Tag: Crime

  • PMQT – 30 April 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th April 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

    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. Hinchliffe: Has the Prime Minister had drawn to his attention the article that appeared in the British Medical Journal last week, which stated that the Committee on Safety of Medicines recommended the prohibition, for pharmaceutical purposes, of all beef products from potentially bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected herds as far back as 1989? In view of that information, will he tell me why the Department of Health did not make similar recommendations about beef consumption at that time?

    The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will weigh very carefully what he has to say in these matters. That is most emphatically not what his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) did some time ago. We take and make public the advice that is appropriate in terms of safety in this country. That is our responsibility and that is what we do.

     

    Q2. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his cohorts on the Opposition Benches fall over themselves to try to get the votes of the gin and Jag brigade–the middle classes–but is the Prime Minister aware that it is the Conservative party that speaks for those in my constituency, in Cleethorpes and Immingham, who are still proud to call themselves working class? Is it not a fact that those people look to the Conservative party and the Conservative Government to ensure that they have the chance to buy their council house, to escape from trade union rule, from the closed shop, and to ensure that child benefit is protected for their children, who want better and further education? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: The latest recruit to the middle classes, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is heckling from a sedentary position. I hope that his arrival among the middle classes did not cause them too much distress. The policies that he advocates certainly would: higher taxes on people–[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East says it on his aircraft. The shadow Transport Minister says it publicly and then does not subsequently deny it. There would be an extra tax, of course, on parents who have children at school between 16 and 18–a special tartan tax if someone happens to be a Scot. Those people can have that sort of tax as well. If someone happens to be a Londoner, they can have a top-up tax. Tax after tax. The Opposition know that that is their position. We are cutting taxes now. The Opposition plan to increase them.

    Mr. Blair: I think that what most people remember is the 22 tax rises since 1992, and VAT going on–from the Prime Minister who said that it would not.

    Is it correct, as has been reported today, that recorded crime in January and February of this year was substantially above recorded crime for the same period last year?

    The Prime Minister: The minute that was leaked, which has caused some correspondence between the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, is not accurate. When the figures are available to us, we will publish them in the normal way, but I understand that the leak that appeared this morning was not accurate.

    Mr. Blair: I hope that the Prime Minister will publish the full figures. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order–all of it. That includes the Front Bench below the Gangway.

    Mr. Blair: The same memorandum says that recorded crime has now risen for six consecutive months. Is that correct? Is it also correct that the trend in crime is upwards, as the memorandum additionally says? If those two points are correct, will the Prime Minister accept that, since the Conservatives came to power, crime has actually more than doubled?

    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, we will publish the detailed figures at the usual time in the usual way; but, as it happens, parts of the figures in the memorandum that was leaked were wrong. Although monthly figures are always volatile, there is no doubt that crime fell in the last two months of 1995, so it cannot have just risen for the past six months, as the right hon. Gentleman said it did.

    If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about reducing crime, perhaps he can explain to us why he and his party vote against every measure that we introduce to be tough on crime. Why do they always make excuses for the criminal, and ignore the pleas of the victims?

    Mr. Blair: This party was advancing constructive proposals for law and order while the right hon. Gentleman’s Ministers were still boasting about the numbers coming out of prison.

    If the Prime Minister says that parts of the memorandum are wrong, perhaps he will now tell us which parts are right. Perhaps, instead of talking nonsense about Labour policy, he will admit the truth about his own–that people are less safe in their own homes, less secure in their jobs and less confident of their future, and that it is precisely because of that weakness, failure and incompetence that people will be so justified in punishing his party on Thursday.

    The Prime Minister: That comment was a long time coming, and it was not really worth waiting for. We will publish the figures in the usual fashion at the usual time.

    As for being constructive on proposals, I am surprised that the leader of the Labour party thinks that he is constructive on crime. We reformed the right of silence; he opposed it. Was that constructive? We gave the Attorney-General the right to appeal against soft sentences; the right hon. Gentleman opposed it. Was that constructive? We increased the penalty for cruelty to children; Labour opposed it. Was that constructive?

    On issue after issue after issue, the Labour party shows that it is soft on crime. It is not prepared to take the measures that will attack the criminal and protect the citizen, and, however the right hon. Gentleman tries to make partisan points, that is what the public know about his policy.

     

    Q3. Sir Graham Bright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Sir Graham Bright: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that child benefit for children who stay at school for a further two years to study for A-levels is worth in excess of £1,000? Can he also confirm that child benefit has its origins in tax rebate? If that were abolished, as Labour proposes, it would be equivalent to putting 5p on the basic rate of tax for the average parent. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I note that Labour Members laugh at the thought of 5p on tax for people on average incomes. So much for their claim that they would not increase taxes. Child benefit was a tax allowance benefit; it was made into a cash payment for mothers to ensure that it was used on behalf of their children. Now Labour proposes to provide a disincentive to stop children from staying on at school.

    Mr. Faulds: Don’t be so childish. You are Prime Minister, for God’s sake.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep his cool.

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) studied his party’s policy on this issue, he would be right to be angry at the way in which it proposes to treat people up and down the country.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister is, I believe, an honourable man. [Interruption.] Yes, he is. Will he therefore confirm that he understands that, if once again Conservative Members of Parliament try to change the Prime Minister, while denying the country the chance to change the Government, it will be totally unacceptable to all the British people? Will he therefore confirm that if, after Thursday, they try to get rid of him, he will ensure that we have a chance to get rid of the Government?

    The Prime Minister: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is dealing in fantasy again.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the article in today’s Evening Standard about tube and bus fares in London? Is that not good news for Londoners, who can look forward to the extension of the Jubilee line, improvements to the Northern line, Thameslink 2000, the Heathrow to Paddington link, improvements to the docklands light railway and the Croydon tramway link? Does that not show that we act, and the Greater London council just talked?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, who has been lobbying on many of those matters for many years, has clearly studied the transport document with great care. He is of course right. It is good news for passengers in London, and so of course is the policy of capping fares. We expect London transport fares to rise at a significantly lower level than in the past as part of a strategy of making public transport more attractive.

     

    Q5. Mr. Mike O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. O’Brien: With reference to the previous question, which the Prime Minister did not really answer, will he say whether he has ever discussed an understanding whereby, if the Conservatives do not do well in the local government elections this week, he will make way for the Deputy Prime Minister? We need a reassurance on that, as the Prime Minister must understand. Will he take it from me that he has the support of much of the House to remain leader of the Conservative party up to a general election? He has the support of at least half the Conservative Members, and of every Labour Member.

    The Prime Minister: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is in mischief-making mode–[Interruption.] Clearly, he was not; clearly, he was just being silly.

    Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend had a very successful breakfast meeting with business men in Warwickshire on Friday. Will he therefore repeat, for the benefit of the House, the points that he made about the social chapter and the damage that it would do to employment and prosperity in the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: I noticed over the past few days that countries abroad, particularly Germany, are now beginning to take action to bring down some of the high social costs that have created fiscal difficulties and unemployment in their countries. In this country, we are not prepared to have a social chapter, which is damaging as it stands but would be infinitely more damaging if we signed it, the rest of Europe brought their social expenditures into the social chapter, had them approved by qualified majority vote as they could, and then imposed them on British employers at the cost of British jobs. We are bringing unemployment down. I intend to see it come down further. I do not intend to take this country into the social chapter, to stop the fall in unemployment and to see it begin to rise again. That is no bargain for the British work force.

     

    Q6. Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Prime Minister realise that not only is his deputy after his job but the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary are as well? We therefore need a categoric assurance that, however many seats the Conservatives lose on Thursday, the Prime Minister will lead his party into the next general election. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O’Brien) said, the Prime Minister has the support of almost half his party, and the support of all the Labour party.

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say just a moment or so ago, and I have no intention of accommodating his silly questions.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Given the interest in what happens after the next general election, did my right hon. Friend see the poll in The Times at the end of last week, which showed that the majority of people expected that, if there were to be a Labour Government, unemployment would go up, interest rates would go up, inflation would go up and there would be more control for the unions? Is that not the real reason why the Labour party wants to delay an election for as long as possible?

    The Prime Minister: Of course people would expect that of a Labour Government. People know from experience that that is what has happened with every Labour Government we have ever had at any stage in the past, and that that would occur again–unemployment up, interest rates up and tax rates up. There is absolutely no doubt that that is what happened in the past, and that is what would happen in the future.

     

    Q7. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that this is the last day of work for Mr. Cedric Brown, who retires with a pension of £250,000 and a continuing consultancy with British Gas of £144,000? Does the Prime Minister care to comment on today’s press release from the North West gas consumers council, which states that complaints in the north-west region increased by 97 per cent. last year? Does he believe that Mr. Cedric Brown warrants that largesse?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that when people get an unsatisfactory service they are right to complain. They are right to complain to British Gas, and, now that British Gas is in the private sector and faces competition, people can expect that their complaints will be taken seriously, which they certainly were not when British Gas was in the public sector–when prices were rising dramatically and when the service was falling. Under plans for competition–for which I see no support from the Labour party–people who are not satisfied with British Gas will have the opportunity of going elsewhere. That is what competition means.

  • Mr Major’s Conservative Central Council Speech – 30 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to Conservative Central Council on Saturday 30th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Within a year or so we’ll fight a general election.

    At stake will be not just who forms the government, but what that means.

    In the Tory years, the quality of life has changed immeasurably for the better and now it’s moving up again.

    We are poised for a step change in prosperity.

    The world knows it and says it. The Opposition knows it – but denies it. Because Conservative success means Labour failure. But I can live with that. And so, I think, can you.

    We must tell people about the opportunities ahead.

    Tell them what’s at risk.

    Never mind the opinion polls. Bucking the trend is the story of my life.

    So, it’s time to stop underselling what we’ve done, what we stand for, and time to start selling what we care about and what we’re going to do.

    Mr Chairman, as you know we have been holding hundreds of meetings up and down the country. It has been the biggest consultation exercise the party has ever had.

    It’s shown our gut instincts haven’t changed: we still back the traditional values that brought us into the Party in the first place.

    But we’ve always been able to move with the times.

    So, we’ve been turning our beliefs into practical political action.

    Enterprise

    Now to business. First, some facts.

    We’re enjoying the longest period of low inflation for nearly 50 years.

    The lowest mortgage rates for 30 years.

    Fewer days lost to strikes since records began.

    More of our people in jobs, more investment.

    And the lowest tax burden of any major European economy.

    And yet it is fact, fact, fact. When – in all the long history of our country – could any Government have said as much?

    This is the result of a government getting the important things right. It didn’t happen by magic. That’s the prize tough decisions have won for us.

    Britain can be proud of what Britain is achieving. But we must go on. We must build on what we’ve done and make Britain the unrivalled Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    There can be no future for high taxing, high spending governments. That’s a nightmare from the past. A socialist vision – let it go. We don’t want it back.

    Our aim is to get taxes down.

    And not only income tax. I want to cut and, when possible, abolish inheritance tax. Labour wince when I say that.

    But I can’t defend a tax that stops children inheriting what their parents have worked to earn and save.

    It’s a tax on the family. And helping the family is what we’re about.

    So I don’t want our children to see the fruits of their parent’s life time work disappear forever into the Government’s coffers. I just believe it’s wrong.

    Taxes should come from a growing economy. And a growing economy comes from competition – the drive of the market.

    Competition works.

    The state once ran industries into the ground, often. But look at them now.

    Telephones – now amongst the cheapest in Europe.

    Electricity – where prices have fallen and are set to fall further.

    Gas – where prices have fallen by 20% and are set to fall further still.

    This hasn’t happened in the water industry – yet. But it will. And I’ll tell you why.

    Because we’re going to introduce competition into the water industry. It’s worked wonders in gas, phones and electricity. And it should do the same for water.

    How Labour hate all this. They know none of it would have happened if they’d been in power. They mouth the words of the market – but they don’t believe a syllable.

    They loathe the thought of the private ownership of British Rail.

    They can’t stomach the fact that enterprise and competition will improve the service and bring down the price.

    They’re positively mortified that new private investment will build in a new railway system for a new millennium.

    They’d rather defend a public sector monopoly that’s become a music hall joke.

    Perhaps you think I’m being unfair.

    But am I?

    These are the same people who said that privatising British Airways would turn it into the pantomime horse of capitalism.

    Well, some pantomime. Some horse.

    British Airways is now one of the most successful airlines in the world.

    Don’t ask me. Just ask the champagne socialists. Would they rather travel on British Airways or good old state run Aeroflot?

    Privatisation has given millions of people the chance to own shares. There are now more shareholders than trade unionists. And there are many Trade Unionists who are shareholders.

    Take the rail union, RMT.

    They own shares in privatised companies. They want the profits of the market. But that doesn’t stop them attacking the privatisation of British Rail.

    Don’t do as I do. Do as I say. That’s the theme that runs right through the Labour movement.

    Once Labour promised common ownership. Now they call it stakeholding. But – as usual – it’s common deception.

    We mean ownership by individuals for themselves and their families. They don’t.

    We want to make the capital owning democracy a living reality. They don’t.

    They want people’s wealth. We want wealth for the people.

    More ownership.

    More people owning a share of the company they work for.

    Let’s be clear. I’m not just talking about directors or managers on the executive floor. I’m talking about staff on the factory floor and at the supermarket checkout. They can be owners too.

    In the last Budget, Ken Clarke made it even more attractive for employees to own shares in their company. Now it’s up to industry to spread employee share ownership.

    Here’s a challenge for them. Let’s have the majority of workers in Britain’s large companies holding shares in those companies by the end of this decade.

    That will be an important part of making Britain an enterprise culture to its core.

    We must make change work for us. That’s what enterprise is about.

    Twenty years ago, pocket calculators were an oddity. Portable phones were hardly heard of. The information superhighway was somewhere off the M6. A lap top was something you sat on, not worked on.

    We’re having to learn a whole new vocabulary.

    New technology is going to affect all our lives.

    We’ll be able to work or shop from home, to send messages to anyone, anywhere, any time. These opportunities are on our doorstep, but for many people it’s still difficult to imagine. We need to open the Nation’s mind to the opportunities ahead.

    So we’re getting together with industry on a project for the millennium. To let as many people as possible try out computers – in schools, libraries and shops in the high street. These skills will equip us for the new century. They offer tremendous and exciting opportunities. We need to know about them.

    We’re not just creating jobs and prosperity, this year and next year. We’re out to build the enterprise and skills to secure jobs and prosperity that lasts.

    Opportunity

    I tell you who does love these new things: children.

    Tomorrow’s their world. But they won’t stand a chance of making the most of it unless we deliver world class education.

    Education is the door to opportunity.

    Every parent wants the best for their children. Especially parents in the Shadow Cabinet.

    There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s every parent’s right.

    But there’s the little matter of other people’s children too.

    We believe it’s right to offer them the best as well.

    We do. Labour don’t. And that’s the difference.

    Labour can’t decide its policy on education.

    For GM schools, against GM schools: for selection, against selection.

    Every time they settle the line, some Labour frontbencher breaks it.

    While they divide, we deliver.

    Under the Conservatives, education has changed a lot.

    Year by year, we’ve been clawing back from the worst excesses of the comprehensive system. Choice is expanding. Standards are rising.

    The National Curriculum, tests, performance tables, regular inspection, a whole range of schools.

    All this is new.

    But there’s more to be done.

    Gillian Shephard has put standards and discipline firmly back on the agenda – and she’ll have more to say about them soon.

    Teachers deserve our support on this and I promise you, they’ll get it.

    Every parent is concerned about those crucial years at the start of schooling. So we’re turning nursery education over time from a nice dream to a reality for every four year old whose parents want it.

    But that’s not all. We have ambitions to ensure that by the time children are seven, they can master the basic skills that underpin all learning.

    Teaching children basic skills is just the bare minimum. Children need to use today’s technology with confidence. They can access a huge library of information in seconds. The computer can be their personal tutor to help them learn arithmetic or a foreign language.

    So we’re working on training teachers and staff, putting the latest kit in our schools and linking schools up to the new world of information.

    Britain already has a head start.

    We’re now developing substantial and practical plans to build on that progress. To engage industry and private finance in our ambitions to transform technology in schools for the next century. Giving our nation’s children the skills they’ll need for our nation’s future.

    Not just pipe dreams – we’re delivering practical action.

    The education system we’re building reflects a simple truth every child is different. And every child is special.

    Let me turn to a controversial matter.

    I believe choice and selection does have a place in education. And so do you.

    Not the old 11 plus – that’s gone – but more selection in schools. And if parents want them, that could mean more schools like the old grammar schools.

    It’s time to say goodbye to the political correctness of the levellers-down. We’re going to give all schools more control over their own affairs.

    Earlier this week, Gillian Shephard set out our aim: to give all schools as much power as possible to take their decisions about as much as possible of their budgets.

    More of the money delivered straight into the hands of teachers and governors, bypassing bureaucracy.

    We want to free our schools from the straitjacket of uniformity.

    Freedom to demand the best from our brightest pupils.

    Freedom to help the weaker pupil.

    Freedom to give opportunity to every pupil.

    Conservatism instinctively knows that freedom works.

    Mr Chairman, there’s another point: there’s no place for intellectual snobbery in the classroom.

    Practical skills must be respected.

    We’re planning a single clear national framework of qualifications with common certificates that all children can aim for. And with that will come new opportunities to combine academic work with learning at work. New modem apprenticeships are a success. We intend to open that opportunity to more and more of our young people.

    Welfare

    Mr. Chairman, fate does not equip everyone with the same gifts or the same good fortune. We are a generous hearted nation. We’re more than willing to help those who genuinely need it.

    I believe we must encourage the successful so that we can protect those who need help.

    To do that, we must build a welfare system we can afford: one that reflects Conservative values – self-sufficiency. Responsibility. Independence.

    That means doing three things.

    First, cracking down on fraud and abuse. On Monday, Peter Lilley will launch another step in our campaign – an area by area focus to put the spotlight on benefit cheats. We’re going to protect the taxpayer and close down the welfare rackets.

    Second, we’re going to direct money to those who genuinely need it to help them back on their feet.

    People out of work and looking for a job deserve help. They’ll get it.

    The long term unemployed need special help. They too will get it. We’re piloting schemes to help get them back to work. But after that, if they refuse to accept work on offer, their benefit will be reduced. I believe that’s fair and right.

    Third, we must help people secure independence for themselves and their families.

    More people are living longer. We need to help families support relatives who can no longer be cared for at home. Our Party feels strongly about this.

    So, next month we’ll set out our proposals to deal with this challenge – to help protect the family home and lifetime’s savings.

    Our starting point is the classic Conservative theme of partnership.

    Very simply, if people take out insurance to help pay for their care, the state will reward their contribution by safeguarding more of their assets when that insurance runs out.

    And we’re looking at ideas to help people in the near future, not just in the far distance. There is no perfect solution to this. But our ideas are fresh and far- reaching.

    Responsibility will be rewarded. Prudence will be recognised. And the elderly will have the chance to protect the savings they’ve worked for all their lives.

    Public services

    Mr. Chairman, the usual dismal voices say Britain won’t be able to afford high quality public services in the future. I think that’s nonsense.

    We taxpayers pay for public services. We pay with taxes compulsorily taken from our income. I’ll tell you what I think.

    We taxpayers have a right to expect the best as if we’re paying cash on the nail. In fact, we’ve done better; we’ve paid in advance. And when we deal with the public sector, we shouldn’t be shunted from file to file.

    To make sure they’re not, we’re breaking down the large bureaucracies.

    Wherever possible, less bureaucracy at the centre, more choice at the grassroots.

    In this, we are the polar opposite to Labour.

    They’re wedded to control by anyone except the people. Bureaucracy, not taxpayers. Trade unions, not consumers. Politicians, not people. Labour don’t trust people. Unless they’re people in authority – lots of them – calling the shots.

    I’m not prepared to let public services remain an outcrop of socialist planning, a kind of prescriptive service, oblivious to the needs and wishes of the people who pay for it.

    So, let’s have an end to the faceless institutions, the bureaucratic assault courses, the unanswered telephones, all run from the top down. Instead, services should be run on a human scale. Decisions taken close to those they affect. And that’s what we’re building. The benefits are already clear.

    In self-governing schools – schools run by teachers, governors and parents.

    And in our hospitals – where team work has cut waiting lists. Are our reforms working? Yes – indeed they are.

    One example: since our reforms began, the number of people waiting more than a year for an operation has fallen by 90%. Thousands of people, old and young, are enjoying a better quality of life because they have been treated better and earlier.

    Let no one doubt our commitment to our National Health Service. Our commitment is there – in concrete, bricks and mortar.

    Labour founded the NHS. They’re proud of it. But built it up. Every week, since 1979, we’ve seen a new capital scheme worth a million pounds.

    And we should be proud of that.

    And we should also be proud that, thanks to our reforms, GPs now have greater power and freedom to serve more and more of their patients’ needs.

    We’re going to build on that. We want to give Britain’s 30,000 GPs the freedom to provide, in the communities they serve, the treatments that people need.

    In the summer, we’ll set out some of the next steps down this road – including opportunities for GPs to offer a range of hospital treatments in their surgeries.

    Our aim now is a far reaching one: it is to allow GPs’ practices to become the cottage hospitals of the 21st century. To ensure we offer better health care, closer to people, than any other nation can provide.

    Law and Order

    Mr Chairman, in building Our Nation’s Future we must also take forward our natural Conservative instincts for a society based on law and order.

    For decades rising crime and lawlessness seemed unstoppable.

    There was a culture that tried to excuse crime.

    But crime is caused not by society, by poverty, by circumstances. It’s caused by criminals kicking the door in for personal gain.

    For every crime there is a victim. A victim for whom the fear, loss, outrage and intrusion far outweigh the financial consequences.

    Let me take one illustration of many.

    Burglary.

    I had a flat burgled many years ago. Not much was taken because there wasn’t much to take.

    But it was vandalised.

    I was young. Fit. But I never felt quite the same in that flat again.

    How much worse for people whose family home has been ransacked.

    Whose possessions have been rifled through, whose security and safety shattered – quite apart from financial loss.

    I have no hesitation in seeking tougher punishment for such a crime. And especially for the criminal who burgles again and again – the serial thief.

    Let me tell the Conference: I am absolutely behind Michael Howard’s proposals to secure longer sentences for those who commit crimes like this time and again. And we will introduce laws to that effect.

    I believe it’s a fair punishment. Let me tell you why. I believe it will deter.

    But more important still, if we know somebody is likely to go out and commit more crimes, we owe it to the public to put them out of harm’s way.

    That’s the surest way to continue cutting the crime rate. And that’s exactly what we’ll do.

    But we need to put equal emphasis on order – or perhaps civility. On a society where the decent common courtesies are expected and observed.

    We should not have to tolerate loutish behaviour. People’s rights to quiet and privacy should be respected. Simple obvious rules – on the roads, in the parks, on public transport – should be followed.

    To some, these things may seem unimportant compared with major crimes. But they cause many people distress in their daily lives.

    So, as we build and extend the role of schemes like neighbourhood watch, we’ll put order as well as law back where it belongs – in our communities.

    So when people say to me, is it cost effective to have policemen on the beat, to have special constables patrolling our neighbourhoods, my answer is unequivocally yes. That’s how we’ll give people reassurance. That’s how we’ll nip crime in the bud.

    That’s what you want. That’s what we’ll deliver.

    The Nation

    Mr Chairman, amidst a sea of change, a united nation brings security. We need that security now more than ever.

    Our nation’s history is one of change. But sensible, careful change, never change for change’s sake.

    Scotland and England united are the cement that binds the United Kingdom together. Scotland is vital to the Union. The Union is vital to Scotland. And the whole United Kingdom would suffer if that Union were damaged.

    For me, this issue dwarfs the daily political debates.

    Some cynics ask: why do I care about the Union? After all, they say, why should I care about devolution? With Scotland out of the Union, there’s more likely to be entrenched Conservative majorities at Westminster for ever and a day.

    That may be true, but they’re forgetting the overall interest of the United Kingdom.

    I reject the narrow selfishness of a little England or a little Scotland. I believe that Scotland and England – and Wales and Northern Ireland – have all benefited from the historic constitutional settlement which created our United Kingdom. A unity Labour plans put at risk.

    So Scotland faces a choice.

    It can share in that success – lead it even – and be at the heart of the Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    Or it can cut itself off. Saddle itself with higher taxes. Destroy jobs with the Social Chapter and minimum wage – carrots held out by Labour that would become sticks across industries’ backs.

    And it would watch, helplessly, as investors get out their pocket calculators and their airflight timetables and go away.

    The scheme for a tax-raising Scottish parliament is separatism by instalments. The Scottish Nationalists have already acclaimed it as the fast track to independence and they’re right.

    Could there honourably be devolution without fewer Scottish members at Westminster? No, there could not. Without such a cut, Scotland would become the most over-represented part of the United Kingdom. There’s a word for that – an old word: gerrymandering.

    And could it possibly be right that Scottish MPs at Westminster should be able to vote on purely English matters, while English MPs would have no say over matters devolved to a Scottish Parliament?

    My answer to that is simple.

    ‘I don’t believe that we could for ever maintain a situation in which Scots and Welsh Members vote on, say, English education and pay beds while the English cannot vote on Scottish and Welsh equivalents’. You won’t ever guess who said that. Robin Cook. That’s what Robin Cook thinks. The first good sense he’s ever spoken.

    Then there’s Labour’s Tartan Tax. Why should people in Scotland pay more tax than in England? What does the Labour Party have against the Scots?

    Labour have the cheek to suggest that they might even cut taxes. What an untruth to set before the nation! For how long do they think English MPs will vote 30% more money to Scotland so that a Scottish Assembly can use it to cut taxes north of Berwick? The proposition is ludicrous.

    Mr Chairman, my commitment to the Union is total. It’s not just a political commitment. It’s emotional as well. I admit it. And I’m not ashamed of that.

    I feel, with every fibre of my being, that the result of this folly would be the dismemberment of the United Kingdom.

    That would be the burial of our history, the interment of a great good. It would deprive future generations of a sane, flexible, tolerant system. It would weaken England, weaken Scotland and would begin the destruction of a kingdom whose very reason for being is to be united.

    People who support a tax-raising Scottish parliament are sowing dragon’s teeth. These proposals will lead – implacably and irrevocably – to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is not speculation, it is fact. I do not say “may” or “might”; I say “will”.

    Scotland and the Scots are central to the British identity. We are that close.

    Let us work and live together, as one nation, as we have been for centuries. If we do anything else, we shall grow smaller – all of us – separately.

    PERORATION

    Mr Chairman, I’ve set out some of our plans. There is much more yet to come.

    Ahead of our United Kingdom lies tremendous – and exciting – opportunities.

    The opportunity for more people to realise their ambitions and their hopes and their dreams.

    A better life for their family. Their own home. Their own savings. A secure job. A good education for their children.

    I became a Conservative because I was brought up to be proud of our country. Our traditions, our heritage.

    I still am.

    And so are the vast majority of the British people.

    Our hopes are their hopes.

    That’s why we’ve trounced Labour four times in a row.

    And that’s why we’ll do it again.

  • PMQT – 26 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

    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. Wareing: Two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister about unemployment, to which he gave an answer lambasting Liverpool city council. Will he now unequivocally condemn Tory Westminster council for risking the health of its people for political purposes by housing them in asbestos-ridden flats?

    The Prime Minister: That issue was very properly investigated by Westminster, which commissioned an independent report. I understand that the council has taken action in the light of that independent report. Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, he should compare the overall record of Westminster with that of other authorities. As he is sensitive about his local authority, appalling as it is, he should compare it with Lambeth and Hackney. He might look at the rent arrears in Lambeth, which are six times the level of Westminster, or the rent arrears in Hackney, which are 10 times as great. There are 21 times as many unoccupied dwellings in Lambeth and 23 times as many in Hackney. Whose housing policies are a disgrace?

    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bovine spongiform encephalopathy issue is not really a party political crisis but a crisis for the whole nation? Can he persuade the Leader of the Opposition to stop making cheap party political points, which are doing this country and its farming community so much harm?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anybody doubts the seriousness of the issue or the need to balance the competing interests of public health and the importance of the beef industry. It is important that we deal with the issue on the basis of rational, sensible decisions, based on proper information, not on hysteria. That is the way in which the Government have sought to deal with it thus far, and we will continue to do so.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister at least agree with me on the scientific basis of the case? Is it not, first, that scientists now say that there is a probable link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human killer; secondly, that prior to 1989 there was contamination of the food chain by BSE; thirdly, that after the regulations of 1989 there was supposed to be no such contamination, but there were breaches of the regulations; and, fourthly, that the scientists say that if, now, new measures are adopted, the risk in future will be “extremely small”?

    If we can agree that as the scientific basis, I ask the right hon. Gentleman–this is essential to restoring confidence–to quantify the risk from the period 1989 to now and the period now onwards when the risk is “extremely small”. Without that quantification, I do not think that confidence will be restored.

    The Prime Minister: It will be extremely difficult to restore confidence if right hon. and hon. Members continue to undermine that confidence whenever they have the opportunity to do so, for reasons that I think will seem unfathomable to people in the agriculture industry and to the wider public.

    As for the scientific evidence, neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor I, nor, I suspect, any right hon. or hon. Member, has competence to make that judgment. That is why we have to rely on the advice that we have received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which said that it does not believe that additional measures are justified at the present time. The House will be aware of what Professor Pattison has said on a number of occasions. He specifically said–it is very relevant to today’s position:

    “In any common usage of the word, we”–

    the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee–

    “think beef is safe. Anyone can eat beef or beef products and be safe.”

    That is the professional advice that we have received, and it is incumbent on us to accept and listen to that advice.

    Mr. Blair: Did not the Secretary of State for Health make a statement in the House last week that earlier scientific advice had been wrong, and tell us to wait for two days for advice on whether it was safe for children, while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was speculating about the killing of 4.5 million cows? Suddenly, the Secretary of State for Health appears to bristle with certainty and he tells us that the public are mad, not the cows. The matter has been handled with quite mind-boggling incompetence. I repeat that the scientists say that the risk in future is extremely small, but may I ask the Prime Minister once again to quantify that risk? As a matter of urgency, will he convene a meeting of producers and purchasers in the food industry to agree the necessary measures to restore confidence?

    The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had done enough damage in the last few days–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order–all of you.

    The Prime Minister: –for them to stop trying to create health scares by inviting responses from any Minister who can competently comment only on the basis of scientific advice. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. Since he wants to exchange quotations, may I say that it is not all that long ago that the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)–who has acted far more responsibly than some of his hon. Friends–told the House that

    “the possibility of BSE being transmitted to humans seems remote”?–[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 994.]

    The right hon. Gentleman knows the scientific evidence that we have received, and he knows the way in which we have been invited to proceed on the basis of it. For what reason does he continually try to undermine public confidence?

    Mr. Blair: When the Scott report came out, the Prime Minister blamed my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). When this report came out, he has blamed other Opposition Members. Does he not realise that the country expects him, as Prime Minister, to take responsibility? Since he has mentioned my hon. Friend the shadow Minister of Agriculture, perhaps he will adopt the measures that my hon. Friend has proposed, and let us hope that confidence can be restored.

    The Prime Minister: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how it might be restored, again by quoting his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East:

    “We are talking about a huge industry and that is why we have to be very responsible and we must not hype something up and give the impression that it is wrong to eat beef or there is some evidence of a link if there is no evidence.”

    The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) have done everything they can to undermine confidence in beef and the agriculture industry. If they have undermined confidence to the extent that there is a serious problem, the agriculture industry and the public will know precisely whom to blame.

    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers of beef are looking for further reassurance that British beef is best–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will be heard in this House.

    Mr. Marland: I will start again, Madam Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers of beef are looking for further assurance that British beef is best? Does he agree that it is now time for the British media to stand up for Britain and to dispatch some investigative teams to Europe to study what is known there as staggers or manganese deficiency, which is often BSE by another name?

    The Prime Minister: There are self-evidently two equally important interests to balance. First, there is the public concern about public health. That is of great importance to the Government, which is why we have repeatedly taken the advice on public health that we have been given. The second interest is confidence in the beef industry, the jobs it creates and its economic importance. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should look at both those matters and give them both great importance.

    Mr. Ashdown: This morning, the National Farmers Union, which is presumably not hysterical, backed by the entire food industry, which is presumably not hysterical either, has called for older cows to be taken out of the human food chain. If the Prime Minister will not follow that advice, will he at least answer this question? What has he got to say to farmers, to abattoir managers and to cattle market operators? They have been ringing all morning to say, “My doors are closed, my market has gone and in two weeks, my business will be in ruins. What do I do now?”

    The Prime Minister: I have received a letter from Sir David Naish and I have a copy of the letter that he sent to the Leader of the Opposition and to the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. My colleagues and I will study carefully the contents of the letter I have received. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening, he will get his answer.

    There are two reasons for proceeding in the way that Sir David recommends. The first is on public health grounds, if science recommends it; but science does not recommend it, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The second is if it proves necessary to restore confidence to the market because ill-conceived comments, ignorant of science, mean that sensible, practical measures that should have restored confidence will not restore confidence. I hope that sound judgment will prevail. If it does not, those who have destroyed that confidence will be the people to blame and everyone will be aware of that. They sit there, there and there on the Opposition Benches.

    Mr. Faber: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Wiltshire police force on the 5 per cent. fall in recorded crime which was announced today? When he considers further proposals on sentencing, will he give careful consideration to the views of the chief constable of Wiltshire? He believes that the vast majority of crime is perpetrated by a few known offenders and that

    “custodial sentences take them out of the game.”

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with that view, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I am delighted that, again, crime figures are falling in the United Kingdom. Today’s figures show that recorded crime fell by almost 2.5 per cent last year. With the falls in the past two years, that represents the largest fall since records began more than a century ago. That has been achieved despite the fact that the Opposition have continually opposed the law and order measures which we have introduced–measures which, when my right hon. and learned Friend introduced them, they dismissed as gimmicks. The only gimmicks on crime are those from the Opposition. We are producing measures that are beating the criminal and bringing down crime.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 March.

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

    Mr. Hall: Given the Prime Minister’s disgraceful performance this afternoon, does he remember telling the House last week that the Government have always and immediately acted on the expert advice given to them by scientists on bovine spongiform encephalopathy? In the light of that claim, can he tell the House why the Government failed immediately to implement the recommendations of the Tyrrell report to sample cattle brains to monitor BSE? We need a straightforward answer to that question.

    The Prime Minister: We are continually taking professional advice on health matters. Opposition Members are asking me not to take the professional advice but to do something else. If I had not taken the professional advice on the question of BSE, the hon. Gentleman might have had some cause for complaint. As it is, he has none–except against his own Front Bench.

    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that McDonald’s, the media and the Labour party have one thing in common: they are seeking to sell something, be it beefburgers, newspapers or themselves, and the Government have a heavier and wider responsibility to give leadership and guidance, based on the best possible scientific advice?

    The Prime Minister: First, we have to make judgments on what is in the interests of public health, and we must base them on the advice that we get, because Ministers do not have the medical competence to make those judgments themselves. Secondly, we have to make judgments about what is right for the industry, if other people, with ill-thought-out comments, damage it when it should not have faced the damage that may have been created by comments that should never have been made.

  • PMQT – 21 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

    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 a further meeting later today.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: In the wake of the Dunblane tragedy, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should take all possible steps to prevent illegal firearms from getting into the wrong hands? Will he look at the firearms laws to see what reasonable steps can be taken to revisit them?

    The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend about that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have been in discussions with the police for some time about the possibility of a firearms amnesty. Those discussions had begun before the appalling tragedy in Dunblane. I can now tell the House that it has been agreed that an amnesty will take place. Details are being worked out, and we will advise the House of them as soon as possible.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the only way now to restore trust and credibility over bovine spongiform encephalopathy and beef is not more assurances from Ministers but clear and firm advice based on scientific evidence? Does he agree that that evidence should be published in full so that the independent scientists who provided it can be properly examined and can defend it?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health gave the assurance yesterday that he would publish the advice that we have had. As the House will know, we ensured that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee’s statement was published as soon as was practically possible yesterday. As my right hon. Friend told the House yesterday, the facts on which the committee based its deliberations will be made public in scientific journals as soon as possible. I shall of course ensure that the appropriate evidence is placed in the Library of this House.

    Mr. Blair: I am grateful for that assurance; I hope that it genuinely covers all the advice that has been given. I assume from what the Health Secretary said yesterday that the scientific advice that the Government have received is absolutely clear that it is entirely safe to carry on feeding beef and beefburgers to children. May we have a categorical statement that the right hon. Gentleman’s scientific advice does indeed say that? [Interruption.] The clearer and better the statements, the sooner public concern will be allayed–Conservative Members should realise that.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see the advice for himself because we have published the advice that we have had on this matter, and we will publish any further advice that we receive so that people can see for themselves, from the scientists, what the evidence is. That is more valuable than hearing from those without scientific information, and we will make sure that it is available.

    As my right hon. Friend has already said, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that children are more at risk than adults from eating beef, but I understand very well, as, indeed, will every hon. Member, the concern that parents will have, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has specifically asked SEAC–the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee–to provide specific advice on that matter. As soon as we receive that advice, we shall make it public so that people may see it for themselves.

    Mr. Blair: I think that it should be made entirely clear. Is the statement that the Prime Minister is giving us that the scientific advice is that it is entirely safe to continue to feed beef to children? If he can tell us yes to that question, it would allay some of the fear.

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the advice is on the record. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would listen, it would be helpful to the whole House. The advice is on the record, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said a few moments ago that he needed to see the scientific advice, not speeches by Ministers. I agree with that point. That is why we are making public the scientific advice so that there can be no doubt what the absolutely basic advice is from the scientists. It is on the record. Further advice will be put on the record.

    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent decisions of the European Court of Justice are progressively undermining the social chapter and that it is becoming not worth the paper on which it is written? Although I welcome the Government’s decision to try to deal with that problem and the problem of fish while at the intergovernmental conference, does he accept that the time factor means that the British taxpayer is likely to face claims from Spanish fishermen before the IGC is completed? Will he therefore accept the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and legislate to prevent this decision from being acted on in the British courts, and restore the sovereignty of the House?

    The Prime Minister: As I told my hon. Friend, we propose to pursue these matters in the IGC. Of course I am prepared to look at any advice that I receive from any of my hon. Friends, or, indeed, from any hon. Member. Although we are concerned about the way in which the health and safety element of European legislation has been applied–we believe that it has been misapplied–I do not accept my hon. Friend’s point that it undermines the whole basis of the social chapter opt-out. Evidence suggests the contrary, and we intend to ensure that the social chapter opt-out remains of the value that it has always been, both now and in the future. We shall pursue that point and the other matters raised by my hon. Friend very vigorously in the IGC.

    Mr. Ashdown: In view of what now appears to be the well-justified public concern about certain aspects of food safety, of which BSE is only the latest example, has not the time now arrived to break up the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so that the interests of the producer and the consumer can be looked after by two different Departments?

    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, and I think that, on reflection, he will not agree with it himself.

    On the question of recent events, an independent committee of the most eminent scientists advises the Government on these matters. The Government invariably take that advice. No Minister now or in the past has the scientific competence to deny that advice, and we do not do so. We take that advice and we publish it. That is the right way to proceed.

    Mr. Thurnham: In the wake of last week’s awful tragedy, will the Prime Minister add to the tributes to a lifetime of work for children by the late Baroness Faithfull, who died on the same Wednesday morning still hard at work at the age of 85? Does he agree that, in her lifetime of devotion to the welfare of children and through her sincere concern for the treatment of offenders, she set an example to us all?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that, and am happy to endorse his tributes to Lucy Faithfull. In her lifetime she was a tireless worker on behalf of disadvantaged children, and her devotion and concern does indeed set an example to everyone.

     

    Q2. Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

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

    Mr. McNamara: Is the Prime Minister aware that the average unemployment level in the three Hull constituencies is 20.2 per cent? More than 30,000 men are unemployed. How can the Prime Minister justify the spending of £5 million of European and United Kingdom funds to relocate jobs from Fenners polymer factory in Hull to south Wales, thus losing 350 jobs in Hull and more than 150 in Peterborough? Would not the money be better spent on creating proper jobs in south Wales, rather than creating unemployment in Hull?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall look at the instance to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but, as I do not know the background, I cannot comment immediately. I can, however, comment on the fact that, although unemployment in Hull is far higher than we would wish, it has fallen by 20 per cent. from its peak and continues to fall. I am delighted about that.

    Mr. Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s welcome reduction in inflation means that there will be more protection for jobs, more protection for savings and more protection for public services? Would he care to tell the House what would happen to jobs, savings and public services if the Labour party ever came to power?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of low inflation. For the first time in 30 or 40 years, we now have a low-inflation economy, and there is no sign that inflation is going to take off. If it did so in the fashion in which it did so in earlier years–most obviously in the late 1970s–it would not only rob savings of their value, but would rob millions of people of their jobs.

     

    Q3. Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

    Mr. Foulkes: “I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.” [Laughter.]

    Madam Speaker: Too clever by half.

    The Prime Minister: Forgive me, Madam Speaker. Because of the noise on the Opposition Benches, I did not catch the question–but I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Turner: Are the Prime Minister and the Government at all contrite about the BSE crisis, given that Labour’s then agriculture spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), raised the question of safety six years ago? What he said was contemptuously rejected by the Government at the time.

    The Prime Minister: Let me repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said yesterday. At each and every time in the past, we have accepted totally and immediately the expert advice given to us by the scientists on this matter–on each and every occasion. If we had not accepted that advice, the hon. Gentleman would be in a position to criticise the Government, because those scientists are there to advise us. They are the specialists; we are wise to accept their advice; we have done so in the past; we are doing so now; and we will do so in the future.

    Mr. Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that small businesses in countries such as France and Italy enjoy substantial exemptions from the employment law that applies in those countries? Let me enter a plea on behalf of British small businesses: give us the same advantages.

    Mr. Skinner: They want a social chapter.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is mistaken if he thinks that my hon. Friend is seeking the social chapter. I think that he is seeking an assurance that we will not have it, and that the Government want to enable small businesses to continue to create the extra jobs that they have created in recent years. I announced a number of measures to that end recently. We will continue to consider what might be done to enable small businesses to fuel more growth, and create more jobs and prosperity in our economy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March.

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

    Mr. Hardy: Is the Prime Minister aware that, just before the 1979 election, a Select Committee visited prisons and met burglars? It found them to be ardently Conservative. Were not burglars richly rewarded as crime soared, the proceeds of crime rose and the number of convictions fell markedly? Is the Prime Minister confident of retaining the support of that bedrock of Conservative enterprise?

    The Prime Minister: I confirm that crime was rising for decades and is now falling in this country. One of the reasons why it is falling is that there may be even more burglars, howsoever they may vote, in prison, which is where they should be.

    Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the British people why unemployment is lower in Britain than in France, Germany, Spain or Italy? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I can echo only what the hon. Member for Bolsover is now convinced of. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Gentleman very much; I will conduct him. The social chapter and minimum wage are certainly a part of the answer. The low tax structure that we have compared with Europe is part of the answer, the deregulation in this country is part of the answer, the supply-side reforms are part of the answer and a Conservative and not a social democratic Government are part of the answer. We intend to retain those benefits, both in the short term and in the long term, and to provide more jobs.

     

    Q5. Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 March. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the Prime Minister started late.

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

    Mr. Madden: May I ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I gave him prior notice, concerning Irish prisoners? Will he intervene personally to expedite the transfer of Irish prisoners, including Patrick Kelly, to prisons in the Irish Republic? Will the Prime Minister do that in view of the specific assurances that the Government of the Irish Republic have given about the sentences to be served? Will he also ensure that the regime prevailing in Belmarsh prison is dramatically improved in relation to Irish prisoners?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering a number of requests for repatriation, including the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Each request must be considered on its merits. It needs to be subject to the consent of both jurisdictions and of the prisoner concerned. Those matters are being examined. As a result of Sir John Woodcock’s report, security at Belmarsh is being improved. I understand that a newly refurbished special secure unit is due to open next month.

  • PMQT – 7 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Stephen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    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. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a person who has committed a serious violent or sexual crime on two or more occasions must never be allowed to do it again? Does he accept that that is the overwhelming view of all our constituents, who are sick and tired of dangerous criminals being let out, to offend again and again, by out-of-touch judges, some of whom sit in the Court of Appeal?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point forcefully. Our aim is to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals. We are concerned to ensure that, for example, repeat rapists are not released from prison if they remain a danger. At present, that can happen, and it is a matter of concern to the public. On those grounds, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is right to proceed with his proposals.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity categorically to deny the lunchtime news reports that the Government are considering taking away all employment rights from millions of people who are employed by small businesses?

    The Prime Minister: We shall have some things to say on Monday about small businesses, but they will certainly not include what was the reported on the news at lunchtime.

    Mr. Blair: Can we–[Interruption] The proposal, as people will know, was made by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s answer, which I thought was clear, that that proposal is gone, and dead and buried?

    The Prime Minister: I thought that I made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or so ago. We shall be announcing a number of very attractive policies on Monday, but I have to tell him that that is not one of them.

    Mr. Blair: I congratulate the Prime Minister. The proposal was made two days ago, and now it has been dropped. We welcome that. Since we already have the President of the Board of Trade’s letter referring to the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter, can the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter be published so that we can see what other proposals have been made and whether they, too, are to be denied?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will see the proposals clearly because we shall announce them on Monday. They will be very attractive. I think that small businesses will welcome them. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that small firms create the vast majority of new jobs. They have done so for years past and they will do so in future. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad to hear that I carry Opposition Members with me.

    There can be no employment rights if there is no employment. We are seeking to maintain a fair balance between the rights of employees and the burdens on employers. We are therefore proposing to reduce or remove unnecessary burdens. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] I am interested that Opposition Members would like to keep unnecessary burdens. No wonder that in every socialist Government throughout Europe, unemployment increases.

    Opposition Members would like to retain unnecessary burdens. I would like to get rid of unnecessary burdens, and I would welcome some support for that from the Labour party. Clearly, there is no support for that from the Labour party; burdens it likes and burdens it would wish to have.

    Sir Marcus Fox: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the opting out of a single currency is of supreme importance to the country? Would it not be damaging–

    Hon. Members: Reading.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Sir Marcus.

    Sir Marcus Fox: Would it not be damaging if other countries ignored this criterion? May I suggest with hope to my right hon. Friend that the issue of a single currency, if introduced, would be one on which we should hold a referendum?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House on previous occasions that I believe that a referendum on joining a single currency could be a necessary step. My position has not changed. I still believe that it might be the right course. At present, the Government are considering the circumstances in which a referendum might or might not be appropriate. We shall tell the House of our conclusions as soon as we have reached them.

    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister’s rather different answer to the last question of the Leader of the Opposition, does he agree that we shall never build or strengthen the small business sector by encouraging employers to adopt a hire-and-fire mentality and treating employees as scrapheap labour?

    The Prime Minister: No one is seeking to do that. The right hon. Gentleman should know better than that. We are encouraging a hire mentality. That is why unemployment has fallen while it is rising in other countries. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order.

    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what would create a fire mentality among small and large employers–the sort of burdens that would accumulate under the social chapter, which the right hon. Gentleman would like. Included would be the burdens that would be accumulated under a minimum wage policy, which, again, the right hon. Gentleman would like. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he has a policy change to make, we shall be pleased to hear it. Labour’s plans for a minimum wage could destroy thousands upon thousands of jobs, as would the social chapter, and both policies are supported by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are creating jobs, and the Opposition parties’ policies would destroy them.

    Mr. Barry Porter: In view of the depressing statement by the Provisional IRA yesterday, where do we go from here?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the proposals that I set out the other day were perfectly clear. Sinn Fein has the opportunity, provided that there is a ceasefire and that it meets the other criteria, of joining in the democratic debate. If it fails to take that option, the debate will not stop. The debate will continue with the constitutional parties. I believe that that is the right way in which to proceed. Were we not to proceed with just the constitutional parties, we would have permitted the IRA to stop the constitutional process. I am not prepared to do that and neither, in my judgement, is any of the constitutional parties.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mrs. Campbell: Is it fair that Camelot is now able to pay out less than £10 to a player with three correct numbers? Bookmakers have to meet their obligations, so why should not the lottery operators do the same out of their obscene profits?

    The Prime Minister: The operators have to meet their obligations. The chances of someone winning the jackpot are much greater than the chances of not being paid £10 for three numbers, as Oflot itself set out this morning. The hon. Lady should know that it was Parliament that decided that the lottery should be administered by an independent regulator. The hon. Lady’s party was very keen that that should be the case. The hon. Lady shakes her head. I think that I recall that the Opposition voted that it should be dealt with by an independent regulator. It is for the director general of Oflot to consider how to protect players’ interests. That is what he has done. She should direct her question to him.

    Mr. Lamont: In the run-up to the intergovernmental conference, would the Prime Minister like to congratulate the European Commission on the success of its “Interfere in Britain” week? Should the first prize go to the European Court of Justice for its ruling on fishing or to the attack on the brand of Cheddar cheese, or should the golden fleece go to the European Commission’s astonishing dawn raid on the Football Association’s headquarters? Does the Prime Minister agree that there was never a truer word spoken by the European spokesman yesterday than when he said:

    “We are talking millions of footballs”?

    The Prime Minister: I must say to my right hon. Friend that I did not see that remark. I am rather sorry that I did not. I shall have the opportunity of discussing those matters with the President of the Commission later on this afternoon.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Gunnell: Has the Prime Minister seen the published explanation of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for his reluctant vote with the Government on the Scott report, in which he says that he voted because the Prime Minister personally told him that the Ulster Unionists had held a gun to his head and that losing the vote would damage the peace process? Is that true, and, if so, does it square with the Prime Minister’s pledge to keep the peace process in Northern Ireland completely separate from intensely controversial issues here at Westminster?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear from the outset that I shall deal with the peace process on its merits. I believe that that is the way that it should be dealt with–on its merits. That is the way it has been dealt with so far; that is way it will be dealt with in the future. I certainly have not seen any such newspaper reports.

    Mr. Renton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm, with regard to the important speech that he made in Hong Kong on Monday, which has given new confidence there in these last 500 days of colonial rule, that Britain has no current immigration problems with Hong Kong and that the 3 million people who already have visa-free access to this country abide by the rules? They come here as students, tourists or business men and they do not wish to settle here.

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend. In fact, in total, 1.2 billion people already have visa-free access to Britain. We have had no problems whatsoever with visa-free access from Hong Kong and I do not believe that there will be any in future. One of the principal reasons for taking this decision was to provide more assurance to people in Hong Kong, because I believe that such assurance will make it even more likely that they will remain there and continue to ensure that Hong Kong is a success in the future.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Hall: Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation when he endorsed Chris Patten as the next leader of the Tory party in opposition, because he acknowledged that there was nobody in his Cabinet with leadership potential?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had read what I actually said, he would know that that was not it. In fact I said:

    “There are a number of colleagues with outstanding ability”,

    and I am delighted that that is so. What upsets the hon. Gentleman is the fact that there is nobody with outstanding ability on the Opposition Benches.

     

    Q6. Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Sir John Hannam: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of his far east tour. Does he accept that it is far better for this country to secure future jobs for British workers than to keep up the continuous carping criticism expressed by the Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister: What was most striking about the conference in Bangkok was the extent to which growth in the far eastern economies provides business and trading opportunities for this country. I think that many people throughout Europe have utterly failed to realise the sheer size and scale of the change that has taken place across Asia, and the opportunities that are provided as a result. During my visit, a number of business deals were struck between companies here and companies in the far east, and I very much hope that there will be more. Such deals provide jobs, security and prosperity for people in this country.

  • PMQT – 1 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st February 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 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. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming another successful year for the Manor House private hospital, which is funded by the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions to provide private health care for their members? In view of the Labour party’s long-term opposition to private health care, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a classic case of the Labour movement saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fascinating point. I think that he mentioned the Transport and General Workers Union. It sponsors many prominent hon. Members, so they will certainly be familiar with its activities. I was not aware of the case my hon. Friend raises, but if it is true it certainly calls into question the deep and apparently sincere hostility of so many Opposition Members to the private sector of medicine that they have set out for so many years. It is surprising that they seem keen to use the private sector, but are keen to condemn it.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister about the national health service. Can he confirm the figures of the Consultants Association and the Audit Commission that show that, under his Prime Ministership, within the past five years, the costs of administration have doubled? Given today’s news about the pay awards to top administrators, does not the Prime Minister think that the Secretary of State for Health should say clearly to the trust boards that, in future, the average pay rises for managers should be very similar to those for doctors and nurses?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot confirm the detailed figures that have been released–I have no reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about them, but I cannot immediately confirm them. The right hon. Gentleman should take great care before he returns to his old line of attacking management in the national health service and its costs.

    Mr. Skinner: Why?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks why. I shall give him several reasons. First, because that is precisely what the Socialist Health Association told him not to do. Secondly,

    “I don’t think it’s really in question any more that the NHS has been under-managed in the past”.

    [Hon. Members: “Undermanaged?] I am sorry that Opposition Members scoff–those are not my words but those of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when she was Labour’s health spokesman. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”]

    Of course one would wish to ensure a fair division of pay among all people in the health service. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the present Government, under my Prime Ministership, gave the nurses a pay review body, whose recommendations we have always honoured.

    Mr. Blair: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the Secretary of State to do as I ask? [Interruption.] “No,” say Conservative Members, but I was quoting the words of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Instead of the Prime Minister saying things that are in his folder and my putting things to him, will he answer the basic question? Why have administrative costs increased by more than £1 billion a year in the past five years–when the number of nurses is falling, when patients are on trolleys and when there is a shortage of acute beds? The question that the Prime Minister must answer is, why is the national health service safe in the hands of a Government who place administrators before nurses?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is mistaken on almost every point that he puts to me, but let me deal directly with his point about management costs. It is fair to raise the important issue of management costs. If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about management costs, and I am sure that he is sincere in what he says about them–[Hon. Members: “Oh.”]–can he explain why he does not support the 8 per cent. cut of administrative costs next year that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health proposes? The right hon. Gentleman does not support that. Can he explain why he voted against the abolition of regional health authorities, which saved a whole tier of management?

    We have provided the resources for more medical staff and for the treatment of 1.5 million extra patients. A few years ago, it was impossible to check properly how resources were used because there was no proper management in the national health service. As the right hon. Member for Derby, South said, that had to be put right. We have put it right. Now that we have put it right, the right hon. Gentleman criticises it.

    Mr. Blair: Let us debate at least on the basis of facts. Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that the extra costs are more than £1 billion a year? If they are, instead of spending that money on bureaucrats, administrators, company cars and pen-pushers, why does he not spend it on nurses, doctors, patients and beds?

    The Prime Minister: The money is being spent on patients. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be able to grasp that point. To spend it on patients, it is necessary to do what we have been doing–put resources into medical care and manage them so that money is available for medical care. Until the right hon. Gentleman understands that, he will continue to ask me questions that are, literally, senseless. I suggest that he examines the matter again with the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who understood those matters when she was Labour’s health spokesman, but who obviously disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman–which may well be why she has almost disappeared from public view in recent months.

     

    Q2. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Jenkin: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that boot camps are for the punishment of young offenders, humanely but firmly? May I urge my right hon. Friend to make use of the military corrective training centre at Colchester garrison and ignore the blandishments and objections of Liberal Democrat and Labour Colchester councillors, who once again demonstrate that the Opposition parties are the villain’s friend?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I shall certainly examine his suggestion. We hear much from the Opposition parties about their approach to crime, and in some cases about how tough it is. We do not see it at a national level and, if my hon. Friend is correct–I have no reason to doubt that he is–those parties clearly take the same inadequate approach at local level as we have seen them take at national level.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Hain: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on Tuesday that the British economy is now the best in the western world, when in fact seven European countries are growing faster? Does he also recall telling the House that crime in Britain is falling for the first time for 40 years, when in fact crime fell in 1977 and 1978, under Labour? Was he deliberately misleading the House or just reverting to his old, routine incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right on crime figures, but I understated what I might have said to the House. The fall is not the first for 40 years–the hon. Gentleman is right about that–but the largest fall in crime since records began 100 years ago. It was achieved against the opposition of the hon. Gentleman and many other Opposition Members to almost every measure that we have brought forward in recent years.

    The hon. Gentleman referred also to the economy. I said that we have the best performing economy in western Europe, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should look at exactly what I said. The facts are that we have the lowest level of inflation for 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest unemployment of any major European country and the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. We are number one in Europe for foreign investment and we export more per person than Japan or the United States. Which European country can match that record?

     

    Q4. Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that privatised companies are a very attractive proposition to investors? Is he aware of a pamphlet issued recently by a Labour Member of the European Parliament that shows that nearly £1 billion has been invested in privatised companies by Labour local authorities, including Southwark, Lewisham and Islington? Is not that yet another example of Labour hypocrisy? They opposed privatisation, but now they profit from it.

    The Prime Minister: I have seen the brochure and I commend it to hon. Members. It was written by a Labour Member of the European Parliament and has a foreword by the leader of the Labour Members of the European Parliament. Its case is set out as my hon. Friend claims. I am delighted to welcome Islington, Lewisham and Southwark to the stockbroker belt, but it strikes me as odd that the Opposition opposed privatisation, they fight privatisation in the House, they go on television to attack privatisation, they attack the management of privatisation, and yet they buy shares in privatised companies and enjoy profits from them. As usual, they are saying one thing and doing another.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Hardy: How does the Prime Minister think the British people will recall his widely publicised promises in the 1992 general election campaign to cut taxes year after year, given that he then increased them by more than at any other time in British history? Is not that the most glaring example of saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that taxes are now going back on a downward trend. He might like to hear some examples of saying one thing and doing another. The Opposition are claiming that they will not put taxes up; but what did the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) say some time ago?

    “Well, I would say is this: that if the Chancellor, to raise money to do things, did raise the tax level on the top rate from 40 to 50 per cent., we would not oppose it”.

    That is not what the Leader of the Opposition says. Of course, the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is temporarily absent–[Hon. Members: “Where is he?”] I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman is–he has decided to heckle someone else this afternoon. He said, however, that Labour

    “should not follow the Government down the road of reducing the basic rate of tax”.

    How does that square with the promises made by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about taxation?

     

    Q6. Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme provides an excellent opportunity for thousands of children? Is it not another example of hypocrisy and double standards that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition health spokesman have benefited from the excellent facilities in private education, yet wish to do away with the scheme?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. The assisted places scheme is another policy that increases choice and opportunity, particularly for people on modest incomes. That is why we are committed to doubling the scheme.

    The Labour party is opposed to the scheme–or at least that is what I thought until the Labour leader gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) an assisted place in the shadow Cabinet.

    Mr. Alfred Morris: When does the Prime Minister expect to be able to respond to the motion on Members’ and Ministers’ pay that stands in my name and in those of 300 other right hon. and hon. Members? Meanwhile is there any comment he can offer the House on the subject today?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there needs to be a new mechanism for determining Members’ pay for the future, as the existing link to civil service pay grades disappears following civil service restructuring. That has been the case for some time. We have been considering how to take the matter forward. Of course we shall take account of the views expressed by the House in the early-day motion standing in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. We have not concluded our consideration and consultations. As soon as we have, we shall bring our conclusions to the House.

  • PMQT – 30 January 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th January 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    United Nations Secretary-General

    Q1. Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had on the election of a successor to Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, when he last met (a) President Chirac and (b) Chancellor Kohl.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): None.

    Dr. Godman: In addition to a new Secretary-General, is there not a need for a deputy Secretary-General, as advocated by Sir David Hannay, to take charge of administration and finance, thereby allowing the new Secretary-General to re-examine most carefully such serious matters as Lockerbie and Libyan sanctions? At the very least, do we not need a public debate on those appointments and on reform of the United Nations?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree about the need to reform the United Nations. I raised that at the last meeting of the G7, where there was general agreement about it. In terms of internal reform, I can see some justification for a deputy Secretary-General, and I can certainly see some for a proper reform of the United Nations. By reform, I mean not just a reform of procedures but the abolition of many United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of my constituents strongly support the Government’s measures to give the Attorney-General power to appeal against unduly lenient sentences? Is not the fact that the Labour party voted against that yet another example of hypocrisy?

    The Prime Minister: It is a matter of record that the Labour party voted against that measure, but it has voted against many other law-and-order measures over recent months, such as the right to silence. We increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children from two years to 10–Labour opposed that. We increased the maximum penalty for carrying a gun in crime–Labour opposed us. The reality is that it may sometimes use tough words on crime, but when it comes to actions it is very soft.

    Mr. Blair: Conservative Members should remember that under their party crime has doubled.

    Does the Prime Minister share and understand the sense of anger of the British people at the behaviour of the privatised water companies? Given the figures released today showing that the cost of delivering water to customers has risen by almost £300 million and that although water companies’ profits rose to a record level last year their investment fell, is not it high time that they were properly regulated in the public interest?

    The Prime Minister: With reference to his earlier remarks, the right hon. Gentleman might also remember that under this Government crime is falling for the first time in 40 years. [Interruption.] Statistics show that quite clearly, across a whole range of crime, and that is something that no previous Government have been able to say.

    When he refers to the privatised water industry, the right hon. Gentleman would do well to remember, too, that “Governments cannot run companies”. [Interruption.] I am interested to hear that the Opposition disagree with that, because I was quoting the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

    Mr. Blair: Yes, but Governments can regulate those companies, and this Government are not regulating them. Will the Prime Minister confirm that over the past few years investment has been falling, that prices to customers have risen by more than 40 per cent., that 500,000 gallons of water are now being leaked every minute of every day and that customer complaints have doubled? Those are the facts about the water industry under this Government. Why do the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and his other colleagues defend each and every action of the water companies, rather than standing up for the customers who are being fleeced by them?

    The Prime Minister: About £15 billion has been invested in the water industry since privatisation, £1 billion more than originally planned. That is because over several decades in the public sector there were not sufficient resources for investment in the water industry or in other public utilities. Of course, there is investment in them now, not least by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers as a shareholder. That union sponsors the deputy leader of the Labour party; it is one of the stakeholders in the Labour party, and also one of the shareholders in the water industry and in most of the other privatised industries. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We have very little time. Keep quiet.

    Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend will have seen the lead stories in today’s editions of the Financial Times and The Times. Will he confirm that universities are, in law, private bodies, that their financial relations with their students are a matter for them to determine and that the Government have no intention of nationalising the universities?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly see no need for universities to introduce top-up fees. They certainly complain about how they have been treated by the Government. Between 1989-90 and 1994-95, university funding rose by 23 per cent. over and above inflation. I hope that the vice-chancellors will recall that when they consider their future policy.

    Mr. Ashdown: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his claim last night that the Conservative party is the only party interested in law and order with the fact that although he promised at the general election to increase the number of police officers on the streets by 1,000, the latest figures show that the number has fallen by 1,000? Is that what he means by saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks more carefully at what is happening in law and order. If he does he will see that right across the range, for the first time in 40 years, crime is falling. He will also see the resources there for an extra 5,000 police officers–

    Mr. Ashdown indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman’s living in some Disneyland of his own and waving his hands about; those are the facts. It is the Conservative party that has toughened the law and order position time and again, and his party, and the Labour party, have been in the Opposition Lobby whenever we have sought to do that.

    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give the House a firm undertaking that he will not take advice on law and order from the party that would change the meaning of the Sunday joint?

    The Prime Minister: I happily give my hon. Friend that assurance.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Davies: To return to education, does the Prime Minister recall that his Government slashed school budgets by £500 million last year, causing great difficulty to school heads? Does he recognise that the Government have slashed the higher education budget by £300 million this year, causing great difficulty to vice-chancellors? Why should our institutions and their students suffer because of the Government’s economic failure?

    The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, the Government’s economic policy is exceeding in a more spectacular fashion than that of any other Government in western Europe. Spending per pupil in the mainstream sector has risen by about 50 per cent. over and above inflation since 1979.

    Mr. Blunkett: The true figure is 4 per cent.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), Labour’s education spokesman, is shouting from a sedentary position. It is a novel relief for him to do so, rather than be undermined by the Labour leader in every single thing that he says about education.

    On higher education, the hon. Gentleman would do better to refer to his party’s policy document, which says that

    “Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using”–

    [Interruption]

    I apologise for my cold, Madam Speaker, but the reference to Labour’s policy document stands. It reveals that

    “Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using and directly benefiting from higher education.”

    That is Labour’s own policy document–I hope that it will not deny that policy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Thomason: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that selective schools will remain a part of our education system? Did he hear the Leader of the Opposition yesterday ducking and diving on his party’s schools policies?

    The Prime Minister: Not only yesterday. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman ducks and weaves. The hon. Member for Brightside says that he has no truck with middle-class, left-wing parents who preach one thing and do another. I cannot think who he might have had in mind. The hon. Gentleman tells us to watch his lips–there will be no more selection under a Labour Government. The party’s education spokesman says one thing, while the leader says another. Labour is split on education from top to bottom.

     

    Q5. Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Tipping: How would the Prime Minister describe someone who, before the general election, promised not to extend the scope of VAT, but after the election extended VAT and imposed it on fuel at 8 per cent.? Would he describe that person as a hypocrite or a liar?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look at the economic performance that has been achieved under this Government. If he does so, I defy him to find any western economy that can match the current performance of this economy under this Government.

    Mr. Hawksley: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read of the four children aged 11 in Handsworth in Birmingham, who have been put through the fast-track education system and who have received the praise of the Leader of the Opposition? Is my right hon. Friend aware that all four have won places at a grammar school, and will he reassure the parents of those children that, under this Government, their grammar school places will be safe?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer my hon. Friend that assurance. He highlights yet again the shambles of the Opposition’s policy. They say that they support grammar schools, but they oppose selection. They say that they support special treatment for pupils, but they oppose streaming. They say that they support parental choice for the shadow Cabinet, but for no one else.

     

    Q6. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Saudi Arabia to discuss human rights.

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

    Mr. Corbyn: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is time that the British Government put human rights before arms sales, sought an urgent meeting with the Saudi Government on the abuses of human rights there, explained why BBC broadcasts to Saudi Arabia have been censored and explained why the British Government, with their craven attitude towards that autocratic regime, are trying to deport Dr. al-Masari from this country?

    The Prime Minister: We and our European partners regularly discuss human rights with the Saudi Arabian Government and with others. I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman has a rather unusual version of human rights, because it was him who said:

    “We assert the right of all people to follow their own conscientious beliefs even if it involves them in breaking the law.”

  • John Major’s Speech to the 1996 Conservative Political Centre – 29 January 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Political Centre (CPC) on 29th January 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Political beliefs rest upon principles. Fundamental principles which guide our policies, decide our actions.

    Labour have principles too. ‘Don’t do as I do, do as I say’ is the principle they live by these days.

    And Labour have policies. But they’re poorly thought through and designed to show Labour today isn’t so obviously vindictive as yesterday. Both their policies and their principles fall apart upon even cursory examination.

    They’ve had an easy time over the last two years. Now they’ve been rumbled.

    The lesson of the past week is clear: you can’t trust what Labour say, because given half a chance they’ll do the opposite.

    Unlike theirs, our beliefs are refreshingly constant.

    We believe in a Britain of enterprise and prosperity.

    A Britain of opportunity and ownership.

    Of first class public services.

    Where law and order is safeguarded.

    And where a proud, united sovereign nation is defended against any threat, at home or abroad.

    Conservatives hold fast to these fundamental beliefs even though our policies move with the times. That’s why, over the years, we’ve dictated the pace and direction of change more than any other party.

    The subject I want to talk about tonight is law and order. It concerns everyone, of all parties or of none, wherever they live. A subject where the approach of the two main parties is very different. And another subject where Labour’s words are completely divorced from Labour’s actions.

    ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ is their slogan. And yet they have opposed almost every tough piece of action we’ve taken.

    Let me make three points that underpin my attitude to crime.

    For every crime there’s a victim. For that victim, that crime isn’t a dry statistic. It’s something personal.

    For every crime, there’s a criminal. Not a product of society, but an individual who has made a conscious decision to harm someone for personal gain.

    And, third, every crime is wrong. Whatever the case, whatever the excuse.

    I believe the public share this attitude. And I believe they want to see it reflected in our law and order system.

    To stop crime, we have to realise that to commit one is a decision, not a disease. It’s a decision freely taken in most cases. We’re dealing with an individual who flouts our laws and spurns our moral code.

    I reject the view that absolutely everything is responsible for crime except the criminal.

    The view that individuals should not be held responsible for their actions.

    The view that the rights of the criminal come before those of the victim.

    This is the same sort of well-meaning thinking that assumes you can’t teach children the difference between right and wrong.

    That tells us discipline suffocates self-expression in children and has no place in home or school.

    If I overstate the case – though frankly I don’t think I do – it’s to make the point that this kind of thinking is not just mistaken, it’s plain wrong.

    Punishment is not a dirty word.

    In my book, being tough on crime means being tough on criminals.

    And I’ll tell you why so you can see how I approach policy making.

    When I think of crime, I think firstly about the victims. The victims are not always selected by criminals because they’re confident, robust, well-heeled individuals who can easily brush aside the trauma of crime or the personal and financial loss involved. Quite the reverse.

    Most often they’re vulnerable. Easy targets. All too frequently they’re relatively poor, underprivileged people who live where progressive thinkers wouldn’t dream of going. Because never forget, crime batters on the door of three room flats on the twelfth floor of tower blocks in unsought after districts, just as much as at the homes of more affluent members of society.

    With professional criminals the loss of possessions is often large. With amateurs less so – but is often accompanied by wanton vandalism. In either case the invasion of privacy is brutal. And when was stealing the small possessions of people with very little a minor offence?

    I put the point vividly because crime is vivid to the victim. For many it isn’t just a passing experience. It lives with them for a very long time.

    It’s too easy to explain crime away by blaming social causes. Too simplistic. Wrong. And offensive to the vast majority of people who strive to live decent, law-abiding lives whatever their circumstances.

    Crime is a choice whether it’s burglary by a young tearaway or sophisticated financial crime.

    To suggest otherwise totally neglects the role of the individual. This marks a fundamental difference between us and Labour.

    The left mistakenly talk about economic success in terms of grandiose national plans and ignore the individual. The state everywhere. The individual nowhere.

    They talk about education in terms of blanket prescriptions – levelling down, not levering up.

    My experience is a world apart. I see individuals with varying ambitions, different abilities, making their own opportunities, their own choice. Individuals responsible for their own actions – and content to be so.

    That’s why we want a criminal justice system which recognises that individuals have the power to fight crime – but are also responsible if they commit it.

    If we are to achieve long-lasting success in the fight against crime, I believe we should start quite literally at the beginning – with our children.

    We owe it to each of them, individually, to help them grow up knowing the difference between right and wrong, respecting the rules of society, understanding the penalties for transgressing them. If this discipline is taught to the young, it’s likely to be a discipline for life.

    I don’t believe in a harsh society, but I do believe in a self-disciplined society.

    All of us – parents, teachers – anyone in a position of responsibility – need to pass on the values of right and wrong that underpin any civilised society. This begins as a role, first and foremost, for individual parents.

    But later on schools obviously have a role to play. Teachers can re-enforce what parents are teaching their children, or help make the difference if children are missing out at home. They deserve all our support in maintaining discipline in the classroom. So Gillian Shephard is reviewing some of the sanctions available to schools – in particular, some of the current restraints on schools’ ability to exclude pupils and schools’ rights to detain pupils after school.

    But when children do turn to crime, the first step down the slippery slope often starts by playing truant. Truancy is a problem for the community if there are children out on the streets making mischief during the day. And if children are out on the streets, they’re failing to learn the skills they need to get a job. And they’re also more likely to fall into criminality.

    We’ve taken action to identify those children who are at greatest risk of turning to a career of crime. We must make sure that the child who persistently plays truant becomes a concern not just of their school, but of all other agencies who can help – the police, probation, social services and voluntary bodies. Wherever possible we must support parents and schools in their fight against truancy.

    But sadly some children still end up in the courts. Sometimes one appearance in court is sufficient – the jolt of a salutary experience prevents any further misbehaviour. But too frequently that isn’t the case.

    The court is lenient and the child is relieved. He offends again – and again. And he learns that courts can do very little. So he begins to think there’s no proper sanction against anti-social behaviour.

    That’s very dangerous to an immature mind. Children, in their own interests, need a line in the sand. And they need to know that, if they cross it, there’s a price to be paid.

    They must learn that society will not tolerate this behaviour. And they need to understand this lesson early on. The courts must have the power to deal with them.

    So we will build five secure training centres for 12-14 year aids who persistently offend. They’ll be put through a disciplined and rigorous routine – regrettably, often for the first time in their lives – to put them back on the straight and narrow. And we’re trying a similar, disciplined approach for some 18-21 year olds, who will face a tough 16-hour day, starting with drill before breakfast, ending at 10 at night.

    But behind too much of today’s crime – from youth crime onwards – lies the growing menace of drugs. For many, drug addiction can be the first step in a life of crime. The defining experience that leads to an addiction that’s paid for by petty theft – and then more serious crime.

    Our strategy against drugs is wide-ranging. Tony Newton set it out last year. It covers both supply and demand. It addresses drug-related crime, the threat to young people and the health risks of drug misuse.

    We’ve set up teams to work with schools, health authorities, and the police to fight drug abuse in the community. But drugs aren’t simply a social problem. They’re a problem fuelled by greedy, ruthless, international criminals who see drugs as a cynical route to profit. As with all crime, it’s those individuals we have to deal with. Catch the drug pusher and you cut off the supplier. Stop the drugs supply and you cut off the problem.

    Drug supply is international. So we’re giving the Security Service the power to support the police in tracking down drug dealers and putting them behind bars. This is a new responsibility for the Security Service – but it’s justified. We must tackle the international drugs problem at its source – and we’re working with our European partners to do so.

    But Mr Chairman, fighting crime on the front line means fighting it on the streets. There’s no more reassuring sight than the bobby on the beat. He both prevents crime and removes the fear of crime.

    Since 1979 we’ve recruited 16,000 more police officers. 700 more are expected this year alone. Over the next three years we’ve budgeted for 5,000 more. And also since 1979 more than 17,000 civilians have been recruited by the police – freeing up police officers to do the work which only police officers can do.

    But obviously we can’t have a policeman on every street corner. The public have a role to play too. The famous silent majority can turn the tide against the criminal. And they’re doing so. Through 143,000 Neighbourhood Watch schemes. Or by becoming one of the 20,000 Special Constables.

    I could swamp you with figures galore to show how successful these schemes are. But what matters as much – or maybe more – is involving people in taking a stand on crime, fighting crime in the community, a community.

    Of course criminals are now more sophisticated – but increasingly the police are ahead of the game.

    Security cameras cut crime. There’s no longer any argument about who saw what. In Newcastle 870 suspects have been caught on camera in the last 3 years. Already, three quarters of these have come to court. 99 per cent pleaded guilty. 100 per cent were convicted.

    DNA – the genetic fingerprints of the twenty-first century – is another weapon in our armoury. A single hair can identify the criminal. There are now over 26,000 records – 26,000 who know they’re marked men.

    This is how we’re helping the police to take the fight to the criminal. And not only with science. For too long, police had to sit by while known criminals carried on committing crimes. So we’ve given them new powers to get the evidence they need to arrest them – including strengthening the power to stop and search.

    But having caught criminals, we must ensure that the guilty are convicted. Trials should be a search for the truth – not a game of cat and mouse. That’s why we have reformed the right to silence. And why we’re changing the procedures to stop defence lawyers playing procedural games to get their clients off when they’re guilty. Criminals mustn’t be allowed to make a mockery of the law.

    We’re delivering a level playing field in court. But what is a ‘fair’ sentence if the accused is convicted?

    Tolerance and understanding are characteristic of our people. I hope they will always be. But punishment – whatever form it takes – is central to our system of justice.

    The public want criminals to pay a price for their actions. Not out of vengeance. But because the feeling that the criminal has been allowed to get away with it adds a sense of injustice to the pain and loss of the victim.

    I have lost count of the times people have said to me that criminals should serve their sentence in full. I agree.

    At present a burglar sentenced to six years can expect to be out in four – no matter what. That’s wrong.

    It’s particularly wrong when we know a small number of hardened criminals are responsible for a high proportion of crimes. People want to know that professional criminals get tough sentences.

    The average sentence for a burglar on his first offence is 14.4 months. And he can expect to be released after 7.2 months.

    But what do you think is the average sentence for burglars who have ten or more convictions?

    16.8 months with automatic release – with the expectation of release after 8.4 months.

    Commonsense suggests that cannot be just. And commonsense says that, if a persistent criminal is not behind bars, he’s more likely to be out on the street offending again.

    No wonder many people feel the law is letting them down. Too many criminals are raising two fingers at justice. We’re determined to put that right.

    We’ve been consulting on plans to end automatic early release from prison. Under our proposals model prisoners will be eligible for time off for good behaviour. Everyone else will serve their sentences in full.

    Anyone convicted for a second time of a serious offence of sex or violence would automatically get life. They would only be released when they’re no longer a danger to the public.

    And for persistent burglars and drug dealers, we propose stiff minimum sentences. Behind bars, crime is out and they’re in.

    These are tough proposals. They will be controversial. Of course, we will consult on them. But I believe it’s right to have greater certainty in sentencing. And I believe most people will support this approach. They will see it as fair. And so do I.

    You might have thought that all this would be common ground with our opponents, the Labour Party.

    So would I. But we would be wrong. Their record shows it. No matter what they say about crime, they persistently do something else. On another subject, one of them recently said ‘Watch my lips’. Well, we watched. And we saw what they did. And it was quite different from what they said. And so it is on law and order.

    We gave the police better powers to deal with riots. Labour opposed us.

    We raised maximum sentences for serious offences – like taking a gun to a crime. Labour opposed us.

    We gave the Attorney General right of appeal against lenient sentences. Labour opposed us.

    We decided to set up the secure training centres for young offenders. Labour opposed us.

    We are cracking down on bogus asylum seekers. Labour oppose us.

    And when the Home Secretary announced his 27 proposals to fight crime, the Shadow Home Secretary – now leader of the Labour Party – dismissed them as ‘gimmicks’.

    And this from the man who, only tonight, is saying that ‘the only strategy with an ounce of honesty or commonsense is to insist that serious crimes require serious punishment’.

    But let me be fair. When it came to the last Criminal Justice Act – which, amongst other things, gave the police new rights to stop and search, courts the power to clamp down on bail bandits, and allowed for drug testing in prisons – what did Labour do? They abstained.

    Day by day, Labour show themselves in their real colours. And the colour they reveal is not soft focus blue. It’s the colour of envy and hypocrisy.

    Mr Chairman, our aim is to prevent crime where we can. Detect it where it takes place. And punish strongly but fairly. In short, to get a law and order system that works. And we’re making some progress. We’ve seen the largest ever drop in recorded crime over a 2 year period. 572,000 fewer recorded crimes. 380,000 fewer thefts. 175,000 fewer burglaries. 4,800 fewer violent crimes last year alone – the first annual drop in violent crime for almost 50 years.

    We’ve taken a few knocks along the way. I don’t mind that. The irony is that those who have opposed our reforms almost always claimed to do so under the banner of freedom. I’m more than happy to argue about freedom with our opponents. Our reforms are all about freedom.

    Where is the freedom if victims see their aggressors released after derisory punishment?

    When the persistent burglar gets little more than a slap on the wrist?

    People have a right to live in safety, without fear.

    And if that means sterner sentences to make professional criminals more fearful, so be it.

    If that means thugs in balaclavas are put out of reach of their prey, so be it.

    Crime isn’t one of those trivial issues which grabs the headlines for a day and is then forgotten.

    It runs much deeper than that. For many it makes their blood boil. For others, it saps their morale. For all decent people it offends their sense of right and wrong.

    As Prime Minister, my aim is to ensure we have a system of justice which protects the public and the innocent. Which respects the victim. Which punishes those who break our laws.

    The vast majority of our people are law abiding citizens. They are the backbone of this country we all share. Our job is to maintain a system that defends their rights, their children and their property. And that’s what we’re determined to do.

  • PMQT – 19 October 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th October 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lichfield (Anniversaries)

    Q1. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to visit the celebrations of the 800th anniversary of the completion of the present cathedral and the 500th anniversary of the King Edward VI school being held this year in the city of Lichfield.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I warmly congratulate the citizens of Lichfield on these anniversaries. Unfortunately, I shall not on this occasion be able to visit during them.

    Mr. Fabricant: If my right hon. Friend is able to visit next year, not only could he join in the celebrations of the 801st anniversary of the cathedral but he could see our brand new anti-crime closed circuit television system in the centre of Lichfield and use the opportunity to speak to the people of the city of Lichfield, who will tell him that what we need is not do-gooders but more people like our Home Secretary, who are tough on crime and robust on punishment.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary richly deserves and gets my full support in his fight against crime. It is a fight in which he has engaged with great success without a great deal of support from Opposition Members. Closed circuit television has had a dramatic effect in catching criminals and deterring crime, and over the next three years we anticipate installing a further 10,000 new cameras up and down the country.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Clapham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October.

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

    Mr. Clapham: Despite the Government’s obsession with privatisation over the past 16 years, will the Prime Minister share the view of Dame Vera Lynn, the people of Dover and the Labour party and ensure that Dover and its white cliffs remain British for ever?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case and, as we look at plans ahead, I shall certainly bear it in mind.

    Mr. French: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the official solicitor is reported to have done a deal whereby the so-called memoirs of my late constituent, Mr. Fred West, are to be sold for £1 million? Does my right hon. Friend not find such a deal extremely distasteful? But, if it is to go ahead, does he agree that that sum should go not to members of the West family but to the families of the alleged victims?

    The Prime Minister: When I saw some of the earlier reports on this matter in the media, there was an implication that the Government were involved in the sale of the rights to Mr. West’s papers. That is, of course, emphatically not the case. The official solicitor who has made the sale is a lawyer independent of Government and he has made that decision on his judgment of what is right for the estate. Personally, I share my hon. Friend’s feelings about this matter.

    Mr. Blair: Can we have clear answers now to the two points of fact at the heart of the dispute between the Home Secretary and Mr. Lewis? At the meeting of 10 January, first, did the Home Secretary say that the governor of Parkhurst prison should be suspended–a disciplinary matter–rather than merely transferred to other duties, and, secondly, was it the Home Secretary, not Mr. Lewis, who demanded that any action taken be taken that day immediately so that he could announce it to the House of Commons?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend will deal with these matters in detail this afternoon. But let me say further to the right hon. Gentleman that the leading questions that he put to me on Tuesday in an attempt to discredit my right hon. and learned Friend were wrong. I have now had the documentary evidence examined which shows conclusively that the decision to move the governor of Parkhurst prison was the director general’s. My right hon. and learned Friend will be releasing that evidence later today. I hope, therefore, that before the Leader of the Opposition repeats unjust allegations, before he states new unjust allegations, he will withdraw the old unjust allegations and apologise for them. [Interruption.]

    Dr. Spink: The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his false questions.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Dr. Spink will come to order.

    Mr. Blair: We certainly do not withdraw those allegations and we shall make them good during the debate. What is more, I note that the Prime Minister did not answer either of the two points that I put to him. Let me make this clear to Conservative Members. This is not just Mr. Lewis’s word against that of the Home Secretary, although let me point out that he was the senior civil servant. The Government appointed Mr. Lewis and renewed his contract. May I tell the Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time and we are to have a debate on the matter in a short time.

    Mr. Blair: May I remind the Prime Minister that those now lined up against the Home Secretary on this issue are the chairman of the board of visitors of Parkhurst, the chairman of the Association of Members of Boards of Visitors, the chief inspector of prisons– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time and I insist that questions are put to the Prime Minister for reply.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister now release Philippa Drew, John Marriott and other civil servants connected with this matter from their obligations of confidentiality on this limited issue so that they can give their version of events and we can see who is telling the truth?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is very reckless with his facts and very fancy-free with his allegations. He was wrong on Tuesday and the House will notice that he did not apologise for his error. My right hon. and learned Friend will deal with all these matters this afternoon and I have every confidence that he will reveal Labour’s smears for what they are. I have one further point for the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is keen to lecture people on moral responsibility. Perhaps he should reflect that a high moral tone is inconsistent with peddling allegations that he knows are untrue.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister says that they are untrue, will he allow those civil servants who know the truth directly to give evidence as to their version of events? Now, yes or no to that question?

    The Prime Minister: I made the point in my first answer that my right hon. and learned Friend will be releasing the evidence this afternoon about the decision on Parkhurst prison. As to the other matters, my right hon. and learned Friend will make the matter crystal clear this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to retain any credibility in the country, he should acknowledge that he is wrong and apologise for unjust allegations.

    Mr. Waterson: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity during his busy week to consider the findings of the European Court, which has said that positive discrimination in employment is unlawful? Will he confirm that the full facilities of the Equal Opportunities Commission will be made available for the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an extremely intriguing point, and also touches on elections elsewhere that have been of interest to the House in the past day or so. I have no doubt that the departure of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the arrival of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) constitute a case of constructive dismissal and destructive appointment.

    Mr. Ashdown: With the Home Secretary now facing his eighth appearance before the courts, how does the Prime Minister justify a policy of “two strikes and you’re out” for a criminal? The Home Secretary has had seven strikes against him, and he is still in.

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to understand that there is strong support in the country for the law and order policies of my right hon. and learned Friend. Time after time, my right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessors have set out strong anti-criminal measures; time after time, the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition have voted for the soft option. They voted against raising the maximum sentences for serious crimes: they are against that. They were against giving the Attorney-General the right of appeal against lenient sentences: they want lenient sentences. They were against strengthening police powers to stop and search criminals, against giving the police more powers to deal with disorder on the streets and against making parents more responsible for their children. They do not like it, but that is their record on crime. The only message that the Liberal and Labour parties send to criminals is that they would be soft on them.

    Mr. Wilshire: Turning to Northern Ireland, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that it remains the Government’s policy to exclude from all-party talks all those who retain guns and explosives?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that there has been absolutely no change in the Government’s position. That will be clear to anyone who studies the full text of the remarks made the other day by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October.

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

    Mr. Mullin: Does the Prime Minister recall the occasion on which a man was found in the Queen’s bedroom? Does he also recall–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We have a very full day today. Come on, get on with it.

    Mr. Mullin: Does the Prime Minister also recall that the then Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw–who I think we can all agree was a gentleman of the old school–immediately offered his resignation? Was Lord Whitelaw wrong? Should he have said that it was an operational matter, and none of his business?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman were familiar with the framework document under which Mr. Lewis was working, he would see the clear distinction between policy and operational matters.

     

    Q4. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October.

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

    Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grant-maintained schools are proving more and more popular with parents–so much so that a school in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition is now balloting for grant-maintained status?

    The Prime Minister: I did not know that, but I congratulate the parents of Sedgefield on considering it, and I very much hope that they will vote in favour. I hope that, if they do, the Labour leader will have the chance to tell his constituents about the benefits of grant-maintained schools, which he so obviously values. When he does so, perhaps he can explain why Labour’s education policy is to enjoy those advantages–quite rightly–for its own children, but to deprive other people’s children of the same opportunity.

     

    Q5. Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October.

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

    Miss Hoey: Does the Prime Minister share my concern at the failure of training and enterprise councils across the country to meet their targets for special needs? Does he realise that, in the meantime, projects such as Roots and Shoots in Kennington in my constituency are facing closure from underfunding, despite having a wonderful success rate in terms of employment? What action will he take on that?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of the detailed question that she proposed to ask. I understand that she had a useful meeting this morning with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). I understand that Roots and Shoots has signed a contract with the Central London TEC. My hon. Friend has made it clear that the TEC is willing to discuss the terms of the contract and the costs involved by Roots and Shoots in an effort to ensure that provision is continued. As I am sure the hon. Lady is also aware, my hon. Friend has written to every TEC to urge it to pass on the substantial premium that the Government pay to special needs training. My hon. Friend will of course pursue that vigorously.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1995 Conservative Party Conference – 13 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1995 Conservative Party Conference, held in Blackpool on Friday 13th October 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Introduction

    Today is Friday the Thirteenth. Remember it. This is the day I’m going to tell you how we’ll win the next election.

    And if anyone is superstitious they shouldn’t be.

    This is Margaret Thatcher’s 70th birthday and she won three elections in a row.

    So the omens are good.

    Many happy returns to Maggie today, and it’ll be many happy returns for us at the Election.

    We’ve won four and we’re going for five.

    All elections are important.

    But the next is a watershed.

    Because whoever wins will inherit the strongest economy for decades.

    We built that economy.

    It wasn’t easy.

    And I don’t know about you but I’m not in the mood to hand it over to Labour to wreck.

    So, Mr Chairman, we’re going to mount the fight of our lives. And when the time comes, we’re going to deliver the win of our lives.

    Leadership

    But first a bit of housekeeping.

    As you know, in June I resigned as Leader of our Party and called a leadership election.

    I did so because speculation was drowning out everything we were trying to do.

    How could you argue our case on the doorstep with that sort of thing going on?

    Well of course, you couldn’t.

    It had to end – whatever the risk.

    I might have lost. If I had I would still have been at this Conference. Still offering my full support to the Party, I believe is best able to govern this country.

    But I won.

    And today, face to face, I’d like to thank you – for your support – when the going was rough.

    Thank you, too, to my campaign team led so ably by Robert Cranborne.

    And there’s someone else who has always been there when the stakes were high.

    She’s here today too.

    Of course – I mean Norma.

    Labour

    But, that was yesterday.

    Today, we meet united, healed, renewed – and thirsting for the real fight – with Labour.

    Last week the Labour leader predicted that we’d wave the Union Jack. Of course. This Party has never waved any other flag and we never will.

    To win, Labour must persuade people this country is on its knees. Clapped out. Beaten up.

    They shouldn’t find that too difficult. That’s the way it always is – under Labour.

    But they know it isn’t true under the Conservatives. And the world knows it isn’t true.

    The world knows the only way our country would match their deception would be if they were running it.

    I don’t question Labour’s patriotism.

    But is a funny patriotism to rubbish our achievements – how shall I put it? – before breakfast, before lunch, before tea and before dinner, and then get up and do it again before breakfast – on the Today programme.

    I don’t doubt Labour’s good intentions : the road to hell is paved with them.

    They say they want to help businesses – so they’ll clobber them with the Social Chapter.

    They say they want to help the unemployed – so they’ll destroy jobs with a minimum wage.

    They say they want to treat the unions fairly – so they’ll give them privileges even Michael Foot didn’t dream of in the 1970s.

    I think Labour has been re-reading “1984” – the book that introduced “Doublethink”.

    You remember – doublethink is the trick of holding two contradictory beliefs at the same tine – and accepting both.

    It was the brain-child of another public school-educated Socialist. His name was George Orwell.

    But actually it wasn’t. That was his pen name.

    His real name – was Eric.

    His surname?

    You’ve guessed it. It was Blair.

    Eric Blair.

    He changed his name. I can’t say the same thing about my opposite number.

    He’s changed everything else. His politics. His principles. His philosophy.

    But – to the best of my belief – he hasn’t changed his name.

    At least not when I got up to speak.

    But he’s abandoned so much, so fast you never know.

    The Liberal Democrats support all Labour’s nonsense.

    But they’re neither here nor there.

    Because as we saw the other day, they’re the only party in British political history that has had its entire battle plans wiped clean off the media – by a goldfish.

    The Great Divide – Us Versus Them

    Mr Chairman, around the world, people now believe Britain is winning.

    But don’t let’s fool ourselves.

    I’m looking to the future.

    There’s still a lot to be done.

    The new Millennium will bring longer, fuller lives.

    Shifts in world power.

    More and more competition.

    Changes in technology, fast and furious.

    And, even with growing wealth, new welfare problems.

    That is the Millennium challenge. We have to respond to it.

    Explain to people the opportunities within their reach. Tell them what can – and cannot be done – and what the price will be.

    By telling them I mean really telling them. I don’t mean insulting them by trivialising issues for instant media consumption.

    I believe the public will respond to the plain truth.

    I believe they’re as sick as I am of politics by soundbite, by nudge and wink.

    No wonder people are turned off politics. The way some politicians conduct the debate would disgrace a nursery.

    There are only two ways to the future. Labour’s way. And there’s ours.

    Scratch beneath Labour’s rhetoric and you see the reality. Prescott, Beckett, Blunkett, Dobson, Cook. They believe a socialist state can do it all.

    If that were true the past 50 years would have been quite different. Cradle to grave socialism – I always thought that rather constrained way to go through life.

    But the State can’t do it all – and, what’s more, the State shouldn’t do it all.

    Beat Labour one more time, and we’ve beaten socialism for good.

    Our way – the Conservative way – is very different.

    We believe the Government should choose what Government should do – and do it better.

    Beyond that we should help individuals shape their own future. Help them – but not nanny them.

    Conservatism is choice.

    Choice is liberty.

    Blazon it on your mind.

    We should offer choice whenever we can.

    But there’s one thing in our Tory tradition that has inspired me, it’s our historic recognition that not everyone is thrusting and confident and fit. Many are not: and they deserve protection. With a Conservative Government they will always get it.

    Individual rights will be defended.

    Ownership will be encouraged.

    And, above all, we will stand for – and will protect – one United Kingdom, unbroken and undivided.

    The Enterprise Centre of Europe

    We Tories often talk of business and the need for success.

    It’s worth remembering why. It’s quite simple.

    If business makes profit, it provides jobs and pays taxes.

    And those people with jobs pay taxes too. Taxes pay for our teachers, our nurses and our public services.

    So we must make business more successful.

    We are in Europe – and rightly so. It’s the richest home market in the world.

    Half of our trade goes there.

    But half does not. And both halves are equally important.

    That’s why Malcolm Rifkind will actively pursue the vision of Atlantic Free Trade – refreshing our vital links with the Americas.

    If we’re to compete with America, Japan and the Pacific Basin, we must be the unrivalled Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    Let me spell out precisely what that means.

    It means high spending and high taxes are no longer an option. The state spends too much of our national wealth. We must get that share below 40 per cent – and keep it there.

    The state spends too much of our national wealth. We must get that share below 40 per cent – and keep it there.

    If the State spends too much, it taxes too such.

    In the recession, we had to put taxes up to protect the vulnerable.

    Now the recession is over, as soon as prudent, we must get taxes down again.

    And – be in no doubt – I don’t only mean income tax.

    I mean the taxes that damage investment and stultify wealth creation. I mean inheritance tax. I mean capital gains tax.

    We must cut them, and then – when affordable – we should abolish them.

    We receive more investment into Britain than any other European Country.

    This very day, the Queen will open Samsung’s massive new development in the North East.

    Fujitsu, Daewoo, Nissan, Black and Decker, NBC, Siemens have all decided their future is here.

    You don’t hear Labour talk of this.

    Of course not. These companies didn’t invest in a socialist Britain.

    They set up here because it’s a Conservative Britain.

    And they’ll only be followed by others if we keep Britain Conservative.

    Labour say they know how to run a market economy.

    I asked Humphrey the cat about that.

    I’ve the first time I’ve seen him move so fast.

    It took all the resources of the Royal Army Medical College to get him over the shock.

    Labour have stood in the way of everything we’ve done.

    Where were they when we cut inflation?

    When we faced down union power?

    When we fed life back into the corpse of so many nationalised Industries?

    Humphrey could answer the question. Humphrey knows. Like Macavity, Labour wasn’t there.

    They were the advocates of the easy options and they opposed every tough decision we took.

    Interest Rates up? Disgraceful, said Labour.

    Interest Rates down? Not enough, said Labour.

    Interest Rates the same? The Chancellor must act, says Labour.

    Always, always, always the easy option.

    So when they criticise us, just remind them of this.

    If we’d followed their advice, we’d have been in Carey Street.

    Unemployment has been coming down for two and a half years.

    But it’s still far too high.

    The best route to more jobs is more small businesses.

    We are the Party of small business. When I was a small boy, my bread and butter was paid for by my father’s small business. He made garden ornaments 40 years ago and some fashionable people find that very funny.

    I don’t.

    I see the proud, stubborn, independent old man who ran that firm and taught me to love my country, fight for my own and spit in the eye of malign fate. I know the knockers and sneerers who may never have taken a risk in their comfortable lives aren’t fit to wipe the boots of the risk takers of Britain.

    When my father’s business failed – because his health failed – I saw the price the small businessman may have to pay.

    I know the sacrifice they make for the dreams they have.

    They don’t know whether they’ll succeed.

    But they work as hard as they can.

    That’s why, as Ian Lang told you, we’ve set up the biggest consultation with business ever seen in this country – to find out what more we can credibly do to help then.

    Frankly, Mr Chairman, I think they’re heroes.

    Europe

    I know one thing: we mustn’t pile burdens on business.

    So let me say this to our friends and partners in Europe.

    Don’t ask me to sign the Social Chapter. I won’t do it.

    I don’t look for popularity abroad – I prefer to protect jobs right here.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I’m for Europe, not against it.

    And I intend to argue for policies that will help it succeed. Pressure to stop arguing and go with the European consensus is strong. It’s difficult to set rational argument against the last movement of Beethoven’s Ninth.

    We must be sympathetic, but we must stand our corner.

    We must ask our partners to understand our thinking and we must understand theirs.

    Against the background of the traumas Europe suffered over the past 60 years – war, dictatorship, civil war, military occupation – it’s not surprising to me that they look towards European unity as a guarantor of political stability. Of their decision never to go to war with one another again.

    Only twenty years ago, Greece, Spain and Portugal – new partners in Europe – were ruled by men in dark glasses and epaulettes.

    Now these countries are secure in the European Union.

    In a few years’ time – thanks in large part to British policy – they will be joined by Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and others, now liberated from Communist dictatorship.

    They are knocking on the door to entry and we want to tie them in to the democratic family of Nations.

    Because it’s in our British interest: a further guarantee that our children and grandchildren will never face the conflicts than cost the lives of so many of our fathers and grandfathers.

    Unoccupied, undefeated, the war left Britain with a very different perspective from the rest of Europe.

    If we want to persuade our partners that their policies for Europe are wrong – as I believe many of them to be – we must use our imagination to understand their feelings and their motives.

    We entered Europe,

    For prosperity.

    For co-operation.

    For a louder voice on that great Continent.

    But we did not enter it for a new tier of Government.

    We did not enter it for Socialism through the back door.

    And we did not enter it for a federal Europe.

    It wouldn’t work for us. Our partners must understand that it’s politically and constitutionally unacceptable.

    But that’s what Labour would agree to and I believe they are profoundly wrong.

    We will advance our arguments firmly and courteously in Britain and in Europe.

    For Britain for Europe.

    But underneath the rational argument we should not be misunderstood.

    If others go federalist, Conservative Britain will not.

    Welfare spending

    Mr Chairman, providing quality care for those most in need is a strong part of the Tory tradition.

    Shaftesbury and Disraeli were doing it when socialism was just a distant nightmare in most people’s minds.

    We are proud of our free National Health Service. We have fought to make it the best in the world in the next century. We have put more resources into health. Not just once, but year after year. And we are modernising it, so that it remains the best in the world.

    But, Mr Chairman, we are succeeding. People are living longer. And that success in health creates new challenges for our welfare system.

    The easy way out is to load the bills onto future generations – issuing blank cheques for our children to pick up.

    In other words, living on tick. I wasn’t brought up to do that. And I don’t think that it’s right for the country.

    We have already done more than anywhere else in Europe to build up massive pension funds.

    But because we live longer, we need to develop similar approaches to long term care – encourage new forms of savings, new kinds of insurance, more flexible use of pensions.

    That’s the next step forward in our welfare system, and one we are examining right now.

    We don’t have all the answers yet. But it is important that people know we’re addressing their long-term problems.

    It’s a huge challenge but it’s one we can’t duck and one we must get right. And it’s one that will only be met by recognising the money we spend has first to be earned through an enterprise economy.

    It’s a strong Tory tradition that you and I look after ourselves and our families before we turn to others to pay our bills.

    That’s why we need to target our welfare spending on those who need it.

    I don’t need anyone to tell me that the welfare system matters.

    I know what it’s like when the money for the week runs out by Thursday.

    But welfare should offer people a ladder back to the pride of self-reliance, not a trap for the poor.

    That’s why we’re designing a welfare system for the twenty-first century.

    Targeting benefits. Reforming pensions. And helping people from welfare back into work.

    But not tolerating those on welfare who won’t work.

    From next autumn, everyone who is unemployed will need to undertake a contract for work.

    A contract that makes it absolutely clear that they have obligations to accept paid work when it is available.

    Mr Chairman, we’ll continue to shape a welfare system that is generous to those in need. We can do no other.

    But it must be one that also reflects the basic Tory instincts of rewarding prudence, thrift and family responsibility.

    Education

    Education affects not just careers, but people’s whole lives. That’s why, when I became Prime Minister, I put education at the top of my agenda.

    I haven’t changed. But education has.

    Since then we’ve introduced regular tests. Made school inspection more rigorous. Given parents more choice and information.

    Today, three times as many young people become students as in 1979.

    Last year I told this Conference that we would make nursery education available to all 4 year-olds.

    We’re doing just that with vouchers: to put power and choice where it belongs: not in the hands of bureaucrats. But in the hands of parents.

    Choice. Choice. Choice. And all opposed by Labour.

    I still want to widen choice in education.

    Some years ago, we set up the Assisted Places Scheme. It helps children from low income homes to go to our best private schools.

    It’s been a great success.

    But Labour hate it.

    That’s true to form – they always claim to want to help people – but in return they demand that people know their place.

    And in Labour’s view there is no place for children of low income families in private schools. So they want to abolish the scheme outright. Labour’s message to them is: no choice for the poor.

    One of the schools that offers places to pupils on this scheme is in Edinburgh. It’s one of Scotland’s most famous private schools – Fettes.

    Quite a lot of famous politicians went to Fettes including – Iain Macleod.

    Iain Macleod was a One Nation Tory and wouldn’t he have been proud to see pupils of poor families at his old school – sent there by a One Nation Government.

    So am I. So I’m going to give more children that opportunity.

    We’re going to double the Assisted Places scheme.

    But I want to widen choice still further.

    So if parents want specialist schools, we should let them have them.

    And if they want religious schools, we should let them have them too.

    This isn’t a dogma. It isn’t elitist. It’s based on the belief that children are first and foremost the responsibility of parents: and they know what is best for their children.

    We also want excellence in education, so I believe we should let good schools expand.

    Bad schools should be closed.

    Of course, closing bad schools means a row. But it’s the right row to have and Gillian Shephard is prepared to have it.

    Not every child can benefit from the Assisted Places Scheme or private education.

    Real choice will come when every state school offers the highest standards – when every state school prizes discipline, when every state school puts learning before political correctness. Gillian is going to work with every good head and teacher to deliver that.

    Many parents believe they’ve found a way to higher standards already. They’ve chosen for their schools to become independent, self-governing schools: what we call grant maintained.

    These schools are in the state sector. Run by the Head and the Governors. They get their money from government to spend as they think fit.

    Their results have been outstanding.

    That’s why I want to enable all schools to become grant-maintained.

    But Labour want to destroy them – wipe out their freedoms and take away their budgets.

    These schools became self-governing after a ballot of parents. Parents chose independence. Labour want to wreck then without a ballot. Labour hate independence.

    So, parents at the next election – choice or no choice. That’s the choice.

    VE/VJ Day

    This year we have all remembered with gratitude the sacrifice our predecessors made for our forbears.

    VE Day and VJ Day were very special.

    Most of you would have attended some of the events or watched the remarkable television coverage.

    I was there. I found it immensely moving.

    The sense of pride was tangible.

    But Mr Chairman, unlike others, I didn’t hear people on VJ Day shouting out party political propaganda.

    For me, it was a day in which a free people paid tribute to those who kept them free.

    Back in June you will remember the huge commemoration which took place in Hyde Park.

    Let me tell you a story of that day.

    At the entrance to one stand was an elderly man trying to get in.

    He had no ticket – so the security guard was about to turn him away.

    But luck would have it, a brigadier was passing by. Not any old brigadier, but one of the organisers of VE Day. He saw something pinned to the chest of this elderly man.

    Not all of us would have known what it was. But the brigadier did.

    It was the highest award for gallantry in our armed forces: the Victoria Cross.

    The elderly man was immediately given a seat of honour on the platform.

    Later that day, I had the privilege of meeting him – and the other Victoria and George Cross holders.

    I learned that they receive a small annual payment.

    It was £100 a year. A figure set 40 years ago, before many years of inflation. It has never changed.

    It seemed to me that, in this year of all years, it should be changed;

    So to show that this country has not forgotten the bravest of the brave: it will be changed.

    From August this year that payment will be uprated to its original value. It will increase from one hundred pounds a year to one thousand three hundred pounds a year.

    Northern Ireland

    In the last year, life has changed in Northern Ireland.

    I want to make those changes permanent. To see the next generation there growing up in prosperity – and peace.

    Patience, determination and fairness have carried us a long way.

    No one has shown these qualities more consistently than Paddy Mayhew and Michael Ancram – Northern Ireland has been well served by them.

    But we’re not there yet. There are still some who, in one breath, say they’ve given up violence for good – and in the next warn that it could return. It needn’t, and it won’t, unless they themselves pick up the gun.

    But if it is to last, it must be a just peace. One that is fair to all sides.

    And a peace that is constructed away from the shadow of the gun.

    However long it takes, building this peace in this part of our United Kingdom will continue to stand at the top of our priorities.

    Britain in the World

    Mr Chairman, Britain has big interests in the world.

    We are the only nation at the hub of the European Union, the Commonwealth, NATO and the United Nations. We are a nuclear power and a member of the Permanent Five of the Security Council.

    Our armed forces are today serving in more than forty countries including Bosnia.

    I sent troops there in 1992. Not everyone approved but I believe it was right.

    They went to the Balkans for two reasons – to protect men, women and children from starvation, rape and genocide and to prevent a full scale war at the crossroads of Europe.

    They have succeeded superbly – often at great risk to themselves. We can be proud of what they have achieved.

    It now seems possible we may soon have an uneasy peace. I hope so.

    But our role will not end there.

    Help will be needed to monitor the peace and we will play our part in this.

    International influence creates international obligations – and we will meet them.

    The Constitution

    Mr Chairman, we can only continue to be a big player abroad if we remain one United Kingdom at home.

    We recognise that Scotland and Wales are Nations in their own right.

    Of course, if they insist they could ultimately go their own way. We could not properly stop them.

    At the moment there is a clamour for constitutional change as many see the Westminster Parliament as a long way away.

    Some say we would be more popular if we bent to this clamour: if in Wales we set up Labour’s expensive talking shop, or in Scotland we said:

    “OK. You want your own tax raising Parliament you can have it. Don’t blame us when it all goes wrong.”

    But that is not our way.

    We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    I will not trade easy votes today for constitutional chaos tomorrow.

    We are sensitive to people’s concerns in Scotland. So we are looking at more ways of giving people more say over decisions affecting their day to day lives.

    But it’s my duty to warn of the effect of Labour’s plans for the constitution.

    Labour are proposing changes to our Constitution for their own party political advantage.

    In Scotland they are running scared of the SNP – so they have promised to impose a tax raising Parliament in their first year.

    In Wales they are not so worried about Plaid Cymru so Wales would just get an Assembly.

    And in England they can’t make up their minds so there they might – or might not – impose regional assemblies.

    There is no demand for these in England. Labour only promise them in an attempt which fails to justify the over-representation of Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster.

    It is a straightforward gerrymandering and we might as well say so.

    In Scotland, the new Parliament would raise income taxes.

    I hope Scotland realises what this means.

    People in Scotland, uniquely, will pay higher income tax on the same income than people in England or Wales or Northern Ireland. To start with, a tartan tax of an extra 6 pounds a week for the average family.

    Let me ask you a question: if you were a businessman, wanting to invest and create jobs, where would you invest: in Scotland, where you’ll have to pay higher wages to compensate for higher taxes, or somewhere else? You know the answer to that.

    The Tartan Tax will do two things: it will pay for more bureaucrats and more politicians and it will begin the decline of Scottish prosperity. Neither of them are in the interests of Scotland.

    All that is only the start. Conflict with the Westminster parliament would be inevitable.

    And then – the siren voices of the separatists will foment mischief and demand an independent Scotland cut adrift from the UK.

    These are not distant problems. These are Labour’s plans for the first year of a Labour government.

    Mr Chairman, opinion polls tell us the Scottish people are not fond of the Government at the moment. But I’m fond of then and they are being deceived by Labour.

    Labour’s plans are an immediate threat to Scotland and a threat to the United Kingdom.

    We will continue to look for ways to improve the Government of Scotland. That is our duty.

    But we will resist these damaging plans with all our strength. That too, is our duty, and the Conservative and Unionist Party will fulfil it.

    Law and Order

    Mr Chairman, as I go round the country I talk to people about crime. What they want is to feel safe – at home and on the street.

    In the past two and a half years, recorded crime has fallen.

    Well and good. Now we must make sure that the fear of crime starts to fall, too.

    People want crime reduced and criminals caught and convicted. And so do I.

    So today, let me add to what Michael Howard told you yesterday.

    We’re going to step up the fight against crime. To hit it harder and harder and harder.

    Organised crime is big business on an international scale. And – at its centre – is drugs.

    When I see the sheer evil of the drugs trade I am devoid of sympathy for the men around the world who run it.

    They live lives of comfort, often of outward respectability, while they pour poison into the veins of millions.

    Today, no parent, however safe and prosperous their home, can be entirely easy in their mind that their children won’t be offered drugs.

    And that is true in some of our market towns as well as our big cities.

    Two weeks ago, here in Blackpool, a 17 year-old died having taken drugs.

    That boy’s whole future was snuffed out for profit.

    Let me tell you what we shall do.

    First, there can be no question of lifting our border controls. We are an island and we need them. Those controls are vital. They are not negotiable. And they are staying.

    Secondly, our tradition has always been to have local police forces.

    But local forces alone aren’t equipped for this sort of crime.

    So for the first time ever, we’re discussing with the police the establishment of a national squad. This will have one mission: to take on organised crime in this country and break it.

    The police will lead on this. They will have the support of the new National Criminal Intelligence Service, working with Customs, MI6 and GCHQ.

    But all our available skills are not yet involved in this battle.

    For many years the Security Service has protected us against espionage and terrorism.

    But they can’t help the police because it is illegal for them to do so.

    I think that’s absurd. And in an age when our children are more likely to be killed by a drug dealer than by an enemy missile, I think it’s indefensible.

    So this autumn, we will change the law. It’s time to let the Security Service into the battle for the public and against organised crime.

    Day by day, we are making more use of modern science against the criminal.

    We are already using Closed Circuit Television in public places across the country.

    This has been hugely successful. More cameras mean less crime.

    So over the next three years we will add 10,000 more cameras in town centres, shopping malls and public places in every part of the country. They will improve security for the shopkeeper and safety for the shoppers.

    But the most effective eyes are the policeman’s eyes.

    I want to make every street safe.

    Since 1979, we have recruited an extra 16,000 policemen – 500 in the last year

    That’s helpful. But not enough.

    I want to send an unmistakeable message to every criminal that there are going to be still more police on the streets.

    So let us tell Chief Constables now so they can plan ahead.

    So, Chief Constables, begin to plan. Because in the overall arithmetic of this year’s public expenditure settlement we have found the resources over the next three years to put, not 500 but an extra 5,000 police officers on the beat.

    Mr Chairman, I said we intended to intensify the fight against crime – and I mean it.

    Peroration

    Mr Chairman, after four terms, why a fifth?

    Because in a shifting world only we will build a safe future for our people and heal the scars of the past.

    Because we are building a more secure economy as the enterprise centre of Europe.

    Because we are reforming public service to make it more accountable to the public who pay for it.

    Because we stand for choice and excellence in education, and in the midst of the biggest revolution since Rab Butler.

    Because we will retain the old rock solid guarantee of the health service that care will be free at the point of delivery, and where improvement is necessary it won’t be treated as a sacred cow.

    Because defence and security of the realm and the safety of our streets are paramount concerns of our Party.

    We Conservatives are:

    – for the individual, not the state

    – for choice, not direction

    – for ownership, not dependence

    – for liberty, not control.

    These are the enduring things, the cornerstones of our beliefs. We have worked for them, cared for them, fought for them.

    We are building the greatest success for this nation that we have known in our lifetime.

    We will not surrender them to a light-weight alternative.

    We carry the scars of battle, yes, but they’re honourable scars. We know no other Party can win the battles for Britain that lie ahead.

    So when you go home – refreshed and uplifted, I hope, by our Conference – remember these things, and ask the people on the doorstep:-

    – Would taxes be higher or lower under Labour?

    – Would inflation be higher or lower under Labour?

    – Would there be more or less choice under Labour?

    – Would our defence be more secure under Labour?

    You and I only have to ask the question to know the answer.

    We stand for a wise and kindly way of life that is rooted in our history.

    Our hopes from our country are not tired.

    Our ambitions are not dimmed.

    Our message to our fellow country men is clear. Millions have still to make up their minds.

    The choice is theirs. Our Nation’s Future is at stake – and we stand ready to serve.