The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1995

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 July 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Deputy Prime Minister

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what precedents he relied on for the creation of a Deputy Prime Minister; which of the previous Deputy Prime Ministers were Ministers without departmental portfolio; how many of these chaired Cabinet committees; and what committees were involved.

    The Prime Minister: The following are precedents for a Minister acting as Deputy Prime Minister:

    Name |Period in office

    ———————————————————————————-

    The right hon. Clement Attlee (also Secretary for the Dominions 1942-43; Lord President of the Council 1943-45)

    |19 February 1942 to 23 May 1945

    The right hon. R. A. Butler (also First Secretary of State and Minister in charge of The Central African Office

    |13 July 1962 to 18 October 1963

    The right hon. (Viscount) William Whitelaw (also Home Secretary 1979-83; Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords 1983-88

    |4 May 1979 to 10 January 1988

    The right hon. Sir Geoffrey Howe (also Lord President of The Council and Leader of the House of Commons

    |24 July 1989 to 1 November 1990

    As I have previously stated, it is not the practice to release the details of Cabinet committees of previous Administrations.

     

    Conservative Party Leadership Campaign

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of entertainment or travel expenses incurred in his campaign for the leadership of the Conservative party.

    The Prime Minister: Any additional costs to the public purse were de minimis and in accordance with long-standing practice; no charge will be levied.

     

    World Wide Web

    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as “www.open.gov.uk” and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months.

    The Prime Minister: I refer to the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

     

    Ministerial Salaries

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what annual salary the Prime Minister is currently (a) entitled to and (b) drawing.

    The Prime Minister: I refer to the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 9 June 1995, Official Report, column 345.

     

    List of Ministerial Responsibilities

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister which Government Minister will be responsible for publishing a revised edition of “List of Ministerial Responsibilities” taking into account the recent changes in responsibilities announced in his recent Government reshuffle.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Millwall – 14 July 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech held in Millwall on Friday 14th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Morning. Thank you for being here this morning. Some of you, I know, will have been at Downing Street earlier, but I would like to set out in slightly more detail than I did in the garden early this morning some of the plans we have for sport as a result of the document we published this morning.

    Sport, for most people in this country, is more than just a game, it is a way of life. And I think organised team sports is one of the gifts that this country has given to the world over the years. What I want to do today is outline some of the plans we have, both for the near term and the long term development of sport.

    If one looks back over really the whole of the period since the Second World War, when it has come to the big debates on policy and resources, sport has generally come out second in the race. The necessary demands of other aspects of education, of social security, of health, of defence, of welfare, have always necessarily taken a larger share of public resources.

    It was for that reason that I conceived the idea of the national lottery. The national lottery, when it is in full flow will provide something over 1.5 billion to be divided between the good causes set out in our legislation, one of which is sports. What that means, as soon as it is fully in operation, and that will be within a year or so, we can expect a continuing flow of funds of around 300 million a year for sport that will be directed through the Sports Councils for sporting facilities and sporting opportunities up and down the country.

    Against that background, we have been reviewing sports policy with the Sports Council and the result is the proposals that we have today. What I believe we are doing today is setting in train a revolution in sport, in schools, in clubs and also at the topmost level. The policy paper we published builds on a whole series of discussions with the Sports Council, with educationalists, with individual sports stars and with many other people as well. The programme is ambitious, it is a costly programme and it will use quite a few of the hundreds of millions of pounds that is going to be available to sport, year on year, as a result of the lottery.

    It is a substantial move today, but what I would like to emphasise to you is that this is but the beginning of the revolution I wish to see in sport, this is not a once and for all announcement that won’t be followed up with further changes in the future.

    Neither are our announcements today just for the favoured few, they are intended to be for everyone who loves sport, starting with children, but I don’t just [indistinct] that those who are supremely talented at sport. It is for people who are talented and less talented, able bodied and disabled. We propose to ensure that this is for everyone, adults, boys and girls, the able bodied and the disabled.

    Let me start from the grass roots upwards and say something about the plans that we have in mind, starting with sport in the schools. I believe sport is immensely important for children, it is an integral part of growing up. I think it is character building, but above all I think it is fun for children and they have a right to enjoy it.

    I also don’t accept the premise that competitive sport is bad for children. You only have to see youngsters together to realise that that frankly isn’t true. Put any group of youngsters together in any environment and they are likely to compete. So I want to redevelop skills in competitive sport.

    One of the sadnesses to me, and I think to many people in education as well, is the extent to which competitive sport has declined over the last 30 years. I know the Teacher Unions are concerned about that, some of their own surveys have indicated the depth of the problem. And it is frankly completely the wrong way round that our young people seem to spend one and a half hours on sport and beyond a full day in comparative time watching television, whether other people playing sport or other aspects of television as well. One of the aims of this White Paper is to begin to reverse that decline and to put competitive sports back where it belongs, right at the heart of weekly life in every school in the country.

    The revised curriculum that will come into schools from the autumn places a proper emphasis on traditional team and competitive sports. But I think we need to do a good deal more than that. We will be expecting all schools to offer 2 hours a week of sport, in formal lesson time. But in addition to that, we will be looking to all schools to match the practice of the best and extend sports provision at lunchtimes, evenings and weekends, and the target we will be setting is for a further 4 hours of sport available weekly to all our youngsters.

    Those schools that reach these and other standards will be eligible for a special Sportsmark Award and a special gold award for those who are most innovative. We intend to make sure that parents have information about sport in schools by ensuring that prospectuses and annual school reports include all the information on sporting provision and sporting competition between schools, and will implement that as speedily as possible.

    We intend to give schools quite a lot of help to reach the Sportsmark standards. The Chief Inspector of Schools will conduct a national survey of school sport and report annually on it so we can see how our plans are developing. The Office of Standards in Education Inspectors will focus on team games in all the schools they visit. We have plans to encourage more volunteers and coaches to come into schools and help teachers lead sport.

    Let me say at this point that the role of teachers in our plans is vitally important. I suspect that the vast majority of sportsmen can trace a large share of their interest and aptitude for sport back to the enthusiasm of a particular man or woman who taught them as a child. Teachers will still bear much of the brunt of sports leadership, schools will have powers to reward teachers who help with extra curricula sport and I hope that those powers will be used.

    But of course teachers themselves will need training to make the most of the opportunities, so we will be using some of the resources of the lottery to target extra training on schools whose sporting provision is below average.

    We also wish to take the opportunity to enhance career opportunities for teachers by giving them a great chance to win coaching qualifications. So we intend to ensure that all Physical Education Teachers are equipped to lead both major summer and winter sports, as well as their more formal PE teaching.

    And we also intend to see that every single trainee teachers is offered the opportunity to take coaching awards to enhance their own particular career prospects within education.

    The Sports Council will be looking very closely at what is done for sport in the teacher training institutions. At OFSTED we will inspect those colleges with the intention of seeing that every one of them gives students the chance to gain the qualifications in leading team games that we will need to carry

    But of course, however much you love sport, however well you may be able to teach it, you cannot teach it, and the youngsters cannot enjoy it if you haven’t the facilities. So we propose to give the Sports Councils the powers to block off the sale of school playing fields. What we will do is to keep the rules that protect school playing fields, but will monitor them to make sure they offer proper safeguards to sports like cricket which need a great deal of high quality space.

    I seek the best quality provision for every school. So we are this morning setting a target to bring every child, in every school, within reach of adequate sporting facilities by the end this decade.

    All of this would not have been possible, but is now possible as a result of the national lottery and the funds it is introducing. The Sports Council will also provide funds from its own resources, funds to deal with matters like school kit or transport to facilities for schools that lack fields of their own.

    Let me now say a little about sport beyond school. Too often what happens at the moment, youngsters in good schools have sporting facilities, they leave school, they lose their opportunity to continue their interest in sport. So sport mustn’t end with school, so the lottery will help us carry through the second feature of the strategy, and that is to ensure that fewer young people drop out of sport at 16,18 or 21.

    To do that we need far better, closer, more concise links between schools and clubs. I would like to see clubs adopting schools, and by clubs I don’t mean football clubs like Millwall, professional clubs, I mean amateur clubs as well, athletics clubs, cricket clubs, rugby clubs, sports clubs, tennis clubs, let us see them form a proper link with schools, both to help the youngsters in school and as a focus for the youngsters to go on to when they leave school. The Sports Council regional offices will have a special duty to develop those links and there will be a new challenge fund to help promote them.

    We also intend to help schools win more business sponsorships. Sports governing bodies will be asked to develop plans to develop school sport as a condition of grants from the Sports Council.

    Let me move on from immediate after-school to sport in Partner Education Colleges and universities. Some of them are superb, others frankly are not. So we will be carrying out a national audit of college and university sport, and I am delighted to say that Roger Bannister will be deeply involved in this. Those audits will be up-dated regularly. We intend to set up groups, drawn from the universities, to see how sports scholarships can be extended and obstacles to university sport removed.

    Those policies that I have described so far are going to open sport to everyone. But in addition to that we would like to see excellence in sports. Sports administrators feel the same way, they have been working towards it. The FA school at Lilleshall I think is but one example of that. But the national lottery will enable us to create something that we have never before had in this country, and that is an entirely fresh and new asset. And the asset I refer to is a new British Academy of Sport. Other countries have such centres and I believe it is time for this country to have one as well.

    The Academy of Sport will be the pinnacle of a national network of centres of excellence, some organised on a regional basis, some will be academies of individual sports. We shall be consulting on the precise form this academy will take and we have no wish to be completely prescriptive. But let me tell you broadly what it is likely to be. It is likely to be a very large greenfield site and it will involve investment of around 100 million pounds that will be financed from the lottery. The British Academy will be residential, it will offer specialist courses to our best young sportsmen and sportswomen, it will offer top-class training facilities, laboratories and expert support services in sports science and sports medicine. And I emphasise the medicine point, too often in the past some of our leading sportsmen have needed specialist treatment abroad, we propose to develop the opportunity for that treatment at the British Academy.

    Some of the athletes may just be there for days or weeks, others may be there on scholarships for 2 or 3 years, perhaps attending local schools during that period. The aim of this I think is quite straightforward. It is to help them compete with and beat the best of the rest of the world in whatever their particular discipline is. The Academy will be wholly new, it will be ambitious, it will have state of the art facilities, it will run across a whole range of our major sports, it can’t cope with every minority sport as well and we will consult to decide precisely which sports will be covered, but you may be certain all our major sports will be there. And the purpose of it is to build pride, confidence and ability right across the face of British sport.

    What I have been saying to you in the last few moments is that the beginning of the plans that we have for the future of sport, it is by no means a single one-off announcement. We now want to discuss these details further with teachers, volunteers, coaches, parents, sports administrators, sportsmen and sportswomen themselves. It is to be the start of a 10 year programme that will embrace each and every significant sport in this country.

    And to make sure that that moment is sustained, let me tell you this morning that we are starting work today on a follow-up White Paper that will be published next year. That White Paper will set out a detailed 10 year plan for the future of each and every one of our leading British sports. We will be asking the sports administrators of each main sport to set out their ideas for future development, to set out how they would enhance its place in schools, raise the level of participation, improve spectator facilities and sustain the pursuit of excellence. What I would like to do is to form an alliance between those administrators, sport generally and the government and volunteers to improve sporting provision for the future.

    So those are the outlines of what we propose. You will all have seen the press pack with further details and some initial observations from sports administrators in them.

    In essence the position is this. I believe that sport has a central place in our national heritage. I intend to cherish that central place and build it up, build it up for the fun and the enjoyment it offers, build it up for the recreational facilities that it will offer, build it up for the spectator enjoyment it will offer for those who wish to watch rather than participate, and build it up for the pride that this country has when it produces the best in sport in whatever discipline it may be.

    As a result of these plans, and as a result of the resources now released by the national lottery, I believe we can look forward to a golden future for British sport. I look forward to working together with sportsmen and women and sports administrators and schools to bring these plans forward to fruition. There are many details still to be examined with them and those discussions will continue immediately, but that is the broad outline of what we propose and I will be happy to take, with my colleagues, any questions you may have on these plans.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Sky News):

    Everybody will obviously welcome any money going into education but do you not think most parents at the moment would rather see this money going to reducing class sizes, to getting more textbooks for their children? Rather than thinking: “I want my child to run faster!” they are thinking: “I want better classes for my children!”

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are getting better classes and they are getting better equipment in schools and they are getting better examination results and they are getting more of their youngsters going on to university. A few years ago, one in eight of our youngsters got to university, now it is one in three as a result of the changes in education but what has happened over the years is that Central Government funding has never been able to deal with matters like this.

    The issues you raise are legitimately matters for tax-paying contributions. This would never come out of tax paying funds and I don’t think we should confuse the two. This is to add to the quality of life – I mean the lottery – whether in sport, whether in the arts, whether in the Millennium Fund, whether in charities or whether in heritage and it is designed specifically to add to areas that the national tax-paying burden wouldn’t support so there are two separate points.

    As far as the improvement of education is concerned, we are committed to that and that is a matter of Central Government policy. Here, we have developed something that can operate through the Sports Council to improve sporting facilities.

    QUESTION (Robert Hardman – The Daily Telegraph):

    Firstly, in your foreword, you say that some of the problems of sport come from misguided attitudes and mistaken policies. What policies are you specifically referring to and whose were they?

    Secondly, how long do you think it will be before we win a World Cup in rugby, cricket or football?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As a result of these plans, it will be sooner than it otherwise would have been that we win a world cup but I am making no predictions about that.

    Regarding the mistakes in attitude and policies over the last thirty or forty years, I am not particularly in the business of picking out individual policies or individual mistakes. I just take the general view that we have undervalued the importance of sport both to the quality of life of most of our youngsters and as part of the role that it plays in our national life and what I am seeking to do is to correct that and I believe this is a giant step towards doing that.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, for this initiative to be truly effective, won’t there have to be a change to the legislation surrounding the national lottery, that is to say that money can be made available not only for capital projects but also for maintenance and administration costs?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In due course that may be so. There is a certain degree of latitude now in the interpretation as you will see and I am grateful to lain Sproat and others who have looked at that to see how we can do it.

    For example, in the definition of capital, we would include things like school sport strips so whereas many people think of capital and may think of something costing many tens of thousands of pounds, that isn’t necessarily the case in terms of the definition of capital.

    What I do want to do is to look at the general provision of mainstream facilities. I think over time you are right and it will be possible to relax some of the definitions and look at a little more of the resources going into revenue funding but I think at the moment that lies a little way ahead but I certainly don’t exclude that.

    QUESTION (Ben Preston – The Times):

    You say you are setting a target of bringing every child in every school within reach of adequate sporting facilities by the year 2000. How many don’t have those facilities now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t give you an immediate total but there is a significant number, far more than I would wish to see. I would like to have been able to say that I could guarantee an individual sports field for every individual school by the turn of the century but I can’t guarantee that; what I think we can ensure is that by the end of this decade every school will have access to these sort of sporting facilities so they won’t be inhibited from soccer, rugby, cricket, athletics because they didn’t have access to the facilities and the Department of Education and National Heritage, with the sports councils, will audit what sporting facilities we have and where the shortfall is and then we can draw up a proper programme for correcting it.

    QUESTION (Harry Smith – ITN):

    How would you characterise your own sporting education at school and what influence do you think that has had on the development of your career?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think sport was about the only part of school that I enjoyed, to be frank. Much to my distress, we didn’t play soccer but I learned to play rugby at school, we had cricket at school, we had athletics at school and we had a great deal of enthusiasm engendered by the masters who were there. I think I loved sport when I went to school but I learned a good deal more about it, I learned to have a lifelong love of sport during my years at school and I think that is true of most people of my age. What I would like to do is to ensure that the youngsters of today and tomorrow have the same opportunities.

    QUESTION (Julia Bradbury – LIVE TV):

    Do you think that this academy is going to enhance career opportunities within sport and following on from the previous question, if you had had a career in sport what would it have been?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it would have been over by now, that is for sure! I would have been proud to have had a career in sport but I might have had the ambition, I might have had the will but I didn’t have the talent so, alas, not. I think it will enhance career opportunities.

    There is a second matter that we are thinking about which I might broadly float though the ideas are not yet worked up. One of the problems that many sports stars face is their careers tend to end some time between 30 or 40, in some cases even earlier and one idea we are looking at is to try and see if we can develop a scheme together with business to try and arrange for a form of sponsorship so sportsmen and women can actually join companies and learn to begin to develop a career on a part-time basis whilst they pursue their sporting career and I think then we would end the difficult cut-off suddenly for many people often in sports that aren’t terribly highly paid to which they have given a tremendous amount and suddenly find that they are no longer young enough to compete at the top level and I would like to see if we can ease them properly into better career prospects than they have had in the past. That is an idea very much in its infancy, it frankly isn’t worked up yet but it is one of the things we are looking at.

    QUESTION (June Kelly – BBC Radio):

    Won’t there be resistance from teachers because of the extra demands you are placing on their time and also resistance from some children who simply don’t like sport?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As far as the teachers are concerned, I am delighted to say that representatives of most of the teacher unions were at Downing Street this morning and they gave very strong support and backing to this.

    As far as teachers are concerned, there will be extra resources in teacher training, there will be the opportunity of extra performance payments for taking part and of course we will be bringing in other people from outside schools to help as well but I think, if I may say so, you might perhaps underestimate the extent to which many people in education – many teachers, many head teachers, many leaders of the teacher unions – will actually enthusiastically want to see education rounded-out with a better sports contribution and better sporting facilities so the initial reaction that we have had I have to say from the teacher unions and others is very positive indeed.

    GILLIAN SHEPHARD:

    The Prime Minister obviously is quite right. There has been a good reception from the teacher associations and the teacher unions and some of them have been associated with drawing up the document. There is access of course to special responsibility allowances through excellence points to reward teachers for any extra responsibilities they take on in this area. Those things already exist and they are available to heads and governors.

    As far as children not enjoying sport is concerned, I think must say that it is part of growing up to learn that just sometimes you have to do things you don’t like very much and we all had to go through that and I think it is quite a useful lesson for young people and who knows, by being obliged to take part in compulsory team games between 14-16 which they will be, some of them might even enjoy it and find themselves fitter as a result.

    QUESTION (Christine Smith – The Groundsman):

    Your reversal of policy on the sale of playing fields by schools will be very welcome to people in the industry. Do you think it is in time or do you think they have already been destroyed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think it is in time. What we are doing is setting minimum standards which will need to be kept and also giving the sports councils the right to be a statutory consultee if they object to the disposal of any playing fields so it isn’t an absolute blanket ban but what it does mean is that sports playing fields in effect will remain. There may be occasions where some schools have a huge excess of playing field facilities and they would still be able to dispose of them but that would only be if it was self-evidently an excess and the sports council themselves as a statutory consultee didn’t object.

    I would like to invite Iain Sproat to say a word or two. Iain has been in the engine room of this particular initiative right from the start.

    IAIN SPROAT:

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. It is a marvellous day for sport and I would just like to say that we would not have been able to get what we are getting in this Sports Policy Paper had not been that we have a Prime Minister who is knowledgeable and dedicated to sport himself and without his drive it would never have come to pass. Also, perhaps I should say that the Secretary of State for National Heritage has been chivvying me in the past when she was Secretary of State for Health and I know she is extremely glad that health is one of the great benefits that is going to flow from this Paper.

    The only other thing I would like to say is that what pleases me particularly about this is that we are not just dealing with the champions, the gold medallists. That is very important and the British Academy of Sport and the other Centres of Excellence around the country will deal with it but I think that the benefit to schools, the benefit to young people, particularly perhaps those who are not particularly good at sport is enormous because I believe that sport teaches lessons at schools that many other aspects of schools cannot teach, aspects of character, of self-discipline, of commitment, of learning to work with others in a team, of learning to play within the law, good sportsmanship, all these socially valuable things are probably better taught by sport for most young people than almost any other aspect of school life.

    I am very pleased and proud today to be associated with the Sports Paper which goes all the way from the schools right the way through to the championships and I hope that we are going to see the benefit of that at every level in our country very quickly.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much for being here. I know some of you were at Downing Street this morning so you probably know as much about the proposals as I do now. I hope all of you have got a full copy of the press pack; it has a lot of background detailed information in it; if any of you require any further detailed information, do have a word with lain, Robin, Virginia, Gillian or me as we go round and I hope you enjoy, as I shall, watching the youngsters getting some training. Thank you for being here!

  • Mr Major’s Speech in London on Sport – 14 July 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech in Downing Street, London, on Friday 14th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly welcome you here. Gathered here this morning are many of the people who really matter in terms of making sure that this initiative works. We have people, not just some of the great icons of British sport, whom I’m delighted to see here, the role models that I hope our kids will follow, but we have representatives of the Teachers Unions and it is going to be vital that we can actually resurrect, provide a proper renaissance for sport in schools. We have got many people who are administrators, the Sports Council Chairmen are here, and many others.

    The first point I would like to make about this initiative is that this is not just an initiative for elite sport and for the best of our sportsmen, either male or female. It is a question of expanding sport for everyone – those who are good at it, those who are not; those who are able bodied, those who unfortunately are disabled. The intention is to spread the opportunity for sport and increase the excellence of sport and the impact of sport on our lives in many ways at all tiers of sporting endeavour.

    Let me try and just give you a little background to where we find ourselves today. What I found most depressing a few years ago was what seemed to me to be a self-evident need to improve the resourcing and funding of sport, to ensure that we provided the facilities that were necessary, and were able to compete with the best at the highest level and win. And yet, with the other demands there always were going to be on the public purse – mainstream education, pensions, social security, defence – it was always likely at the end of the day that sport would get a good deal less than sport itself could usefully use.

    And it was because that applied not just to sport, but also to arts and the heritage and other areas, that I conceived the idea of the national lottery. We needed legislation for the national lottery. I think I can tell you in the privacy and seclusion of this meeting, it did not meet with universal support across the opinion formers in Parliament or in Whitehall. But it has now come into being, the legislation has been passed and the lottery has been established.

    And what we can now see, as it comes into full flood, as it will in a couple of years or so, is that the lottery is going to provide, net of prizes and other disbursements, something in the region of 1.5 – 1.75 billion pounds every year, continually for as long as it exists so far as one can tell, to be divided amongst the various good causes that have a statutory right, now under our legislation to a share of the resources of that lottery.

    What that means for sport is that the probability is, as it comes into full flow, that in addition to existing funding, sport will probably receive from the national lottery, to be disbursed through the Sports Councils, something in excess of 300 million pounds a year for as far ahead as we can see.

    Now one only has to contemplate for a second what all of us in this garden this morning could have done with 3 billion pounds on sport over the last 10 years to see what the prospects are for the future. And it is against that background that we found it possible to begin to discuss within the Department of National Heritage, and with the Sports Council, and with a number of other individuals who are here who paid in many cases visit after visit to Downing Street to talk to me or to Nick True, or to Iain Sproat, we began to discuss the Raising the Game Sports Initiative that we are formally publishing this morning.

    Let me just try and outline bits of it, starting from the grass roots upwards. Where, in your judgement, have we lost most in terms of sporting endeavour over the last quarter of a century? I would suggest that we have lost most by the diminution of the importance of sport to our young people and its availability within schools. So the initiative starts there and I am delighted at the support that we have had from the representatives of the teachers, the Teachers Unions and many teachers also that we have spoken to to ensure that this initiative begins to take place.

    It is not a single one-off initiative. Today is the start of a whole series of changes. We will be returning to this subject again and again, and I will have more to say about that in a few moments.

    What we propose in schools at the beginning is to ensure firstly that competitive team games get a much higher profile in the national curriculum than they had previously; that there will be a minimum of 2 hours formally, but another 4 hours a week informally, outside school hours with the help of teachers who will earn performance points on pay, with the help of teachers who will have special training and extra resources for that training; with amendments to the Teacher Training Colleges and the Teacher Training syllabuses to provide many more teachers who are willing and able to have a skill in teaching a mainstream winter game and a mainstream summer game to the youngsters in their schools. I know from talking to many of the teachers that they are enthusiastic about this and we must provide them with the help and assistance to carry that enthusiasm into being.

    What will be crucial will be two other things! firstly, improving the facilities in schools and making those facilities increasingly available to the community as well; and secondly, to build up much closer, more formal links between clubs, not necessarily professional clubs but sporting clubs and institutions and schools in every part of the United Kingdom.

    We propose to join with the sports councils and try and invite clubs to adopt a school. One of the problems there often has been is youngsters have gone through school is they leave school and there is no natural avenue to go at 16, 17 or 18, to go to a club, to actually improve and enjoy, and enhance their sporting skills. I don’t have any doubts from the discussions we have had with clubs that they will be willing and eager to do so, some of the great professional clubs do so in remarkable fashion already – Manchester United, Arsenal, Newcastle, Millwall where many of us will be later on this morning. Many of the cricket country sides these days have much wider county-wide sport encouragement for young people than ever before and all this will fit into the net of plans that we propose but it will start in the schools. I will spare you the details but in essence more sport in schools, more sport outside school hours, better facilities and better training for teachers, a better link with sports clubs and of course schools also are eligible, as many of you who have seen the lottery will have noticed, to look to enhance their sporting facilities with grants from the Sports Council via the national lottery as indeed clubs are, so it starts in the schools.

    We move on to the clubs where many of the things I have had to say could be replicated. Simply let me say that already, when you look at the early disbursements from the national lottery, you see a whole range of facilities available to cricket clubs, rugby clubs, athletic clubs, soccer clubs and minority sports as well; let me make the point that this is not just for the mainstream sports, minority sports can benefit also and I hope they will continue to do so.

    We move on through the pyramid to the top level of sport. I don’t know if you feel about it as I do but although sport is primarily an enjoyment, I don’t have any doubt that it has its own impact on the national emotions when any of our great sporting icons succeed and beat the rest the world. I will spare the blushes of many who are here and speak perhaps of a minority sport and two people who are not here but it seemed to me that most of this country came to a stop when Christopher Dean and Jane Torvill were beating the world into second place in competition after competition; people who had never taken an interest in ice skating did so; you couldn’t get into the ice skating rinks that exist around the country as youngsters wanted to become the next Torvill and Dean and that icon impact, that role model impact, that delight that spreads right the way through the country when we can show sporting excellence at its best and beat the world is something without being excessively nationalistic that I would like to see. I remember the crowd chanting at White City at the great Chataway/Kuts race when they said that Kuts would win and thank God Chataway did and the whole country rejoiced, If I can embarrass someone here, I doubt there were many people who failed to enjoy Rob Andrews’ dropped goal against the Australians or Devon Malcolm whom I will never forgive for taking nine wickets while I was flying back to watch the last day of the Oval test match and missed it all! These are great sporting occasions so we want to encourage excellence in sport.

    There are some sporting academies already – Lilleshall and other regional centres of excellence – and I hope they are going to develop but what we propose is a wholly new innovation for this country. What we propose to establish and discuss, with funding, with the sports council chairmen, is the establishment as soon as possible of the first ever British Academy of Sport to deal with excellence in sport at the highest level.

    What I envisage by this is a very large new development probably costing in capital terms something in the region of £90/100 million so far as we can cost it at the moment. we are looking at the development of facilities on a large green-field site perhaps 80/100 acres.

    We are looking at the development of the best sporting facilities and coaching along a number of mainstream sports. It won’t be able to go right across the sporting agenda but it will be pretty widespread and will cover all our mainstream sports. Some of it will be residential; some people perhaps will be there for two or three years, others will be there for short courses, others will just pay brief visits, others who are residential may even attend local schools while they are there and one other addition to it which I think has long been necessary will be the development of specialist medical facilities for sporting injuries. There are a number of our great sportsmen over recent years who have had to go abroad to get the best specialist treatment for their particular injuries as a result of their sporting activities. That isn’t good enough and so those medical facilities will also be developed at this British Academy of Sport.

    What we propose to do is to invite people to tender with their own ideas but it is going to be quite the largest single development in the move towards sporting excellence that we have seen possibly at any stage in our long sporting history. I hope we are going to get plans for it by the middle of next year, I hope we will be able to proceed with it very speedily. We will learn the lessons from the Australian Academy though it won’t be a direct replica of that, we will have our own ideas and we will build on their ideas and I hope do something better but right at the top it will improve and enhance excellence in sport and it has always been my judgement that excellence in sport at the top will ripple down as people seek to emulate and improve upon the best that they have seen elsewhere right across the range of sporting interests.

    That, broadly, is a sketchy outline of what is in today’s “Raising the Game” document. I will launch it more formally with more detail at Millwall – and I know a number of you will be there – a little later on this morning and I hope those of you who haven’t yet seen the video will take the opportunity to look at it; it only lasts for a few minutes but it gives a very clear indication of what we are proposing to do.

    There are one or two other oddments that I just might add. If we are going to raise sporting endeavour in schools they need pitches and grounds. One of the initiatives that will come in the Sports White Paper this morning is to maintain the minimum standards that are necessary that schools must have but also for the first time to give the sports councils a statutory right to he consulted and block the sale where appropriate of school playing facilities. That is a change from previous policy, I think it is a change that is right. There may be occasions when it is appropriate because there is a huge excess of sporting facilities to be sold but that is not generally the case. The sports councils will have a statutory right to consult and in those circumstances the sale of the grounds would not proceed and I think that would be worthwhile.

    The second ambition that we have is to ensure that by the end of this decade every school in the land will have access to green-field sporting facilities. They may not necessarily be unique to that particular school. I can’t guarantee that; in some parts of the country that would be a reckless promise that we couldn’t necessarily keep but we can, I think, be certain that we will be able to provide green-field sporting facilities with access for every school by the end of this decade and I think that would make a great difference.

    We will be relying on help from many other people. You can’t prescribe this by diktat, you can’t write it into legislation. We will need the help and support first and foremost of teachers and volunteers who will help us with, our initiatives in and around schools; we will need the Support of the clubs and we will need the support which I have no doubt will be forthcoming of many of our leading sporting figures to set an example about what actually can be done.

    That is what we are about. I think this is an initiative that is long overdue but it isn’t an initiative that could possibly have been carried through until and unless we had access to the sort of funding that has been unleashed by the successful establishment of the national lottery. That is established, it looks secure, the resources look certain, we have started to lay the plans down.

    There is just one other thing that I wish to say. I said a moment ago that this isn’t a one-off initiative and for those here from sports governing bodies let me tell you one part of the initiative that perhaps you don’t yet know: what we will be asking you to do is to draw up a ten-year plan for the development of your sport, how you see it developing, what facilities you need, what opportunities exist, how you involve the youngsters, where there is a shortfall in different parts of the country, what are the opportunities for sporting excellence in your particular discipline and we will be bringing those together and I hope that Virginia and lain Sproat – perhaps with a little help from me – can publish round about this time next year another White Paper on sport that will set out the road to excellence over the next decade against the backcloth of the decisions that we have made in the documents that are published today.

    That is what we plan. I should offer you lain Sproat’s apologies for not being here. He has been one of the main architects of this policy and the only reason he is not here is that ill luck being what it is, Iain is actually on the floor of the House of Commons at the moment piloting through the Olympic Rings Bill and very probably listening to speeches that need not be made offering support for a policy that is undoubtedly right when I am sure in his heart he would rather have rolled up that business and be here with us. I hope he will soon be able to join us.

    Can I just finally thank you for being here. Everyone here in their own way, whether a sports administrator, a sportsman, a representative of the teacher unions, someone from the voluntary sector or our colleagues from journalism has a special role to play. I hope what we are seeking to do will get the widest possible publicity. I hope so for this reason above all: we need the help of literally thousands upon thousands of people who are out there who love sport who I believe will offer their help if they believe there is something that will come out at the other end of it. I believe we have something that will come out at the other end. We need the publicity to bring forward the help.

    Thank you for being here this morning. Please feel in no hurry to leave. You are very welcome to stay for – I was going to say for as long as you wish but there are limits – and if any of you do wish to take the opportunity of a tour through the cabinet room or the state rooms upstairs we will have guides able to take you in the next few minutes. Thank you for coming. [Applause].

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 July 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    West Midlands (Visit)

    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to visit the west midlands and the Bromsgrove constituency in particular.

    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.

     

    Prime Ministerial Duties

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of his time he devoted to his duties as Prime Minister between 23 June and 4 July.

    The Prime Minister: I was Prime Minister throughout the entire period in question.

     

    Government Cars

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what make and type of Government car is allocated to the Prime Minister; and what is the cost of this vehicle to the Exchequer; including the annual cost of the chauffeur.

    The Prime Minister: I have been allocated a Daimler Majestic as my official car. The annual running cost, which includes a number of security measures, is some £100,000. This also includes maintenance and the cost of a chauffeur.

     

    French Nuclear Tests

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Governments of (a) Australia and (b) New Zealand about French nuclear tests in the Pacific; and what Commonwealth representations he proposes to make to the French Government.

    The Prime Minister: We are in regular contact with both Governments and are aware of their views. The United Kingdom does not act on behalf of the Commonwealth.

    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will protest to the French Government against (a) the proposed French nuclear tests in the Pacific and (b) the French Government’s action against the Rainbow Warrior.

    The Prime Minister: No.

    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister on which occasions he has raised the issue of French nuclear testing within institutions of the European Union.

    The Prime Minister: I have discussed nuclear testing with President Chirac on a number of occasions. I have not considered it necessary to do so within institutions of the EU.

     

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates

    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list details of the occasions during the past 30 years when public interest immunity certificates have been signed indicating the Minister concerned, the Department and the subject matter to which the certificate was related.

    The Prime Minister: The information as requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

     

    Prime Minister’s Questions

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister who will be answering oral questions addressed to him when he cannot be present in the House.

    The Prime Minister: The First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister will answer oral questions addressed to me when I cannot be present in the House.

     

    Prime Ministerial Offices

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the offices in 10 Downing Street available to him for his official duties, together with the size of such offices, measured in square feet.

    The Prime Minister: A study is available, which measures approximately 370 sq ft. The Cabinet room and other rooms in No. 10 Downing Street are used for Government business. These amount in total to 4,343 sq ft.

     

    Deputy Prime Minister

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister, what role in the presentation and co-ordination of Government policy will be filled by the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 11 July, Official Report, column 496.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what level has been set for the annual salary of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 11 July, Official Report, column 496.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what will be the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 11 July, Official Report, column 496.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister how many rooms in the Cabinet Office have been allocated to the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary and his staff.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. Four rooms in the Cabinet Office have been allocated to the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister and his staff.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the annual cost of running the offices and department of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary, indicating (a) staff costs and (b) rentable value of accommodation occupied.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. The currently estimated annual cost of running the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service), including the office of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary, is £80 million of which £32 million relates to staff costs and £5 million is in respect of accommodation.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the fixtures and fittings ordered for the office of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State with particular reference to (a) carpets and (b) pictures.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. No fixtures or fittings have been ordered for the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister’s office. The carpet and pictures were in place and the furniture came from existing stocks.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what is the size, in square feet, of the new office of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary, located in the Cabinet Office.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. The size of the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister’s office is 872 sq ft.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what refurbishment work is (a) completed, (b) under way and (c) planned for the offices of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary and his staff; and what is his estimate of the costs of such work.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. None.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister, how many (a) telephones, (b) fax machines, (c) photocopiers and (d) computers have been and will be allocated to the offices and department of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary; and what is the estimated value of the items obtained in each of the above categories.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. The following items have been allocated to the offices of the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister and his private office staff.

    |Cost excluding VAT

    |Quantity |£

    ————————————————————————————————————

    Telephones |10 |590

    Facsimile machines |1 |1,425

    Photocopiers |1 |4,017 (annual hire charge)

    Computers/printers |7/3 |12,469

    Information for the Office of Public Service and its agencies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what will be the design features of stationery created for the office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

    (2) what orders for new stationery have been placed by the offices and Department of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary; and what the cost of such orders will be.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. The stationery for the office of the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister features the crest used by the Cabinet Office and “Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State”. Orders for stationery have so far been placed to an estimated value of £75.

     

    Rose Garden Announcement

    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 4 July, which of the means proposed to remunerate the public purse will be used in the particular case of the rose garden announcement of 22 June.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 July 1995]: My announcement on 22 June took place during the normal working hours of No. 10 Downing Street. Any additional costs to the public purse were de minimis and, in accordance with long-standing practice, no charge will be levied.

  • PMQT – 13 July 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I urge, yet again, the withdrawal of British troops from Bosnia–particularly because Bismarck’s wise advice, quoted yesterday by our right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), was ignored by his successors, so that eventually the road to Sarajevo was paved with the bones of Pomeranian grenadiers? We do not want that road to be paved with the bones of our young men.

    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has held a consistent view about the difficulties that we face in Bosnia, and that some others share that view. There can be no certainty about what will happen in the present circumstances, but I hope that I can tell my hon. Friend why I believe that it would be unwise for us to decide to take that action now.

    I believe that, if UNPROFOR withdrew, a number of things would be at risk. We would certainly put at risk the peace that remains in central Bosnia, not least because of the presence of British troops; and we might put at risk the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been saved as a result of the presence of United Nations troops. Let me touch on the wider point on which my hon. Friend also touched. One of the primary reasons why I felt it right to send British troops to the area in the first place, and why I would be reluctant to remove them unless it became imperative to do so, is the danger of a wider Balkan war. That risk exists, and it is for that reason that I felt it right to ask British troops to go to the area in a peacekeeping capacity and try to ensure that such a war did not occur.

    I concede to my hon. Friend that the situation is serious. As I have told the House before, circumstances could arise in which it would be impossible for United Nations troops to remain; but until and unless those circumstances arise, I believe that it is right for them to do so, and to contribute to peacekeeping in the way in which they have so far.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his leadership election pledge to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax would amount to £3 billion a year, and that almost half that £3 billion would go to just 5,000 people?

    The Prime Minister: I understand that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been dancing around with all sorts of fraudulent and distorted quotations. I will make it quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman–as I have done, both publicly and privately, for some time–that when it is appropriate and we can afford to do so– [Interruption.] That is what I said. When it is appropriate and we can afford to do so, I wish to abolish both capital gains tax and inheritance tax. I repeat the point for the right hon. Gentleman: I have made that clear and it must wait for when resources allow. I make no apology for that. The distortion of capital gains tax will need to be tackled. Unlike the Labour party, I believe in trying to pass wealth down between generations, whereas it squirms and wriggles whenever we talk of any tax reduction.

    Mr. Blair: I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that, during the leadership election, he said that he wanted to do that at the earliest opportunity. I do not know whether No. 11 Downing street or No. 10a has now changed the line, but, in any event, would it not be the most mistaken sense of priority to cut inheritance tax or capital gains tax when we know today that, as a result of Government cuts in spending, we are short of teachers and that classroom sizes are rising? Should not the interests of the many in a decent education for their children come before the Tory obsession with the interests of a privileged few?

    The Prime Minister: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that home owners right across the country, increasingly hit by inheritance tax, are a privileged few. They will be interested to hear that they are a privileged few. It is true that they were a privileged few when the Labour Government were in power and many former council home owners, now home owners, would have remained without that privilege had we been left with a Labour Government. The reality is that the people of this country would like to see changes in those taxes and, when it is prudent to do so, we will change them.

    Mr. Blair: As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people do not pay inheritance tax or capital gains tax and the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute that more than half the benefit would go to 5,000 people. As for tax, let me remind him that he pledged to cut tax at the last election, that he increased the standard rate of income tax by 7p and that only one tax cut has been introduced since the 1992 election: a cut of VAT on fuel by Opposition Members.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he and his colleagues have voted against every tax reduction that we have introduced throughout most of the past 16 years. Even at the suggestion of tax cuts, one sees the instinctive reaction of Opposition Members. They hate the thought of leaving money in people’s pockets. They would rather have it themselves to spend for themselves. I have made it clear that it is my ambition to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax as and when we can do it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that clear, too. It remains our ambition, and we will pursue it.

    Mr. Tracey: What message would my right hon. Friend send to the people of Wales, whose Labour Members of Parliament boycotted the House and Welsh Question Time at the beginning of this week? Would he suggest a forfeit for them, because surely their behaviour jeopardises the future representation of the Principality in the House?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that those hon. Members’ behaviour was juvenile–sufficiently juvenile, no doubt, to qualify for nursery vouchers as soon as we fully introduce the scheme. When the Labour party thinks up ill-judged stunts such as that, it would do well to remember that two of its past five or so leaders have been Englishmen sitting in Welsh seats.

     

    Q2. Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

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

    Mr. Llwyd: Following the rather dramatic departure of the Prime Minister’s very good friend, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the right hon. Gentleman has appointed someone to the Welsh Office who, nominally at least, is from the same planet as the rest of us, but in so doing he has appointed the fourth successive Member of Parliament to that office who has no interest at all in Welsh affairs. Has the Prime Minister not shown that he has no confidence in Welsh Conservative Members of Parliament and is it not really a pathetic reflection on them?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose his question before listening to what might have been asked earlier. He might bear in mind the fact that we are one United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for a previous leader of the Labour party to be a Welsh Member of Parliament seeking to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for two English Members to sit in Welsh seats, one of whom became Prime Minister and one of whom tried to do so. It is only the Welsh nationalists who wish to wrap themselves up in a little country and damage that country and its prospects within the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Charles Wardle: If the new directive to abolish internal frontiers is the Commission’s response to the action it faces in the European Court for not having dismantled the frontiers under existing treaty law, what credible defence is there for Britain in talk of a veto, or the worthless Luxembourg declaration? If my right hon. Friend means to protect our sovereign borders against unchecked immigration, will he get the treaty amended? If not, he will face the wrath of not just the Euro-sceptics in the House but virtually the entire British electorate.

    The Prime Minister: The European Commission has produced three proposals. It made it clear that the proposals must be taken together and must be agreed unanimously. Unless those proposals are agreed, there is no matter upon which the European Court can adjudicate. I can tell my hon. Friend that there must be unanimity and that that will not happen. The United Kingdom will veto the proposals.

     

    Q3. Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

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

    Mr. Battle: Following the leadership election and his new-found determination to stamp his views and authority on the Cabinet, will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he agrees with the proposals of the Nolan committee on sleaze that amounts earned from consultancies by Members of Parliament should be openly declared?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear to the House on a number of occasions since the outset that I favour greater transparency. I have made it equally clear that we will wait until we have the Select Committee report before I say any more.

    Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning tomorrow’s rail strike, which will bring massive disruption to the country? Is it not revealing that, when it comes to standing up for the consumer and criticising the trade unions, new Labour remains totally silent?

    The Prime Minister: That follows neatly from the previous question. There has been absolute and total silence from the Opposition Front Bench when it comes to looking after the interests of passengers. We have not heard a word about the RMT or ASLEF or about the inconvenience to passengers. All I can say is that it is a good job that one does not go to Australia by train.

     

    Q4. Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

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

    Ms Corston: In the light of today’s report from school governors that teachers are being sacked and that class sizes are increasing, despite the Prime Minister’s repeated assurances that neither of those things would happen, will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise to the British people?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady might well acknowledge the increase in resources to education year upon year: it is 50 per cent. up on the level that we inherited some time ago. She might also acknowledge the improved examination performance, improved teaching, improved choice and the improvement in the number of our youngsters going to university. All those things have magically waved by the hon. Lady without her apparently noticing them.

    Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in today’s newspapers, including The Daily Telegraph, that 100 terrorists could be released from gaol early? Does he agree that that is totally untrue and that there are no plans to release terrorists early into the community until they have served their full and rightful sentences?

    The Prime Minister: The position is as it has always been and as the House knows. There is no question of an amnesty for prisoners in Northern Ireland. There are no political prisoners anywhere in the United Kingdom. We keep remission rates under review. That has been the case and it will remain the case for some time. Remission rates were introduced some time ago and, as I have said, we keep them constantly under review. I do not think that the time is yet right for a change.

    Madam Speaker: We now come to Question 5.

    Ms Church: Question 6–no, Question 5, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker: Yes, Question 5.

     

    Q5. Ms Church: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

    The Prime Minister: Whichever question number it may be, the answer is the same.

    Ms Church: Does the Prime Minister agree that external regulation of the insurance market, as desired by both Lloyd’s and the Select Committee, would increase the global credibility of the London market? Will he amend the Lloyd’s Act 1982 to bring that about?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I necessarily accept the hon. Lady’s premise. It is clear that, because of the difficulties at Lloyd’s over the past couple of years, we need to look carefully at the methods of regulation. However, until we have examined them properly, I am not inclined to make any suggestion of a changed regime.

    Mr. Rowe: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the moment the opinion polls give even the illusion that there might conceivably be a Labour Government some time in the future, the trade unions queue up to threaten the customer and the patient with industrial action? Does not it frighten him as much as it frightens me that new Labour will be as much a pawn in the hands of the trade unions as old Labour used to be?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the pre-emptive obeisance shown by the Labour party on the minimum wage, the social contract and a range of other issues. Of course, we do not have to fight with the trade union movement if we offer it exactly what it wants, when it wants it and even before it has asked for it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 July 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Staff Shareholdings

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister how many staff in his Department or its agencies have (a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the last five years, including the companies concerned.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 10 July.

     

    Oil Platforms (Disposal)

    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for the approval of the disposal of disused oil platforms at sea from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office.

    The Prime Minister: No. The Department of Trade and Industry consults relevant Government Departments on all abandonment proposals.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

    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.

     

    Deputy Prime Minister

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister what is the salary of the Deputy Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister: The Ministerial salary of the First Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister is £42,834, in addition to his reduced parliamentary salary.

    Mr. Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister which Cabinet sub-committees the Deputy Prime Minister has been asked to chair.

    The Prime Minister: The First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister will be chairing a number of Cabinet committees. The revised composition and terms of reference of such committees will be published shortly.

    Mr. Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants are employed in the Deputy Prime Minister’s Department.

    The Prime Minister: The First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister is supported by the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service). The competitiveness and deregulation division of DTI transferred to the Cabinet Office on 5 July and the Office of Science and Technology transferred to DTI on the same day. The transfers are still being finalised but the total number of civil servants in the Office of Public Service is likely to be about 1,000.

    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Prime Minister, if he will list the responsibilities and terms of reference of the Deputy Prime Minister, the number of staff for which he is responsible, the location of his office and that of his staff and the proposed budget of his office.

    The Prime Minister: The First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister will assist generally and have specific responsibility for the competitiveness agenda, the working of Government and the presentation of policies. He will chair a number of Cabinet committees and will be an ex- officio member of Cabinet committees generally. He will have ministerial responsibility for the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service). His office is located in the Cabinet Office, 70 Whitehall. The total budget of the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service), including those functions transferred from the DTI, will be approximately £80 million.

    Mr. Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister, what are the (a) parliamentary and (b) other duties of the Deputy Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister: The First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister will answer in Parliament for the responsibilities of the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service), and undertake any other parliamentary duties as appropriate. On his duties more generally, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger).

     

    Consultants

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Breast Cancer

    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Prime Minister how many post cards he has received from the national post card campaign for breast cancer launched on 7 June.

    The Prime Minister: I have received a number of representations in connection with this campaign.

  • PMQT – 11 July 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study yesterday’s debate in Hansard –and not just my speech? Is he aware that, on the very day when the Leader of the Opposition was refusing to put a figure on a national minimum wage, his Social Security spokesman was assuming a rate of about £3 or £3.50 in the House?

    The Prime Minister: I have not yet read Hansard, but clearly I had better look at it very carefully, and I will. I did not know that which my hon. Friend stated, but if it is the case, I strongly suspect that the Leader of the Opposition knows that a minimum wage is economic nonsense but that he regards it as politically expedient. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make clear one day precisely the figure that he has in mind; he certainly owes it to the public to do so. Perhaps he will soon tell us.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree in principle that Members of Parliament should disclose their earnings from outside consultancies?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that a Select Committee is examining that matter. The Committee has reported, and I will do it the courtesy of awaiting its report.

    Mr. Blair: That was the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman’s own Committee. Does he accept the principle or not: yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: I told the right hon. Gentleman that I asked a Select Committee to examine the issue. When it has done so, I will deal with the matter.

    Mr. Blair: Is the Prime Minister really saying that the Committee cannot come up with an answer in eight weeks, or is it just a coincidence that the main recommendation on which it cannot agree a definition happens to be the main recommendation to which Conservative Members object? Is it not time that the Prime Minister asserted his authority? The Nolan report is the right hon. Gentleman’s report. He commissioned it and said that he accepted it, and he should ensure that the Government implement it in full without further delay.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s attempt to use this report as a political football is pretty transparent and pretty shabby. He knows that the Select Committee has made excellent progress. It has met 14 times in 14 days–more intensively than any Select Committee has met before. It is still considering these matters. It will report and then the House will make its decision, as I have said from the outset, on matters relating to Back Benchers.

     

    Q2. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that some 10 years ago the newspapers were obsessed with the money supply, trade figures and days lost through strikes? Is it not a tribute to this Government that the number of days lost through strikes last year was only 1 per cent. of the number lost in 1979? Is not the Leader of the Opposition somewhat naive to claim that the unions no longer have an armlock over his party, when old Labour is still waiting in the wings to support strikes and organise “boyocotts”?

    The Prime Minister: As a wise old policeman once said, there is no need for an armlock when the suspect comes along quietly. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has already offered the unions most of what they want–the social chapter, a minimum wage, new trade union rights–while his Front-Bench team enjoys the sponsorship of all trade unions. I think that, almost without exception, his Front-Bench team is sponsored in one form or another.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that, at this precise moment, the United Nations’ ultimate will is being tested by the Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica and that, on this occasion, if that will fails the United Nations’ mission in the front-line areas of Bosnia is likely to fail with it?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to the situation in Srebrenica. I can certainly confirm to him and the House that the situation is very serious. UN commanders on the ground have asked the Bosnian Serbs to release the UN protection force’s troops whom they have been holding and to halt their offensive.

    I can confirm to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman that that has not yet happened and that, at the direct request of UN commanders on the ground, close air support operations have been carried out by NATO aircraft near Srebrenica. It was in their operational judgement that air support was necessary for the protection of the contingent in Srebrenica as a result of the fact that the Bosnian Serbs had ignored the clear warnings given. I believe that the UN commanders on the ground were right. They deserve and will receive the full backing of this Government for their action.

    The situation in Srebrenica is certainly very serious indeed at the moment. Unless the warring parties are prepared soon to indicate that they are prepared to return to some form of discussion to reach a political settlement, there is no doubt that continuing fighting will put the future presence of the United Nations forces at risk.

    Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the widespread dismay among scientists and in universities at the transfer of the research councils to the Department of Trade and Industry? Will he confirm that his Government will continue to value fundamental research? Will he confirm that the research councils will continue to sustain the dual support system of university funding? Will he undertake to reconsider this decision, which abruptly overturns a policy developed after widespread consultation and announced in a White Paper only two years ago?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the role of the Office of Science and Technology is unchanged and that it will continue with the role that it has had over recent years. The transfer implies no reduction in our commitment to fundamental research or to the dual support system, and our policies remain as set out in the White Paper two years or so ago. That will continue, as will the technology foresight process.

    The purpose of the transfer is to strengthen–not weaken, but to strengthen –the contribution of science, engineering and technology to long-term wealth creation. With that in mind, the office is best situated in the Department of Trade and Industry.

     

    Q3. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Following the sorry spectacle of the Tory leadership election and the worn-out ritual of the reshuffle, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on retaining his post in the Government now run by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? When are we to be told what the First Secretary of State’s responsibilities are? When are we to have an opportunity to ask the First Secretary of State oral questions? Why after five years has the Prime Minister decided that he needs a deputy? If he does need such an insurance policy, why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary will support me across the full range of Government policies. He will have direct control over Government policy on competitiveness and deregulation, and he will answer questions in the House. He has a reputation for straight talking, as has the deputy leader of the Labour party. Indeed, both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have a reputation for robustly attacking the Labour leader, and I expect that to continue.

    Mr. Yeo: May I return to the crucial subject of the minimum wage? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who support it must be so desperate to suck up to their trade union paymasters that they do not care how many British jobs they destroy in the process? Does he also agree that any political party that advocates a minimum wage but cannot agree on what it should be is utterly unfit and unready for government?

    The Prime Minister: There seems to be some uncertainty and dithering about the minimum wage on the Opposition Front Bench. The Labour leader smiles; he may well smile, but I should rather hear an answer to the question “What will the minimum wage be?” than see him smile.

    The Labour leader has said:

    “Econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact.”

    What he means is that there will be job losses as a result of a minimum wage. The deputy Labour leader–engaging in the straight talking to which I referred a moment ago–has said there would be a jobs

    “shake-out . . . any silly fool knew that.”

    What he means is that there will be job losses. I know that; the right hon. Gentlemen know that; and the whole House knows that. As soon as we are told what the minimum wage will be–a point on which the Labour leader dithers and cannot make up his mind–we shall be able to calculate how many people will lose their jobs.

     

    Q4. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

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

    Mr. MacShane: Will the Prime Minister join our Commonwealth partners, Australia and New Zealand, in their opposition to the nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific?

    The Prime Minister: No, I will not.

    Mr. Dykes: If my right hon. Friend has time in the course of his busy day, will he send warm congratulations to the RUC in Northern Ireland on the sturdy way in which it has stood up to the wilder elements among the Orangemen? Is it not about time that these provocative and silly historical marches were banned?

    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the RUC on its restraint and professionalism in dealing with those incidents–and, indeed, with other recent incidents. I believe that it deserves the whole-hearted support of all hon. Members and all responsible leaders in Northern Ireland.

     

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

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

    Mr. Jamieson: Does the Prime Minister recall making a solemn promise in March 1993 to take action in regard to spiralling water charges in the south-west, where prices have doubled in the past two years? After two years of pondering the problem, will he tell the House how he will help consumers in the south-west–or is that another matter that he has referred to the Deputy Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his right hon. and hon. Friends whether they will cease pressing the Government to maintain the high standards of cleanliness and improvement in those waters that is giving rise to the charges. Perhaps the support given by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for European directives will indicate that he does not wish us to disobey the directives with which we are dealing. We have sought to cut charges by rearranging the speed of the capital expenditure that is taking place to assist people in the west country; that is the only way in which it is practicable to help.

     

    Q6. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 July.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend contrast his policy of improving services on the Northern line through increased investment with that of Jimmy Knapp of disrupting those services?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but there is a wider point. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) spoke up for water consumers. Why do he and his colleagues not speak up for rail passengers? Why are Opposition Members happy to support strikes on British Rail while they parade around claiming to be in favour of the consumer? The reality is that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers’ call for a strike on the underground– [Interruption.] I do not know which Opposition Front-Bench Member shouted then, but perhaps he or she is sponsored by the RMT. The RMT’s call for a strike on the underground will damage the progress that has been made by London Underground and will cause unnecessary misery and disruption to passengers. I return to the central point. How can the Opposition claim to speak for consumers while they ignore rail passengers and leave them to face the strikes without a single word of condemnation from their Front Benchers?

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q7. Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit Ayrshire.

    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.

    Mr. Donohoe: I am sure that the people of Ayrshire will be glad of that. May I turn the Prime Minister’s attention to the national health service and, in particular, to Ayrshire and Arran health board’s idea of taking all its services into the private sector and allowing companies from the United States to come in purely on the basis of profit? What has the Prime Minister got to say about that? How can he possibly say that the health service is safe in his hands?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, of the increased resources for the health service, the 1 million-plus extra patients treated by the health service and the better services being provided by the health service. He seeks yet again to trade politically on a health service that he knows is improving and is providing a better service than at any stage in the past–and a better service than any Labour Government could provide for the people of this country.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 July 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Judicial Appointments

    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in the last 10 years he has declined to pass on to Her Majesty recommendations from the Lord Chancellor’s Department in respect of senior appointments.

    The Prime Minister: It is on the basis of the Lord Chancellor’s advice that I make recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen for appointments to the senior judiciary, but the advice from the Lord Chancellor in respect of these appointments is a confidential matter, as is the use I make of it.

     

    Bank of England

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister in which periods since 1965 there has been a trade union leader as a member of the court of the Bank of England; what plans he has to appoint a successor to Sir Gavin Laird; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The following trade union leaders have been directors of the Bank of England since 1965; Sir William Carron, 1963 to 1969; Sir Sidney Greene, 1970 to 1978; Mr. Geoffrey Drain, 1978 to 1986; Sir Gavin Laird, 1986 to 1994. Members of the court are not appointed to represent particular institutions or organisations. The aim is always to appoint the best people to advise the Governor and other executive directors of the bank.

     

    Former Prisoners of War

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the Japanese Government since his visit to Japan in 1993 about examining whether non-governmental measures would assist in the provision of compensation for British prisoners of war; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have been in contact with successive Japanese Prime Ministers about these matters, including my present counterpart, Mr. Murayama. Although our proposal for a non-governmental foundation did not prove to be feasible, we are pursuing our discussions with the Japanese Government about other possible approaches. Those efforts will continue.

     

    Air Strikes (Bosnia)

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what consideration led to the decision not to carry out air strikes to protect the UN designated safe areas including the capital of Bosnia; what agreement has been reached with the Serbians regarding air strikes and the release of UN forces; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 28 June, Official Report, column 905, we certainly made no deals with the Bosnian Serbs over the release of the hostages. The UN and other Governments have stated clearly that they made no deals either. Air power remains an important option available to the commanders on the ground for protecting UN forces and enforcing relevant UN resolutions.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister what part (a) Gregor Mackay, (b) Sophie McEwen, (c) Rachel Whetstone and (d) Tim Collins have played as civil servants in the current Conservative party leadership campaign; and what restrictions apply to civil servants in these circumstances.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 July 1995]: The officials named are special advisers. Special advisers may take part in political activities of the sort described provided they do so during leave or in their own time in addition to fulfilling their normal duties.

     

    Ministerial Speeches

    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 June, Official Report , columns 445-46, if he will list all publications, published by Government Departments at public expense, which contain a collection of a Minister’s speeches, in the format recently produced by the Department of Transport–“Transport, the Way Ahead”.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 July 1995]: “Transport: The Way Ahead” was published by the Secretary of State as a consultation document. It includes a series of six speeches by my right hon. Friend which address central issues of transport policy on which views are invited.

    I am aware of two other recent departmental publications which include collections of ministerial speeches: “Progress through Partnership”, published by the Department of Health in February 1995, includes four speeches by the Secretary of State for Health. “Purchasing for Health: A Framework for Action”, published by the Department of Health in June 1993, includes three speeches by the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) as Minister of State together with one by the chief executive of the national health services.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Huntingdon – 7 July 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview, held in Huntingdon on Friday 7th July 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there were still divisions in the Conservative Party]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the prospects are now very bright. We have sorted out many of the problems that were there. I think there is a huge determination in the Party to unite. What must worry the Labour Party is a united Conservative Party. And that worries the Labour Party because it means the battle will resume on policies and not on the trivia that has dominated political debate for the past 2 years. And once we get into the question of policy, I believe Labour’s policies are ruinous for this country.

    People have no real wish to go towards socialism. They do not want the policies the Labour Party advocate. And now we are back on the policy debate, I think you will see a very rapid change in the fortunes of the Conservative Party.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do think Tony talks nonsense from time to time. If you actually look at the Labour Party’s European policy for example, the Labour Party have more dissenters on European policy than the Conservative Party.

    Tony Blair knows that very well. They have kept it very quiet. They have hidden it. They have managed to spend most of their time attacking the Conservative Party with soundbites. But the reality is that there is no unity in the Labour Party on that particular policy or many others. What Tony Blair is concerned about is that we will concentrate on policies such as education, where he would wish to deny choice. On health, where he would wish to reverse all our reforms and presumably stop a huge number of people being treated each year. On defence, where he would like to have another defence review; and no doubt cut defence in Europe where he is committed to a wholly federal European and we are not.

    Now there are very sharp differences on real interests to the British nation and what I have said right the way through this leadership campaign, and will say again, is that the British nation deserves a debate upon those issues and not the political claptrap about the Conservative Party from the Labour Party and from others that it has had over the past two or three years.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the Euro sceptics in the Conservative Party]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our European policy is now absolutely clear. I have spelt it out without a shred of doubt. That is my policy. That is the policy of the Cabinet. The policy of the Party. And it is certainly the policy that businesses wish to follow.

    There are differences on Europe in all the parties. If anybody thinks Tony Blair’s party is united on Europe, then I suggest they go and talk to some members of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

    Across the broad strands of policy there is now unity.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a great issue and it has always been a great issue. You can find just as many Labour members taking part in similar rallies. They are sitting back at the moment because they do not believe it is necessary to do so. This is one of the great issues of British politics. People will express their views on it. But the majority view is quite clear. I have expressed it and the Party have endorsed it.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have got a very good Cabinet now. A Cabinet that stretches across all strands of opinion in the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party is not a faction. The Conservative Party is a national party that embraces people of all sorts of background; of all sorts of interests who share the broad Conservative philosophy. That is the sort of Conservative Party I joined. That is the sort of Conservative Party I grew up in. And it is the sort of Conservative Party I lead.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the Luton riots]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have asked for a report on what happened in Luton during the last couple of nights. I do not yet have it and I would like to reserve comment until I have it.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Westminster – 7 July 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, held at a presentation meeting for the party leader, held at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Westminster, London, on Thursday 7th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s been a memorable fortnight.

    Challenges, walkouts, unprecedented rows.

    All at Wimbledon!

    And while that has been happening the Conservative Party has resolved its internal problems and prepared itself for unity.

    Mr Chairman, I have been a member of our party for all my adult lifetime.

    I was proud to work for it at constituency level.

    To be a Conservative Councillor.

    To be a Conservative Member of Parliament.

    To be a Minister in a Conservative Government.

    And to be Leader of our Party.

    So I feel greatly honoured to have been chosen again by my colleagues to lead it – and to have been given the greatest number of votes in a serious contest of any leader in its history.

    I intend to use those votes to fulfil the mandate I was given at the last election.

    And then, Mr Chairman, I intend to renew it at the next General Election.

    I wish to thank all those who helped my victory this week happen.

    Robert Cranborne and his team, who appeared from every part of our Party in Parliament and beyond, and who mounted such a superb campaign.

    They volunteered their time and energy to assist – and they did it magnificently.

    But, above all, the literally hundreds and hundreds of constituency associations and the thousands and thousands of party members who made their support of me so clear and decisive.

    Frankly, I preferred their correspondence to some people’s editorials.

    So, I am grateful to all those who supported me. But let me say this to those who did not.

    I am not a factional politician. The Government will continue to include and represent all parts of our Party.

    Conservatism is a broad river, fed by many streams. No part of our Party has a monopoly of wisdom.

    We are and we will remain a national party, with a message and an appeal to the broad masses of the British people.

    I believe that today the Conservative Party can face the future with renewed confidence.

    We’ve had a healthy debate – and cleared the air.

    And we’ve removed once and for all the distraction which had prevented for so long any opportunity of getting our real policies across to the public.

    As a result, our party can now be more united, more determined and more effective than at any time since the General Election.

    So let me tell you a little about our message – not in abstract generalities but in concrete examples.

    For months we have been looking at ways to take forward a radical Conservative agenda not just to the General Election but into the next millennium.

    This afternoon Gillian Shephard announced the introduction of vouchers to provide free nursery education places for all 4 year olds.

    Vouchers are a very Conservative idea.

    They put choice and power in the hands not of town hall bureaucrats, but of parents.

    They will spread opportunity not just to those who have parents who can afford to pay for nursery education, but to every parent of every 4 year-old in the land.

    And they enable there to be widespread provision not just in the state sector, but in the private and voluntary sectors too.

    Labour of course opposed this idea, just as they have opposed each and every education reform we have introduced.

    They opposed the National Curriculum – and now they say they were wrong.

    They opposed league tables – and now they say they were wrong.

    And they opposed tests – and now they say they were wrong.

    So just wait a few years. Today they oppose nursery vouchers.

    In three or four years’ time, Labour will be claiming that nursery vouchers were their idea all along.

    Our reforms of education took another big step forward yesterday with the merger of the Education and Employment Departments.

    As we approach the 21st century, we can no longer assume that people can stop learning at 16, 18 or even 21.

    The new merged Department reflects our understanding that if you are undertrained and underskilled you are more likely to be unemployed.

    We want people in work. So they need skills. And we took a major step forward yesterday in delivering my ambition for Britain to have the best qualified workforce in Europe by merging the Education and Employment departments.

    That is a vital part of building up skills for everyone. Of course, Labour opposed this change too. They gave us a typical 1930s cloth cap reaction.

    “You can’t care about the unemployed”, they said, “if you abolish the Employment Department”.

    What rot. It’s because we care for them that we’ve done it.

    Labour may see the unemployed as a special group who must be set aside from the rest of us and treated differently.

    I don’t. I see them as people – people who must be helped, encouraged and trained so that they can get a job as fast as possible.

    Under this Government unemployment has fallen by 600,000 in the last two years – further and faster than anywhere else in Western Europe.

    That is the best way to show that you care about the unemployed.

    You don’t do that by saddling this country with the burdens of the Social Chapter.

    And you don’t do it by imposing the job-destroying idiocies of a minimum wage.

    You do it, as we have done, by reducing the burden of regulation.

    By setting enterprise free.

    And, when it is in the British national interest to do so, by saying one short word to Brussels – No.

    Behind the day-to-day headlines Conservative policies are transforming Britain for the better. We need to carry those further – to develop and deepen those policies.

    Each month 41,000 new businesses start up. I want to entrench and expand that.

    Small businesses are the engines of growth for future wealth and employment.

    So we will hold a major series of conferences, starting this autumn, to listen to their needs and to [indistinct].

    And I am already convinced that when we can afford it, we should set our sights on the capital and inheritance taxes which act as a drag on enterprise. My aim is to see those taxes reduced, and if possible, abolished altogether. I make no promises when we can do that – but I do set it as an objective.

    Each week 3,500 homes are bought, 200 of them council homes.

    I want to see that accelerate – so that we have 1.5 million new home-owners over the next ten years.

    And, following our white Paper last week, we will introduce legislation to extend the Right To Buy still further to many Housing Association tenants. And we will help expand private investment in homes for rent too.

    As Conservatives, we spend huge sums on those in need. We never begrudge that. But we are determined to root out fraud and to encourage those who can provide for themselves to do so.

    Because no government which is serious about creating a platform of small government and low taxation can afford to ignore the challenges of the welfare budget.

    Peter Lilley has launched the biggest anti-fraud drive in the history of the social security system. And we have gone a long way to encourage self-provision in pensions.

    Now we need to go further – and we’re looking at proposals to make it easier for those who are wage-earners today to save and buy insurance to help provide care for themselves when they are tomorrow’s pensioners.

    Mr Chairman, this Party embarked on a path of radical reform in 1979.

    Unlike our opponents, we have not changed our principles or our values.

    This is still the only Party in Britain which believes in free enterprise, low taxes, individual liberty and responsibility, and a strong and proud nation.

    We now have a fresh team to take the fight to the enemy.

    Fighting hasn’t been easy over the last couple of years.

    Well, that will change.

    For we can now set out the very clear contrast between the two parties.

    Labour call for a Defence Review – but they mean deep new defence cuts. The country does not want that – and, Mr Chairman, I believe that our superb armed forces have earned the right to have a period of stability.

    Labour would deny choice in education for parents – with the exception, I suppose, of those Labour MPs who have exercised choice themselves and chosen to send their children to Grant Maintained Schools.

    Labour would reverse our health reforms – undermining the better patient care which Trust Hospitals are delivering, and taking away from GP fundholders their new freedoms.

    Labour have no economic policy targets for the level of tax, or for monetary policy. Ken Clarke wrote to Gordon Brown about all this – and has not received a reply. Why not?

    Tell us, Mr Brown. Can’t you read – or can’t you decide? Perhaps the new Department of Education and Employment has found its first client!

    And Labour’s badly thought-out devolution plans would threaten the very survival of the United Kingdom – just as their commitment to a federal Europe would undermine our sovereignty and destroy our independence.

    Mr Chairman, Labour offer us some very juicy targets.

    All of us. So let’s take aim at them. From every Minister in Whitehall to those on the real front line – the canvassers slogging up flights of steps in blocks of flats.

    Let’s have some fun ourselves.

    Switch the focus to Labour’s divisions. And wipe the smug smile off the face of the modern Labour Party.

    Mr Chairman, the Conservative Party, united, is the most powerful and effective political force in Europe.

    We have come through our time of trial – now we will be stronger and more united.

    We have the opportunity over the next two years to build on the strongest economic position our country has seen for decades.

    We have the chance to continue to roll back the state, to widen choice and opportunity for all and to bolster our country’s unity and standing in the world.

    We can now both explain our record and improve on it still further.

    The next General Election campaign beckons.

    The next Government will inherit the strongest economy this country has seen for very many years.

    We worked for it.

    We built it up.

    And I want us to inherit it. It’s in our hands.

    The choice is very clear.

    And last Tuesday we made it.