively being taken abroad. They are concerned about their future and their livelihood. And the British Government is very sensitive to the concerned of the British agriculture industry and very sensitive to see what we can do to help the dairy industry and the beef industry. And we entered into discussion.

    We’ve thus far committed in order to help the industry something in the region of £2,500 million and you heard Douglas Hogg make some more commitments just the other day. But it isn’t just the money. What we need to do is to try and persuade people across Europe and across the world – not the Commission, [indistinct] who have been better friends of the British farmers than the nation states, but the nation states that British beef is safe. I believe it to be safe. Our scientists believe it to be safe. But a panic has been created and it is very difficult to persuade other people of that. And new evidence has emerged in the last couple of months or so which is very material. The first was the report by Professor Anderson and others that BSE is actually dying out of the British herds faster than we thought, as a result of action that we took in 1988/1989, around about that time. And secondly, that the question of genetic inheritance of BSE may not be as straightforward as people thought. A few weeks ago there was a lot of publicity that calves could inherit BSE, from the cow. Now there is considerable doubt about that. What it looks as though it might be, although this is not yet certain, the scientist are still looking at it.

    Uncertain science has bedevilled this matter from the outset. What it now looks as though it is, is that what can be inherited is a genetic tendency to catch BSE if, if the calf is fed contaminated feed. And there is no contaminated feed. It has now been taken completely away. So these are two new ingredients in the debate. And I am sorry that is not 90 at 30 seconds, but this is a matter of crucial importance to the agricultural industry. Desperate worry to the farmers and the most difficult problem, I believe, that any British Government has had to face and seek to solve for very many years. My heart and my sympathy is with the farmers. A large part of tax payers support is with the farmers because when we have come through this, I am determined of one thing above all, that we will have a viable beef and a viable dairy industry in each and every component part of the United Kingdom. However we do it, that is a guarantee the farmers can rely upon.