The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1997 General Election

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 28 February 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made on 28th February 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about whether there was time for the Conservatives to win the General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Certainly there’s not very long and people will I think for that reason begin to focus more sharply. If opinion doesn’t change then we are going to have a Labour Government, and people will have to realise what a Labour Government will mean. It’s not just a question of Mr Blair who has done nothing to help this country achieve its present circumstances except to oppose the policies that have done it, it’ll be Mr Prescott who says it’ll be stupid to publish their tax plans. It’ll be Mrs Beckett who wants to surrender all the trade union laws. Now that is what people will get if people get a Labour Government.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Party Rally – 22 February 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Party Rally, held in Birmingham on Saturday 22nd February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Introduction

    I am delighted to be here in Birmingham today.

    Birmingham is one of the great industrial cities of the world. It’s a superb shop window for the United Kingdom.

    Each year, the G7 group of industrial nations meets to discuss policy. In recent years, they’ve been joined by Russia. Next year, the United Kingdom will hold the presidency of the G7 taking over from the United States.

    I’ve decided that Britain will host next year’s G7 summit here in Birmingham. The great economic nations of the world will meet in one of the great industrial cities of the world.

    Between now and then, we must achieve something never done before – a fifth successive election victory.

    The question we’ll face is simple: “After 18 years, why 5 more?”

    Well the answer to that is easy: it’s because on all the main issues we’re right and – as usual – Labour is wrong.

    After the election the government will inherit the soundest economy Britain has known for generations.

    We built it and I intend we shall inherit it.

    The longest consistent fall in unemployment since Ted Heath was Prime Minister. The longest period of low inflation since Mr Churchill was Prime Minister. The lowest basic rate of income tax since Mr Baldwin was Prime Minister. The lowest level of strikes since – well, since Mr Gladstone was Prime Minister. Britain is becoming the economic success story of Europe.

    That’s a fact. You can’t hide it.

    These days Britain’s economic success is so obvious – even Labour daren’t deny it.

    So they claim it would be safe with them.

    Well, you have to admire their nerve; they opposed our spending plans, tax changes, privatisations, deregulation – they opposed every single policy that has delivered success.

    And then they claim they can carry forward the success of these policies.

    They also claim they can be trusted with the unity of Britain when their priority is to break it up into smaller parts.

    And they say they can be trusted on Europe, when their policy is to copy its mistakes.

    On three main election battlegrounds – the economy, Europe, the Constitution – Labour are wrong, wrong and wrong again.

    The Foot-in-the-Door Salesmen

    To understand what New Labour is all about, you need to put yourselves in Labour’s shoes. When you’ve been wrong all your life what do you do?

    Imagine the PR men’s advice.

    “Ditch your past. Don’t say what you’d do. Just say what you’re against. Avoid details. Dream up gimmicks for headlines. Copy Tory language. And – above all – don’t forget to smile”.

    New Labour is one great marketing scam. They only say what they are told the customer would like to hear. The exact characteristic of the foot-in-the-door salesman.

    Nothing is quite what it seems. It depends on who they’re speaking to.

    They are for grammar schools in the Wirral, but against them at the Party Conference. They are for lower taxes in The Times. But in favour of more spending in The Guardian. They are tough on crime in The Daily Mail. But soft on crime in the House of Commons. Put it altogether, and what do you get?

    The world’s first:

    Federalist – Nationalist,

    Unilateralist – Militarist,

    tax-cutting, more spending,

    grammar school loving, grammar school hating,

    socialist, non-socialist party.

    There’s an old story of a seasoned politician who was once asked what time it was by a voter.

    “What time would you like it to be?” he replied. That, in a nutshell, is New Labour policy.

    If it would win a vote, please a newspaper editor, satisfy a pressure group, Labour would say anything.

    If it would win two votes, they’d believe anything.

    And if it would win three votes, they’d do anything.

    They’re prepared to disregard the views of a lifetime in the briefing of a lunchtime.

    As day succeeds day, the fraud that is New Labour becomes more transparent.

    You can’t take at face value a word that Labour say. That’s why they’re so dangerous.

    The Labour Leader claims he and his Party have changed.

    Well the oratory has changed.

    But have Labour really changed?

    New Labour runs Liverpool – the council with the highest Council Tax. No change there.

    New Labour runs Sheffield – the council with the largest number of empty homes. No change there.

    And, of course, New Labour runs Islington, the council with the worst education results in England. No change there.

    Mr Blair says – and I quote, “I don’t think the character of any party becomes clear until you’re in power”.

    Let’s take his word for it. In all these councils New Labour are in power.

    And what do we see?

    New Labour – same old story.

    One thing is clear, locally or nationally, you can’t trust Labour with Britain’s future.

    Why Five More Years

    But why does Britain need five more years of Conservative Government?

    Not just to protect what we’ve achieved but because there’s much to be done.

    In the 80s and early 90s we curbed inflation, extended private ownership, began to reform our schools and hospitals, toughened up the law.

    We should be confident and proud of what we’ve done.

    In the Tory years, the quality of life has been transformed.

    No other Party would have attempted it – let alone achieved it.

    But the Conservative reforms aren’t over – not by a long chalk.

    Now we must carry them forward.

    What is it people are still concerned about?

    Where are the areas that still need reform?

    They’re the areas where the state still has too much control.

    Where the consumer is swamped by bureaucracy and the individual is forgotten.

    Education

    Take education.

    I believe parents have a simple wish: to know that when they send their children to school, that school – paid for by their taxes – will give their children a decent education.

    They should be able to count on that.

    After years of reform, our Manifesto will give them a Guarantee of Standards. The first pillar will be tests.

    In the next Parliament we’ll test children at 7, 11 and 14.

    We’ll publish the results so that parents can see how their children are progressing, and teachers can discover how much their pupils have learnt.

    And we’ll change the way tests are marked, so children get scores out of 100. I think you’ll agree that’s common sense.

    It’s also common sense that every child is different.

    So we will go on creating a range of schools, breaking up the drab slab of a solely comprehensive system.

    More grant-maintained schools.

    More specialist schools.

    And, yes, more grammar schools.

    If that’s what parents like, that’s what parents will get. Labour can’t bear any of this.

    They wriggle, they writhe. They twist, they turn.

    Never mind watching their lips – watch the agony on their faces as they perform their lingual gymnastics, trying to hide their hatred for choice and their dislike of diversity.

    Grant-maintained schools, grammar schools, assisted places – we Conservatives believe in extending choice, not opposing it. It’s the basis of our philosophy.

    And how Labour detest it.

    But choice is meaningless unless it’s a choice of good schools.

    A choice of bad schools is no choice at all and, tragically, in some Labour education authorities, that’s all you get.

    We can already take over schools that are failing their children, but sometimes the problem isn’t just with the school – it’s with the education authority itself.

    So where education authorities are failing, we’ll create new powers to take them over to drive up standards.

    Labour will say, “But you have had 18 years to sort out education. Why has it taken so long?”

    That’s rich, coming from them. Who’s opposed all our reforms? Labour. And here’s a fact for the doorstep.

    The twenty education authorities with the worst education results are, without exception, traditional Labour authorities.

    It’s their attitudes and their schools that have been failing our children.

    So, after the election, I intend to ask the Government’s watchdog on standards – OFSTED – to examine, in turn, every single one of those failing education authorities.

    We’ll improve them if we can, and replace them if we can’t.

    We’re going to join the parents’ revolt against Labour education.

    And if you don’t think there’s a revolt around ask them in Islington.

    43 per cent of Islington’s parents agree.

    They send their children to secondary schools outside the borough.

    Some of them are rather well known parents.

    43 per cent.

    Parents running from councils like Islington.

    Socialist-run councils – with Socialists running away from them, as fast as they can.

    The People versus the Planners

    That’s socialists for you.

    Well-intentioned, but in love with controlling things.

    But just look at our inner cities, choked by the dead hand of socialist planning.

    We’ve brought in private investment and enterprise. And that public-private partnership is transforming what were once no-go areas for jobs and business.

    But the toughest challenge still remains: large housing estates, soulless blocks where the only sense of community was snuffed out long ago, that have become deserts of despair.

    Parties of every colour built them, thinking they were the right way ahead.

    But they’ve become places where poor education, drugs, crime have created a vicious downward spiral.

    Where people live dependent on the state, but are let down by local councils who own their homes.

    Where the worst poverty is poverty of hope.

    These estates are concrete proof that the old way – of hoping the state and councils can provide for all our needs – has failed.

    These people deserve the chance to rebuild their communities and their lives.

    Ours is a fresh approach, giving tenants the opportunity to vote to transfer their homes to new landlords.

    This is People Power – giving people the chance to control their own lives.

    To create a new community.

    It isn’t just bricks and mortar that matter. It’s training and jobs, raising education standards, tackling crime.

    It’s the community itself.

    Our commitment is to transform the worst estates across the whole of the country and the lives of those who live on them.

    We won’t solve it in a year – or even a Parliament.

    But it can be done and will be done – by the next Conservative Government.

    Just this week, we announced that tenants on 40 housing estates stand to benefit from millions of pounds to help the private sector transform 22,000 homes.

    22,000 homes.

    22,000 families.

    I bet you didn’t read about that in your newspapers.

    It probably didn’t merit a headline in some.

    But that’s the reality of life in Conservative Britain.

    As Britain grows stronger, more and more people are beginning to feel the warmth of prosperity touch their lives, whoever they are, wherever they live.

    That’s why Labour have to knock it.

    A week doesn’t pass without them kicking their favourite political football – the National Health Service.

    Just look at the service they attack.

    More patients being treated than ever before.

    Shorter waiting times.

    Better treatment.

    Why is our health service such a success?

    Not just because we’re spending more on it, though we are.

    But because we’re giving the money to the hospitals and doctors themselves who know best how to use it.

    Under Labour, bureaucracy would come back at the stroke of a pen.

    They’d strip hospitals and family doctors of their freedoms and smother them with new layers of bureaucracy.

    Our modern health service would be thrown into turmoil as Labour pushed it back to its bad old ways.

    That’s not the way we should go.

    We’re going to give more freedom to doctors and nurses. They’ll be able to offer more care in surgeries and nearer home.

    And – where they want to – create a new generation of cottage hospitals, so patients can be treated by professionals they know in their own community.

    And the same applies to our social services.

    We’re going to end the politically correct regulations, which stopped couples who want to adopt children from doing so.

    Regulations like this might sound petty. But to a couple who long to raise a family they can, quite literally, stand in the way of making a lifetime’s dreams come true. That’s the heart of the matter.

    Politically correct beliefs that prevent this don’t fit into the British way of life.

    The Constitution

    Britain’s progress – our prosperity, widening choice, opportunity – depends on one thing: stability.

    Labour’s plans for Britain would rip up our nation’s fabric up by the roots. “The most radical” constitutional change our country has ever seen, they boast.

    A tax raising parliament in Scotland.

    An assembly in Wales.

    A splattering of regional assemblies across England.

    And a referendum on changing the voting system to PR.

    Why in the name of sanity do they want to start cutting up this country of ours? Why risk Britain’s success?

    Devolution is the ransom Labour would pay to buy off the voices of separation. But it wouldn’t buy them off – it would just build up their appetite.

    Then there’s PR. That’s the price they’d pay for the support of the Liberal Democrats. Why else does Mr Blair want a referendum on PR? He says he’s against PR and against referendums.

    The constitution, the Union, British history – they are all pawns to New Labour.

    No price is too high.

    Nothing too sacred.

    Labour are after votes – at any price.

    “What’s the point of history? What relevance has that to the future” they say. “New Labour, no history”.

    Well, Mr Chairman – let’s make New Labour old history.

    We treasure the stability and security of our Constitution.

    Careful reform that builds for tomorrow – yes. Reckless change – no.

    The Labour leader hasn’t the first idea how his plans would work. He’s like a weak contestant on Mastermind.

    “Name?” “Tony Blair.”

    “Occupation?” “Demolition specialist.”

    “Subject?” “British Constitution.”

    Would Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster be able to vote on matters affecting England, but not Scotland?

    “Pass.”

    If someone from Birmingham was employed by a Scottish company, would they pay the tartan tax?

    “Pass.”

    Why should Scotland get a tax-raising parliament, but Wales only an assembly. What have the Scottish done to deserve such a fate? Why not trust the Welsh?

    “Pass.”

    Would regional assemblies duplicate the power of local government and Westminster?

    “Pass.”

    And so it goes on, and so on, and so on.

    “At the end of that round, Mr Blair, you were asked twenty questions – and you passed on them all”.

    Labour haven’t begun to think through the implications of their plans. And yet this would be their priority for government.

    The last Labour Government fell, tied up in knots of devolution.

    It was a complete failure. That’s where Old Labour stopped. And this is where New Labour would begin.

    That’s not a route map for Britain’s tomorrow. It’s a masterplan for disaster. And it’s deadly.

    Europe

    And if devolution wasn’t enough, there’s Europe.

    Here Labour would damage both our economy and our constitution.

    They want us to follow the European way of doing things – the European Social Model.

    It’s that old-fashioned approach: you pretend governments can protect jobs by imposing regulations and burdens on business.

    All Labour have done is dress it up in new words: stakeholding. Social justice, social partnership.

    New words to try to camouflage reality.

    But they can’t.

    Over 4 million Germans, over 3 million French and about 3 million Italians know that. They’re all unemployed.

    That’s over 10 million people in Europe without a stake in a job.

    Where’s the social justice in that?

    They have a message that Labour should listen to.

    “Give us our jobs back.”

    And unless we want to lose jobs in the same way, Britons should listen too.

    Labour tells us we shouldn’t be isolated in Europe.

    Translated, that means “You may be getting back to work in Britain, but really you should be joining your European colleagues on the dole”.

    By signing the Social Chapter and inflicting a minimum wage, Labour would conscript British youngsters into the growing army of the European unemployed.

    That’s the message: if you want to get people into jobs don’t give one to a Labour MP.

    And that’s only part of the picture.

    Labour wish to undermine our veto and hand more power to the European Union.

    They’re prepared to ransack the Westminster Parliament of its power.

    Some would go to Edinburgh; some to Cardiff; some to the regions; and some to Europe. Parliament could keep what’s left.

    A United Kingdom reduced to regions, each competing one against another, with no one voice, no common cause, no national purpose.

    A Europe of the Regions, the Europe so beloved of Robin Cook.

    This surely cannot be the future for us.

    To consign it to the long list of failed, discredited policies New Labour, Old Labour, any old Labour have to their name.

    We don’t take this position because focus groups say so. Nor out of party political advantage.

    We do so because we believe what Labour is proposing threatens this United Kingdom of ours with change on an unprecedented scale.

    Peroration

    We should be more confident as a nation about what we’ve done, what we are, what we stand for.

    If I had one wish, it would be that we could see ourselves as others see us.

    As one of the most secure democracies in the world. An outstanding success story. A nation enjoying a renaissance in enterprise.

    Behind us lie 18 years of building the foundations for rising prosperity.

    When we came to power in 1979, Britain was derided as the sick man of Europe. Today we are admired as the success story of Europe.

    The spirit of hope is around and growing by the day.

    We must build on that and broaden the smile across the face of Britain. We have a tale to tell that cannot be denied.

    Let’s not put it at risk.

    The polling booth is not a casino. Not a place to gamble with Britain’s future. It’s the opportunity to secure our future.

    An opportunity we Conservatives have created, and only we can build on.

  • PMQT – 20 February 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. O’Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. O’Hara: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite all the Government’s attempts to massage and manipulate the figures, national health service waiting lists are again at record levels? There is a waiting list of 179,000 in my area of the north-west alone. Could it just be that the Government’s policy of replacing 50,000 nurses with 20,000 managers and doubling the price of bureaucracy has something to do with this crisis?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken.

    Mr. Mackinlay: No, he is not.

    The Prime Minister: Yes he is, and I will explain precisely why.

    Waiting lists are broadly the same as last year. They have fallen very dramatically during the present Parliament. If the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O’Hara) would care to look at the figures for the period before the health reforms and the patient’s charter, he will see that more than 200,000 people had waited for more than a year, of whom 80,000 had waited for more than two years. At the end of December, only 2 per cent. of patients-–22,000-–had been waiting for more than a year, and the number who had waited for more than 18 months was down to 123.

    The fact is that more people are being treated, they are being treated more swiftly, and they are being treated better.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that last month the Treasury repaid £6,000 million of debt? Will he also confirm that, if anyone sought to spend an extra £30,000 million of public money, they could do so only by increasing taxes, increasing borrowing and increasing interest rates, all of which would put an end to the economic recovery that is the envy of the whole of the rest of western Europe?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct on both counts. Certainly, if anything remotely approximating to £30,000 million were spent in the next Parliament in addition to current spending plans, taxes and interest rates would rise, and I have no doubt that it would have very severe effects on the economy as a whole. As for debt, I was delighted to see that £6 billion had been repaid in the past month-–

    Mr. Skinner: Who put it up?

    The Prime Minister: I will just remind the hon. Gentleman that we have a lower debt ratio than any other major economy in Europe. I will remind him that, in every single year since we came to power, the debt ratio has been lower than in any single year in which he supported a Labour Government.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that although, of course, the Government are hostile to a single currency on a non-convergent basis, the Government-–I quote the Chancellor-–

    “doesn’t have a hostile attitude to the single currency . . . The position remains that we have an open option.”

    Those words were repeated by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister repeat those words and say that he agrees specifically with his Chancellor and his Deputy Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, if there were not arguments in both directions, we would not have kept our options open. Of course I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has said in very clear terms that he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will he disown Conservative central office, which has been briefing that, in effect, he has closed the option of joining a single currency?

    The Prime Minister: No one has been briefing to that effect. The Cabinet set out its position some time ago. It has been reaffirmed on a number of occasions. I reaffirm it again today. It was set out perfectly clearly. The right hon. Gentleman can forget the minor textual exegesis and stick with the facts: that the policy was set out perfectly clearly and that that remains the policy. I hope that the leader of the Labour party might now care to examine the different statements of members of his shadow Cabinet over recent weeks.

     

    Q3. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the superb and often inadequately recognised work carried out by the Prince of Wales’s group of charities? Quite apart from offering practical help to more than 150,000 young people, it has established more than 60,000 jobs. Will my right hon. Friend endorse the project that I visited in my constituency this week, where the Prince’s Trust rehabilitated a park? By such projects young people take practical steps to serve their local community, while at the same time establishing self-reliance.

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that. Voluntary service plays a very important part in the fabric of life in this country, and I know of no nation in the world in which the sum total of voluntary service matches that of the United Kingdom. The work done by the Prince’s Trust and other voluntary bodies is absolutely magnificent, and the Government will continue to give their support to it.

    Mr. Ashdown: Let us see. Last week, the Health Secretary told us that the Conservatives would abolish a Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Secretary said, oh no, they would not. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government were hostile to a single currency and the Chancellor said, oh no, they were not. Has it yet occurred to the Prime Minister what is so plain and evident to everybody else-–that his divided Cabinet has given up fighting for the interests of the country and has started instead to fight for his job after the election?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s commitment openly and certainly honestly-–I concede that-–to put up the rate of income tax will certainly help to keep me here on this Bench after the election.

    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does not my right hon. Friend have sympathy for the victims of the failed cultural revolution? In Islington, for example, it is estimated that up to 50 per cent. of children are educated outside the borough. What does he have to say to those poor parents who are now driven to flee from a Labour administration and become educational refugees across the face of London?

    The Prime Minister: I think that it was the leader of the Labour party who said, “You can’t tell what a Government is like until it is in power.” In Islington, Labour is in power, and my hon. Friend points out vividly what it is like. If parents are fleeing Islington, as we understand they are, it certainly is a new version of the term “school run”.

     

    Sanctions (Libya)

    Q4. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the consequences for (a) the imposition of sanctions on Libya and (b) the case against Libyan nationals of the dismissal of James Thurman from the service of the United States Government.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. The case against the two accused Libyans does not depend on any evidence that Mr. Thurman might give.

    Mr. Dalyell: Has Thurman been reassigned to other duties for fabricating forensic evidence?

    The Prime Minister: I am certainly not aware that that is the case. If the hon. Gentleman has any information that it is, or any information that he thinks bears on this matter-–

    Mr. Dalyell: It is in the New York Times.

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am not an avid and daily reader of the New York Times. If he has any information that is pertinent to this case, and would care to provide me with it, I will certainly undertake to have it carefully examined.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As senior Scottish advocates have said that it would be impossible for the two accused to have a fair trial in Scotland because of press publicity, and as the Libyan Government have now stated that they will hand over the two accused to the Arab League for committal to trial in The Hague or anywhere else, would it not help those who lost their relatives and friends at Lockerbie to have the issue resolved? My right hon. Friend is, as we all know, basically a straight, decent person, so will he endeavour to solve the problem and stop simply engaging in the throwing of insults? Could we not solve it in the interests of those who lost their relatives and friends at Lockerbie?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly want a solution to this problem. We would like a solution as much as the relatives, but we need a proper criminal trial and there are genuine and practical difficulties in trying to establish such a trial in a third country. I think that many hon. Members, including-–if my hon. Friend will permit me to say so-–me, would, on grounds of principle, find a trial in a third country very difficult to accept. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] I shall tell hon. Members why. It could suggest that a trial in Scotland or the United States would not be fair.

    I am not prepared to accept that premise in terms of a trial in Scotland. Nor do I think that it would be remotely attractive for us to allow alleged terrorists to dictate where they may or may not be tried. That would be a bad principle. The Security Council resolutions say that they should be tried in Scotland or the United States-–two countries with a particular interest in the matter.

    I have to add that I am very doubtful that the Libyans would deliver the accused for such a trial, even if one were to be set up, but, for the reasons that I have set out, the trial should be either in Scotland, which would be the preference, or in the United States.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Prime Minister share my genuine concern about the outrageous activities of the directors of Camelot in attempting to take gambling on the lottery into every home in the land and extend their links with rather devious gambling projects abroad? Would it not be possible for him to stop this development? Otherwise, he will leave a legacy of children who were brought up in the midst of gambling mania.

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the lottery is very tightly regulated and there will be no changes to the structure or content of the constituent games without the specific involvement of the director general. The Government have no intention of allowing the good name of the lottery to be jeopardised. I think that the hon. Gentleman would share my pleasure at the sheer scale of the resources produced by the lottery for good causes. Today, for example, the heritage lottery fund is awarding £140 million to 24 of the nation’s best loved museums.

    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that efficient professional administration is vital to the success of the national health service? Does he recall that, when we decided to modernise the system by getting rid of the whole regional tier of NHS bureaucracy, the Labour party was against it? What does he therefore think of its promises to save money on NHS bureaucracy?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that there were substantial savings to be made by the abolition of the regional health authority tier, and that those savings were opposed by the Labour party. The health service is one of the most efficient health services in the world and, in terms of management expenditure, it is now 25 per cent. more efficient than in 1979.

     

    Electoral Registration

    Q6. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce proposals to encourage registration on supplementary lists of those missing from electoral registers before the announcement of the date of the general election.

    The Prime Minister: I see no need to do so. The vast majority of eligible electors are registered and a well-established claims procedure exists for those who are not.

    Mr. Barnes: Why will the Government not publish the number of people who are currently on electoral registers? What have they got to hide? Are the figures as bad as they were last year, when at least 2 million people were missing from the registers? Why cannot we have a massive campaign to put people on supplementary lists, which could be added to lists of those who are eligible to vote at the general election? The Halifax building society organised a massive campaign for what it called its “big vote”. The general election is the biggest vote of all, and all our people should be entitled to exercise their vote.

    The Prime Minister: I, of course, agree with that. The Conservative party has done all it can to ensure that people are registered to vote at the general election. As for the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked, the 1996 electoral registers for the United Kingdom contained just under 44 million names-–the highest number ever. New registers came into force on 16 February, and the figures for them should be available by the end of March.

  • PMQT – 6 February 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

    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.

    Dr. Jones: The Prime Minister will know, because I gave him advance notification of this question, that, last year, the Secretary of State for Health visited my constituency to open the new £7.5 million trauma and burns unit at Selly Oak hospital. People were relieved because they thought that, at last, the future of the hospital was secure, but now there is again talk of its closure. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be barmy to close those brand-new facilities and those in the sister Queen Elizabeth hospital? Does he realise that local people do not trust his Government on health–especially when they know that the Secretary of State for Health does not rely on the NHS and takes out private health insurance?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice, an hour or so ago, that she proposed to ask that question and I have made some inquiries in the interim. I understand that the health authority is examining how best to deliver patient services. That is part of a process that, as the hon. Lady will concede, is in the interests of the health service in her region and has already resulted in improved care, more in-patients, more out-patients and more day care.

    On the specific point, I understand that the trust has taken no such decisions and that local media items have been misleading. If, at any stage in the future, substantial plans for change were to be made, they would at that stage have to be subject to full public consultation.

    Mr. Deva: Does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the inspired decision to give passports to 5,000 stateless south Asians in Hong Kong? Does he recognise that those families are major wealth creators in Hong Kong and that, as British passport holders, they will enable Britain to become not only the enterprise centre of Europe, but the enterprise centre of the whole world?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I made it clear when I went to Hong Kong last year that I wanted the ethnic minorities to be assured about their future. I am aware of the widespread concern that there has been in both Houses, as well as in Hong Kong, about their nationality status. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has therefore decided that they can register as British citizens, with a right to abode here after 30 June. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority–perhaps even all–will continue to reside in Hong Kong, where they will continue to have a right of abode, but they were potentially stateless and they now have a nationality.

    Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, since he became Prime Minister, he has doubled the national debt?

    The Prime Minister: I can also confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that there is not a single economy in Europe that can match our performance. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to see debt rise further, and to see the British economy fail rather than succeed, he should follow the policies of the social model to which he is committed in Europe, with the results that we have seen in Europe.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps for once we can get a straight answer to a straight question. We now pay out on interest payments on debt every year more than we spend on law and order and transport put together. Can the Prime Minister just answer that simple question? Can he confirm that, since he became Prime Minister–he is the only Prime Minister since the war of which this can be said–he has doubled the national debt? Yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman spent the whole of the recession encouraging us to spend money to assist people in need. [Interruption.] He invites us to do one thing one day and something quite different the other. He says different things abroad and at home. At least on this occasion he seems to be seeking to quote me, not President Clinton.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps I can quote the right hon. Gentleman again. Does he not recall saying that he would be the Prime Minister who would balance the budget? Does he not recognise–[Hon. Members: “Oh.”]

    They complain about us. We have been trying to save the Government money over the past few weeks while he and his rag-bag of outgoing Ministers have been spraying around the post-dated cheques like there was no tomorrow. [Interruption.] Is that not true? Record borrowing, record tax increases and still they cannot run decent public services. Is that not typical of the Tories–unfair and incompetent in equal measure?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose there was never a chance that the right hon. Gentleman was going to debate the real issues of today, on which the shadow Chancellor has landed him in such trouble. I will tell him about the–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I really am getting very weary of barracking from a sedentary position, particularly from Front-Bench Members.

    Mr. Skinner: That puts me in the clear.

    The Prime Minister: I can for once agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner): he is not barracking from the Front Bench, and I doubt that he ever will be.

    The comparisons I can safely offer the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) are comparisons between this country’s performance on unemployment and that of every other country in Europe; this country’s performance on the recovery and that of every other country in Europe; this country’s performance on exports and that of other countries; and this country’s performance on manufacturing exports and that of other countries. The right hon. Gentleman should acknowledge just for once the success of British industry, the British economy and the British nation, instead of trying to do it damage.

    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Britain is attracting more investment from throughout the world than any other European country? Is it not the case, however, that the social chapter would destroy jobs and drive out investment? What advice will he give to business leaders who have been invited to shell out £7,500 to attend a fund-raising banquet hosted by the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister: Seven thousand, five hundred pounds for a meal with the Leader of the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition seems deeply engaged in conversation. He is perhaps persuading the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to cough up and come to the luncheon.

    Mr. Ashdown: I was interested to hear the Prime Minister admit in his previous answer that the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong were potentially going to be left stateless, as he specifically denied that in answer to a question that I asked him along those lines three months ago. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Yes, he did.

    On the issue of public service pay, is it not now perfectly clear that the Government are trying to take fair pay for our nurses and teachers and turn it into yet another exercise in political point scoring for the general election? Are we expected seriously to believe that a Government who can find £1 billion to pay their own private consultants and advertisers cannot fund a modest pay rise for teachers that is perfectly affordable and a pay rise for nurses that has already been budgeted for?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait a few minutes for the decisions on public sector pay, which will be fair to the public sector and fair to the taxpayer. If he says that that is entirely affordable, why is he promising to put up tax by a penny in the pound to pay for the teachers? Why is he planning to do that? The right hon. Gentleman does not know what the decisions are, does not understand the issues and yet again asks questions based on utter nonsense.

    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment to compare the position of a manufacturer in my constituency with that of his German competitor, who happens to be a friend? The German manufacturer in Bavaria is required to give each employee, every year, 29 days holiday, and an additional 13 days holiday for the religious holidays, which is more than eight weeks holiday in the year. Furthermore, it is sometimes the habit for people to arm themselves with a medical certificate and spend three weeks at Baden Baden.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend points to the different costs of the social model in Europe and the impact that that has had on unemployment.

    Mr. Mackinlay: The Germans are very successful.

    The Prime Minister: There is an increase of half a million in German unemployment. I doubt whether those half a million Germans consider that very successful. Business costs across Europe are costing jobs. For every £100 spent on wages in Britain, there is an extra £15 for non-wage costs. In Germany that figure is £31, in France £41 and in Italy £44. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) may shake his head, but those are the facts of the matter. That is why business men across Europe–including, for example, the head of the German firm BASF–have said in the past few days:

    “Britain is the best place in Europe to invest.”

     

    Q2. Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Cummings: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the doctors and nursing staff at St. Benedict’s hospice in Sunderland on their pioneering integrated assessment of palliative care, which has been acclaimed internationally? While recognising the importance of the voluntary and charitable sectors in supporting hospices, what steps is he taking to ensure a national policy on hospice care?

    The Prime Minister: I do not know the particular details of St. Benedict’s. From what the hon. Gentleman says, its staff have clearly done an outstanding job. If that is true, I am happy to add my congratulations to them and to the hospice movement as a whole. I have had the opportunity of knowing personally of the remarkable work done by the hospice movement, which is truly astonishing. It has the Government’s support and will continue to have it.

    Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend find time between now and 1 May to visit the Vale of Glamorgan–a particularly interesting constituency–in order to see for himself the benefits of low taxes, low inflation, the absence of the social chapter, and deregulation in attracting inward investment to south Wales?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend offers me an extremely enticing invitation, which I shall carefully consider. Were I to take the opportunity of visiting every part of the United Kingdom that had had substantial inward investment, it would probably take me until 1 May next year, because of the Government’s remarkable success in encouraging inward investment, as a result of the policies that we have followed over recent years.

     

    Q3. Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister try to answer the question that he failed to answer on Tuesday? Can he give a categorical assurance that the Wirral, South by-election will take place on 27 February–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have called the Wirral, South by-election, and whatever ingenious ways he tries to produce to entice me to tell him the date of the general election, he will have to wait. The election in Wirral is proceeding.

     

    Q4. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rise of nearly half a million in German unemployment in January is graphic proof that, as he said in Brussels this week, one signature on the European social chapter is half a million British signatures on the dole? Is not the British approach to competitiveness under the Government working, while the European social chapter, so advocated and loved by the Labour party, is not?

    The Prime Minister: It is undeniable that the social model has contributed substantially to unemployment across Europe. The average level of unemployment in Europe is 3.5 per cent. above the rate here. My estimate of an extra half a million unemployed, were we to go down that route is, if anything, an under-estimate and not an over-estimate. A moment ago, I quoted the German head of BASF. I could of course have quoted the head of the Dutch business association who said:

    “The British way is best.”

    He went on:

    “There is absolutely no need for a Europe wide set of rules.”

  • PMQT – 28 January 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government’s continued support for successful schools? Will he sympathise with the head teachers and governors of St. Olave’s and the London Oratory schools who will have difficulty in expanding their schools, even to accommodate more children of hypocritical Labour Front Benchers, if the Opposition have their way?

    The Prime Minister: I can assure the House that we will press ahead with our plans to allow successful schools to expand, either before or after the general election. Last night, the Opposition voted to deny other parents the choice, and some children the opportunities, that they themselves enjoy. Our aim is to raise standards: they apparently peddle double standards.

    Mr. Blair: I see now: it is now our fault that they cannot run a halfway competent Government. Why does the Prime Minister not simply call a halt to what is the fag end of a burnt-out Government? They have no legislative programme left and the country is tired of waiting: March–not March; May–not May. If they are so confident, why does not the Prime Minister, just for once, put a stop to the dithering, name the day and call a general election?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman clearly is not aware of the importance of the legislation that he has just dismissed. He clearly does not want the legislation against crime that we are proposing. He clearly does not want the tougher sentences that we are proposing and he certainly does not want the educational choice for everyone that he himself has enjoyed.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Whenever the general election comes, will my right hon. Friend promise that, when he leads our party into it, he will not pledge to spend £30 billion more on public expenditure while at the same time saying that there will be no increase in taxation?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that we will not have £30 billion-worth of spending pledges. The Labour party is very keen to reassure people that it would not raise taxes, but it has not yet withdrawn the £30 billion-worth of spending pledges that make it inevitable that it will raise taxes, and it has not yet managed to school its Front-Bench spokesmen out of promising more expenditure on every occasion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Miller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Mr. Miller: I remind the Prime Minister of his words at Question Time on 28 January 1992, as this is the fifth anniversary of his pledge not to increase value added tax. Will he apologise to the millions of pensioners who this winter have had to pay the VAT that he imposed on their gas and electricity bills?

    The Prime Minister: As the–[Hon. Members: “Answer.”] I propose to answer.

    The hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind that his windfall tax will impose just such a tax on utilities, on electricity and gas, and on pensioners, but the Labour party does not have the courage to say how much it will be. It says that it will raise and spend the money, but it does not say on whom it will be levied or how much it will be. If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about VAT, perhaps he can stop what he knows to be the wholly untruthful smear campaign about our future plans on value added tax.

    Mr. Marland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not, and never has been, his intention to impose VAT on Severn bridge tolls–[Laughter.]–and that, contrary to what the new Labour candidate for Forest of Dean says, it was not the Government’s idea, but that of the European Transport Commissioner, who is a former leader of the British Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that. Perhaps if Opposition Members had listened to my hon. Friend before they began scoffing, they would have seen the trap opening in front of them. It certainly remains our view that tolls are not subject to value added tax, and we are opposed to the European Commission’s view that they should be–a view that I believe is held by Commissioner Kinnock.

     

    Q3. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Mr. Winnick: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the present right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) on his honesty? He said in an interview on Friday that it was most unlikely that the Government would be re-elected. Is that not the real reason why the Prime Minister is so terrified of calling the general election and clings desperately to office day by day? Does he consider it dignified to carry on to the very last moment so that he can stay at No. 10?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that we have the most successful economy, with the highest growth and the best inward investment record, in western Europe. None of the socialist Governments in Europe can begin to match that record, which people are understanding more and more as day succeeds day.

    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the countries that form the United Kingdom–Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland–although proud entities in themselves, would count for nothing in the world as individual, separate nations? Will he therefore assure the House that his Government will never follow the lead of the Labour party in proposing constitutional changes that would lead to the break-up of this United Kingdom and provide the perfect scenario for our component countries to be nothing more than provinces in a federal Europe?

    The Prime Minister: The shadow Foreign Secretary seems to think that we are heading for a Europe of the regions. I strongly disagree with that view. I believe that the United Kingdom is at its strongest while it remains united and I fear that the policies proposed by the Opposition parties–to be fair, not merely the Labour party but the Liberal Democrats as well–would lead to Scotland leaving the UK. Were that to happen, it would damage not only Scotland, but each of the other parts of the United Kingdom as well. It is a policy that should be opposed and we will oppose it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Rooney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Mr. Rooney: Does the Prime Minister recall his pledge, which was apparently reiterated by the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, to phase out mixed-sex wards? What condolences will he give to my constituents who have found that the Bradford Hospitals NHS trust has reopened and created two mixed-sex wards in the past month?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman recalls, it was this Government who, in 1995, gave patients the right to be told before admission if it was planned that they would be cared for in a mixed-sex ward. The Labour party did not seem to bother about that at all when in office. We decided to take action. We are monitoring the process. The health authorities will report back by the end of next month with individual timetable plans for separating male and female patients–timetable plans for action that the Opposition ignored for years.

    Sir Roger Moate: On the vote last night on grant-maintained schools, does my right hon. Friend recall the remarks of the Labour education spokesman, who said:

    “I am having no truck with left-wing, middle-class parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area”?

    Should we check the Division list from last night, to find out whether the Leader of the Opposition voted in his own interests or those of his party?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot imagine about whom the shadow education spokesman was speaking, but I gather that there was a miscount last night and the Government were not defeated in that Division. No doubt the usual channels are sorting out the position now. What is important is not Labour’s student union ambush of last night, but what it shows about Labour party policy, which is that Labour Members will enjoy choice and opportunity for themselves, but will come together as an act of policy and vote against it for people who happen not to be Labour Members of Parliament.

    Mr. Loyden: Instead of spending public money on building the proposed royal yacht, will the Prime Minister consider using that money to kick-start the shipyards of this country so that our shipyard workers can get back to work to build ships in which our unemployed merchant seamen can sail?

    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the decision, because the yacht will be built in a British shipyard.

    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of being able to see league tables is greatly popular with parents? What significance does he give to the fact that the National Association of Head Teachers recently launched a major test case to try to ensure that parents would not have that right? What significance should be attached to the fact that the barrister who vigorously prosecuted that case was the wife of the Leader of the Opposition? [Interruption.]

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

    The Prime Minister: The important element is the official policy of the Opposition, which has been to oppose greater information for parents and league tables–to oppose each and every one of the reforms that we have produced to give children and parents better choices and parents information about schools. We believe that parents should have information about schools; the Opposition policy is that they should not.

     

    Highlands and Islands

    Q6. Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the highlands and islands.

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

    Mr. Kennedy: That being the case, may I invite the Prime Minister to take this opportunity to explain to local people a glaring inconsistency that emerged over the weekend and that they have difficulty comprehending? Why is it that, on a £60 million contract, public money is ruled in and private finance is completely ruled out; yet, on a contract of half that value and one that is fundamental to the interests of the people of the west coast of the highlands, the Isle of Skye and, indeed, the Western Isles constituency, which is one of the lowest-income parts of the country, the public sector is completely ruled out, private finance imposed and people now face the highest toll bridge charges, not only in Europe but probably in the world, for a future generation?

    The Prime Minister: The reality is that tolls on the Skye bridge are going to be no higher than ferry fares in 1995. Without the private finance initiative project, Skye would not have had the bridge for another 20 years. I note that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to using private finance. I hope that, in all the constituencies up and down the country where private finance is providing better facilities, it will be clear that the Liberal Democrats oppose those projects.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Huntingdon – 24 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Huntingdon, held on Friday 24th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he thought of the comments made by Leon Brittan].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set out a policy of negotiating and deciding. That has been our policy for a long time and Leon Brittan has supported that policy. I didn’t ask him but I understand he did so again this morning. What we have been focusing on in the last few days is the economic criteria as to when and whether it might be safe to consider this properly. We have reached the judgement it is highly unlikely that the condition will be right for Europe itself – whether or not we are in it – to go ahead on 1st January 1999. The Cabinet reached that conclusion yesterday and self-evidently, if it isn’t right, we are not going to go ahead on that particular date. That is perfectly clear.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was surprised that this policy hadn’t won over the Euro-sceptics in his party].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You make an assertion that I don’t intend to comment upon. We have set out our policy for a long time. Our policy is in the national interest. We have set out a national interest policy and set it out very clearly so there is no misunderstanding. We have now looked at what the economic conditions are across Europe and reached a judgement on whether it is likely to be safe for our European partners or anyone to go ahead with the single currency on 1st January 1999. And upon the available evidence to us at present, we think it is unlikely, very unlikely, that they could safely proceed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if forty Euro-sceptics could defect after the General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is completely off-beam – a story that has emerged from time to time, usually without any names and one that has usually been denied in the past. It seems to have re-emerged, it’s completely off-beam. As far as I’m aware there is nothing to justify it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Tony Blair’s Amsterdam speech].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t read the details of everything the leader of the Labour Party plans to say but from what I know of what he plans to say, for example, after-school clubs for children, they have been our policy for some time. We have devoted many tens of million of pounds to them. I visited one very recently. They are a very good idea. They are our policy. I am afraid this is another example of the jackdaw tendency of the Labour Party, but if we leave a good policy lying around they will certainly scoop it up, shine it brightly and claim it as a brand new policy for themselves. But it isn’t. It is our policy, but I strongly suspect he has a watered down version of it. Beyond that, I understand what is in his speech will involve a good deal of expenditure and exclude private sector involvement which we would seek to include, so I expect there is not a good deal in the speech except for some copycat policies of ours.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the return of Alan Clark].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Alan Clark is an original. Everyone in the House of Commons knows he is an original. And he will being a dash of colour. It’s not just the question of the dash of colour and the originality of Alan Clark. There’s a very shrewd, clever, intelligent politician returning to the House of Commons and of course I welcome that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would give Alan Clark a Governmental role].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I’m not going to carry out my next Government reshuffle now, but I’m delighted you acknowledge there is going to be one.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 7 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview held in London on Tuesday 7th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Conservatives had moved away from being bold reformers to being defensive].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The premise of your question is entirely wrong. That is not the basis of our appeal to the country. What we are saying to the country is that as a result of a whole series of difficult decisions that have been taken, after a very hard time both frankly for the government and for industry and commerce, we have now produced a position where the British economy has the most sparkling prospects for a very long time. What we are saying to the country is it has been very difficult to get here, it won’t be easy to keep it, we will have to follow the same policies in future if we wish this prosperity to blossom. And the appeal that we will make to the country is not as your describe it, the appeal that we will make to the country is the economy is right, that means the prospects before us are very bright indeed, don’t throw those prospects away, this is how we propose to develop them in the future. That is the substance of what we will be saying.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked where the new thinking was].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a whole range of new thinking. Let me deal with it. Though I have to say, before I delve into new thinking, new thinking is very fashionable for political commentators, but stability is what most people in the country would like to see, stability so they can get on with their own lives in security and stability and meet their own ambitions.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that was because they had had their stability hit hard].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no, no, people have always wanted stability. People’s living standards have risen; educational prospects have risen, 1 in 3 of our young people going to university whereas there were 1 in 8; there are a million more people being treated on the National Health Service. You mustn’t be so negative James, there is a great deal happening that is extremely good and I intend to see that that continues. As far as new thinking is concerned, there is still a good way to go on the education reforms, we are still continuing to improve the Health Service, both those things are fundamental to people.

    We are keen to ensure that the state doesn’t blanket out decisions that the family themselves should make. I am not opposed, as you seem to imply for example, to constitutional changes, I have made constitutional changes in the last five years, quite a lot of them, some in Scotland, some in Ireland, some in Wales, some in Parliament, and we have more planned for the future than we have set out. What I am opposed to is the sort of reckless all-purpose constitutional change without thought that our opponents favour.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 7 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview held in London on Tuesday 7th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Conservatives had moved away from being bold reformers to being defensive].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The premise of your question is entirely wrong. That is not the basis of our appeal to the country. What we are saying to the country is that as a result of a whole series of difficult decisions that have been taken, after a very hard time both frankly for the government and for industry and commerce, we have now produced a position where the British economy has the most sparkling prospects for a very long time. What we are saying to the country is it has been very difficult to get here, it won’t be easy to keep it, we will have to follow the same policies in future if we wish this prosperity to blossom. And the appeal that we will make to the country is not as your describe it, the appeal that we will make to the country is the economy is right, that means the prospects before us are very bright indeed, don’t throw those prospects away, this is how we propose to develop them in the future. That is the substance of what we will be saying.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked where the new thinking was].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a whole range of new thinking. Let me deal with it. Though I have to say, before I delve into new thinking, new thinking is very fashionable for political commentators, but stability is what most people in the country would like to see, stability so they can get on with their own lives in security and stability and meet their own ambitions.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that was because they had had their stability hit hard].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no, no, people have always wanted stability. People’s living standards have risen; educational prospects have risen, 1 in 3 of our young people going to university whereas there were 1 in 8; there are a million more people being treated on the National Health Service. You mustn’t be so negative James, there is a great deal happening that is extremely good and I intend to see that that continues. As far as new thinking is concerned, there is still a good way to go on the education reforms, we are still continuing to improve the Health Service, both those things are fundamental to people.

    We are keen to ensure that the state doesn’t blanket out decisions that the family themselves should make. I am not opposed, as you seem to imply for example, to constitutional changes, I have made constitutional changes in the last five years, quite a lot of them, some in Scotland, some in Ireland, some in Wales, some in Parliament, and we have more planned for the future than we have set out. What I am opposed to is the sort of reckless all-purpose constitutional change without thought that our opponents favour.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 5 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview on 5th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the talks between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think there are several things to be said about it. I don’t think there’s any secret that they’ve been talking. The substantive part of what they’ve been agreeing of course has been secret. I’m rather surprised they’ve kept the whole thing quite as secret as they have, it’s clearly leaked in the Sunday Times and they then briefed other papers. But the substantive issue of what they’re discussing I think is very important.

    Now what is shown this morning of their agreement I suspect is just the hors d’oeuvre of what they’re really discussing. The key point of course, that they will turn to, is the Scottish Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and then of course changing the voting system in the United Kingdom. Those will be the points of greatest interest and I suspect that’s the agenda that they’re really turning to. Now I believe that is profoundly dangerous for a range of reasons, I think it is more important than pure party politics, I’ve set out often enough my fears about a Scottish tax-raising Parliament and my fear remains that if you go down the route of a Scottish tax-raising Parliament you are lighting the fuse towards an independent Scotland and the break-up of the United Kingdom.

    Now I have set that out before the last general election and I passionately believe that to be the case and you can see the way in which opinion in Scotland, particularly amongst young people, seems to be moving. And if you had a Scottish Assembly, it would fail, of course, that would come into conflict with the Westminster Parliament most certainly, then you are setting up the scenario for a dispute between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament that would lead to a demand for independence. Now whether that would be in five years, ten years, I don’t know, but I it is profoundly dangerous that people look, not just at the short-term politics of this, but as the long-term constitutional implications of what the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are proposing. I think it is very dangerous, it is certainly going to be a substantive part of their secret discussions, of that I’ve no doubt and I believe the impact upon the United Kingdom will be thoroughly bad and the job of politicians is to stand up and look at the long-term implications and to explain, even though it may be popular in the short-term, why it is a bad thing for the United Kingdom in the long-term.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if a bad thing for the United Kingdom would be popular north of the border].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well superficially popular in Scotland certainly, but I don’t think the extra taxes they’d get would be very popular. I mean this would be followed by a new Scottish Parliament, that’s going to have to be paid for, more money on more bureaucrats, more money on more politicians and an agreement already that they could raise tax in Scotland by 3 pence in the pound. Now in the abstract one can see that people are not too worried about that, when the reality occurs and they have to pay more tax than the English, the Northern Irish and the Welsh I think it will be different and then when companies stop investing in Scotland because their employees paid higher tax and demanded higher wages then the huge change you have seen in Scotland over the last ten years, the tremendous drop in unemployment, the great widening of job opportunities will begin to disappear and I think then people would look back and say ‘we have bought a pig in a poke’. I don’t believe Scotland wants to be divorced from the rest of the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought a Scottish Parliament would win votes for parties that supported it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I don’t see it primarily as that, I think it may well be providing we can persuade people of the dangers and I will attempt to do so and I’ve been consistent on this for a number of years. I believe it is a profound mistake to the United Kingdom, that is the first point. The other element of their agenda of course, is the proportional representation and what they’re seeking to do of course is to, as the with the Scottish parliament which they would propose to introduce without reducing the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster, what they’re proposing to do effectively is to gerrymander the constitution. They’re determined to try and change a voting system, we have seen what that means right across Europe where you have minority governments, the inability to take really difficult decisions and perhaps above all the removal of choice from the electorate. If you have proportional representation and cosy agreements between the political classes then the electorate’s choice is diminished, they cannot say “I’ve had enough of this lot, out with them”. Because they’re fixed with other people unless there is a quite cataclysmic change in voting habits that would simply return the same people time after time.

    So I believe it is very, very damaging and I hope people will focus firstly on the fact that this has been done in secret, I wonder how many of the Shadow Cabinet know about the detail of these discussions before they leaked. I wonder how many of the Liberal Parliamentary Party know. I wonder after all this Labour talk of consultation what consultation there’s been with the average Labour supporter up and down the country. The answer is none of course, absolutely none.

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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