The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Devolution

  • 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.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the 1995 Welsh Conservative Party Conference – 9 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Welsh Conservative Party Conference, held in Llangollen on Friday 9th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Bosnia

    Mr Chairman, I’d like to turn first to the remaining Royal Welch Fusiliers – and the Royal Air Force military observer – still being held hostage in Bosnia.

    That is where the thoughts of many people in Wales will be until they are safely home.

    Of course, we’re all relieved that so many of their colleagues have now been released unharmed.

    But let us be clear. These are impartial peacekeepers who should never have been seized in the first place.

    To hold just one hostage, just one peacekeeper – let alone dozens – is despicable.

    No reputable army would have contemplated doing it.

    The leaders of the Bosnian Serbs know that they will be held personally responsible if they let any harm befall our men.

    They should release them unharmed.

    Release them unconditionally.

    And release them immediately.

    Mr Chairman, I spoke this morning to the Commander of the First Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gorazde, Colonel Jonathan Riley.

    Let me tell you about the vital work the Fusiliers are doing.

    One company of the Fusiliers is at Bugojno – a base in Central Bosnia I visited last year.

    There British soldiers helped to establish a ceasefire between the Muslims and the Croats 15 months ago.

    The Fusiliers are making that ceasefire work.

    They and their colleagues are patrolling 140 miles of the old battle lines.

    They are helping former enemies to live together, work together, and rebuild their lives – in peace.

    Just a few months ago people there were killing each other in their thousands.

    Today, thanks to British and other United Nations soldiers, across a large area fields are being planted and children are playing safely and happily.

    In Gorazde, where three companies of the Fusiliers are stationed, there are about 45 thousand people.

    United Nations agencies have been supplying them with food and medicine.

    But Gorazde is now under heavy bombardment. Serb artillery is ranged against a large force of Bosnian government infantry.

    But the Welch Fusiliers are facing these difficulties with great determination and are in good spirits, as Colonel Riley told me.

    Let me give you just one example of the work the Fusiliers have done.

    On 23rd May, a little over a fortnight ago, two of the Fusiliers’ armoured cars were escorting an aid convoy.

    They came under heavy fire from the Bosnian Serb army. They fired back in self defence – as is their right.

    Their vehicles were hit, but they came away without casualties.

    On its way back, the patrol stopped to help a heavily pregnant Bosnian woman – and the Royal Welch Fusiliers delivered her baby and took mother and child to safety.

    Mr Chairman, life in Gorazde for the Royal Welch Fusiliers is arduous, uncomfortable and at times dangerous.

    But they have done a superb job.

    And I believe we should be very proud of them.

    I want the UN forces in Bosnia to be able to go on doing their job, so long as they are not facing unacceptable risks.

    We have a clear duty to save lives and prevent mass slaughter in our own continent.

    Yet there is an even stronger reason for us to have our troops there.

    There are war memorials across Wales and throughout the United Kingdom bearing the names of the millions who died in World Wars which began in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

    In the years before 1914, and again in the 1930s, Britain paid a heavy price for the mistaken view that events hundreds of miles away had no importance to us.

    By the time we learned that we could not turn our back on the fate of fellow Europeans, it was too late.

    So the British troops who are in Bosnia today are upholding a vital national interest – the preservation of stability in Europe.

    But while they are there they must have all the protection we can give them in discharging their duties.

    That is why the Government has decided to send reinforcements to Bosnia.

    It was a hard decision.

    But I am sure that it was also the right decision.

    One thousand men – an armoured engineer squadron and two artillery batteries – are already on their way.

    And I can confirm today that, as soon as details are finalised with the United Nations, over 5,000 men of the 24th Air Mobile Brigade will be deployed to Bosnia.

    They will form half of a new UN Rapid Reaction Force at the disposal of General Rupert Smith and his fellow commanders.

    They will provide additional protection for UN forces – and our British troops – so that they can defend themselves. And so that they can respond more robustly if they are attacked.

    But I must make this clear: British troops are not there to fight a war.

    It is possible the warring parties might make their job impossible.

    And, if they do, we might be forced to withdraw those troops. I don’t want that to happen, but it could.

    That would have dire consequences for everyone in Bosnia and grave risks for the whole region.

    Mr Chairman, that is why we should give our total backing to our forces.

    We ask much of our young soldiers.

    They are performing magnificently.

    And they should know that this Government will do whatever is necessary to provide them with the protection they need and the security they deserve.

    The Nation

    Mr Chairman, the Conservative Party has always had a strong vision of the right future for our country.

    Throughout the last twenty years we have set the agenda for Britain.

    The Right to Buy.

    Trade union reform,

    The free market.

    Strong defences.

    Membership of Europe.

    Tests in schools.

    Punishing not rewarding crime.

    Time and time again it has been policies which have been vindicated by events.

    And yet, all the time, our opponents have fought our ideas ferociously, and then been forced belatedly – and half-heartedly – to accept them.

    We have been successful in determining the terms of debate in this country because:-

    – our fundamental convictions haven’t changed;

    – our instincts and values have always been close to those of the British people;

    – and we have always put the national interest first.

    Many of the details of our agenda over the last 15 years are nearing completion.

    Now we are ready once again to move the terms of the political debate forward.

    While our opponents modernise themselves – up to a point – by catching up with our agenda of the 1980s, we will be moving ahead to shape the agenda of the 21st century.

    Let me remind you of the five key themes which we will pursue in building a stronger nation.

    They can be summarised by saying that we will work for:

    – A Nation of Enterprise and Prosperity;

    – A Nation of Opportunity and Ownership;

    – A Nation of Law and Order;

    – A Nation of First Class Public Services;

    – A Sovereign Nation.

    It is on the fifth of those themes – a sovereign nation – that I wish to concentrate today.

    Wales – the economy transformed

    A strong nation needs first and foremost to have a strong economy.

    Here in Wales the economy has been transformed by Conservative reforms.

    Wales is now more competitive.

    – There are 16 per cent more businesses in Wales today than in 1980. Self-employment is up by 40 per cent.

    – Wales has secured nearly £7 billion of inward investment in the last decade – creating or securing over 120,000 jobs.

    – With only 5 per cent of the UK’s population, Wales consistently attracts between 10 and 20 per cent of the UK’s investment from overseas.

    The fruits of this new prosperity may not be obvious to opposition politicians with their gift for competitive whingeing.

    But they’re clear for people with eyes to see – and clear right around Wales.

    – Home ownership has soared from 59 per cent in 1979 to 72 per cent – higher than anywhere else in the UK.

    – For the first time in decades unemployment in Wales is down to the UK average – and it’s falling steadily.

    – Ownership of consumer durables has soared. Half of households in Wales now own a microwave. 69 per cent – more than two thirds – have a video. And 72 per cent – nearly three quarters – have a car.

    Mr Chairman, what created this unparalleled prosperity?

    It wasn’t socialism.

    It wasn’t Liberalism or nationalism.

    It was Conservatism.

    And it is only Conservatism that will preserve that prosperity – and expand it.

    Wales has changed. It’s no longer famous as the home of dying trades, outdated technologies and clapped-out union attitudes.

    Today it has tomorrow’s industries, not yesterday’s problems.

    Now Wales exports televisions, computers, and compact disc players.

    It is a major tourist destination. And a growing financial centre.

    That is the strong and secure future for Wales under the Conservatives.

    Europe and the Social Chapter

    But our opponents have a very different approach.

    Even though Labour copy our rhetoric daily, there remain many differences between their policies and ours.

    But one difference is fundamental.

    At heart Labour believes that Britain should steadily progress down the road which leads to a federal European superstate.

    The piecemeal erosion of our sovereignty.

    The step by step construction of a United States of Europe.

    Mr Chairman, that is not the right way for a successful Europe.

    It’s not what I believe the people of Europe want. Or the people of the UK. Or the Party.

    And it is not what this Government will ever accept.

    We believe in an effective Single Market with rules fairly applied to all.

    A Europe which strengthens its competitiveness instead of undermining it.

    A Europe built around the free co-operation of sovereign nation-states.

    A Europe which, as it enlarges, recognises that it must be more flexible and cannot become too rigid.

    We will not ride on an escalator that takes us where we do not want to go.

    We will battle for the right sort of Europe – and Britain’s interest in it – in all circumstances and at all times.

    That is why, so long as I am Prime Minister, our opt-outs and our right to say no will not be negotiable.

    Labour’s misguided approach to Europe is summed up by their devotion to the Social Chapter.

    Of course, these days they are happy to use the language of markets, competitiveness, and of success.

    They don’t understand it, but they use it.

    But they talk more loudly and enthusiastically about their commitments to the Social Chapter and the minimum wage.

    Those policies are the ball and chain which Labour would put round the ankle of British business – and thereby cripple our chances of winning in the world’s markets.

    Mr Chairman, I fought to keep Britain out of the Social Chapter.

    I did so at Maastricht even though I was outnumbered on this issue by eleven to one.

    Monsieur Delors lamented that by doing so I had made Britain a “paradise” for foreign investment.

    What has happened since has justified his judgement – and mine.

    For the Social Chapter is not a fixed menu of measures.

    It’s a mechanism which would allow Brussels to foist an endless stream of directives on British business. And just look at some of what we have avoided in the last two years alone, thanks to our opt-out.

    The Works Council Directive.

    The Parental Leave Directive.

    The Part Time Work Directive.

    They might sound harmless.

    But they’re not. Together they would blunt the competitive edge of British businesses.

    Just those three directives alone would cost our companies almost £2 billion a year.

    But don’t just look at the statistics.

    Listen to what foreign companies say. And do.

    Companies like Black and Decker. They’ve switched their factories from Germany to Britain.

    Companies like Daimler Benz. Their Chairman has warned that his company may do the same unless the German government sorts out the problem of rising social costs.

    Companies like Nikko, a large Japanese bank. Their Deputy Chairman has said that firms invest in Britain because of our lower employment costs.

    Companies like Sabena, the national airline of Belgium. They say that they cannot compete with British airlines because

    Belgian social costs are almost three times higher than in Britain.

    So, Mr Chairman, when some suggest that we should surrender the huge competitive advantage which we have gained by staying outside the Social Chapter, my answer is simple.

    That opt-out was hard-won.

    And it is not negotiable.

    And while the opt-out stays in the UK, foreign investment will stay in Wales.

    That’s a Conservative promise that no other party can match.

    But what is Labour’s reaction to this enormous competitive advantage which Britain has gained from sixteen years of Conservative government?

    Do they queue up to praise it?

    Do they promise to build on it?

    Do they even to undertake to protect it?

    No, of course not.

    Labour’s pledge is to do everything they can to eliminate that competitive advantage as fast as possible.

    The Labour leader has said that one of the first acts of a Labour Government would be to sign up to the Social Chapter. That would be a huge and wholly unnecessary blow to British business and British jobs.

    And Mr Chairman, when it really matters, I don’t believe that the British public will vote for a party which is offering them the fastest sell-out since the Christmas sales.

    The Minimum Wage

    Then there is Labour’s commitment to a minimum wage.

    Of course the idea sounds attractive. Who would not want to help people on low incomes.

    But it is a delusion.

    The only way to make people better off is to strengthen the economy, raise skill levels and cut costs.

    That is what we have been doing.

    It is the reason why Britain has seen unemployment fall further and faster in the last two years than anywhere else in Europe.

    It is down by 650,000 since 1992.

    And it is still falling by around 600 a day.

    Falling unemployment is the most effective anti-poverty measure of all.

    And taking measures that destroy jobs is the fastest route to impoverishing a nation.

    Yet that is precisely what a minimum wage does.

    And it would be the low income jobs which the low-skilled, the part-time and the young depend on – either as the first rung on the ladder or as a useful supplement to the family income which would be lost.

    Mr Chairman, we must continue to tell people the truth about the Minimum Wage.

    We must not let them by seduced by its friendly sounding name.

    Under its sugar coating lies the bitter reality that it will cost people their jobs.

    Labour and Devolution

    But, Mr Chairman, of all Labour’s ideas the one which would cause most damage to Wales – and to the United Kingdom – is their plan to tamper with our nation’s constitution.

    Those who want to rip it up should realise that it is not some patchwork quilt that can be stitched together in a different way.

    It’s not a mix’n’match assembly kit.

    It is the product of generations.

    A union that has weathered trial and tribulations because we realise that, united, we are stronger, divided we are weaker.

    No wonder then that we have learned today that a clear majority of the British people – and even most Labour supporters – believe that Labour’s devolution plans would weaken the United Kingdom.

    They are right to think that.

    For Labour’s plans would potentially set each part of the United Kingdom against the others.

    That is why the last time this poison pill was offered, the Welsh people rejected devolution overwhelmingly.

    And that is why they would be wise to do so again.

    Frankly, Labour’s plans for a Welsh assembly are an insult to Wales.

    They carry no conviction.

    They are the left-overs of their plans for Scotland.

    There would be a Parliament at Westminster, a Parliament in Edinburgh, but only an assembly in Wales.

    Now, I think a Parliament in Edinburgh is a mistake.

    But Labour don’t.

    So, if it is right for Scotland, why isn’t it right for Wales?

    Why are Labour taking Wales for granted when it has so often been loyal to them? Let me tell you.

    Labour want a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh for their own party political reasons.

    They are afraid of the Scottish Nationalists.

    But a Scottish Parliament, with wide powers including the power to raise more taxes, ought to mean fewer Scottish MPs at Westminster.

    That would mean fewer Labour MPs.

    So to justify keeping Labour’s over-representation at Westminster they have cooked up the idea of a Welsh Assembly and Regional Assemblies around England.

    It’s a blatantly self-interested partisan policy to benefit the Labour Party.

    So the people of Wales would have foisted upon them a whole new layer of bureaucracy, and a whole new class of politicians, just so that Labour can protect their narrow party political interest in Scotland.

    It is a shameful spectacle – and Labour deserve to be punished for it by the electorate.

    In England, Labour’s desperate attempt to find a rational policy has produced a lurch from one policy to another. One day they support regional assemblies everywhere.

    Another day they want regional assemblies to be phased in, in some places.

    Because on yet another day they say regional assemblies would never appear in regions where they were not wanted.

    In Scotland, there is no answer to the big questions.

    Why should Scottish MPs be allowed to vote at Westminster on matters affecting England and Wales, when English and Welsh MPs would not be allowed to vote the same matters affecting Scotland?

    How can that be defended? No answer.

    What is the justification for the Tartan tax – forcing Scottish people to pay more tax than the English and Welsh just because they live North of the border?

    No answer.

    And what happens when a Scottish Prime Minister answerable to a Scottish Parliament finds himself in conflict with a United Kingdom Prime Minister answerable to a United Kingdom Parliament?

    You’ve guessed it – no answer.

    In Wales, as Neil Kinnock said, “Rightly or wrongly, the people will see the Assembly as a body which, in order to justify its forlorn existence, will have to take power from whatever tier of government it can get it’

    So the assembly would try to grab the powers of Welsh councils.

    That’s Labour’s new meaning of devolution.

    Not devolution down to the people, but p to the bureaucrats.

    Labour say their Welsh assembly wouldn’t be allowed to raise taxes.

    But have any of us ever met a socialist elected at any level who doesn’t want to spend more of the public’s money?

    So how long would it be before this Assembly started to demand the power to do so?

    These ideas would produce a decade of constitutional upheaval and muddle.

    But the damage would not stop there.

    The Assembly would become the focus of resentment against Westminster and a recipe for conflict with the rest of the United Kingdom.

    The Nationalists at least have logic on their side.

    They are profoundly wrong, but at least their arguments are logical.

    As for Labour, they have abandoned even the pretence of rationality in their schemes.

    The Mad Hatter could have dreamed them up.

    In their eagerness to tamper with the historical constitution of our Houses of Parliament, to divide up the United Kingdom internally, and to cast aside many of the veto powers protecting our sovereignty in Europe, Labour would inflict great damage on this nation.

    Mr Chairman, we must fight with all our strengths to stop the nation sleepwalking to such a disaster.

    That is our historic task.

    And you have my pledge to put the maintenance of our United Kingdom – and of the place of Wales within it – at the very centre of our campaign for the next Election.

    The Liberals

    Mr Chairman, a few days ago Mr Paddy Ashdown announced that the Liberals were dropping the pretence of being neutral between the Conservative and Labour parties.

    He said that the Liberals would never do a deal with us. Mr Chairman, I have news for Mr Ashdown.

    We’ve always known that he would be happy to prop up a Labour government.

    That’s no surprise at all.

    Mr Ashdown would no doubt be happy to be Minister for Morris Dancing in a Blair Cabinet.

    In fact, I’m sure he’d do that very well.

    But the Leader of the Liberal Democrats announcing the death of Liberalism as an independent political force is of some significance.

    Liberalism has in the past been a powerful force in the history of Wales.

    Whatever our quarrels with the Liberals, we should acknowledge that in parts of Wales they have fought socialism as vigorously as us.

    So I suspect that there will be some Liberals who cannot stomach being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Labour Party.

    They now know from the lips of their own Leader that there is now only one political party in this country which is committed to fighting the divisive, illiberal force of socialism and state control.

    Us.

    So those Liberals who still support the ancient Liberal virtues of individual liberty, of limiting the state, and of ever wider opportunity are welcome to join us.

    For only the Conservative Party now stands for those values.

    And we are open to anyone who shares them.

    Peroration

    Mr Chairman, I’ve no time for fainthearts in this Party.

    At the next election we will defeat Labour and their fellow travellers just as decisively as we have at the last four.

    We will be able to point to clear evidence of rising prosperity, as our decisions bear fruit.

    We will have a detailed agenda of policies to shape a stronger Britain in the new millennium.

    And we will have the knowledge that we and we alone will defend our nation’s interests abroad and our national unity at home.

    That is a strong platform.

    It is the right platform.

    And it is a winning platform.

  • PMQT – 16 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

    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. Griffiths: As the vast majority of the British public want to see the accounts of political parties open to maximum public scrutiny, will the Prime Minister join Labour in calling for the Nolan committee to examine all aspects of party political funding? Or what has he got to hide?

    The Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, within the past 18 months the Home Affairs Select Committee conducted a full inquiry into these matters. Subsequent to that inquiry, the Conservative party has implemented in full the code of practice drawn up by the Committee. The Labour party has refused to do so.

    Mr. Lamont: Will the Prime Minister take an early opportunity to point out to the public that almost every country in Europe has had to put up taxes to deal with the effect on deficits of the recession? Will he also point out that, even after recent tax increases, the tax burden in this country in the 1990s will be lower than it was in the 1980s, just as it was lower in the 1980s than in the 1970s, including deficits? Will my right hon. Friend also point out that, thanks to Conservative Governments, this country has by a long way one of the lowest tax burdens in Europe?

    The Prime Minister rose — [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend is entirely right– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: I commend to hon. Members opposite the excellent speech that my right hon. Friend made on this matter on Friday last week. As a result of the recovery, and despite the tax changes that we were compelled by the recession to make, households will actually be about £250 a year better off on average after tax and inflation this year.

    Mr. Blair: Given the latest pay and perks scandal in the utilities at the weekend and today’s massive rise in electricity profits, does the Prime Minister recognise that the utilities have degenerated into an unseemly racket and that the sooner he orders a thorough overhaul of their system of regulation the better? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have no more barracking from sedentary positions by individual Back Benchers. They will be named the next time.

    The Prime Minister: Everyone wishes to see consumers protected. That is precisely why we have regulators to control prices and why, when necessary, the regulators have acted to control prices. Utility prices have fallen during the period of privatisation.

    Although I have not yet had the opportunity to consider in detail the proposals of the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have to say that artificial plans to control profits smack very much of old Labour, not new Labour. The determination of what the Opposition call “reasonable profits” seems to me to be impossible. Who determines their level? Who says what is reasonable? What happens when profits bounce back after a period in which there have been losses? Do they apply just to the utilities or to other industries? These are the sort of questions that we would have asked of the Labour party in the 1970s; now we discover that we must ask them of the Labour party in the 1990s as well.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm the following? Electricity prices in real terms for domestic households have risen since privatisation, as the House of Commons Library confirmed this morning; water charges have risen by more than 40 per cent. since privatisation; gas complaints are up by 150 per cent. in the past year– [Interruption.] He can cap rail fares only by promising an open-ended subsidy from the taxpayer to privatised operators. Why does he always stick up for the excess profits and the managers who make themselves into millionaires rather than the hard-pressed consumer, who is forced to use such monopoly services and is fed up with the way they are being run?

    The Prime Minister: That was very well prepared, but almost entirely inaccurate. The reality is that the nationalised industries once cost the taxpayer £50 million a week and the privatised industries now yield £50 million a week. The average price of domestic electricity to households has fallen by 8.5 per cent. in real terms over the past two years; the price of gas has fallen by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since privatisation; BT’s main prices have fallen by more than 35 per cent. in real terms since privatisation; Britain’s water is now among the cleanest in Europe– [Interruption.] When those industries were all nationalised, prices went up year after year after year. The Opposition would like to control and regulate from the centre; they are determined to go back to when prices went up and not down year after year after year.

    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday’s vote by the police, which showed that they do not wish routinely to carry arms? Does he feel, like me, that the best way in which to protect the police from those who carry arms is to increase the sentences that we can inflict on such people, and will he consider bringing back the death penalty for the murder of police officers?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly very strongly support the decision not to carry firearms taken by the police in their ballot yesterday. That is wholly in tradition with policing in this country. I believe that it is the right decision and I warmly congratulate the police on having reached it. In recent years, we have increased the penalties for a large number of offences. I shall not retail them all at this moment, but I will willingly set them out in a parliamentary answer if my hon. Friend wishes me to do so. As my hon. Friend knows, I personally do not favour the return of capital punishment.

    Mr. Ashdown: If the Conservative party has put its house in order on the question of funding, why will the Prime Minister not allow Lord Nolan to look into it? Does not the question of funding of all political parties go to the heart of the public’s concern about trust in our political system? Does the Prime Minister not realise that, while he got high marks for establishing the Nolan committee, he will get no marks if he now seeks to turn what he told us was to be the public’s bloodhound into the Prime Minister’s poodle?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone who has studied the membership of the Nolan committee or knows any of its members would remotely recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s description of it. As he knows, there are only two ways of funding political parties in a free democracy. One is by subscription or donation freely given, and it is right in an open society that donors, if they wish, should preserve anonymity. [Interruption.] The other way is to fund political parties out of taxpayers’ money. I do not favour that way and I hope that we shall not go in that direction. What is wrong about funding of political parties is when the funding of a party actually buys influence over its policy. [Interruption.] That is what is happening with the Opposition, where trade unions have 70 per cent. of the votes in Labour policy-making bodies, and even the proposal for dramatic reform would only diminish that to 50 per cent.

    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been signed there remains a serious threat of proliferation, and that the possession of a nuclear weapon is a measure of deterrence against those who would possess nuclear devices? Does he not find it absurd that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen say that they would hold Trident but would never use it? Does he think that that would deter anybody?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that there is a logical case for saying that one would scrap Trident–although I passionately disagree with that case, as I believe that Trident is necessary as a deterrent–but it is absolutely intellectually unsustainable to say that one would have Trident as a deterrent, but to tell those whom it is there to deter that one would never use it. If that is their position, the Opposition might as well take the money and pour it down the nearest drain.

     

    Q2. Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Griffiths: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there are now an extra 500,000 people, notably those on low incomes, paying tax, principally because of the cuts in the married person’s allowance last month, and that, after 16 years of Tory government, there are a record 26.2 million people paying income tax? Is the message not clear: “Tory Governments damage your wallet”?

    The Prime Minister: First I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, if we had retained the Labour tax regime, there would have been an extra 1 million people in tax today. As for his specific questions, there are two substantive reasons why more people are paying tax this year. One is wage drift upwards. The second is the number of people who were unemployed but who are now in work and paying taxes. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that drop in unemployment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Jenkin: Further to the notice that I have given my right hon. Friend, as we approach the 1996 intergovernmental conference in Europe, and more particularly as we approach the ‘reflections’ group meeting in the summer, will he undertake to publish the Government’s contribution to that group? Is it not essential that the IGC should address not stories about square strawberries and straight bananas, but the real public anxieties about growing European Union power–anxieties which the Leader of the Opposition apparently does not share, as he would give away the veto? Like one of his predecessors, the right hon. Gentleman may be fit to become a European Commissioner one day, but he is unfit to lead this nation.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of the matter that he proposed to raise. I certainly agree that the European Union needs to be more responsive to the views of its people, with less interference and less red tape. We shall enter the IGC with a positive agenda, providing for more intergovernmental co-operation in a Europe of nation states, including co-operation in foreign policy, in defence and in the international battle against crime.

    I believe that the European Union, both at the IGC and beyond, should give more consideration to Europe’s place in the world rather than to the internal politics of the nations currently within it. We shall also press for more subsidiarity, more action against fraud and mismanagement, and a strengthened role for national parliaments. We shall not surrender our veto or our opt-outs from the social chapter and the single currency. I will consider my hon. Friend’s request that we should publish our paper.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Wicks: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement of his Health Minister, Baroness Cumberlege, speaking to the Royal College of Nursing, that

    “community care clearly isn’t working”

    and, if so, what does he intend to do about it?

    The Prime Minister: I understand from my hon. and noble Friend–who is more familiar with the quotation than I am–that the hon. Gentleman has quoted the remark out of context.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a tax-raising legislative assembly in Edinburgh which fails to address the West Lothian question and the number of Members from Scotland in this House is bound to be unworkable and will be merely a stepping stone to separation?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be unworkable because some questions about it are unanswered and unanswerable. No one has yet explained why Scottish Members should be able to vote on English matters while English Members would not be able to vote on Scottish matters. There is silence from the Opposition on that. No one has yet explained why people who live in Scotland should pay more tax simply for the pleasure of being in Scotland. Again, there is silence from the Opposition. If the Opposition were serious about the constitution of Scotland, they would long ago have been able to answer a range of questions on the matter. Yet they still cannot answer them. Their policy is bad for Scotland, bad for the economy and bad for the United Kingdom.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1995 Scottish Conservative Conference – 12 May 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association Annual Conference at the Royal Concert Hall in Glasgow on Friday 12th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me turn first to those Conservative councillors who lost their seats in Scotland last month and in England and Wales last week.

    From my time as a councillor, I know how bitter defeat feels. I know the disappointment when a good local record is swept aside by national politics.

    So let me say to them: you served local people ably and well. You served local democracy well. Your defeats were none of your doing. And I am proud of what you achieved.

    There are two things we can do after such a defeat. We can grumble and be disillusioned.

    Or we can fight back.

    We can work to make sure that the councils our opponents won this spring come back to us at the first opportunity.

    So we will keep an eagle eye on them.

    We shall set up a “Council Watch” to see how they keep their promises. To see how they spend your money. To see how they put your council tax up.

    We must put disappointment aside. Go out into local communities. Work. Work. Work. Begin now to prepare for the next elections. And when they come we will take back those councils, each and every one of them.

    Politics is in a strange mood at the moment.

    Curiously this is partly because we have won the battle of ideas and forced Labour to deny some of their ancient prejudices.

    We’ve won the battle for an enterprise economy.

    For individual choice. For consumer power.

    We’ve defeated the old socialist ideas of state control and public ownership.

    Of course, Labour still hanker for them in private. But in public they’ve been forced to claim that they disown all the values they once believed in.

    All gone. The Socialist cupboard, we are told, is bare after the most comprehensive philosophical wipe out in British political history.

    Well, I am a bit suspicious about that. Some changes, yes.

    But if Labour could shed so easily the values they held for so long, how deep is their commitment to values they’ve lifted from us likely to be?

    I’ll tell you. As deep as electoral convenience needs it to be. Labour know that the electorate wants Tory values. So they have an extraordinary election cry.

    “We were wrong all the time. The Conservatives were right. But trust us to behave ourselves in future. Oh, and by the way, please don’t ask us about policies.”

    We’re very generous hearted, we British, We always forgive sinners who repent and Labour is benefiting from that at the moment. But we’re also discriminating and I think people will ask “if they were wrong before, why should we believe they’ll be right in future?”

    It’s a good question – and we’ll go on asking it.

    The extraordinary thing about our Party is that, after 16 years in government, it is still fizzing with ideas.

    In this week alone we have announced measures to:

    – cut electricity bills

    – make our Post Office more competitive

    – and crack down on drugs

    And before, the Commons rises for the summer we will:

    – publish a Housing While Paper

    – launch a major new national volunteering programme

    – invite the first private Sector bids to run British Rail services

    – announce a fares policy to help commuters

    – publish a second Competitiveness White Paper

    – consult widely on ID Cards

    – and announce a bold expansion of nursery education.

    We already have a range of ideas which will keep us moving forward for years.

    But it is right for us now to discuss with you, the bedrock of our Party, what you want to see in the next Manifesto.

    A Manifesto grown from our grassroots, as we build the next phase of Conservatism.

    I came from the grassroots of the Party.

    I know the wealth of talent and experience our supporters have to offer.

    So I will be the first leader in our Party’s history to give every member in every constituency an historic opportunity.

    An invitation to help shape the policies of the future.

    I have already set up Policy Groups on more than 30 policy areas, chaired by senior Ministers, and including representatives of all parts of the Party. Their first reports will reach me by the end of June.

    Now it is right to unveil the next stage of this unprecedented exercise in consultation.

    From this summer to next spring there will be a series of discussions across the party and across the country.

    Each discussion will be around the Five Themes set out last month:

    – how to secure economic prosperity

    – how to improve further opportunity and choice for everyone

    – how to improve decent, commonsense values in law and order

    – how to deliver first-class public services

    – And how to build pride in the nation.

    These discussions will be detailed and genuine. They will take place on an agenda which will be shaped by the work of the relevant Policy Groups.

    I want Conservatives up and down the country to take part in this.

    CPC groups – as ever – will form the core of policy discussion at constituency level. But we intend to involve as many party members as possible.

    These discussions will be followed by Conferences here in Scotland, Wales and across England, where we can bring these ideas together.

    The developing agenda – not detailed Manifesto points – will begin to be unveiled at next year’s Central Council Meeting in Harrogate.

    I will play an active role in leading this process, together with all my colleagues.

    The Conservative Party has always listened to the people.

    That is why we were the first party to support the Right to Buy.

    The first to introduce Trade Union democracy. The first to give parents the right to know about their children’s schools.

    So we will begin this massive consultation exercise within our party, and then will broaden it to engage and enthuse the public as a whole.

    So I am going to go out and about. To meet you, to talk to you and to listen to you.

    To build a People’s Policy to bridge the gap between the doorsteps of Britain and the Corridors of Power.

    I’m going to share with you the hopes I have for this country of ours. The problems we face. The opportunities we have. I’m going to talk about the long-term as well as the short-term.

    And when we’ve reached a policy conclusion, I’m going to ask the nation for a majority sufficient to put it into operation.

    I believe that the commonsense of Conservatives up and down the land is the best guarantee that we will enter the 21st century with the right policies for our nation’s future.

    Let me turn to two or three of the five themes. First, policies to spread economic prosperity and security.

    People feel secure when:

    – their jobs are secure

    – their living standards grow steadily year after year

    – and they can be confident that their children will have a better future. I know of no-one who doesn’t want that.

    But it doesn’t happen by magic.

    If we’re really determined to build security and prosperity for all – as I am – then we must continue to build an enterprise economy. And to get that we must take the tough decisions to create it.

    Sometimes they’ll be unpopular. Because it means resisting the clamour of every interest group for higher spending.

    It means clamping down on inflation, however loud the protests. And it means cutting state borrowing, whatever the moans.

    We’ve been doing that. And it is the right thing to do – and to do what is right, however, difficult, is not a bad creed for politics.

    And, as a result, we can now look forward to the best and most prolonged period of economic recovery for decades.

    This is no ordinary recovery. What we may be seeing – provided we can carry it fully through – is the reawakening of Britain as a growing economic power.

    And before our critics scoff let me give them some examples.

    When we came to office, Scotland was the home of dying industries, poor productivity and mass trade union power. Frankly, it was an economic mess.

    Today Scotland is in the forefront of new technologies. Scotland makes more than a third of all the personal computers manufactured across Europe and over half of all Europe’s cash machines.

    Scotland is attracting inward investment from companies in Germany, Japan, the United States and across the globe.

    They are attracted here by the enterprise culture built by the Tories, the corporate tax structures, designed by the Tories, and our lack of the Social Chapter insisted on by the Tories.

    Since 1980 Scotland has seen self-employment increase by two-thirds.

    For the first time in decades, the United Kingdom is increasing its market share of exports.

    And we are now paying our way in the world.

    For years we looked enviously at the industrial competitiveness of Japan. So we attracted their investment. Now Japanese companies based in Britain are exporting their products from here back to Japan.

    And now, just think about this. Today, when you put visible and invisible trade together, the UK is in surplus with Japan.

    How many of us ever thought we would see that happen again? That transformation is remarkable.

    And it’s been achieved by implementing the Conservative agenda of reducing burdens on business. Cutting back the power of shop stewards.

    Getting Whitehall off the backs of our companies. Lowering corporate taxes. Resisting unnecessary regulations from Brussels.

    And above all, by setting free the talent and skill of individuals right across this country. No serious observer can doubt these changes.

    And yet the country had better be warned: every aspect of this transformation would be reversed in one term of Labour government.

    We were told that by changing Clause IV Labour showed they were reformed: they no longer believed in nationalisation. At last, they were a modern party.

    But what have they spent the last fourteen days doing?

    Pledging themselves to reverse rail privatisation – even though it will produce lower rail fares.

    Promising to end compulsory competitive tendering – even though it has saved council taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds.

    Threatening new controls on privatised companies – even though their increased efficiency has produced a much better deal for consumers.

    And trying to block the privatisation of the nuclear industry – even though it will cut electricity bills right across the country.

    What this shows is that there is still a yawning credibility gap between what Labour says and what Labour does.

    Do real Labour honestly worry about the profitability of our companies at ward meetings in Govan and Monklands?

    Do they agonise about the “insecurities” of the middle classes in Constituency Labour Parties in Tayside?

    Do delegates at Labour Conferences rack their brains to propose new policies to help private enterprise?

    Of course not. You only have to ask the questions to know the answer.

    If they were really serious they’d stop supporting the Social Chapter.

    They’d drop their ideas to force employers to recognise trade unions.

    They’d abandon their commitment to a minimum wage.

    They won’t, of course. Because their commitment to the market is skin-deep. Were they to be in government, their Party would resurrect the calls for Socialism.

    Daily our warnings are being proved right.

    We always said the minimum wage would be damaging to jobs. And this week has proved it

    First the CBI made it clear that they believe that any minimum wage would destroy jobs, drive away investment and cripple our companies.

    And now we learn of a huge row within the Shadow Cabinet.

    John Prescott attacked Gordon Brown’s figures on the minimum wage.

    Gordon Brown attacked John Prescott. So in the end, decisive New Labour could only agree not to publish a figure at all.

    Let me help them out of their dilemma. A minimum wage would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and hurt most those who are most vulnerable.

    And that is why we believe it is wrong.

    This little cameo creeping out from behind the mask shows how utterly unfit for office Labour still are.

    They have ideas aplenty on how to make companies less competitive but none on how to help them win.

    That is why, next time as last time, the economy will be an area where we will win – and win well.

    I want to say a word or two about crime.

    We’ve always stood for decent commonsense values and for strong law and order.

    We’ve always stood by the police.

    Our first thought has always been for the victim.

    And we’ve always believed in tough action against crime, And we’ve backed up our views with votes in the House of Commons.

    The battle against crime is constant. It’s never easy. It has to be fought consistently over years.

    Tougher penalties. New crime prevention measures. More powers for the police. That’s what we have been doing.

    The statistics show that crime in Scotland is falling. Good – but not good enough.

    So we have introduced measures which will have a significant effect on the fight against criminality.

    We are introducing a national DNA database to harness the advances of science against the criminal.

    This may prove to be the biggest breakthrough in the detection of crime since the invention of fingerprinting.

    From now on, those who break the law had better know that the best techniques of modern technology will be used to track them down.

    Just one drop of blood or tissue or hair at a crime scene could be enough to identify and catch a criminal.

    We have set up a national fingerprint register.

    And in the next few weeks a national database of criminal records will go live to provide a valuable new weapon against convicted and persistent criminals.

    From now on, if someone is arrested in Glasgow the police will be able to know immediately whether they have also been committing crimes in London.

    And our new Criminal Justice Bill in Scotland will give the courts and the police a wider range of powers than ever before to catch, charge and convict criminals.

    All these changes are designed to make our country safer and put more thugs behind bars.

    But we have fought this battle alone without Opposition support. Where have Labour been as we have waged this war?

    When we strengthened police powers to stop and search criminals, were Labour tough on criminals? No, they voted against.

    When we gave the police new powers to deal with riots, were Labour tough on rioters? No, they voted against.

    When we ensured that all prisoners serve at least half their sentences in prison, were Labour tough on prisoners? No, they voted against.

    And when we passed laws to fight terrorists who bomb and maim the innocent, were Labour tough on terrorists?

    Hazard a guess.

    No, they voted against.

    But most revealing of all, how did Mr Blair describe Michael Howard’s 27 measures to fight crime?

    Measures to crack down on young offenders. Measures to tackle bail bandits. Measures to stop professional crooks running rings round the courts. Measures called for by the police for years.

    Mr Blair called them “gimmicks”. Gimmicks.

    Well, I don’t call them gimmicks.

    The view I take of crime is quite straightforward. We are engaged in a war against the criminal.

    In that cause we should put the rights of the public first and the rights of criminals second.

    Most people are perfectly able to distinguish right from wrong.

    If people break the law, they should not be excused.

    They should not be pampered.

    They should be punished.

    That is what that people of this country expect. That is what this Party expects.

    That is what I believe.

    And that is what our policies will deliver.

    Let me just say a few words about policy on Europe. Britain’s future depends on us getting that right.

    The European Community gives our companies the biggest home market in the world.

    It has brought peace to countries which had fought for centuries.

    And it can increase the influence and prosperity of all the countries within it. It has many virtues.

    So I want Europe to succeed.

    But not at any price.

    And not at the expense of the nation-state.

    I am keen to co-operate with our European partners. But I will not deliver Britain to a federalist future.

    At Maastricht I negotiated long and hard for two key opt-outs against total opposition from our partners.

    Both were vital for our national interests. I secured them.

    I removed Britain from the Social Chapter – making this country a haven for foreign investment, and giving our companies a crucial edge over their competitors.

    And I reserved for us the absolute right to take our own decision, in our own time, about whether we join a single currency or whether we stand aside.

    There has been some speculation in recent days about what will happen to those opt-outs at the next Inter-Governmental Conference.

    So let me tell you.

    Those opt-outs will stay. They are permanent.

    And they are not negotiable.

    In any discussion about Europe’s future, I will always consider Britain’s interests before I decide,

    That is what this country expects. And that is what this party will deliver. Pride in the Nation is a phrase with a particular meaning here in Scotland.

    We have a deep instinct as Conservatives. We care passionately about the nations of the United Kingdom. Our feelings are emotional as well as intellectual.

    There is no other political party in the world whose history is so deeply bound up with the identity of one particular country.

    You couldn’t translate the Conservative and Unionist Party to any other country. Yet for 300 years, it has given voice to the people of a United Kingdom.

    I am proud of our Party. Of its history. Of its record. It has built Britain’s influence in the world.

    It has defended our institutions and our freedoms from threats without and within.

    It has worked unceasingly to spread decent values of democracy and push back the darkness of totalitarianism.

    In a rough, tough world, Britain has a high profile – at the UN, in the G7, in NATO and in Europe.

    We have real influence as we approach the 21st century.

    So it would be a disaster if we of all nations imploded into nationalist divisions of our own.

    Labour’s devolution policy is a shambles. With one speech last year, I forced a U-turn on regional assemblies in England. Since then, Ian Lang and I have asked a series of simple but important questions of Labour’s leaders about their ideas.

    Questions like how much would it cost? They don’t know. What would happen to the Scottish Office? Difficult one, that. And what is their answer to the West Lothian Question?

    Mr Blair said that “The answer to the West Lothian Question is the answer that we’ve always given”.

    Unfortunately for him, they’ve never given an answer.

    In that at least it’s consistent with the rest of Labour’s Scottish policy. There are lots of questions, but rather fewer answers.

    Labour’s approach to devolution is as elusive as the Loch Ness Monster but a good deal more dangerous.

    Nessie brings jobs to Scotland. Devolution would drive them away.

    So, why do Labour support devolution? It’s a good question.

    Not because they really care about the constitution of Scotland. If they did care, they would have found answers to these basic questions.

    Not because they think it make Scotland more prosperous, they are tartan taxers. They accept that it would put Scottish taxes up – and they know that the Scottish business community think it would drive away investment.

    No, the simple reason why Labour support devolution is just to lure votes away from the Scottish Nationalists.

    Yes, they are ready to play with the very survival of our United Kingdom for party political advantage.

    It is the most cynical policy of modern times.

    There could be no clearer demonstration of the difference between parties which talk about convictions and values – and those who live them.

    I scorn such cynicism. And I will never take any lectures from people such as these on the importance of principle in politics.

    And what of the Scottish Nationalists themselves?

    At least they have thought their policy through. It would be profoundly bad for Scotland but it is thought through.

    They admit that if you fiddle with the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament you will ultimately destroy the unity of the United Kingdom itself.

    The SNP aren’t Tartan heroes. They should be seen for what they are.

    They are socialists. They are unilateralists. And they are politically extreme.

    Their message is a contradiction of all Scotland really stands for. A denial of its historic role. Inward looking and introverted.

    They thrive on negative resentment, the culture of criticism. They kick traditional institutions just to feel good. It’s a dangerous game to play.

    The SNP’s approach boils down to one phrase. Socialism in one country.

    It has never worked. It can never work. And our task is to make sure that it is never tried.

    Scotland would pay a high price for independence.

    Taxes here would soar and soar again.

    Independence would be an unpriced menu.

    But I do not rest my opposition to independence solely on that.

    For Scottish independence would hurt not only Scotland, but the rest of the United Kingdom as well.

    All of us – Scots, English, Welsh and Northern Irish – would find ourselves citizens of a lesser county, with a smaller voice in the world, and with less chance to influence our future.

    So we are and will remain the Conservative and Unionist Party. We believe in the Union and in Scotland’s place in it.

    I believe the Union is in the lifeblood of our party and our nation. It’s our duty to stand up and defend it. We won’t shirk that duty.

    So long as I have heart and voice I will defend the Union against all who would weaken it.

    In the interests of all our country some causes are bigger than the transitory rancour of politics. And this is one.

    Those who would seek to marginalise Scotland must be defeated. And with the help of those in this hall they will be.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scottish Parliament

    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the sources and calculation behind his statement in January on the extra amount that a Scottish Parliament could cost the average Scot.

    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of introducing a Scottish Parliament which would undermine the integrity of the Union and make Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom. As I said in January, a tax-raising Scottish Parliament able to raise income tax by 3p in the pound could cost the average family on Scottish male average earnings £6 per week. I am arranging for the basis for this calculation to be placed in the House library. Moreover, if identifiable public expenditure in Scotland were to be reduced after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament to the same level per head as the United Kingdom average, the shortfall to be made up by Scottish taxpayers would be equivalent to at least an extra 19p in the pound on income tax. The basis for this calculation is also being placed in House Library.

    The proponents of a Scottish Parliament should have calculated the cost to taxpayers in Scotland before they committed themselves to its introduction.

     

    Bank of England

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will ensure that the replacement for the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England in a senior industrialist or trade unionist who understands manufacturing economy and its needs in competitive industry.

    The Prime Minister: The Government will ensure that the person appointed to this post will be the one best qualified to fill it.

     

    Scott Report

    Mr. Bermingham: To ask the Prime Minister how soon after the publication of the Scott report the minutes of evidence will be available; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The transcripts of the public hearings of Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry are available in the House Library and Westminster city library. In addition, Sir Richard Scott has made it clear that he will publish as soon as practicable following the publication of his report as much as possible of the documentary evidence submitted to the inquiry, including witness statements and the questionnaires sent by the inquiry to the witnesses.

  • Mr Major’s Focus on Scotland Speech – 24 February 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Focus on Scotland Speech, delivered on 24th February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Tonight I want to tell you about three things that matter to me. First about securing lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Second, about the interests of Scotland in remaining part of the United Kingdom. Third, about building economic strength for the long term.

    Peace, a United Kingdom, building prosperity. That is the sort of country at ease with itself I want to build.

    Let me start with the proposals I launched this week in Belfast.

    Terrorism and sectarian violence have cost 3,000 lives in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years, and have touched the lives of everyone in the Province.

    That threat has not been ended by six month of ceasefire. The paramilitaries have not yet put away their weapons. Even when they do – as they must, if they are to enter normal democratic life – scars will remain.

    But Northern Ireland now has an unprecedented opportunity. A chance for stability and lasting peace which has not existed in 70 years.

    We made three main proposals in our Framework Documents:

    – For a new Assembly with responsibility fairly distributed between the parties.

    – For new North/South institutions, under the Assembly’s control.

    – And for a new agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

    These three elements combined can help us to meet the aspirations of both traditions in Northern Ireland.

    The greatest opportunity of all, of course, is to build a lasting peace.

    We have already made more progress than was thought possible.

    In Northern Ireland everyday life has been transformed.

    People can now choose:

    – Whether to remain in entrenched positions, Nationalist or Unionist, and to shy away from new ideas and a new accommodation;

    – Or to help us build the best chance of progress in 25 years through serious, constructive discussion of our three-stranded approach.

    It is a choice between drifting back to sterile misery; or moving forward through free negotiation, underpinned at every stage by the principle of consent.

    Many difficulties lie ahead. The road to a comprehensive settlement will be a very hard one, but it can now be travelled and the prize for Northern Ireland is very great. A lasting peace, a secure future and the possibility of laying to rest for ever the enmities that have scarred Ulster for too long.

    Constitutional debates have arisen right across the United Kingdom. They have one thing in common. At the end of the day, the Sovereign will of any part of the United Kingdom must prevail. That is true for the people of Northern Ireland. It is true also in Scotland. If the people of Scotland ever decided they wanted to leave the United Kingdom, they would do so. We could not stop them. But what we can do, and what I shall do tonight is to argue that it is not in Scotland’s interests to embark upon a route that could lead to separation.

    People ask – “what’s the difference between Scotland and Northern Ireland?”

    Self-evidently there are differences. The risks are different and the rewards are different. Let me set some of these out.

    Northern Ireland has been riven by a deep sectarian divide. The history of Northern Ireland has been 250 years of suspicion followed by 25 years of killing. In Scotland, the last three centuries of union have been years of peace, prosperity and growing influence in the world.

    Sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland mean that none of the main political parties in Northern Ireland are mainstream political parties in the UK. In contrast Scotland has more than full representation in the UK Parliament.

    The voice of Scotland is well represented throughout the mainstream political parties on both Government and opposition benches at Westminster. It is from its strength in Scotland and Wales that the Labour Party derives its potential claim to govern the United Kingdom. That is not true of the parties in Northern Ireland.

    The legislation which affects Northern Ireland is enacted almost exclusively, not through the scrutiny of Parliament, but by order in Council. And there is only the most limited degree of local government at present in Northern Ireland, whilst Scotland has a well-established tradition about to be reinforced with new single-tier councils.

    But the differences are wider than that.

    A significant minority of the Northern Ireland population wishes, not to be independent, but to be part of another – foreign – country – the Irish Republic. In that context the idea of an assembly offers a chance of stability – and harmony. But no one in Scotland wants to leave the UK in order to be subsumed in a foreign country. In Scotland separatists see a Scottish Parliament as a means to achieve their ultimate goal of complete independence.

    Another difference is that in Northern Ireland the assembly may have legislative powers, but crucially, it will not have the tax raising powers proposed for a Scottish parliament.

    So let me turn to the dangers of a devolved Parliament for Scotland. My case for the Union is both emotional and pragmatic.

    Emotional because of the ties of history, of blood and shared experience over many centuries. These ties are strong. They speak to me and to millions of other people in Britain. They matter. And because of that they cannot just be tossed aside as bits of old dead history which have no power to stir the hearts of our generation. Lord knows we see enough examples in this country of the damage that is done when our traditions are ridiculed and the lessons of the past ignored. Our generation does not have all the answers.

    That doesn’t mean there can be no change to the relationship between England and Scotland. Of course they can. The great strength of the Union lies in its diversity and flexibility. It is a Union based on consent, not repression. That diversity has given us incalculable benefits. Our differing talents and approaches have made ours a more open and tolerant and more prosperous society. We’ve used our separate strengths to create a stronger whole.

    Of course in the end we can’t hold a Union together against the wishes of its people. But as Prime Minister, I must point out the dangers and the true issues at stake. I want to spell out the damage that devolution could do. It is not England’s interests or the Conservative Party’s interests I’m talking about. It’s Scotland’s interests. I don’t want to see the Scottish people sleepwalking into a decision which will damage and weaken Scotland and throw away all the opportunities you have earned over the past two decades.

    Suppose a Scottish Assembly has been set up with tax-raising powers. For starters we know it would have powers to make the Scots pay an extra 3p in income tax as a down-payment for the privilege of being Scottish. That’s 6 pounds extra for the typical family every week. But, of course, that’s only the beginning. Like Oliver Twist, it would ask for more – and it would get more. Whenever Scotland wanted more expenditure, the Westminster Parliament would probably say ‘Yes – but you raise it in Scotland.’

    How would Scottish business react? The days when Westminster could control spending and taxation throughout our country would be over. With wage demands higher because taxes are higher; with business shackled by the Social Chapter and minimum wage, where would be the incentive to come to Scotland? Would such policies in future bring such sound investment as Motorola, NEC and Digital to Scotland? Would such policies keep such investors in Scotland?

    Let me tell you my fears. A devolved Parliament in Scotland would inevitably come into conflict with a Westminster Parliament. There would be disputes over taxation and spending. There’d be disputes about the representation of Scots MPs at Westminster.

    There’d be disagreement over how much the Scots should benefit from taxes raised across the United Kingdom. Before long the majority in a Scottish Parliament would clash with the majority at Westminster. And that would harden attitudes, and lead to bitterness and resentment which would not be easily quelled.

    These squabbles are inevitable. And who would gain from them? The people who would gain from them are the very people arguing for independence.

    Let me offer you a quotation:

    “The proposal is that we can have unity without disunity. The proposal is that the best way to stand up to the nationalists is to lie down in front of them. That characterises devolution”. Not my words, but those of Mr Neil Kinnock. I could hardly have put it better myself.

    Devolution, in the context of Scotland, is the Trojan Horse to independence.

    I have always stood up in defence of the Union. At the time of the last election, some people wondered why. It was, after all, far from obvious at the time that “playing the union card” as some people put it, would benefit the Conservative Party in electoral terms.

    But for me it was not and has never been a matter of political calculation. Scots are patriotic. So am I. I have travelled the world but this is home, this United Kingdom. For me, it is above Party, above politics. If I were seeking mere party advantage I should welcome change at Westminster. To remove a large proportion of Labour MPs by consigning them to a Scottish Assembly might mean near perpetual Conservative majorities at Westminster. The truth is we sometimes pay a heavy price electorally for standing up for the Union. But that is not the point. The point is the unity of the United Kingdom. And that is worth the fight.

    I know – in the debate about Scotland’s future constitution, there is a tendency to brush economic considerations away, as if they were somehow irrelevant to the debate. But the economy matters, as we’ve seen in the last few years as we’ve wrestled our way through the recession.

    So let me turn to the Scottish economy.

    Something very remarkable has happened in Scotland over the last 16 years. Five years ago, people thought Scotland would suffer in the recession just as much as England and Wales. Yet, that didn’t happen. Overall, while output fell elsewhere in Britain, in Scotland it hardly fell at all.

    Some said it couldn’t last. Scotland would have its recession later.

    But they were wrong. Of course some businesses have found the going tough. But overall Scottish businesses emerged from the recession far better than any one expected – and far more strongly than the rest of Britain. In every year from 1988 to 1993, the Scottish economy did better than the rest of the UK. Before 1992, Scottish unemployment was higher than in the rest of Britain. Since 1992, its been lower – for the first time since records began. And the economy is still growing strongly.

    Why did the forecasters get it wrong? Perhaps they couldn’t raise their eyes to understand the change that has come about as a result of 16 years in which the right decisions were taken for Scotland and for the United Kingdom. Union reforms, privatisation, tax cuts, opening markets to competition, and policies which have now put us on a path for steady and sustained growth with low inflation for many years to come.

    Consider – and this is remarkable – consider the change in Scotland’s manufacturing base. Once more Scotland is making things and selling things of high quality all round the world. Not so many ships, not so much steel, but 11% of Europe’s semiconductors, 35% of Europe’s personal computers, over 50% of Europe’s automated banking machines and nearly 60% of Europe’s workstations. All of this with just 1.5% of Europe’s population.

    In the last quarter the number of people working in manufacturing industry rose for the first time since records began – in Scotland and in the rest of the UK. Our manufacturing base is widening. And when you consider the consistent decline in manufacturing employment we have all experienced since the Second World War, that really is a change around.

    I want that to continue. In the next two years, the Scottish economy is forecast to grow by nearly 5.5%. It will continue to grow providing we stick to our policies to keep inflation down – providing we stick to the course we have set to reduce Government borrowing – a course which brings us closer by the day to a time when we can get back to our agenda of cutting taxes once again.

    What are the results of all these changes in Scotland’s prospects?

    There’s an old stereotype in Scotland – the young man, fresh out of school or university, the world at his feet, talented, ambitious. What does he do? He leaves Scotland. In the old days he built the British Empire. He came down South too. You’ll find talented Scottish people well represented in virtually any profession of business in England. Even in Whitehall and Westminster.

    Scottish talent used to be Scotland’s biggest export.

    But all that has changed. The world today really is an oyster for young people. Yet in Scotland people are voting with their feet in a quite remarkable way.

    In the 1970s, Scotland lost 5,000 people per year to the rest of the United Kingdom. Since 1989, they’ve been coming back. The balance has swung the other way, 8,000 more people a year have chosen to live in Scotland from the rest of Britain. 13,000 more people every year choose Scotland, who would otherwise have stayed away or moved elsewhere. We’ve reversed the long term decline in Scotland’s population.

    People are flooding back for one simple reason: jobs. Not just any jobs, but jobs with a future in industries of the future, industries that will provide their children with jobs. Jobs that give them security, enabling them to live better lives, build up wealth, own more, do more, achieve more.

    The prospects before us are better than for generations.

    That is why – from the bottom of my heart I say – this isn’t the time to scratch and infect the sore of separatism. This isn’t the time to stir ill feeling between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Let’s resist this negative instinct to turn our backs on our closest neighbours in sullen and isolationist resentment.

    Over 300 years, it is the Union that has given Scotland its standing in the world and its prosperity. And now it is within the Union that Scotland is becoming one of the most successful modern economies of Europe.

    We should be raising our eyes and building on that, not risking throwing it all away in a constitutional maelstrom.

    You are a success story. The Union is a success story. The rest of the world admires you and all that you have done. Don’t throw it away because someone tells you the grass is greener on the other side.

    Let the successes continue and grow.

    Be bold, be confident and focus on Scotland and build its greatness in the United Kingdom.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Scottish Devolution – 23 February 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Scottish devolution, made in an interview in London on Thursday 23rd February 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why Scotland was being denied a legislative assembly which was being offered to Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I see why at a very superficial level people can say that, but the reality is that the circumstances are quite different in the case of Scotland, as opposed to Northern Ireland, in a range of very important areas. Perhaps it would be helpful just to spell out some of the areas. In Northern Ireland, the Assembly would not be a tax-raising assembly, the assembly being proposed for Scotland would be a tax-raising assembly, that is a very dramatic difference. In Northern Ireland there are different circumstances as well, there has been 300 years of strife in Northern Ireland, that sort of sectarian divide does not exist in Scotland.

    QUESTION:

    [The questioner commented that Scotland had a history of sectarianism].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not remotely of the sort you have seen in Northern Ireland, and I do not think anyone who has any familiarity either with Scotland or Northern Ireland would argue that case. But I could add some other points to it as well and will if you permit me to do so. In Northern Ireland none of the main political parties are likely on their own to form the government, that is not the case in Scotland, two of the parties in Scotland, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party could conceivably form the government, and of course the Liberal Party might well be part of a government, that is another material difference. In Northern Ireland there is no real local government. In Scotland there is a very well established traditional form of local government that has a wide range of local accountability and responsibilities – another difference. In Northern Ireland, because of its history there has been a history of an assembly, that is not the case in Scotland.

    QUESTION:

    [The questioner commented that Scotland had its own Parliament].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Many, many years ago. In Northern Ireland a proportion of the Northern Irish population would be prepared to leave Northern Ireland and become part of a foreign country, that does not apply in Scotland. Those are a whole range of very material differences between the circumstances that apply in Scotland and those that apply in Northern Ireland. The question is, should Scotland have more control over its affairs, that is what underpins all this. And I acknowledge that sometime ago, and I think one will see over recent years, there has been a remarkable devolution of authority to the Scottish Office, both before, during and subsequently to the stock-taking exercise that I launched before the last general election.

  • PMQT – 7 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

    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.

    Mrs. Ewing: Since the Government’s policy has virtually destroyed the manufacturing base of the north of Scotland–including industries such as our pulp mills, oil fabrication yards and a smelter–and, more recently, led to the mothballing of three distilleries, is the Prime Minister prepared to allow the Cabinet to sit back and watch the destruction of our tourist industry as a result of the axing of rail services, both sleeper accommodation and Motorail facilities, to the north of Scotland ? Will he, as a courteous man, now instruct the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland to afford the representatives from the north of Scotland a meeting–a request for which was submitted some six weeks ago–tomorrow to discuss those vital issues?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I shall look carefully at what the hon. Lady has to say. We are keen to see a successful tourist industry in the north-east of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Lady looks right across Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom, she will see that manufacturing industry is expanding, doing extremely well, making many things that just a few years ago were simply not made in Britain, and exporting at record levels around the world. In the past year there have been eight successive new monthly records in exports alone.

    Mr. William Powell: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government’s support for British agriculture in order to assert that farmers are as entitled as any other of Her Majesty’s subjects to earn their living under the law, and that includes selling their young veal calves at a proper market price if they so choose? Will he confirm that causing mayhem at British ports and airports is no way to stop practices in other countries that we have banned here, and that those who do so should take their cause to other countries in the Community and to the European Parliament, not pursue it here?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the farming industry and entirely right to stress the fact that farmers have a right to carry on their trade within the law, as does everyone else. I think that my hon. Friend and the House know our opposition to veal crates and of the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try to ensure that they are taken out of commission not just in the United Kingdom but right across Europe.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister state clearly whether he agrees with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has said that he would wait an eternity before joining a single currency?

    The Prime Minister: I set out in detail the conditions for a single currency, originally as long ago as 1990. I reaffirmed them in some detail last Friday. I made it clear last Friday that not only must the specific Maastricht criteria be met, but that in addition we would require other criteria to be met before we thought it appropriate to consider a single currency. Some years in advance of those being met, it is unwise to say either, “Yes we will proceed,” or, “No, we will never proceed.”

    Mr. Blair: On Friday, of course, the Prime Minister was generally facing both ways. Indeed, Conservative central office was briefing one message on Friday and Downing Street another yesterday. If he will not slap down his Chief Secretary, will he say whether he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a supporter of monetary union, and who can foresee circumstances in which Britain would join and wants to do so by the end of the century?

    The Prime Minister: I have just set out in great detail precisely the circumstances in which we would find it appropriate to consider whether we should proceed to a single currency. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet indicated that for his own party at all. As to unity, we know that 50 of his Members of Parliament defied the Whip on Maastricht, 40 of his Members of Parliament defied the Whip on the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995 and the Labour party has had seven twists and turns over recent years as to whether or not it is in favour of the European Union. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as a single currency later this year is concerned, we would first require all the specific Maastricht criteria to be met. In addition, we would require other criteria to be met- -for example, relative flexibility of employment markets. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will set those out later this week. When those other matters are set out, we shall then consider whether it would be appropriate economically or constitutionally to proceed. I hope now that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, having learnt what the right answer is to that question, will fashion his own policy.

    Mr. Blair: Let me put it specifically, then. If those circumstances are met, will the Prime Minister join?

    The Prime Minister: I have just told the right hon. Gentleman. When and if those circumstances are met, we shall look to see whether it is appropriate and in the British interests to join. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now whether he would join, yes or no? Does he know whether it would be in the British interest? No, he does not. All that he is concerned to do is to trail along the path behind the Euro-federalists, where he feels most happy.

    Mr. Blair rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had three questions. I really cannot call him again. I am sorry.

    Mr. Blair rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has had his third question. If he wants to reply– [Interruption.] The Prime Minister has asked him to reply. In that case, I call the Leader of the Opposition.

    Mr. Blair: I think– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. It is most unusual for Prime Ministers to ask the Opposition questions at Question Time.

    Mr. Blair: I think that it is excellent that the Prime Minister is getting into the habit of asking us questions rather than answering them himself. Can I tell him this, though? Until he decides where he stands on that issue as the Prime Minister of the day, his leadership will remain weak, his Cabinet divided and Britain effectively disabled in Europe.

    The Prime Minister: It is interesting to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions. It would be more interesting if he ever provided any answers.

    I have set out for the right hon. Gentleman the conditions in which it would be right for us to consider the interests of the United Kingdom. I will not make a judgment that is crucial to the constitutional and economic future of this country until I see the economic circumstances of the day– and, frankly, only a dimwit would ask me to. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is very time-consuming.

    Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his concept of a European Union of nation states co-operating and working together for their common interests is in touch with the majority view in the country? Does it not contrast starkly with the policies of the Opposition parties, which can be described as a total sell-out to Brussels?

    The Prime Minister: I think that this country has a very deep attachment to the nation state. The European Union that it seeks is a European Union based on nation states–a wider European Union, a free market European Union, a decentralised European Union, and not the federal European Union that the Opposition wish for and their Members of the European Parliament clamour for.

    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister asking us to believe that it is none of his business, and not his Government’s responsibility, that school governors across the land are being forced to cut school budgets and sack teachers? Or is he saying that that is a price that our children should be prepared to pay so that he will have room for tax cuts at the next election?

    The Prime Minister: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. If he looks, he will see the increased spending on teachers, support staff, books and equipment. He will also see that the Audit Commission regularly identifies significant scope for savings by local authorities–not least Liberal Democrat-run local authorities–and their freedom to transfer more resources to education. The right hon. Gentleman may also learn that authorities are maintaining some 1 million surplus school places. Perhaps next time he asks a question, he will have ascertained some of those facts before doing so.

    Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of new guidance relating to appointments to quangos is an extremely positive and welcome advance? Is not the constant criticism directed at members of such bodies bound in time to become a disincentive, and to prevent public-spirited persons from putting their names forward for membership?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that the review will prove extremely useful. It also emphasises that both the number and the real cost of non-departmental bodies have fallen significantly since 1979. As everyone who has examined the matter knows, the Opposition’s criticism of such bodies is really based on their dislike of parent choice in schools, their dislike of patient choice for fundholding general practitioners and their dislike of patient choice in hospitals. That is local choice, but they call it quangos. They wish to retain choice centrally now, as they always have.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 February.

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

    Mr. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Education, who believes that a teachers’ pay increase could be funded only at the expense of between 7,000 and 10,000 teaching jobs and a spiralling increase in class sizes? How does that square with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at lunchtime today–that extra cash is not available and is not needed? Who speaks for the Government on this matter? More important, who speaks for the children in our schools?

    The Prime Minister: We speak for the children in the schools. That is why we have given their parents choice, why we have given greater choice in schools, why we have produced performance tables, and why we have produced testing. That is why our crusade is for choice not to close city technology colleges, not to close grant-maintained schools, and not to close every element of choice that parents want and children need.

    Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Scots favour the Union between Scotland and England and the rest of the United Kingdom because the Scots, with less than 9 per cent. of the UK’s population, enjoy far more positions of importance–for instance, in the Cabinet, the proportion is in excess of 20 per cent., whatever the Government–in the military, in trade unions and in industry? That is what the Scots will not give up.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks in a tone that many people will recognise. There is no doubt about the advantages, both to the UK and to Scotland, of Scotland being a full part of the UK. I do not believe that anyone who has studied the problem doubts that for a single second. The talents– [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) clearly has not studied it because he does doubt that. That is because he wants an independent Scotland disunited from the UK, in the middle of a European Union where it would have little or no influence, and that would damage the interests of Scots, the interests of Scotland and the wider interests of the UK. That is why his party must never be put in power in any way in Scotland or elsewhere.

  • PMQT – 12 January 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 January.

    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. Shepherd: Is the Prime Minister aware that his firm stance on the integrity of the United Kingdom is widely appreciated? Does he agree that if English Members of Parliament were unable to vote on Scottish issues, our constituents would want to know why Scottish Members of Parliament could vote on English matters which affect them?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a question that has been raised in the House on many occasions when devolution has been discussed in the past. There has never been a satisfactory answer to that question and, indeed, there is no satisfactory answer to it. If certain matters were devolved to a Parliament in any part of the kingdom and that Parliament were to have exclusive responsibility for them, then Members of Parliament from that part of the United Kingdom could not vote in this House on those issues affecting other parts of the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Blair: If devolution is such a dangerous proposal, why did the right hon. Gentleman and his party stand on such a policy in the 1974 election?

    The Prime Minister: Our party does not stand on such a policy. It is dangerous and, as I have indicated, I believe that the nature of devolution, with a tax-raising Assembly, will play Scot against Scot, Scot against Briton in other parts of the United Kingdom; leave Scotland as the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom and leave Scotland losing inward investment–and Wales, too, were it to have such an Assembly; and were Scottish Members of Parliament given the right to deal with, for example, education and health in Scotland, it would not be proper for Scottish Members of Parliament to come to this House and vote on education and health in so far as England and other parts of the United Kingdom are concerned.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister says that he did not stand on such a policy. Let me read from the Conservative party manifesto of 1974. This is what the manifesto said– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Would the right hon. Gentleman paraphrase, please, and not quote directly?

    Mr. Blair: That manifesto said that “devolution is our policy” and that it was the opposite of centralism. It said that it would free Scotland from the rigours of centralisation and went on to say that it was the opposite also of separatism. If it was right in 1974, surely after this passage of time it is right now.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is being very defensive –and with good reason. He should look more carefully at those proposals. He will find that there was no proposal for taxation-raising powers for that Assembly and no executive power for that Assembly. He might also be aware, in terms of this Government, that I was not even in the House then. Every single aspect of what he now proposes will lead inexorably to circumstances in which the United Kingdom itself might break up. He can have an absolute guarantee that the Government will oppose his proposals lock, stock and barrel from this day forward.

    Mr. Blair: What is more, it was actually called in this manifesto a “Scottish Assembly”. Is not the truth that the Prime Minister’s anger is synthetic and that after 15 years of Conservative Government, 15 years of centralisation and the quango state and 15 years of anything and everything being run by unaccountable bodies stuffed with Tory placemen, it is time to bring government closer to the people it serves?

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, whose latest sound bite is the quango state–

    Mr. Blair: It is.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is his latest sound bite; indeed, it is. When he uttered it first last week, in the same paragraph he proposed extra quangos. Labour’s so-called “quango count” includes grant-maintained schools and self-governing hospitals. In any event, the number of non-departmental governing bodies that the right hon. Gentleman calls quangos has fallen by 35 per cent. during the passage of this Government.

    The right hon. Gentleman seeks to hide the fact that he cannot answer any of the questions on devolution that we have put to him. He cannot explain why the Scots should be more highly taxed than anybody else. He cannot answer the West Lothian question. Indeed, he does not even understand what the West Lothian question is. Until he can find credible answers to that, it is no good his going back a quarter of a century and digging up, in a mistaken way, old policies. He knows that he is wrong. He is on the defensive and he cannot win this argument for his policies are damaging to the United Kingdom.

    Sir Cranley Onslow: If my right hon. Friend heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) rabbiting on the “Today” programme this morning about regional government for England, did it occur to him that it might be time for the House to have another look at the unfair electoral quota system which results in serious under-representation of the English electorate?

    The Prime Minister: I did not have the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on the “Today” programme or, indeed, to his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) who, I believe, was on morning television on the same subject. I did read the transcripts and I noticed that the hon. Gentlemen were unable to answer any of the questions that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has found himself unable to answer. What is undoubtedly the case is that if there were regional Parliaments with policies devolved to them, there would be bound to be an effect, unless the constitution was gerrymandered, on the number of Members of Parliament in this House from the parts of the United Kingdom that had such a Parliament with devolved tax-raising powers. That is the game that the right hon. Gentleman is playing and he is doing it because he is running scared of the Scottish Nationalists.

     

    Q2. Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 January.

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

    Mr. Kirkwood: With the Prime Minister, quite rightly, being convinced of the merits of the concept of subsidiarity in the context of the European Union and of Northern Ireland, why does he set his face against using the self-same principles for the governance of Scotland when, in the 1992 general election in Scotland, 75 per cent. of the electorate voted for parties favouring a system of greater legislative control over Scotland’s own affairs?

    The Prime Minister: The difference between the United Kingdom and Europe is that the United Kingdom is a single national institution–a national state. Europe and the United Kingdom– [Interruption.] Europe is not a national state. We are a single Government entity; we have been since 1707. I will not set us on a path where that may be broken up. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that would be in the interests of Scotland, I suggest that he examines the matter more carefully, for he will find that it is not in the interests of Scotland and not in the interests of the individual Scot.

    Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had time during his busy day to contemplate the identifiable Government expenditure on the different individuals within the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, which in England is £3,290 per head and in Scotland 20 per cent. higher at £3,968? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party proposals for devolution were to be carried through, it would inevitably lead to a questioning of that subsidy, which is well understood at the moment? Therefore, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, is right when he accuses some Labour politicians of infantile incompetence, but wrong when he restricts his comments to Members of the European Parliament.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a sound and important point. We are a single United Kingdom. I wish us to remain as a single United Kingdom so that we may direct our public expenditure across a single United Kingdom to the areas that most need it. That is what we have traditionally done. That is what I wish us to continue to seek to do. What concerns me is that for party political reasons a proposal is now being put forward by the Labour party which will unsettle those traditional arrangements and set one part of the United Kingdom against another.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 January.

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

    Mr. Gerrard: Does the Prime Minister recall that just over a year ago the Minister for Transport in London promised that the travelcard would be protected not only in name and form but in price in real terms? With people in London facing fare rises this week of up to 11 per cent. and the cost of travelcards going up by two or three times the rate of inflation, how does the Prime Minister justify that promise being broken?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should have a look at the policies on transport right across London, including the travelcard. He will find that the Government have a better record for keeping their promises on transport and other matters than any previous Government. I suggest that he looks right across the range at those promises that have been kept and the improvement in transport facilities that are available. What will damage transport facilities is–

    Mr. Tony Banks: Privatisation.

    The Prime Minister: Not privatisation, as the hon. Gentleman says. That has been the cry on every single privatisation that we have had and every single privatisation has improved the service.

    Mr. Booth: Is the Prime Minister aware that for every £1 spent on private schools coming through charitable status, £1.30 is given out through bursaries and scholarships by those schools? So, the Labour party’s exercise is a vindictive, cynical manoeuvre.

    The Prime Minister: Well, I do not have the slightest difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend about that. Labour Members talk about choice and diversity. They talk about the crusade for education. Their crusade seems to be to take away choice from as many people as they possibly can.

     

    Q4. Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 January.

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

    Mr. Canavan: Will the Prime Minister have another go at trying to justify his ridiculous claim that the idea of a Scottish Parliament is a form of dangerous teenage madness? Bearing in mind that the idea of a Scottish Parliament has been supported, even by prominent Tories, such as former Prime Ministers Douglas-Home and Heath, and by the current Secretaries of State for Defence and for Scotland, what is the Prime Minister going to do about those dangerous teenage madmen?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman needs to engage in some grown-up politics. He may, for example, ask his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) whether he would agree with his remarks. The answer to his question is the one that I gave a few moments ago. There was not a proposition for a tax-raising Parliament with Executive powers, dividing responsibilities and tax-raising authority between different parts of the United Kingdom.

    The Labour party’s proposition will put Scotland significantly backwards in its economic prosperity; will lose inward investment to Scotland; will increase taxation in Scotland; and will set Scots against other parts of the United Kingdom and some Scots against other Scots. That is not a wise proposition. It is, as I have said, very unwise.

    Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Birmingham council women’s unit has been wasting £300,000 per annum of ratepayers’ money and that the head of that department has been suspended for many months on full pay of £44,000 per annum while she wasted a further £250,000 on an ill-judged housing scheme? As she has now been offered £11,000 to leave the council and to go away and keep quiet, does my right hon. Friend feel that that is a matter for the Audit Commission to consider in the light of its recent report?

    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that particular matter. As the Opposition so often talk about waste in local government and elsewhere, they might conceivably have raised it. I saw the Audit Commission report which made the point that too often local government services are provided by a dramatically over-staffed service indeed. It seems to me that too often local government cuts services instead of staff and then takes the easy option of blaming the Government for underfunding it when it has cut those services. The Audit Commission report makes that clear and I am delighted that it does so.

  • PMQT – 29 November 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Maddock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    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.

    Mrs. Maddock: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his Government will treat any vote on reducing VAT on domestic fuel as an issue of confidence–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady knows that VAT on fuel has been approved by the House on several occasions–I think from memory on four occasions. It was introduced two Budgets ago, and clearly it would be a very important vote if a fresh vote were manufactured on the issue. But it does not fall into the same category as the European Communities (Finance) Bill.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mrs. Gillan: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to listen to the interview yesterday with the chairman of Rentokil– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Order. This is using very valuable time.

    Mrs. Gillan: The Opposition find one of the most successful businesses in the UK amusing. The company was awarded a most respected award in a Management Today survey last week. The chairman of Rentokil said that, in his experience, our low inflation, low costs and record exports were unprecedented. Is that not the real story and the background to today’s Budget statement?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that business men and business women around the country recognise that we have the best combination of economic circumstances for many years, and my hon. Friend is quite right to say that that is the background to the Budget. There is no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will sketch out further details shortly.

    Mr. Blair: Is it true, as some Back Benchers were saying this morning, that in exchange for their support last night they were offered by Ministers a referendum on further European integration?

    The Prime Minister: I made clear my views on that to the House in May, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary echoed those views only last Friday. They have not changed.

    Miss Emma Nicholson: In his busy day, has the Prime Minister noted the visit of the Speaker of the National Assembly of Kuwait, and his colleagues? Would my right hon. Friend now like to endorse the integrity of Kuwait’s sovereign border and the need to keep Kuwait alone, intact and in power as a state?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do as my hon. Friend asks, and I think that that would be the overwhelming view of every hon. Member. Recently, when it seemed as though–yet again–the integrity of Kuwait’s border was threatened, British troops and aircraft were there to defend it. That would of course be the position were that to happen again.

     

    Q3. Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Byers: Will the Prime Minister confirm that last year his Government spent £355 million on management consultants? Is he aware that such a sum of money would have paid every pensioners’ bill for VAT on fuel? Does the Prime Minister not feel that the time has come for his Government to get their priorities right and to put the needs of pensioners before the profits of City consultants?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, substantial sums of money have been made available to assist pensioners with their value added tax on fuel bills. Very large sums have been made available and there is no relationship between that expenditure and expenditure on management consultants to help improve the efficiency of the Government, to release resources, to keep taxes down and to help ensure that there is money available to assist pensioners and others.

    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread disappointment that Norway will now not be alongside us in our battle against a federal Europe and a single currency? In view of the immensely strong ties that exist between our two nations, will he and the Government do their utmost to ensure the continuation of the European economic area, which is such a beneficial arrangement for Norway and the whole of Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I am extremely sorry that the Norwegian people decided not to join, but of course we respect their decision in that. Norway would have been a net contributor to the European Union, and on many issues, but perhaps not all, it would have been a valuable ally for the British point of view in Europe. I am, however, delighted that Austria and the other EFTA states have decided to join.

     

    Q4. Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Ms Hodge: Now that he leads a minority Government, will the Prime Minister break the habit of a lifetime, stick to at least one of his election pledges and scrap the proposed rise in VAT on fuel?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will have heard me say just a few moments ago that the House had debated that matter on four separate occasions.

    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency alone hundreds of children from less well-off families benefit from the assisted places scheme? Is it not a shame that the Labour party wants to deprive children of that opportunity, especially when some in its leadership have had the benefit of a similar opportunity?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the assisted places scheme. The whole purpose of that scheme and, indeed, of the education reforms generally, is to give children opportunities that otherwise they would not have had. I regret very much that many of those opportunities seem to attract the opposition of the Labour party. One of the more distasteful sides of politics is seeing those who have climbed up the ladder of opportunity kicking it away from other people.

     

    Q5. Mr. Rendel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Rendel: What moral difference does the Prime Minister see between what we all agree is wrong–Members of this House accepting payment to ask questions–and a party which accepts payment from the tobacco industry in return for vetoing a ban on tobacco advertising?

    The Prime Minister: There is no relationship between the two facts.

    Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will remember the speech that he gave last Thursday at the staff college at Camberley. We know how well the students there received that speech. In it, he referred specifically to Bosnia and said that we could not impose peace on those who did not wish to accept it. He said that if we tried to do so we would leave many hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. Will the Prime Minister give us all an assurance that those troops–British, French, Dutch and all the others who have served in Bosnia–will be our first priority and that, if need be, he will make sure that they come out of that mess safely?

    The Prime Minister: Let me say to my hon. Friend that I reject totally some of the lurid and misplaced criticism of the United Nations protection forces that have been made in some American newspapers in the past few days. The protection forces in Bosnia are not a combat force; they were never intended to be a combat force; they are not equipped there to be combat force. They are there on a humanitarian mission, and that mission has saved the life of hundreds of thousands of Bosnians.

    I very much wish UNPROFOR to continue its humanitarian work, as long as it can do its job without there being unacceptable risks to the United Nations troops that are there. However, I have to say to the House that if the parties to the conflict make the humanitarian task of UNPROFOR impossible, if they intensify the war rather than seek a peaceful settlement, they could create the conditions in which the United Nations would have no choice but to withdraw. I do not wish that to happen, but I have to say to the House that that could happen.

     

    Q6. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Hughes: When the Prime Minister was first elected four years ago, he set himself the aim of creating a nation at ease with itself. In the light of last night, at which of the following does he think he has been more successful–creating a nation at ease with itself or creating a party at ease with itself? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to hon. Members on the Labour Benches for suggestions as to how I should reply to the question from an hon. Member on the Liberal Benches. Given the fact that one can find a different Liberal policy from each Liberal to the next, and a different Liberal policy from each door to the next, each street to the next and each constituency to the next, I think that the hon. Gentleman should look at his own party before he criticises mine.

    Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent survey of every household in my constituency, more than 90 per cent. expressed themselves satisfied with the national health service? That is reflected in other surveys. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those newspapers that continually talk down one of the finest health services in the world?

    The Prime Minister: I will happily join my hon. Friend in that. There is no doubt about the affection for the national health service and, although we often hear a great deal of generalised criticism of it, that criticism tends not to come from the people who have just had treatment in the national health service. They tend to be very supportive of it, and rightly so, because of the treatment that it offers and the service that it gives.

     

    Q7. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to join me in congratulating Customs officers, including those based at Holyhead in my constituency, on their efforts to combat drug smuggling. Does he agree that those efforts would be severely damaged if reports are true that 4,000 Customs officers are to lose their jobs as a result of an announcement today? How will that equate with the fact that the Prime Minister has announced the war on drugs? Will it not blow a gaping hole in his policy?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the importance of the battle against drugs; hence the domestic and international initiatives that we have taken and the work set in train by the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. Whatever may happen to the budgets to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I can assure him that the battle against drugs will not suffer.

    Sir Peter Emery: In welcoming Senator Dole to this country, will my right hon. Friend point out that the United States Congress has many friends on both sides of the House, but that that friendship has been built up by Members of Congress and of the Senate fully understanding the work of their allies?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly look forward to meeting Senator Dole tomorrow, and I know that he is also meeting my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. We have a wide range of matters to discuss, and I am sure that those discussions will be fruitful and productive.

     

    Q8. Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Ms Anderson: Will the Prime Minister confirm reports that the President of the Board of Trade is looking again at the privatisation of the Post Office?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should not be in any doubt that we think that the right decision, when we have a majority in the House, will be to privatise the Post Office.

    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving to the shareholders of privatised utilities greater powers to decide the salaries of their directors in advance, rather than reading about them months after the event?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an ingenious suggestion, which I shall be happy to consider.

     

    Q9. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. McKelvey: The Prime Minister appeared to be somewhat ambivalent on the question of a referendum on European Union affairs. Could we have a referendum in Scotland so that we can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the country how we wish to be governed?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that there was a referendum on that issue some years ago. The hon. Gentleman knows, and in their hearts most people know, that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament would be immensely damaging both for Scotland and for every other part of the United Kingdom. It may well be Labour party policy, and we shall test to what extent over the weeks ahead, but it is not a thought-out policy, it is not a policy in the interests of Scotland, or of the people of Scotland, and it is not a policy in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.