Tag: Devolution

  • PMQT – 27 October 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th October 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 October.

    The Prime Minister (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. Cunningham: Can the Prime Minister end speculation in today’s London Evening Standard naming an individual as the person who either tipped the Prime Minister off or acted as the intermediary in allegations against Ministers?

    The Prime Minister: As I have said on a previous occasion, the person concerned came to see me privately and in good faith. I have no intention of offering a name. The note of my meeting with my informant has been passed, as I told the House the other day, to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the name is known to her. It is for her to decide how to proceed, and I understand that she has now passed the papers to the Metropolitan police.

    Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his decision to set up an independent and powerful committee to inquire into the conduct of public life is warmly welcomed? Does he also accept that certain areas of conduct should be reserved to the House to look after? Will he therefore continue to resist most strongly the immature and inexperienced proposal of the Leader of the Opposition that the Select Committee on Privileges should meet in public, which would create a lynch trial kangaroo court atmosphere that every democrat should abhor?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of these matters, and I share the opinion that he has expressed.

    As for the committee that I have established, I have made it clear to the House that I am not prepared to see confidence in elected or unelected public servants undermined by the public parading of unsubstantiated slurs and innuendo. It is precisely for that reason that I have set up the committee on the conduct of public life. I look to Opposition Members, who, I understand, support the initiative, to join me in ensuring that the committee is able to work successfully. I also look to them to ensure the ending of the continual peddling of gossip and rumour.

    Mr. Blair: Now that today we have another report by the Cabinet Secretary exonerating another Minister, can we make ourselves clear about the basis on which the Prime Minister is running the Government? A week ago, he said that there were unsubstantiated allegations against his Trade Minister and insisted that he stayed. A few days later, there were allegations that were supposed to be unfounded, as he called them, and he insisted that the Minister concerned went. Now there are new unsubstantiated allegations against the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and he stays. What is the basis on which the Prime Minister decides to retain or dismiss his Ministers–the truth of the allegations or merely the number of them?

    The Prime Minister: I had understood that when the right hon. Gentleman became leader of the Labour party we were going to see a new style in politics. I had not expected to see the right hon. Gentleman step down into the gutters of public life quite so soon. Let me make it clear to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman–I set out my position concerning my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) in my statement to the House the other day and I have nothing further to say. As for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, the examination shows that there is nothing for them to answer to, and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should be ashamed of using the privilege of the House to raise those matters in this way.

    Mr. Blair: As the Prime Minister knows perfectly well, I have not said that I agree with the allegations against anyone. The idea that, after the resignation of two Ministers in a week, the Opposition should not be entitled to ask questions, is absurd. Cannot the Prime Minister see that the problem will not be resolved unless he understands that the Butler reports are plainly inadequate as, on his own admission, Sir Robin Butler is not able to see the person making the complaints, Mr. Al Fayed, he has forbidden the Nolan committee to look at the allegations, the Privileges Committee is deadlocked because Conservative Members want it to sit in private– [Interruption.] I repeat, because Conservative Members want to sit in private. The Prime Minister will take a grip on the problem only when he understands that there has to be a proper method of investigating Mr. Al Fayed’s allegations that has the public’s confidence, which means an open, full investigation in public view.

    The Prime Minister: Now there is no doubt. We now know where we are with the right hon. Gentleman and we know precisely what way he plans to play his politics. The right hon. Gentleman says to the House that he does not believe that the allegations are substantiated, yet he is still prepared to peddle them in here. The whole House will have noticed that he is prepared to peddle them. There is only one thing stopping the Privileges Committee from proceeding: the right hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends will not attend that Committee, which is wholly against all precedent in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer; he knows that investigations take place in private and when those matters are over, debate takes place in public. He would change that for his own party advantage. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard that the documents relating to Mr. Al Fayed’s allegations were passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions and have now been passed by her, after examination, to the Metropolitan police for examination. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman cannot imagine that I shall add to that.

    Mr. Blair: With all due respect, the Prime Minister is not being asked to add to it. It is not me; it is– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I must have some order in the House.

    Mr. Blair: It was not I, but the Prime Minister who dismissed two Ministers. Furthermore, the normal procedure in courts of law is that hearings are held in public. No Opposition Members are saying whether the allegations are true or false–merely that they should be investigated. Why will the Prime Minister not allow the investigations to be held in public?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that the matters may not be true and may be unsubstantiated gossip; yet he wants them peddled in public so that people’s reputations– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I shall have order from both sides of the House.

    The Prime Minister: Despite the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe the allegations and does not believe that there is anything substantial in them, he still wants to see them examined in public. People will ask for what party political reason he wants to see them established in public. If that is to be the new, clean politics, let us have the old, dirty politics from Labour that we have been used to.

    Mr. Sumberg: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution from traffic? Does it not dictate an urgent review of the roads programme, and in particular the abandonment of the disastrous M62 relief road which has caused so much damage in my constituency?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, with the ingenuity that we have come to expect of him, has continued his campaign of concern about the M62. I think that the report by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution is a useful one, and we shall be studying it closely. It contains many very helpful things–although there are some parts of it which are uncosted and which would be better for having been costed.

    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the two Ministers who have been forced to resign from the Government in the past week will receive £3,500 each in redundancy payments for their pains?

    The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman voted for the legislation which requires that.

    Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Back Benchers are as entitled as Front Benchers to a little quiet in this House.

    Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us believe that there is a deliberate campaign, based on unfounded allegations, to discredit this Government and him? Is he aware that one of the advantages of Select Committees sitting in private, when required, is that their discussions cannot be debated on the Floor of the House before the reports have been fully submitted and details of all the evidence made available?

    The Prime Minister: It has been well understood for many years in this House that Select Committees, when carrying out investigations, sit under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. That is one reason why they have decided for many years to investigate matters in private. Of course, when the investigations are completed, it is right that the report should be published–and it will be. It is also right that the report should be debated–and it will be. All our predecessors in this House have always agreed, in the interests of natural justice, that those Committees should meet and examine matters in private.

     

    Q2. Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Raynsford: As the Prime Minister confirmed on Tuesday, and again just a few moments ago, that a note of the approaches made to his office by agents of Mr. Al Fayed had been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and now to the Metropolitan police, does he feel that it would be proper for the Conservative party to repay the £250,000 that it has received from Mr. Al Fayed?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has lived up to his reputation.

     

    Q3. Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of just how welcome the new strategy to combat drugs is to thousands of concerned parents throughout the country? Does he agree that the way to tackle this issue most effectively is in local communities, to destroy the cancer of drug abuse which has tragically blighted the lives of so many young people across the industrialised world?

    The Prime Minister: I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about the appalling damage that is done to young people by drugs, and I know how much he has done in his constituency to tackle the problem. Including the costs of police and education time, we spend in total about £500 million a year on tackling drug abuse. I entirely agree that we need to ensure that those resources, and indeed all efforts, are deployed as effectively as possible. We believe that that will best be done by implementing the proposals in the report by my right hon. Friend the Lord President and by making sure that action is taken in schools and by the drug action teams.

    Mr. Salmond: The Prime Minister has achieved a welcome success from his policy in Northern Ireland, which has hinged on the principle of consent–the right of people in the north of Ireland to determine their own future. For the avoidance of any doubt, will he confirm that he also believes in the right of self-determination for the Scottish nation?

    The Prime Minister: Every nation has always had that right. The hon. Gentleman is clearly talking about a tax-raising devolved Parliament in Scotland, and he well knows my view about that. I am sure that he would benefit from reading the speeches that I made during the 1992 election campaign; if he had done so, he would not have needed to ask his question.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Devolution – 26 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on devolution on Wednesday 26th October 1994.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he was against devolution in Wales but more supportive in Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When the issue was presented to the people of Wales before they voted 4-1. The relationship with Northern Ireland does not run. Northern Ireland has no proper system of local government in the sense that it exists in Wales, there is no local democracy in Northern Ireland, there is local democracy on a fairly significant and entrenched scale in Wales so there is a sharp difference between the two.

    The reason I am concerned about devolution is really twofold. The first is constitutional. There are two elements to that argument; firstly, more in the case of Scotland, it has to be said, than Wales, there is a risk that devolution will be the beginning of a slope that would lead to a separate country and the break-up of the United Kingdom, that is the first point; the second constitutional point is simply the quantum of government, we already have borough councils, district councils, parish councils, county councils, parliament, the European Council, another tier of government as well does not seem to me to be very attractive, and another tax raising tier of government and extra bureaucracy seems to me to be very unattractive indeed.

    If you asked the people of Wales, not do you want devolution, but asked them what it really means – do you want another tier of government, do you want someone else levying taxes – then I think you might get a very different answer from the one that you get when you just generally and casually ask the question. You would in fact get the answer that you got when you had a referendum some time ago, in 1979.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Edinburgh – 11 September 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Edinburgh, held on 11th September 1992.


    GUS O’DONNELL:

    Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Bute House. I apologise that we’re running a little late, but our very interesting discussions this morning overran. I’ll be brief. The Prime Minister will make a brief opening statement, and then the Prime Minister and Secretary of State will be happy to answer your questions. During that period, if you could, during the questions and answers, make clear names and organisations, and keep your questions just to single questions if that’s at all possible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Fine. Thank you, Gus. I’ll just speak very briefly at the moment, and then we’ll try and get in as many of your questions as I possibly can. I’ve come back to Scotland for a raft of reasons. Firstly, because I wanted to take the opportunity of last night’s dinner at the CBI to make a speech that’s relevant, not just to Scotland, but to the whole of the United Kingdom, and our relationship particularly with the European Community, and I was grateful of the opportunity of being able to do that in Glasgow. Some of you this morning may already have seen today’s inflation figures that were published around 40 minutes ago. The Retail Price Index is down from 3.7 to 2.6, but equally relevant, I think, is that the underlying rate of inflation has fallen from 4.4% to 4.2%, so the progress on inflation is continuing, and continuing steadily. In the Seminar we’ve had this morning – the Seminar is not an end in itself. It’s just part of a continuing process of taking stock. Scottish Office Ministers have been doing that in different ways. The Policy Unit have been doing it. I have been doing it on a number of visits to Scotland, but it is very easy for me to get hold of political opinion, to find out Party opinion, and to bring together business opinion. What I was seeking to do this morning was to bring together a number of distinguished Scots who were there in their personal capacities, not because of their particular public position, but because their personal experience and knowledge made it likely they would have something worthwhile to contribute as Scottish individuals, to the debate about the constitutional arrangements for Scotland.

    I think it was a very good debate. There are a number of things within it that I propose to follow up with the individuals concerned, but it is just part of a continuing debate so I don’t propose to go into the details of what was said, and I think it is too early to draw conclusions from it. I will say it was a pretty wide ranging discussion, and in a number of areas, rather surprising points were made that I shall certainly wish to follow up with the individuals concerned, perhaps in further meetings, perhaps in correspondence, so from my point of view, it was an extremely useful occasion. Now, I am in a few moments going to have the opportunity of extending this debate. We have a large lunch here for Scottish lawyers and members of the Church, and this afternoon you might say, or may not yet know, I’m going to have a look at Holyrood House to check the arrangements for the European summit that will take place in December. So that is broadly the pattern of the day. I’m now happy to take whatever questions you may have.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you talked about surprising points there. Could you perhaps give us a little bit more information about what those points were, and why they were surprising?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the – I’m not going to give you details of them all, no, but I think there was a different perspective put on some of the constitutional questions that have been asked in Scotland in the past. There was a great deal of concern expressed by a number of people around the room about decentralisation as opposed to devolution. That applies to the private sector, of course, as well as to the public sector, and it was a point made that that affects too the lives of people in Scotland. There was also a point, I thought rather a striking point, that one of the things that took authority away from the Regions, not just Scotland, but the other Regions in the past, was nationalisation because it necessarily centred the decision-making process far away, and that was another point that emerged, and so there are a whole series of angles on the debate – some historians, a number of people in other practical professions, farmers – that were actually raised during today’s discussion.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, your opponents, your political opponents, say that this morning was largely a stunt. Do you have any particular comments to make on that? They say it was a charade, no real substitute for genuine consultation

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, they would, wouldn’t they? What would you expect them to say? If I wasn’t here talking to people from Scotland who are distinguished individuals, they would say, why am I not here doing precisely that? As I am here doing that, they say “Well, it’s a charade”. They may wonder why I haven’t invited them to have a discussion with them. Well, I know their opinion. I get their opinion weekly in Parliament. I’m aware of what it is. I’m able to consider it. I know its value, and I want to stretch out beyond that, so they are saying what I would expect them to say, but I don’t think it really matters. We will continue with consultation, and when we’ve reached conclusions we’ll announce what they are.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, David Whitton, Scottish Television. We’ve heard about the taking stock exercise almost ad nauseam, since the Election. Can you give any indication at all as to when the taking stock will cease, and you’ll come up with some solutions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, let me come back to the point I was making just now. If I produced a solution now, you’d stand up and ask me a question about how I could possibly have consulted all the people who needed to be consulted in this time, and the answer is, I can’t have done, so I’m going to go on consulting until I am sure I have got a rounded view of Scottish opinion, and when I’m certain that I have a rounded view of Scottish opinion I will discuss that with my colleagues, and we will make decisions. I can’t put a time frame to it because I don’t know how far the debate will develop and what points will arise within it, but as soon as we have our decisions we will make them, and there will be no unnecessary delay.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, Rona Campbell, Sky Television. The reduction in inflation has been minimal today. What do you have to say about that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, it’s steady and it’s consistent. It’s only two years ago that I was facing press conferences like this, and people were saying, “Well, inflation is over 10% and it’s rising”. It’s now 3.7% and it’s fallen again to 3.6%. That is progress, steady, secure progress in the right direction. We’ve now got inflation down to levels it has only touched briefly in the last quarter of a century, and what is different about this is it looks as though this is a secure reduction of underlying inflation that will be sustainable in the future, and the reason I think that is very important is really very clear-cut and very simple. If we have an inflation rate that is higher than the inflation rate of our principal competitors in Europe and beyond, then we will become uncompetitive, we will lose markets, we will lose jobs, we will lose prosperity. If, on the other hand, we have an inflation rate that is better than our principal competitors, then precisely the reverse will apply. We will gain in competitiveness, we will gain markets, we will gain jobs, and we will gain prosperity. I wish it could be done magically and quickly, but it can’t be. It’s a long and a sustained process. I think we’re making the most substantial progress in inflation that we have seen for very many years.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask, Prime Minister, on a personal basis, has your personal commitment to the distinctive nature of Scotland been strengthened by this morning’s talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes. I used the expression, and it was quoted back to me this morning. When I spoke about Europe the other day I made the point about the importance of the Nation State, and that people did not wish to lose the distinctive nature of their Nation. Well, I used that in terms of the European Community as a whole, but it is equally applicable in terms of the United Kingdom, and I see no circumstances in the future where the Scots are not going to remain distinctively Scots, the English distinctively English, the Welsh distinctively Welsh, and the Northern Irish distinctively Northern Irish, and I welcome that. I don’t wish to do anything that would damage the distinctive cultures, natures, traditions, and instincts of the component parts of the United Kingdom. What I do wish to do is to make sure in which we can show the whole of the United Kingdom, that it is a genuine partnership. It isn’t a question of saying “Scotland must stay there with England because that is good for Scotland”. That is not the argument. The point is that if any part of the United Kingdom were not an equal partner within the United Kingdom then every part of the United Kingdom will suffer. That is the point of the argument, and that is what has repeatedly to be made clear.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] from the Independent. You gauged the opinion of 14 people this morning. A constitutional referendum would slightly widen that opinion. Is that an option that you would ever consider at any time?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, what I was doing today was gathering thoughts in depth. If you have a referendum of any sort, it asks a single question, and one of the disadvantages of referenda is, you may ask a single question, but the answer may come back for a whole raft of reasons, many perhaps unconnected with the question, and I think that is what people are finding, for example, in the French referendum at the moment. What I am trying to gauge is not the answer to a simple single question. I’m trying to gauge the instincts of people, and what they believe needs to be done to enshrine and secure the distinctiveness of Scotland and its place within the Union.

    QUESTION:

    Did the spectrum of opinion among those 14, do you think, represent what you wished to find out from them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was a broad spectrum of opinion, yes. What it was not, what it was emphatically not, was the entrenched political opinions of the political parties. I know that, and I know the opinions, and welcome the opinions that I get from the political parties and from business, but I do know that. I do need to meet distinguished individuals and find out what they need. Lots of other individuals as well. If it were possible to hold in-depth meetings with everyone in Scotland, no doubt I would learn more, but I think one has to draw a line of practicality somewhere.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you’ll be meeting The Queen at Balmoral, and discussing probably the recent events surrounding the Monarchy. How concerned are you about these events, and would you consider a Privacy Bill.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no doubt about the conviction right across the United Kingdom about the importance of the Monarchy. It is an entrenched, enduring, and valuable part of our way of life. I have absolutely no doubt about that. I’ve nothing to add to that.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Ashdown has called for the recall of Parliament – is he likely to get a different answer to the one you gave to Mr. Smith?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I haven’t seen the letter that I gather Mr. Ashdown has sent to me. I will consider it carefully, but I see no reason to change the decision I made in the past, unless something quite compelling is in Mr. Ashdown’s letter that I don’t expect to find there, but I had better read his letter first.

    QUESTION:

    He says that British lives could be at risk, and never before he says, have British Service lives been placed at risk without Parliament being first consulted.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I’d better wait for his letter, don’t you, as I’ve just said.

    QUESTION:

    Please can we go to your proposals – I know you can’t tell us precisely what they’re going to be, but are we right to see them within the parameters of building essentially on the Scottish Grand Committee, and possibly doing something within the Scottish Office, or might they go further than that? Might they be more radical than that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone is looking in individual areas to see what we might do, and I’m not going to speculate, I’m not going to have the proposals that we are beginning to build up, and they’re by no means concluded yet. Eleanor – we’re beginning to build them up as we talk to people. I’m not going to have them picked off one by one as we go through, so I’m going to respond to that when we’ve concluded our consultation.

    QUESTION:

    Referring to what you said about nationalisation because of one of the questions here is the feeling against water privatisation. Is that something you heard this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That came in as a side issue in the discussion in the general question of decentralisation. The point that was actually made about privatisation was a point of substance. If there is to be privatisation, the best way to do it was through the levels of individual shareholding rather than franchising. That was a particular point that was made. That was the way that it came up.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] from the Guardian. You referred to the European Nation State. Scotland, of course, is a Nation but not a State. You’ve ruled out Statehood for Scotland. Is there anything substantial below that which will give the Scots any indication that you’re taking the reform of Government seriously north of the border?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, if I were not taking it seriously north of the border, I wouldn’t be spending as much time on it as I have been doing. I wouldn’t have made the importance of the Union and Scotland’s distinctive role within it an absolutely central part of the General Election campaign. Many people were surprised when I did that and they were surprised of what happened as a result of me doing that. So, I don’t think it is a criticism that is sustainable that I’m not taking it seriously.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, [Inaudible] of The Courier in Dundee, can you make any comment on Scotland’s share of Central Government funding?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I see the stories in the press that appear every year as well but I think you’ll have to wait till the end of the public expenditure round. There are during every public expenditure round a vast amount of rumours, some related to Scotland, some related to individual departments. I think you will have to wait until the PES round is concluded.

    QUESTION:

    Will you make public what the other regions of the country get?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh, it’s all published, yes of course. Of course, there’s a public expenditure White Paper that is published at the end of the round and then there is typically a debate in the House of Commons and all the Budget Heads are published right the way across public expenditure for each component part of the United Kingdom. The answer to your question is, yes.

    GUS O’DONNELL:

    We have time for two more please.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible], BBC Television. You’ve made much of the principle of subsidiarity in the European argument. How far is that principle exactly the same when applied to Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Subsidiarity relates to devolution of responsibilities. One of the things I think that people really have not taken on board, and this did come up of course in our discussions this morning, was the extent of administrative devolution that actually lies in the hands of the Secretary of State. He has a most remarkable amount of devolution. Now it is perfectly clear, from an opinion poll mentioned to us by one of the participants this morning, that that is not fully appreciated in Scotland. People aren’t aware of the extent of devolution in the Scottish Office and of the responsibilities of the Scottish Office and I don’t suggest that that is an answer to all the matters that we are discussing, but I think in terms of subsidiarity, it is not all that long ago that there was relatively little responsibility devolved from Whitehall to the Secretary of State in Scotland. Over recent years that has built up quite dramatically. There are areas where people would wish to see it extended of course and that is a legitimate part of debate. But, nobody on the subsidiarity principle should underestimate the amount of devolution of administrative responsibility that has gone from Westminster to the Secretary of State in Scotland.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, were you surprised by the views of the poll this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were some very original ideas. I cavil at the word “surprise”. I don’t think I was surprised in that sense but there were some very original thoughts and some very original ideas put forward and – no, I’m not going to – and they were put in an historical content in a number of cases as well and it may be other people will wish to express publicly what they said at this morning’s meeting, that is for them, but I don’t want to put into my words in public what they said to me in private.

    QUESTION:

    Of the 14 participants, did any openly advocate a Scottish Parliament, Assembly, any such body like that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, all the points were raised in the discussion.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you said earlier that your stand on Unionism had been vindicated by the General Election result. What do you say to the three out of four Scots who did not vote for your Party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you’re presupposing that all Scotland voted on one issue. And they didn’t. They patently didn’t. They voted on a whole series of different issues. This, as somebody did point out this morning, this is the first occasion for very many years, at the end of a term of Parliament, where the Government in office, whether Conservative or Labour, actually achieved more votes and a better turnout in Scotland at the end of a period of Parliament. We actually achieved that at the end of a fourth parliament. Now, I think that is something that not many people in this room would have anticipated as we came into the Election campaign. Indeed, I know that to be the case, and you know that to be the case, because we discussed that in the run-up to the General Election itself. Now I think, I know as an ex-Treasury Minister, you probably don’t expect me to count well, but there were two more questions and I think we’ve had them. But, we’ll take this last question.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] from The Herald Newspaper. Can I ask how the 14 people were selected, and whether you genuinely think that was a representative cross-section?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’ll ask the Secretary of State. I devolved the selection to the Secretary of State. [Laughter].

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND – IAN LANG:

    They weren’t selected in a representative capacity. They were selected for their individual achievement, their distinction in their individual walks of life and they covered a range of walks of life. We had historians, journalists, we had academics, we had businessmen, we had those involved in running Government bodies and working on a range of Government bodies across the whole scene and I believe that the distinction and the quality of the contributions that they made to the discussion this morning vindicated the choice. Indeed, I think their own view about their fellow participants was altogether complimentary.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you all very much indeed. Thank you.

    GUS O’DONNELL:

    Sorry, must end it there.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Otherwise, I shall be very discourteous to Scottish lawyers and the Scottish Church, and I wouldn’t wish to do that. Thank you very much.

  • Press Release – Prime Minister’s Comments on Standing up for Britain – 6 April 1992

    Below is the text of the Conservative Party Press Release on Mr Major’s comments on standing up for Britain. It was issued on Monday 6th April 1992, reference 802/92.


    STANDING UP FOR BRITAIN

    “Our international standing has been transformed in the 1980s. A Conservative Government has ensured that Britain plays a leading role in both the European Community and the wider world,” the Rt Hon John Major, Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party, told a press conference at Conservative Central Office today.

    Before the end of this year, there will be seven summits at which we will be called upon to play a crucial role. Our ability to do so depends not only on the strong leadership that comes from Conservative Government. The strength of our country abroad – the respect in which it is held – is founded on the authority of our Government in Parliament and the Union of our nations.

    On Thursday, the British people will be electing a new Parliament for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – as they have done at General Elections for generations. There is only one party in this election which stands firmly for the integrity of our Parliament and our United Kingdom.

    Let me set out for you the dangers to the United Kingdom posed at this election.

    First, the other parties would put at risk the links between Scotland and England which have held us together for nearly three hundred years.

    Their policies could lead on to the disaster of full separation.

    Second, they plan a new, expensive and unwanted layer of government in England which would drain authority from Parliament.

    Third, their enthusiasm for a federal Europe would increasingly surrender the independence of our Parliament to Brussels.

    Fourth, the voting system that the Liberals want, and Labour are flirting with, would change the way that the crucial decisions as to who governs Britain would be made. They would be taken not by the electorate at Parliamentary elections, but by politicians after elections. I cannot believe that is right.

    The result would be government so weak it could never take strong decisions. The need to do deals before doing anything else makes it unimaginable that we could ever have responded to the crises in the Falklands or the Gulf with such speed and success.

    In this election, the Conservative Party is putting forward its positive policies for the verdict of the voter. The Opposition parties are already trying to trade policies between each other, even before the voters have had their say.

    So let me put it bluntly. The choice is between the Conservative Party, which would stand up for Britain, and the Liberal and Labour parties, which could break up Britain. If the changes pledged by the other parties took place, power would pass increasingly from the British voter to politicians and bureaucrats, both here and abroad.”

  • Mr Major’s Speech on the Conservative Vision – 1 April 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on the Conservative Vision, made in Shepton Mallet on Wednesday 1st April 1992. The speech was entitled “Building a New Britain”.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and gentlemen, on Friday 10 April 1992 the work of the next government will begin. It will be a Conservative government or it will be a Labour government. There is no other choice. If you vote Conservative you will get a Conservative government. If you vote Labour you will get a Labour government. If you vote Liberal you will get a Labour Government. That is a message that every elector must understand.

    Over sixteen months ago I started work on building the type of Britain in which I believe. You will decide whether I continue in that work – or whether to allow Labour to pull down all that British people have built since 1979.

    Let me tell you about the Conservative government I want to lead. It is not the intention of the next Conservative government simply to safeguard the achievements of the eighties – astonishing though those achievements have been.

    The aims of the new generation in the Conservative Party – the youngest cabinet this century – are set much, much higher. By the end of this decade, all that Britain has accomplished in the first thirteen years of Conservative rule will be seen in their true perspective – a magnificent beginning, but only that, a beginning, of a great nation’s historic and continuing revival. That is the pledge I give to you this evening. That is the challenge that the next Conservative government will meet and fulfil.

    The ideas we stand for – we fight for – are being adopted right across the world. Think of the political map of Europe – how it looked until quite recently. Great blocks of red interspersed with blue. Look at it now. Where have all the red blocks gone? Gone from Government almost every one. Going. Going. Gone.

    All over the world Socialism is discredited. It is fading in every part of Europe. And in Britain on 9 April we will see the red flag dying here. Let’s get out there and help it on its way.

    The New Britain

    Many people are yet to make up their minds in this Election – the ‘don’t knows’. On Election day you can’t afford to be a “don’t know”. So my message to them is ‘come and join us’. Help us build a better Britain.

    My job as Prime Minister in the 1990s will be to give millions more people a helping hand up the ladder in life – to a home of their own, more savings, more secure and well-paid jobs, a better future. I see clearly the new Britain I want to build: a classless Britain in which everyone has their full share.

    I have spoken of the Open Door Society – a nation in which more and more people can go through the doors of opportunity into a better life. To build up and to keep a piece of Britain for themselves. A Britain where what were once the privileges of the few can be enjoyed by all.

    That’s the kind of country I want to see.

    I see a Britain freed from the scourge of inflation. Where rising prices no longer eat into savings and bring misery to those on fixed incomes. My target is stable prices. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us. Where there is no levelling down, only levelling up. My aim is for parents to have the power to choose what is right for their child. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain in which there is true equality of opportunity for all. Where every boy or girl, whatever their background, can expect an education that brings out their talents to the full. Where there is no levelling down, only levelling up. My aim is for parents to have the power to choose what is right for their child. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where every family has the opportunity to own and to improve their home. Where there is no threat of credit controls, no need to depend on the council. My aim is ownership for every family – ownership for the security it brings. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where every citizen has the freedom to keep the wealth they have built from a lifetime’s work. Where there is no threat of penal taxation and no confiscation of a lifetime’s savings. My aim is for everyone to have the chance to pass on what they have built up in life to their children. That’s what people work for. That’s what people care about. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where our government plays a confident role in the world, standing for what is right. Where we don’t neglect our defences, and never give way on what is right for Britain. My aim is for Britain to be a byword – the byword – for decency, principle and freedom. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where government continues to show a true responsibility for others. Where it plays its proper role in supporting those who cannot help themselves. Where we have a modern, expanding Health Service free at the point of use for all. Where we bring more help to our poorest pensioners. Where every citizen is free to walk the streets without fear of crime.

    I see a Britain where the cost of living falls and the standard of living rises. Where we don’t look to the State for answers, but to each other.

    I believe that every person wants to have more say, have more choice, be the master in their own private corner of life. That is what in these last thirteen years we have given the people. I want a Britain in which people have the incentive to work harder and produce more. That is the way – the only way – to create resources for better public services for all.

    Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us. This is no time to be a ‘don’t know’. This is a time to fight for a positive future for our country.

    Taxation: the great divide

    Ladies and gentlemen, people ask why we contrast Labour’s tax policies so often with our own. It is because here in this single issue is the great divide between the parties. We believe that people express themselves by their choices – and must be allowed to do so. When they decide how much to spend on housing, how much on holidays, or how much on a car, on pensions or insurance, they are living according to their own priorities. They are their own masters. In a free society they must remain their own masters. But Socialism always takes that freedom away.

    And when Governments or councils make those decisions for them, they are preventing people from living by their own values. Every pound left in the pay packet is a token of freedom. It offers choice. Every pound taken out of the pay packet takes away choice. In raising taxes by the record amount that they plan, Labour are not just taking away your income. They are taking away, more than ever before, the chance for ordinary people to live their life as they please. That’s why Socialist policies are so wrong, ultimately so destructive. We must never, never, never let them come back to this country.

    Labour: The Opposition

    I warn you. Look beneath the surface of Labour’s policies. You will see the cold hard truth staring at you. They haven’t changed. They have not changed. They have not changed. Let no-one think for a moment that Socialism has lost its ambition to change people’s lives. They still want people to pay up for the privilege of being told what to do. That is the badge of Socialism.

    Socialism operates like a reverse philosopher’s stone. It can change gold to base metal at a touch. Opportunity and enterprise into regulation and control. That would affect everyone. In a Labour Britain it wouldn’t just be the gold bullion that they were shipping out the country, it would be the golden tapestry of British talent – business, scientific, sporting, cultural. Going. Going. Gone. And we would all be the losers.

    It’s not just their policies for the future that give Labour’s game away. It is what they have done, what they have said. As we struggled to change Britain for the better, they struggled to stop us changing Britain for the better. You can see why they call Labour the Opposition.

    We have lowered income tax for everyone by eight pence in the pound; they opposed it. They voted against every tax cut we have introduced – the one thing on which they’ve always been consistent. And one of the many things on which they have always had the support of the Liberals.

    We gave people the right to buy council houses; they opposed it.

    We sold loss-making State industries to the public and the staff in them. We made them profitable and made millions of people new shareholders; they opposed it.

    We brought trade unions within the law, banned flying pickets and ended the closed shop; they opposed it.

    We helped millions of young people to take out personal pensions of their own; they opposed it.

    We wanted the people to be free, to have choice, to have power. To have the space to live their own lives as they wished – not as the council, the union, or the State wished. And Labour opposed us. They opposed the people’s rights. Not just once. Not by accident. But deliberately. By design. And day after day after day.

    Whatever we proposed, they opposed. It is their only political programme – to tear down all the things that the people of Britain have built. Labour are the masters of opposition. What a pity it would be now to waste all that experience.

    To every owner a warning

    “Ladies and gentlemen, as this Election approaches one point is central to the decision that everyone should take. It is this. We believe in personal ownership in a way that no other party does. We believe that people have the right to own – to enjoy the security and peace of mind it provides for them and their families. No other party shares that philosophy. Do you remember? Labour did everything in their power to stop the people having the right to own. And still do, whenever and wherever they can.

    Let no-one out there who gained in the ’80s ever forget it. Four million new homeowners; four and a half million young people with personal pensions; six million shareholders in the State companies we sold to the people. Many of those must be in this audience tonight.

    I warn each of you. Just stop, listen, and think. Look at your children and ask yourself this. Dare you trust your home, your pension, your savings, your shares – your future – to the very Labour people who fought to stop you having them at all?

    Going. Going. Gone. Is that the future you want? For the freest country in the world? Never.

    Liberals

    Ladies and gentlemen, I hear Paddy’s still round about. Sounds comfortable, doesn’t it? But don’t forget what he stands for. Policies that are close cousins to Labour’s. A special tax on petrol. What would that do to large rural areas of our country? Swingeing cuts in defence – cuts twice as big as Labour propose. What would that do to the defence of this country and our great defence industries? I’ll tell you – no defence. And no industries. And they stand for big tax increases for all – rises in income tax nationally and rises in income tax locally, too. What would that do to recovery and prosperity and jobs? It would destroy them.

    Liberal policy would crucify rural areas. Cut back our defence industries. Impose new taxes. Whatever happened to real Liberal policies. These are Labour policies – left wing policies. And anyone who is thinking of supporting the Liberals should be clear about that. Don’t let the Liberal Party be the Trojan Horse to a Labour Britain.

    Beware Mr Ashdown. He is the doorkeeper to a Labour Britain. I warn you. Don’t look at the man; look through the door. The most famous door in the world is Number 10 Downing Street. Don’t let Mr Ashdown open it for Mr Kinnock.

    Economic Recovery

    A Labour Government would stop in its tracks the one thing for which the people of Britain are waiting – economic recovery. I know that many businesses and families have been feeling the impact of the world recession. There are families in America and in Germany who feel just the same. Your concerns will never be brushed aside by me, they will always be heard.

    But they should not blind us to the underlying changes which have taken place in the British economy over the last decade. There’s a new spirit of enterprise – with management and workforce working as one to take on the competition and win. Quality, design, service are once more at the forefront. British companies are pushing forward the boundaries of innovation. Productivity has risen by leaps and bounds.

    We’ve been keeping strike records for a hundred years. Last year, the number of days lost was the lowest ever. Why? Because we’ve changed industrial relations law and we’ve changed industrial relations attitudes.

    Britain has become a magnet for overseas investment. We have as much investment from Japan as the rest of the Community put together. It’s low tax that did that. Low inflation. They’re what brought investors here. Do you think they would all have come here under a Labour Government? Do you think the confidence the Conservative Government has built up would continue under Labour?

    On top of all this, interest rates have come down. Britain’s rate of inflation is now below Germany’s – the first time that has happened since before men walked on the moon.

    But, after a generation of striving to reach that very goal, within two days, just two days, of our getting there, Labour’s John Smith said he’d be happy to see inflation rise again. He dismisses our target for Britain – stable prices – as an ‘unnecessary virtue’. Those are the words of a shallow ‘chancellor’ – shallow and blind to what matters to every housewife and pensioner in the country.

    Labour talk of recovery. But what Mr Smith is ready to add to inflation would add £2500 million to the costs of industry. And he dares to talk of a billion pound recovery package. Labour’s inflation would destroy profits, destroy companies, destroy jobs.

    What is more it now seems that Labour plan special payoffs to their big union friends. Public sector unions would be given pay increases one per cent above the going rate in private business. Whatever that rate may be? That is a recipe for higher public spending with no improvement in service. For wage spirals and for rising inflation. For the return of trade union muscle to the heart of public policy. In other words the same old Labour policies. It would be a disaster for Britain.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the foundations for recovery are in place. Let business speak for itself. Fifteen times more businessmen would increase investment under the Conservatives than they would under Labour. In fact, under Labour one in four businessmen would cut investment.

    I believe that under a Conservative Government the 1990s will usher in a new era for prosperity and for jobs. The once impossible are within reach:

    – stable prices

    – sustained industrial peace

    – free enterprise given free rein.

    Only one thing could stop it. The Labour Party – pledged to tax; to nationalise; and to give power back to the unions. That would knock recovery on the head – for this year, next year and through the nineties.

    Labour would turn recovery into slump.

    I am not prepared to see that happen – it’s not going to happen. Britain is on the brink of a breakthrough to a great future. Is the dull, dead hand of Socialism to be allowed to strangle that future? Not if I can help it. And I can. I will. With your help, I will.

    Health

    Ladies and gentlemen, we need a strong economy to sustain our spending on the National Health Service. Earlier this week I said I was taking the gloves off about the National Health Service. And I meant it. It is the national Health Service. It is not Labour’s Health Service. Well, the gloves are staying off. Because I’m not prepared to see our Labour opponents run down the work that this great service performs.

    The National Health Service has been in existence for 44 years. For 30 of those years we have had Conservative Governments. The Health Service has flourished and grown. We have cherished the National Health Service, built it, modernised it. We care for it and for those who it serves. And now we’re reforming it – not privatising it, never privatising it – to make it even more successful. To help it treat even more patients than ever before.

    They’re working, our reforms, really working. We are now treating over a million more inpatient cases and two million outpatient cases a year than we did under Labour. And why? Because we have provided more money than ever before.

    Hip replacements are up by a half. Heart, liver and heart and lung transplants have become a daily occurrence. And why? Because we have provided more money than ever before. More year after year after year than even the rashest Labour opposition ever dared promise.

    I want you all to shout from the rooftops the miracles that our doctors, nurses, and hospitals have achieved.

    And remember. The last Labour Government really did cut the Health Service. Really did cut hospital building. Really did cut nurses’ pay. And pushed the waiting lists up to an all-time high – the most shameful record even in their sorry history. The Conservative Party will take no lectures from them.

    I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, their exploitation of the Health Service shows up the real face of Labour. Cynical. Desperate for power. The ‘anything for office’ syndrome. These are people ready even to exploit and distort the case of one sick child in order to blacken the image of one great service and all who work in it. Nothing matters to Labour except that it should ‘serve their purpose’.

    I give the people of Britain this promise. Any government I lead will make the National Health Service, ever better, ever stronger, ever more able to tackle the huge challenges of modern health care. It’s not our Health Service. It’s your Health Service, yours – the people’s. And we will protect it – and we will build it up.

    Defence

    Ladies and gentlemen, there are three momentous issues which lie at the heart of this election – defence, Europe, and the future of our Kingdom.

    Ten years ago this very day a dictator gave the order for the invasion of the Falklands. That act of aggression was triumphantly reversed by our armed forces. I do not think there is anyone alive who will not recall the emotions they felt as they watched those ships of the Royal Navy set sail for the South Atlantic. It was one of the boldest and most skilful expeditions ever to leave these shores. The victory they won came at heavy cost. We will never forget the courage and the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for their country, there in the South Atlantic. We will never forget. But we can give thanks for what they did. For they fought the fight that it seems must be fought by each generation – the fight for justice, for democracy, for the rights of every individual to think and breathe free.

    But ten years on what do we hear from the Labour Party – a threat from their defence spokesman to review and cut the strength of our Royal Navy. What message does that send to our armed forces?

    And what message did Labour send to those who went out nine years later to join the United Nations action against another dictator’s unprovoked aggression. They wanted to leave those troops sitting there in the desert, waiting for sanctions to drive out Saddam Hussein. Either they would still have been in the desert today or Saddam Hussein would have been sitting in Saudi Arabia.

    That is not how we see our armed forces. They deserve a better and a stronger lead. They were not easy times – for them or for any of us. I had only just become Prime Minister. And emotions stirred in all of us as we thought of the skill and daring of our pilots, and the cool professional resolve of the young men and women of the ground forces, waiting in the desert night for the order to advance.

    It is a great responsibility to lead a nation in time of war. It reinforced my passionate determination to preserve the peace in this dangerous world. But I never doubted that, whatever the challenge, our armed forces would be ready for it. And so they were. They did the job. They sent that barbarous dictator, licking his wounds, back to his lair, humiliated.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the first duty of any Government is to safeguard the defence of the realm. You can be sure that a Conservative Government, this one, the next one, every one will discharge that duty. You can take our word for that. And if you take the word of the Liberals and Labour you will know that they will cut defence, that they will risk our country. Such a course would never be for us.

    We will never take risks with our defence. One thing I learnt from the war with Iraq was the crucial importance of having the right equipment for our troops. We will make sure they get it. That’s why we have ordered the new Challenger tank for the Army; the Merlin helicopter for the Navy; the new air defence missile for the RAF. Our armed forces must remain the best armed the best supported in the world. And I promise they will be.

    The Liberals say that now the cold war is won we can hack back our armed forces to the bone – perhaps they have become too fond of one man armies. They want to cut our defence spending by a half. I tell you that would be utter folly. The story of the Falklands and Kuwait is the story of the sudden dangers that can arise in the modern world. We must stay on our guard, be prepared for the unexpected – and under this Conservative Government our armed forces will do so.

    And one other thing, ladies and gentlemen, for so long as dictators like the wicked man who rules Iraq are plotting to build a nuclear bomb, we will keep our independent nuclear deterrent. I say – and say again – we will order, build, deploy and arm that fourth Trident submarine that our armed forces tell me they need. We will not take any risk with that crucial shield.

    But I tell you who would. Labour would. They don’t say, can’t say, won’t say what their attitude on Trident would be. Because they don’t know.

    First Labour say they will build it. Then they say they won’t build it. They even say they might build it and send it floating round the world devoid of arms. What would they call it? HMS Spineless? HMS Witless? HMS Clueless?

    Ladies and gentlemen, you simply can’t trust Labour when it comes to defence. And since defence is about the most serious issue that any country has to face, you just can’t trust Labour with power.

    Europe

    Ladies and gentlemen, this Party took Britain into Europe. It is where our future lies. I said I wanted us to be at the heart of Europe. And I meant it.

    We need to complete that single market that is so vital for our industry – and we will, when we hold the Presidency of the Community later this year.

    We need to strengthen co-operation between the nation states of Europe where our common interests point us. And we will, when we hold the Presidency of the Community later this year.

    And I believe we need to extend Europe – to create a wider Europe. For the greatest benefit of the Community is not economic. It has made it inconceivable that war in Western Europe could ever again take the world to the edge of ruin. That is why I believe so passionately in widening Europe – until the Community comes to embrace Russia itself. Then we can take to the countries of the East that gift of peace that today we in the West take so much for granted. It may not happen in our political lifetime – but it will happen. And I will do everything I can to help it on its way. And when that new Europe has been built from Britain to the Urals, then we will have built a secure life for the next generation that will be greater than we have ever seen before.

    That’s what I want to see happen in Europe. That is my vision for Europe. But that vision doesn’t mean we have to be uncritical about how Europe now is. When you’re dealing with Europe you need to pitch in there fighting – fighting for Britain as well as for Europe. With a Conservative government Britain will always come before Brussels.

    That’s what Douglas Hurd and I did at Maastricht – fight for Britain in Europe. They were tough negotiations – but we got the right result for Britain. Just imagine what would have happened if we had a Labour Government. They wouldn’t have spoken for Britain; they would have broken Britain.

    There are just three words in Labour’s vocabulary for Europe – oui, si, and jawohl. Well, let me offer you a fourth absolutely vital word to defend Britain’s interests – no. Can anyone imagine Mr Kinnock saying anything so short?

    Labour has been wrong on all the critical issues of defence and foreign policy in our time. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I warn the people of Britain. Men who have been so wrong so often on so much would find it hard to break the habit of a lifetime.

    Ladies and gentlemen, these great issues of our time call for a clear head and a steady hand. You need consistency. Conviction. Coherence. You need experience. You need judgement. The one thing you don’t need is Labour.

    The Union

    Ladies and gentlemen, I want to turn to one of the greatest threats the United Kingdom has faced for generations. I don’t think the British people have yet woken up to the danger that Labour and Liberal policies present. To create a new tax-raising Parliament in Scotland would cause the very foundations of our constitution to quake. I warn the people; it could lead to the break-up of Britain itself.

    Nothing shows more clearly the irresponsibility of Labour and Liberals alike – and how alike they are. They don’t seem concerned; they don’t seem to care. They would diminish our Westminster Parliament. The end result of their policies would be a disunited Kingdom in a United States of Europe. A United States of Europe? That means a federal Europe. The people of Britain don’t want a disunited Kingdom; and they won’t accept a federal Europe. But I warn the people. If they vote Labour or Liberal that is what they will get.

    They will get a federal Europe taking powers away from Westminster. They will get a tax raising parliament in Scotland taking powers away from Westminster. And they will get federal assemblies throughout England and Wales taking powers away from Westminster. Is that what people want for the Westminster Parliament? To strip it of authority and influence. But that’s what they will get if they vote Liberal or Labour. I warn the people.

    Ladies and gentlemen, thirteen years ago the Labour Leader fought against devolution. If I had to use any label, he said, I would call myself a Unionist. Not the label I would use for him. Now he tells us – and I quote: ‘I think that people can trust my word and attitude, because I’ve always been in favour of devolution.’ Was that a temporary lapse in a record of consistency? I rather think not. This is the European who ‘wanted out’ of Europe just a few years ago. This is the man who talks of defence but campaigned for years to disarm our country in the face of the Soviet threat.

    Ladies and gentlemen, do words mean anything to this man? He’s the chameleon of politics. Consistent only in his inconsistency. Wouldn’t it make a nice change to find an issue on which he hadn’t changed, for a change?

    Conclusion

    Never forget. In spite of a world recession we’re on course for a better life, a more secure life. We’ve learnt what to avoid and what to strive for. We’ve learnt to protect the weak, to encourage the young, to care for the old, and to keep our cities clean and our country safe, safe from attack on our values and our principles from without and within.

    Ladies and gentlemen, there are three great issues at the heart of this Election. Little debated, so far. But fundamental to the very fabric of our lives, about which I warn the people, warn them before it is too late. I speak the defence of our country, our place in Europe, the very survival of the United Kingdom. None of these would be safe in the hands of a Labour Government.

    Labour and Liberals in office would give Scotland and Wales devolution without even a referendum. They have said so. And in Europe whatever Brussels asked for Brussels would get. That, too, is abundantly clear.

    The breaking up of our United Kingdom and abject surrender to the most extreme demands of the European Commission, along with the defence of the realm, these things go to the very heart of our constitution. The future of our country takes precedence over every other consideration, even Party allegiance. On these things Labour is not to be trusted. I warn the people.

    The Conservative case is not nourished by dogma. The Conservative case does not assert theories discarded by most of the civilised world. To be a modern Conservative is not to be against some of the people; it is to be for all the people.

    Our standards and values are Britain’s heritage. It is we who are the traditional builders of national recovery and renewal.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is a critical, vital Election. None of us can afford to stay on the sidelines. To be a ‘don’t know’ may well be enough at certain elections. Not this one. What is at stake is the future of Britain. From such a contest no-one can stand aside.

    I urge all Conservatives and those who are broadly in sympathy with us to talk to any who are still uncertain. Remind them what we Conservatives stand for and what we believe in. A country of real opportunity. A country with a head. And a country with a heart. Open their eyes to the threat that our opponents present to their lives. Warn the people. And turn the ‘don’t knows’ into ‘now I know.’

    Tell them to vote for the team with experience. Vote for the team that will help recovery, not kill it. Vote for the team that will unite the country, not divide it. Vote for the team that will keep your family safe, not sorry. Vote for the team you can trust. Tell them those things – and on April 9th they will vote for a Conservative future.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Conservative Values – 30 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on Conservative values, held in Birmingham on Monday 30th March 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, let me come straight to the point. What is this Election about? It is about the future of our country. It is about the prospects we build for the next generation. Our security. Our place in the world. About the sort of society and the sort of values we want. About the unity of our United Kingdom. It is not about distorting the problems of one sick child for party political propaganda. It is about building the future of one healthy country – and who builds that future.

    Thirteen years ago, under Margaret Thatcher’s leadership, the British people dragged this country up from the floor. Why was it on the floor? Because that’s where the Labour Party and their trade union friends had left it. We don’t want to see that again. So we’re not going to let socialism slither in through the back door, when it’s being thrown out the front door all over the world. When they’re kicking out big brother everywhere else, we’re not going to let little brother come creeping back here.

    I know Socialism. Britain does not want it. Does not need it. Cannot afford it. It spreads envy; it creates division; it nourishes spite. It makes people feel uneasy about the things they’ve achieved for themselves. Are you successful? Then feel guilty. But you shouldn’t be guilty about being successful. You should be proud.

    Don’t fall for the Socialist con-trick. Don’t be bullied. Don’t be brainwashed. Socialism’s strictly for the dustbin. So go out and put it there.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud of what our country has achieved under a Conservative Government. And you, the British people, can be proud of it, too. You have every right to be. It’s your achievement. You did it. You put pride back into our country – created more wealth, higher living standards and better public services than we’ve ever known in our long history. And under the next Conservative government I say to everyone – you will keep and increase the wealth your hard work has earned. Choice for the people. Ownership by the people. Power to the people – that’s our aim. Opening the doors that socialism holds shut. I want every man and woman in Britain to enjoy the Right to Own and the Power to Choose.

    The Conservative Future

    Why does this Election matter so much? Let me paint the sort of life I want for every family.

    Inflation heading towards zero; and prices steady. Taxes coming down again. More money in the pockets of the people. People with spare cash so they can sign with confidence the purchase of a new car. Growth well under way, so overtime and extra earnings are back in business. A strong pound that holds its value. The right to a postal ballot whenever and wherever union bosses try to call a strike. And never, ever, any threat from flying pickets at the factory gate.

    There will be good State schools, that get the basics right, testing and reporting on progress, bringing the best out of each and every child. Schools no longer controlled by the council, but run by the headteacher, governors and parents. For some it could be a place on the assisted places scheme. For others a place at the local grammar school. Either way, it will be up to parents to choose.

    Whenever illness strikes, there will be a modern expanding Health Service there behind you, with free care for all. More say for the GP in how the best care should be given. And more successful Trust Hospitals that are cutting waiting times and performing more operations than ever before.

    Many a family will have bought the house they live in from the council. If it’s a Labour Council, it will probably have tried to hinder them – but thanks to the Conservatives all who want it have the Right to Buy. Though there are difficulties and sacrifices, it will in the end be worth it. And we have new policies to make it easier still. If it is prudent to do so interest rates will be cut, and the monthly mortgage brought down. Strong recovery will mean a pick-up in the housing market. And there will once again be a strong demand for property on sale.

    Privatisation shares should grow in value once the threat of a Labour government is gone – and we will give more opportunities to invest in shares. More people will have cash in hand to spend on the house. And once the world recession is over, and business is prosperous again, companies large and small should be working flat out.

    We will help millions more people to personal pensions, so they know they will have that extra security when they retire. And what’s more, I want every family to be able to pass on what they have built up in a lifetime of work. Pass it onto their children without the taxman taking another swipe.

    Ladies and gentlemen, these policies touch the lives of everyone. They are what Conservative policies began to open up for millions in the 80s. They are our ambitions for every family in the 1990s.

    The Labour Alternative

    Now look at the alternative. What would the country be like under Labour? I’ll tell you.

    No control of inflation. No stable prices – indeed a target to raise inflation to the European average. For the first time ever a political party goes into an Election promising to put inflation up. But not only inflation would go up.

    There would be big tax increases instead of tax cuts. A Labour government would mean £38 billion of extra spending. That’s the equivalent of £1250 a year on average for everyone who pays income tax, on top of Mr Smith’s mock budget tax attack. What price then the new car, the holiday, the mortgage?

    Overtime no longer worth it because of Labour’s National Insurance increases. The economic recovery clobbered by huge tax hikes. Inward investment chased away and jobs destroyed. More strikes and flying pickets back on our streets. Mr Kinnock’s credit controls making it harder to buy a new car and harder to buy a new home. The pound right down and devaluation back on the agenda.

    No self-managed schools. They’re gone. Fewer rights for parents. They’re not on offer. No assisted places scheme. That’s scrapped. Grammar schools closed. They give what too many parents want. Trust hospitals gone, along with all the reforms that had cut waiting lists and boosted operations.

    No cut in mortgage rates. Up they would go. And, far from house prices picking up, down they would plunge. No work for small trades – and with their policies few small traders at all, because the families that employ them would be paying their savings in tax.

    Personal pensions deliberately wrecked. Shares in privatised companies renationalised or their value driven down. And, at the end of their lives, inheritance tax waiting to grab the fruits of a lifetime’s work. No big legacy for the children. Just one last cheque for the State.

    In other words – a Nightmare on Kinnock Street. Every detail of everyone’s lives and everyone’s future will be affected by the decision you take on April 9th 1992. Don’t believe for a second that it doesn’t matter who wins. It matters desperately. It matters to Britain. And it matters to you.

    Don’t be fooled

    So don’t be fooled. Here’s the Labour Leader, nodding and winking and grinning, a foot-in-the-door salesman, trying to sell you a gentle, harmless semi-demi-socialism. Don’t buy that line. There’s no such thing. As a Polish politician who came to see us once said – and heaven knows the Poles should know from bitter experience – “socialism can’t be improved. It has to removed.” So remember: everything seemingly safe and secure can be reversed almost overnight. And with Labour in power it would be back to yesterday with a vengeance.

    Right Voice in the World

    Ladies and gentlemen, the world is moving fast. Shifting under our feet. We have won the Cold War. Just think about that. The Cold War has been won – by the West.

    Socialism in its most extreme form has been defeated. There are opportunities for freedom to grow, for partnership between nations, for the rebirth of a new Europe, for a new generation.

    But we have to take the right decisions, give the right leadership. So – under whose leadership do we go from here? Let us remind people:

    – Who won back for Britain the respect in which we are now held abroad? We did.

    – Who came to the defence of freedom in the Falklands and again in Kuwait? We did.

    – Who stood firm beside the United States in leading the NATO alliance? We did.

    – Who safeguards Britain’s security by keeping our nuclear deterrent up to date? We do.

    – Who first held out a hand to the new Russia and to Eastern Europe’s new democracies? We did.

    – Who reached an agreement at Maastricht which pointed the way to a wider, stronger Europe, whilst protecting Britain’s basic national interests? Yes. You’re right. We did.

    In short, whom can you trust to defend Britain and keep her safe? Whom can you trust to speak for Britain in Europe, the Commonwealth, and the United Nations as we build a new world? You can trust a Conservative Government – this one, the next one, and every one.

    But what of Mr Kinnock, with Mr Kaufman walking half a step behind? What of him?

    – Who campaigned for CND when the Cold War was at its height, and then let his membership ‘lapse’ when others had won it? He did.

    – Who fought NATO’s policy of standing up to the Soviet Union and opposed putting in Cruise Missiles when they had nuclear weapons targeted on us? He did. Yet it was because we stationed cruise missiles pointing to the East that today we have far fewer missiles pointing at us.

    – Who called our closest ally – the United States, the bastion of the free world – a threat equal to the Soviet Union? He did.

    – Who stood for office on a policy of giving away our nuclear deterrent and taking to the hills? He did.

    – Who refuses to give a commitment to build the fourth Trident that our armed forces say is essential for Britain? He does.

    – Who would have kept our troops sitting in the desert waiting for sanctions to dislodge Saddam Hussein? He would.

    – Who has changed policy on Europe six times – so far – ‘wanted out’ at one Election and wants surrender to Brussels at another? He has.

    – Who at Maastricht would have signed up to anything, any deal – at any price? He would.

    That’s the Kinnock and Kaufman line. Of course it may change. If we can’t make out what the two Ks believe in – and we speak English – what on earth would the rest of the world make of it all?

    Ladies and gentlemen, to safeguard the interests of Britain you need a clear head and a cool hand. Consistency. Coherence. Conviction.

    These serious issues need experience, judgement, a firm line, and a sure stand. The stakes are too high in this dangerous world for Britain to put its trust in Labour at home or overseas. They don’t know what they are doing on foreign policy or defence. They don’t know. We don’t know. Nobody knows.

    The challenge and the opportunities in Europe

    Ladies and gentlemen, what kind of world are we to build for our children?

    When you come to cast your vote, that is in every sense the heart of the matter.

    Before everything Britain must be secure. We must take no risks with defence. And no Conservative Government ever will. But we don’t want a negative Britain, a tentative Britain. We want a country with the courage to stand up for what it believes.

    That ‘s what we did at Maastricht. We are right to be at the heart of Europe, but let’s not be starry-eyed about it. Of course, we believe in it. We are part of Europe. It’s our community, our continent, too.

    But we must ask ourselves what kind of Europe we want.

    I want to complete that single market in Europe on which this Party has taken the lead. We need those open spaces for free enterprise to breathe and grow.

    But the greatest virtue of the European Community is not economic. Twice in this century a European war has brought the whole world to the brink of ruin. The bonds we have formed in Western Europe make it inconceivable that such a disaster could ever again begin here. That’s why I want to extend the Community wider until it reaches the far borders of Russia itself. Then we can bring to the countries of the East that gift of peace that we in the West enjoy. It may not happen in our political lifetime – but it will happen. And a secure life for our children will be the certain result.

    Ladies and gentlemen, that’s the positive side of Europe. That’s what we aim to develop. But there’s another side, too. And we’re not planning to jump in blindly as Labour would. There’s the scandal of countries that sign up for European directives and then do nothing about them. There is unnecessary interference by bureaucracy and red tape. And there’s the fatuous pursuit of conformity for the sake of conformity. Seeking to scrap the rules on quarantine that defend us against rabies. Pushing us to make illegal use of pounds and ounces. We’ve made it clear that we will have nothing to do with nonsense like that.

    And we’re not going to change our stand either on the Social Chapter we rejected at Maastricht. It would increase trade union power, push up industrial costs, destroy jobs and deter foreign investment. Hand over to Brussels decisions that are best made in Britain. All things bad for Britain – no wonder our opponents just can’t wait to sign up.

    Most important of all, if anyone but us had been there at Maastricht, Britain would now be signed up to full European Monetary Union; irrespective of whether it was right.

    That was the demand that was put to me at Maastricht. It was a demand that I wasn’t prepared to accept. We worked to negotiate a better deal for Britain. Labour called it a betrayal. But I believe you can be a good European and still say ‘No’. Indeed, to be a good European, you sometimes have to say ‘no’.

    Ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to a crunch at a summit, you’re alone in there. Alone with other countries’ leaders arguing the case for Britain. There’s nobody else to help you. Nobody to protect you. No minders. You’re on your own. That’s when experience counts. You’ve got to know your case. Got to master the details. One slip – one careless word – one stroke of temper – one gaffe – and you’ve sold Britain short. You can’t go back into the conference chamber and say: “Sorry, boyo, I got it wrong.”

    Safeguarding the Union

    But there is another crucial constitutional issue at the very heart of this Election. The unity of the United Kingdom. It is, quite literally, the national issue. I do not believe that many people understand what is at stake in this Election. Our political opponents now advocate a course which could lead to the break-up of Britain itself.

    The Labour and Liberal parties are proposing a separate tax-raising parliament for Scotland. It is a policy that would cause the very bedrock of our constitution to quake. It would have profound consequences for Parliament at Westminster. You cannot deny English, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs the right to vote on health or education or industry in Scotland and then keep full rights for Scottish Members at Westminster to vote on these matters for the West Midlands.

    It simply cannot be done. It wouldn’t wash with the people of the other parts of Britain. They wouldn’t see it as reasonable or fair. And it wouldn’t be reasonable or fair. But once diminish the voting rights of Scotland’s MPs at Westminster, and you would cause new bitterness. Once create a new Parliament in Scotland, and you would create a focus for every grievance – imagined or real – that one part of this Kingdom had against another.

    It is with these dangers that our opponents are now playing. Devolution is at the top of a slope that leads down into the disaster of separation. Once start on that slide – and it would be perilously difficult to stop. The demon of division would be abroad in the land.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the future of the United Kingdom is not something to be toyed and trifled with for short-term Party advantage. But that is what our opponents are doing.

    Labour and Liberal policy would weaken us all. It could lead to a Disunited Kingdom in a United States of Europe. No issue at this election is more far-reaching, more fundamental. A little Scotland and a lesser Union. It would be an unimaginable disaster. Are we, in our generation, perhaps without even realising, to toss away the Union, the rock on which Britain’s greatness rests?

    Ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘No’. The Conservative Party says ‘No’. We must rouse the people to this danger. Warn them. So that they rise and reject with scorn the policies of those foolish men who would have our country surrender in Europe and separate at home. Never, never, never, must the people of Britain go down that road.

    Changing Britain: the reforms of the 1980s

    Ladies and gentlemen, I want a country for our children that is proud and confident, dynamic and prosperous.

    During the 1980s we Conservatives introduced the fundamental reforms needed to create a successful and thriving economy.

    We reduced tax and restored incentives.

    We reformed trade union law and changed industrial attitudes.

    We returned to the people two thirds of the companies owned by the State.

    And we created a culture in which risk-taking and enterprise became attractive again.

    As a result we transformed the British economy. Strikes fell to the lowest levels ever recorded. Investment and productivity soared. And living standards were raised to record levels. And for the first time in a generation our share in world trade began to grow.

    Over the 1980s manufacturing output and manufacturing productivity grew by leaps and bounds. I am sick and tired of hearing British manufacturing industry run down by our Labour opponents. In the West Midlands you know – as I do – how crucial manufacturing is for our children’s future. Manufacturing success is vital for Britain. I will do all in my power to make it secure. But I will tell you what would wreck it. Higher taxes would wreck it. Higher inflation would wreck it. Higher costs would wreck it. Bad industrial relations would wreck it. A Labour government would wreck it.

    Only Labour can stop recovery

    Our economic reforms of the 1980s are still in place. We’ve got the fundamentals right. Inflation is falling. Interest rates have come down. And the exchange rate is stable. It all means Britain is poised for a strong recovery. All it needs is the confidence a Conservative victory will bring. Then we’ll see the Midlands hum again.

    Success for our opponents would stop that recovery dead in its tracks. That’s not just our view; it’s the view of business. One quarter of all businessmen say they would cut investment if Labour won. And why? Because Labour would reverse every one of the Conservative measures on which recovery depends.

    Where we have lowered income tax, Labour would raise it.

    Where we have privatised, Labour would nationalise.

    Where we have taken Government off industry’s back, Labour would put industry on its back.

    And where we have curbed the power of the militants, Labour would unleash them again. It’s one thing seeing them at Bolton and Luton. But I am not going to let them back in Downing Street again.

    Ladies and gentlemen, under Labour, the recovery that lies ahead would be turned into slump.

    When will they ever learn? You can’t tax people into a national recovery. You can’t build national recovery on a philosophy that has emptied the shelves in every supermarket of the Eastern block. The selfsame socialism that, last time they were in office, reduced Britain to the indignity of Mr Roy Hattersley – he of the ‘dream ticket’, remember, administering a third-world subsidy on the price of bread? Not, I imagine, that Mr Hattersley dines principally on bread.

    Homeowners under Labour

    Ladies and gentlemen, there’s one thing about Britain in the 1980s that you won’t hear about from Labour. It is what Conservative policies of the Right to Buy and the Right to Own have given to families who never dreamed they would have anything to leave to their children. 6 million households have bought their homes since 1979. Four and a half million people have personal pensions. 10 million people now own shares – 6 million in the State companies we sold to the people.

    On all these issues Labour fought us all the way. They wanted to stop the British people becoming owners. No-one out there who gained in the 1980s should ever forget it. Dare you trust your home, your shares, your pension to the very people who battled to stop you having them? Who in this hall would ever do that?

    The return of a Labour government would undermine all that you have worked to build. Not by accident. Not by oversight. But by policy, deliberately. For socialism is the doctrine of common ownership, State ownership, not personal ownership. When it comes to ownership they don’t begin to understand – and they don’t begin to care.

    Health

    Ladies and gentlemen, a word about our National Health Service. It is our National Health Service. It doesn’t belong to the Labour Party. We have cherished it, built it, modernised it. And now we’re reforming it to make it even more successful, treating even more patients than ever before.

    They’re working, those reforms, really working. Strengthening the Health Service. Extending wider, ever wider, the frontiers of free, modern patient care. It’s time somebody took the gloves off about the Health Service. Well, mine are coming off now – and staying off. I want you all to shout from the rooftops the miracles that our doctors, nurses, and hospitals have achieved.

    We have given the Health Service the strongest support it has ever had from any Government. Over 13 years, year after year after year, we’ve put more money into the Health Service than even the rashest Labour opposition ever dared promise. And why? Because we know how to run a free market economy, how to create the resources that, through thick and thin, help our Health Service grow.

    Labour couldn’t do that with their now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t promises. The last Labour government really did cut the Health Service. Really did cut hospital building. Really did cut nurses’ pay. And pushed the waiting lists up to an all-time high – the most shameful record even in their barren history. And these are the people who dare to lecture us.

    I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, their exploitation of the Health Service shows up the real face of Labour. Shallow. Cynical. Negative. Desperate for power. These are people ready to fabricate every imaginable fiction about our great national institution if it ‘serves their purpose’.

    I give the people of Britain this promise. Any government I lead will make the National Health Service, ever better, ever stronger, ever more able to tackle the huge challenges of modern health care. It’s not our Health Service. It’s your Health Service, yours – the people’s. And we will protect it – and we will build it up.

    Education

    Ladies and gentlemen, there’s another great service about which I feel passionately – the education service. So here’s another pair of gloves coming off. I will fight for a good start in life for every child. I will fight for the rights of parents, for variety in education, and for a return to basics in the classroom. Our children have only one chance for a proper grounding in life. And I am simply not prepared to see their future blighted by destructive theories. I want them to concentrate on the basics in education. To read. To write. To add up. That’s where they must start. And it’s on that we must build.

    Too many of our children have been victims of Labour’s fetish for levelling-down. Vital props for life, like spelling, tables and dates banished from the classroom. Children of different abilities made to learn at the same speed. Tests resisted – in case they showed how little had been learned. Parents denied information, results, reports – in case awkward questions were asked.

    Where’s the logic in setting out deliberately to close down good schools and undermine quality in those that remain? But that’s what the Left did, right here in Britain. And that’s what Labour still plan, right here in the West Midlands. Nine people out of ten in Birmingham support its grammar schools. But Labour would shut them – and every other grammar school in Britain. What a pointless, negative policy it is. And what a degrading spectacle. Grammar school men and women picking on grammar school girls and boys.

    I make no distinction between any school, any parent, any child. In our Manifesto we have set out 39 steps to a better education for all. So be in no doubt. After April 9 we will press on with our reforms in education, extend parents’ rights, and let more schools go free of council control, wherever the parents so wish. My belief is easily expressed. The best for every child – the best from every child. That’s what I will fight for in this Election and after it. That’s what our children deserve. Nothing but the best. And they shall have it. For they are our tomorrow.

    Conclusion

    Ladies and gentlemen, the day of decision is coming nearer. It’s the day when Britain will decide whether to go on leading the world towards a future based on choice, personal ownership and private enterprise. Or to slide back almost alone into the mire of socialism.

    Go out and tell the people what’s at stake. Go out and open their eyes to the threat that Labour and Liberals present to their lives. Go out and tell them what the Nightmare on Kinnock Street would mean for us all.

    And go out and tell them of the new wealth, the new opportunities a Conservative Government will bring. For our pledge to Britain is a better future for all. A future where every individual counts. Power to the people. And pride in the world. That’s our battlecry.

    What I want is a country of real opportunity, where everyone of our people is free to choose. A country with a head. And a country with a heart. Wealth and welfare hand in hand.

    If that’s what you care for, if that’s what you fight for. Then go out with me on April 9 – and win for Britain, win for our children, win for freedom, and win for all our futures.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Scotland – 25 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made in Edinburgh, Scotland, on Wednesday 25th March 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s good to be back in Scotland for my seventh visit as PM – and after April 9 I shall be back again – as Prime Minister.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, the choice at this Election is stark – as stark as it has ever been. It is a choice between socialism and opportunity, between high tax or low, between rising prices or falling prices, between trade union power and freedom at work. It’s between yesterday’s rhetoric and today’s reality, between a failed and humiliating past and a better future for us all.

    Let me not mince words. This Election is far too important for that. Labour would wreck Britain. No one should enter any polling booth without a clear picture of what Labour stand for and the calamity that would befall our country if they should become its Government.

    I will tell you what Labour are. Labour are destroyers. Their only political programme is to destroy everything the British people have been building these last few years.

    Low taxes? They would reverse them.

    Personal pensions? They would ruin them.

    Personal savings? They would devalue them.

    Good schools? They would close them.

    Union reforms? They would scrap them.

    Wherever Labour found a spark of innovation a shred of independence, or the spirit of enterprise they would pick it up and snuff it out. For all our futures, they must not be allowed to do it. And we will not let them do it.

    They would turn the flights of television fiction into dismal reality. Imagine it. These are the voyages of the Starship ‘Lack of Enterprise’. It’s five-year mission to seek out and destroy new choices and new opportunities. To boldly tax where no man has taxed before.

    Right back to stardate 1974-79; well, that’s one old repeat Britain can surely do without.

    Ladies and gentlemen, there are two things you need to remember about tax. Labour are tax addicts. Conservatives have an allergy to tax. We want to bring tax down. They want to put tax up. A Labour Government would mean the biggest increase in personal tax since the war – not just for the better-off, but for everyone.

    Do you remember the last Labour Government when tax levels soared to 98%? When the basic rate of tax for every worker was 35 pence in the pound. Well, now we know where John Smith gets his ideas from – he sat in that Labour Cabinet. He supported those high taxes.

    Labour are still ducking the issue of our costing of their tax and spending plans. They don’t tell the truth about our policies, and they won’t tell the truth about their own.

    Mr Cook has confirmed that all their promises would be implemented within five years. The cost of that would be £38 billion. I repeat £38 billion – £1,250 a year in extra tax for every taxpayer. The working families of Britain would be devastated; it would be the worst tax assault they had ever suffered. They need to know – and know now – whether Labour will impose the tax to pay for their promises or drop the fraudulent promises they cannot afford. So which is it to be? They should tell the people – and tell them now.

    Mr Kinnock’s Shadow Cabinet and his minders cannot protect him for ever from answering these questions. The country expects the answers. It has a right to have them. So let’s hear them – now.

    Then there’s inflation – Labour’s hidden tax. Labour like inflation. That’s fortunate – because they always produce it. John Smith says he’s ‘happy’ about higher inflation. He is happy to push prices up. Do you remember what it was like under Labour when you went into a shop and found one price sticker stuck on top of another as prices soared week by week? Do you remember trying to peel them off to see what the price had been the week before. That’s what inflation means. That’s what inflation does. I’ll tell you what I want. I want stable prices. I want prices to be printed on the side of the packet. I want prices you can trust.

    What would Labour’s price rises do to the peace of mind of every pensioner? What would they do to savings, to pensions annuities, to the low-paid and those on benefit, all those whose income is fixed?

    I’ll tell you what they would do. Hit where it hurts most. Hit the vulnerable. Hit the weak. Hit the elderly. In fact the only target a Labour government would hit would be the pockets of the people.

    But it wouldn’t just be people. It would be business. Every percentage point on inflation would cost industry £5 billion a year. What would that do to investment? What would that do to jobs? What would that do to help recovery and get Britain competing in the world?

    Labour are following their instincts – punching out with a left, and a left, and a left. First, higher tax. Next, higher prices. Then, just as the taxpayer reels, comes another typical socialist blow – credit controls. That’s what Mr Kinnock wants. Unbelievable. Homebuyers queuing for loans. State decisions on whether you can take out the HP for a new car or new television. Labour taking away your choice. Grabbing it for themselves.

    Well, our priorities are different. For us, the battle against inflation is the acid test. This month, for the first time since before man walked on the moon, British inflation rates are lower than those in Germany. It seemed impossible. It seemed unachievable. But this Government did it. And now, I promise you, we will go on – until we achieve stable prices for Britain. That is our aim. That is what we will do.

    Ladies and gentlemen, wherever you go in the world – and in the last sixteen months I’ve seen a lot of it – one thing people always comment on is the end of the British disease. The British disease? Do you remember when they all used to say it? We were the champions of the world – for strikes. We were the playthings of trade union power. A national humiliation. It was a national disgrace.

    This Government has changed all that. We have been keeping strike records for over a century. And last year the number of days lost to strikes was the lowest ever since records began. That’s good for Britain. Good for our name. Good for our exports. Good to encourage inward investment. And good for jobs.

    Reforming the trade unions is one of our proudest achievements. The public have supported it. Union members have supported it. So who could believe that anyone would want to reverse it? But they do. Labour do. We must tell the people. We must stop them. We must make sure that the union barons never again hold sway in this land in the way that once they did.

    I just don’t believe that people want to reverse our union reforms. I think they want to take them further. And so do I. And so we will.

    That’s why in the next Parliament we will give individuals greater freedom in joining the union of their choice. We will see to it that no strike is held without a full postal ballot. We will make sure that unions give at least seven days’ notice of a strike. And we will allow any member of the public to take legal action to stop the disruption of their public services by wildcat strikes. That’s the way to give power to the people and to keep everyone within the law.

    That’s our agenda. So what is Labour’s? To allow secondary strikes. To stop employers obtaining an immediate court order to stop an unlawful strike. To take away from individual union members the right not to join industrial action. To restrict severely the right of the courts to take away a union’s assets when it breaks the law.

    Back to flying pickets. Back to wildcat strikes. Be the law ever so mighty, the trade unions would be above it. That’s Labour’s policy. It would be a calamity – and the British people must never let it happen again.

    Back to the past with a vengeance. Labour Ministers and trade union leaders carving up the British economy, and the British people left with the scraps. In 1979 we said goodbye to all that. On April 9 we must bury it for good.

    I want you to tell the country how we cherish the National Health Service. And by the way, it is the National Health Service; it does not belong to the Labour Party. I will never forget what I owe to the Health Service. I will do everything I can to strengthen and develop it. So long as I am Prime Minister the resources we give it will grow year by year.

    There will be many people in Britain – not just Conservatives – but people who support other Parties, and who care for the Health Service, who will have been distressed and shocked by the face the Labour Party has now revealed. By the glee with which they have swooped on human error and personal suffering to serve their Party’s ends. The British people are not naive. They will have noted with what relish Labour spokesmen have crowded forward to blacken the name of the Health Service and the doctors and nurses who work in it.

    No regard for the truth. No regard for the feelings and emotions of the families they use. Nothing but concern for their own self-seeking propaganda. None of that simple decency which the British people expect. I tell you this. This attitude tells you more about the people who lead the Labour Party than it does about the Health Service. Such men are unfit to govern.

    Such men must never govern.

    Ladies and Gentleman, twice during our period of office, we have had to go to war – against the dictator of Argentina and against the dictator of Iraq. On both occasions the world knew where Britain stood. There were no doubts. No question marks. There was no uncertainty. Britain was steadfast.

    The world needs to know where Britain stands. We cannot afford a Labour Party which doesn’t know from one year to the next where they stand. For the Labour Party, defence is not a responsibility – it is an embarrassment.

    Labour is led by a man who – when the West faced a military build-up by the Soviet dictators – was proud to proclaim himself a disarmer. The brutal question has to be asked – is that man worthy or capable to be in charge of Britain’s defences?

    Ladies and gentlemen, Britain needs strong defences and there is only one way to guarantee that – by electing a Conservative Government.

    Britain’s authority in the world is a vital concern to everyone in this election. There is a stark choice between the parties. These are the questions which everyone should ask.

    – Who won back for Britain the respect in which we are held abroad?

    – Who came to the defence of freedom in the Falklands and in Kuwait?

    – Who has stood firm beside the United States in leading the NATO Alliance?

    – Who has safeguarded Britain’s security with our independent nuclear deterrent?

    – Who has held out a hand to Russia and Eastern Europe, leading them back into the free world?

    – Who has fought for Britain’s interests in Europe – consistently and constructively?

    In short, you must ask yourself this question: whom can you trust to defend the nation’s interests and keep Britain safe?

    I believe the answer is clear. This Government and this Party.

    Now let me put some other questions to you.

    – Who campaigned for years for CND, and then let his membership ‘lapse’?

    – Who opposed NATO’s policy of standing up to the Soviet Union?

    – Who called our closest ally – the United States – a threat equal to that of the Soviet Union?

    – Who would have given away our nuclear deterrent and based our defence on taking to the hills?

    – Who would have kept our troops sitting in the desert while they waited for sanctions to dislodge Saddam Hussein?

    – Who would have thrown away our membership of the European Community?

    – And who, at Maastricht, would have signed up to anything, any deal – at any price?

    The answer to all these questions is of course…..but I don’t have to tell you, do I? There is only one Party in the western world which has been so wrong, so often on the critical questions of our time. Never were so many mistakes of judgment made on so many subjects by so few.

    Every day, Douglas Hurd and I have to take crucial decisions for Britain. Our record is there for all to see. It’s tried; it’s tested. Unlike the Labour Party’s. This is a flawed, flakey – and dangerous record. How could the British people trust themselves to Labour.

    What would those emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, reaching out to freedom, make of a Labour government? What would they think? They have endured the pain and the privation of socialism for decades, and thrown it off after much grief and suffering. So what does Labour propose to send them – Gerald Kaufman? Who is Gerald Kaufman? Where is Gerald? Has anyone here seen Gerald Kaufman? A good question, that, in the context of this campaign. Who is Gerald Kaufman? Do you remember him before he disappeared, locked away by the image makers? I personally think that’s rather unfair. I rather like seeing him on television. What I say is – set Gerald free. Let us see more of the man who praised the ‘magnificent achievements’ of the Marxist regime in Nicaragua – shortly before the Nicaraguans voted to consign it to the dustbin of history.

    Ladies and gentlemen, almost twenty years ago, it was a Conservative Government which took Britain into Europe. We in this Party have never wavered in our commitment to membership or to the Community’s fundamental principles.

    But what makes a good European? Always agreeing with our partners doesn’t make a good European. Always agreeing with the Commission doesn’t make a good European. Sometimes a good European has to say ‘no’. He has to say no if he sees Europe moving in the wrong direction. He has to say no if he sees Britain’s interests threatened. That is why, when necessary, we have rejected the proposals of the Commission. Insisted on greater financial discipline. And we have got it. When we demanded a fairer contribution from Britain to the Community Budget – we got it. When we called for the completion of the Single Market. We got that too.

    And last December, at Maastricht, I negotiated on behalf of our country an agreement which advances British interests and strengthens the Community. It provides us with a superb platform for the British Presidency of the Council of Ministers, which will culminate in the historic summit that I will bring to Edinburgh later this year.

    Those negotiations were tough. They were gruelling. Let me tell you something. When you are negotiating in Europe with your fellow Presidents and fellow Prime Ministers, there is nobody else with you. You’re on your own. You’ve got to have your wits about you. You’ve got to be clear about what you want to achieve. You have to understand the detail. One mistake – one slip of the tongue – one careless word – one moment of indecision – one gaffe – and you’ve sold Britain down the river.

    Let me tell you what I believe are the principles and objectives that are right for all of us in Europe.

    First, we want to see a community of nation states, not a United States of Europe. When our national interests and our partners’ interests coincide, then common action makes commonsense. But we must never give up the right, our national right, to take the crucial decisions about our security, our foreign policy and our defence.

    Elsewhere, responsibility should not be given to the Community when it can be discharged at national or local level. That is a principle that I insisted on at Maastricht. It is a principle to which the Conservative Party will hold fast.

    Second, we must ensure that the Single Market is a genuine free market, open for business right across the Community. It must have common rules – and those rules must be obeyed. Britain has an outstanding record in implementing Community Directives, once they are agreed. Some of our partners are keener on making new rules than keeping them. We will not take lectures on being a good European from partners that drag their feet.

    Third, we want to see a wider, more open and outward looking Europe – a Europe which brings into the fold, as and when they are ready, the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe. A wider Europe will be a better Europe. A safer Europe. A more secure Europe. The right Europe to hand on to the next generation.

    Labour’s approach to Europe puts Labour’s needs first, Britain’s needs – someway behind.

    Labour have changed their policy on the principle of Community membership. Not once, not twice, not three times… not four times… not five times. Six times.

    Not long ago, they wanted to pull Britain out of Europe. Now they can’t wait to accept – uncritically – every proposal advanced by Brussels, whatever the damage to our national interests, no matter how great. When we defended Britain’s interests, Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman had a special word for it. He called it a betrayal. One wonders what manner of word he would find to cover their own craven position.

    Labour sees the Brussels bureaucracy as a raft on which to build a socialist superstate. They want to turn the Community – and I use their own words – into the ‘ally of Socialism in Britain’.

    They want to accept the Social Chapter which we rejected at Maastricht – a Social Chapter which would increase trade union power, push up industrial costs, and hand to Brussels on a plate decisions that should be made in Britain.

    More important still, if Labour, not the Conservatives – if Mr Kinnock and Mr Kaufman, not Douglas Hurd and I – had been at Maastricht, Britain would now be signed up to full European Monetary Union; regardless of whether it was right for Britain.

    I was not prepared to do that. I repeat – you can be a good European and still say ‘no’. Indeed, to be a good European sometimes you must say no.

    Ladies and gentlemen, there is one other great issue of which I must speak tonight. When I came to Scotland, just a few weeks ago, I said that this issue transcended the Election. It does. For it concerns the future of our United Kingdom.

    Everyone in Scotland knows what I feel about this. I have made – I will make – no attempt to tack or trim. I want to see our Kingdom stay stay a United Kingdom. The United Kingdom, whose name is respected in every corner of the world.

    I believe the vast majority of people in Scotland share my view. They remember – as I remember – that together, across nearly three centuries of our history, the peoples of these islands have shaped the destiny of the world.

    No-one asked in those years whether the statesmen, the administrators, the men and women of industry and the arts, the writers and the lawgivers who came from these shores were Scottish, English, Irish or Welsh. It was enough that they came from this United Kingdom.

    It was enough that they carried our language, our law, our principles, our civilisation. Together our nations have been far, far greater than the sum of their parts. Separate, we could never have changed the face of half the world. But together we did.

    And, although we achieved this together, no-one, once they set foot on these islands, could doubt that the identity of each of our nations persisted and thrived. The Act of Union left Scotland free to develop its own code of law, its own education system, its own church, its own banks. Scotland retains her own unique responsibilities and distinctive traditions – with all the influence in the world that the Union brings. What is so different in Scotland today, that some in this generation should conspire to destroy the balance that has served us all so well?

    I speak to you as an Englishman, not a Scot. But I also speak to you as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The future of Scotland is your decision. If after all the arguments have been carefully weighed, the people of Scotland want to break the bonds that bind us, then it can be done. No nation can be held within a union against its will.

    Yes, we can break up the United Kingdom. But it would be an unimaginable disaster. But we can do it – and, whether we intend to or not, if we take the wrong decisions, we will break up the United Kingdom.

    But as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I have a duty to rise above the heat and fire of an Election campaign. I have a responsibility to point out to the whole country – to every part of this Kingdom – the true nature of the issues at stake and the dangers we face. Any significant change in the constitutional arrangements between us will inevitably throw every aspect of those relationships into the melting-pot.

    It is not Party advantage that leads me to this. There are others in Scotland who pursue the short-term course, the populist course, the self-serving course. I speak as I do because I believe – and believe with a passion – that we must fight for what is right. It would be all too easy, fatally easy, to conclude that the best interests of the Conservative Party would be served by separation for Scotland. We would be unbeatable at Westminster if that were the case. But that is not the nature of this Party. And it is not the nature of this Prime Minister. We are the Unionist Party. And we will fight for the Union.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I will waste no time on the narrow nationalist case. It is a negative case, a socialist case, a separatist case. It is the fast route to the divorce of two great nations. The exchange of Great Britain for a little Scotland and a lesser Union. Our enemies and rivals would think we were mad.

    But it is with that very madness that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party – the advocates of a tax-raising parliament – now foolishly play. Set aside that the combination of Labour Government in Westminster and a tax-raising parliament here in Edinburgh would make Scotland the most expensive place in Europe in which to invest.

    The truth is this. It is what others have called the West Lothian question. It is what I call the Robin Cook reply. If there were to be in Scotland a tax-raising parliament with responsibility for health, education, or industry, then it would inevitably raise other questions. People in England and Wales and Northern Ireland would certainly question the rights of Scottish MPs to decide on these matters at Westminster for them. It would mean the creation of two-tier MPs, with Scotland’s MPs in the second rank. It could also mean that the level of Scotland’s representation at Westminster might be seen elsewhere as too high. In all this we see the very bedrock of our constitution beginning to quake.

    I do not want these things to happen. I want to avoid, not to promote, the bitterness and conflict that would be the certain result. A new tax-raising parliament cannot be seen as a simple bolt-on extra to the constitution. It might start there. But it would never end there. Labour, in their self-seeking way, are playing thoughtlessly upon grievances in Scotland. For short-term advantage they are prepared to do long-term damage. They portray as a panacea what is a Pandora’s Box. Open that box – and the demon of separation would be let loose. We should not see it caged again so easily.

    Scotland leads in this debate – but the current arrangements rest on the consent of everyone involved. To break our Union would be to diminish our influence for good in the world, just at the time when it was needed most. To break our Union would be to diminish our place in Europe – a separate Scotland would never be at its heart, but at best on its fringe. Labour policy would weaken us all. It would mean a Disunited Kingdom in a United States of Europe. And this Party will have none of it.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I cannot hide from you how profoundly I feel about this issue. It is easy in an Election campaign for people to lose sight of the fundamentals. Among these the greatest is the very standing and security of our country – at home, in Europe and in the wider world.

    The first duty of the Conservative Party when we came back to office in 1979 was to restore our pride and authority in the world. That we have triumphantly done. People across the world now look to Britain. We are giving a lead to others in crises and difficulties in every part of the globe. Standing for partnership in a wider Europe – but never afraid to pitch in there fighting for our country’s interests.

    The Union is, I believe, the rock on which this Kingdom’s authority rests. Standing together, we have moulded the history of much of the world. Separating or separated we would be tossed on its tides.

    I appeal to people in every part of our Kingdom to reflect on that. To reject with scorn the short-sighted policies of those who would surrender in Europe and separate at home.

    Let us stand together. Stand for what we believe. Stand for what we can yet achieve. Together. United. Proud of Scotland, yes. And proud of the Union, too. Let us go out from this hall and tell the world. In this Party we will fight – and go on fighting to defend the interests of our country and that rock of Union on which its greatness rests.

  • PMQT – 3 March 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd March 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Townend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Townend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disposable income of 10 million mortgage payers is affected by two factors–income tax and interest rates? Is he aware that the Labour party will put up both–a double whammy?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right. We have brought down interest rates and we are determined to keep them low. We believe that the Labour party would do precisely the reverse. An average of 10 independent City forecasts shows that interest rates would rise by 2 per cent. immediately if there were to be such a disaster as a Labour Government. That is Labour’s message to home owners–more taxes and higher interest rates.

    Mr. Kinnock rose — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have an end to all this shouting.

    Mr. Kinnock : Has the Prime Minister seen the report from Mr. Graham Jackson, consultant cardiologist at Guy’s trust hospital, who says :

    “You put seriously ill heart patients on a list to come in but, by the time their turn comes, the contract has run out and the trust administrator says there are no funds till the next financial year”?

    Does not the Prime Minister agree that such a system, which puts cash before care, betrays the fundamental principle of the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no system that puts cash before care. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that we have provided more additional resources in this Parliament than he was even prepared to promise in his last election manifesto.

    Mr. Kinnock : But does not Dr. Jackson have a powerful point when he says that the new system– [Interruption.] This is a man working in the system. Does not he have a powerful point when he says : “The new system is run by accountants who don’t have to sit across the table from the patient and say I cannot treat you” until the new financial year? Will the Prime Minister recognise now that it is tragically wrong for treatment for seriously ill people to be determined by money rather than medical need?

    The Prime Minister : The view that the right hon. Gentleman attributes to that surgeon is certainly not shared by, among others, Nye Bevan’s nephew. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government’s role in health is twofold : first, to provide the resources and, secondly, to make them work better for patients. The resources are at a record level, as the right hon. Gentleman must concede, and the new system is making sure that the resources work better for patients. There is no other way to improve health care and there is no doubt that the new system, across a range of treatment, is improving health care.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister is going to borrow to fund tax cuts. Does he understand yet that the priority of the British people is to use all available resources for health and other essential services? The Prime Minister wants to bribe, they want to build–why does not he listen to them?

    The Prime Minister : In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, perhaps he will tell us two things : how much extra would he provide for health, and where does health come in Labour’s order of priorities? Labour has a long list of priorities : a £3 billion pledge on pensions–presumably health comes after that ; health presumably comes after Labour’s £1 billion recovery programme and it presumably comes after Labour’s £8 billion housing pledge. What else does it come after? The right hon. Gentleman’s priorities do not add up and he knows it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot put a cost on his compassion, for it is bogus.

     

    Q2. Mr. Lee : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.

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

    Mr. Lee : Since the Government came to power, my Pendle constituency has gained two new enterprise zones which are bursting at the seams, one new motorway and a brand new community hospital. Currently, 55 per cent. of employment is in manufacturing–the highest level in the country. Modesty prevents my asking my right hon. Friend what message he will send to the electorate of Pendle in the coming election. However, what message will he send to the electorate in the whole of the north-west?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly reiterate fully the message that I delivered when I visited the north-west a few days ago. The future and prosperity of the north-west are best served by a Government who are determined to keep inflation down, who want to keep taxes down–and will not let interest rates rise as the Opposition would–and who recognise that the level of strikes is at its lowest for more than a century. In the north-west, we will continue to encourage domestic and inward investment and we will not discriminate against it.

    Mr. Ashdown : Now that we know what it means, will the Prime Minister reflect on the “double whammy” that he received from the other place on the Education (Schools) Bill last night? When will he accept that the best thing to do with that damaging and foolish Bill is to ditch it?

    The Prime Minister : I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to providing more power for parents in relation to schools. I note that it is the Liberal Democrats’ policy to take power away from parents and governors and to give it to centralised bureaucrats, and that is precisely like the Labour party policy as in so many things.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bill Walker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.

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

    Mr. Walker : Does my right hon. Friend recognise the dangers inherent in introducing unworkable proposals for devolution for Scotland? Does he accept that if such proposals were implemented, they would lead to a separatist, socialist, nationalist Scotland, enormous loss of jobs and the closure of military bases? The jobs that currently go to the military in the United Kingdom would be lost from factories in Scotland.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the risks of the devolution proposals which have previously been put before people. The Act of Union has served Scotland well and it has served England well. It has provided an essential cement for the whole of the United Kingdom. The devolution proposals that we have seen thus far would damage that union and separately damage Scotland, England and the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand the emotional pull that devolution has for people in Scotland, but I hope that every Scot will examine very carefully what it would mean in practice for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom.

     

    Q4. Ms. Short : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Ms. Short : Has the Prime Minister seen the report on “World in Action” last night, which showed that one of his Ministers has been involved in smearing a private citizen? Does not this place give the Prime Minister the chance to show whether he is really against the smears that have been organised against the Labour party, or is he getting others to do his dirty work for him? Will he sack the Minister concerned?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Lady were sensible, she would look in the backyard of her own party.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Hill : Will my right hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down.

    Mr. Faulds rose —

    Mr. Speaker : Sit down.

    Mr. Hill : Will my right hon. Friend continue vigorously and robustly to negotiate the British contribution to the European budget and, at the end, submit it at a level which the House of Commons and the country can accept?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir. The Community’s budget is already £40 billion a year. The existing own resources ceiling has plenty of room for further expenditure without increased resources being committed. It is the Government’s view that the Commission should be thinking of ways of saving taxpayers’ money, not justifying fresh reasons for expending it. It cannot justify increased expenditure on the scale that it proposes, and we are not prepared to renegotiate in any way the present rebate to the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Tom Clarke : Is the Prime Minister aware that the parents of Carly Reavill and everyone else know that he was misinformed on the circumstances concerning that child’s tragic death? Will he accept that there is indeed an acute shortage of intensive care beds for children? Will he tell us precisely what action he intends to take so that never again will desperately sick children be turned away from hospitals which do not have the money to provide emergency treatment?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know, for he takes a close interest in this matter, that from next year, there is an extra £2.7 billion for the health service in its next budget, in a few day’s time–up another 5 per cent., including efficiency gains. That is the most tangible way to demonstrate our concern for the health service and to continue to improve the service available to everyone in this country.

     

    Q6. Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Bottomley : My right hon. Friend has been successful in building on the work of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in bringing the constitutional parties together. Will he accept that we are asking the Social Democratic and Labour party and the unionists to work more closely than parties normally do in Great Britain? Will he send a message to the Provisional IRA and the disloyalists that the mindless, aimless use of bullets and bombs will not be as successful as parliamentary debates and normal political election campaigns?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the whole House will share my hon. Friend’s view on the latter matter. I warmly welcome the decision of the Northern Ireland political leaders to start their talks again. It gives a clear and very welcome signal to all the people in Northern Ireland of their determination to find a political solution. That is very much needed. It also gives a very clear signal to the terrorists that the people of Northern Ireland will not be bullied by guns, by bombs or by any other form of intimidation. That goes for everyone on the mainland as well.

     

    Q7. Sir Patrick Duffy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Sir Patrick Duffy : As the restructuring of the armed services proceeds, the displaced and redundant service men will continue to be treated with the utmost care and sensitivity, as the Prime Minister is well aware. But if that policy is not extended to the displaced workers in the defence industries, does the Prime Minister accept that our high-tech base will be damaged, perhaps irreparably? Certainly, we can ask questions about the future of certain design teams and skilled and professional workers.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we still have substantial orders for defence equipment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a further statement shortly.

     

    Q8. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Colvin : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if he or my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment had a meeting with business leaders to discuss the policy of the minimum wage, they would tell both the House and the country what business leaders had to say about the damaging effect on jobs that such a minimum wage would have? Does my right hon. Friend think that the shadow spokesman on employment should do likewise?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The minimum wage policy has been condemned by everyone from The Guardian to Goldman Sachs. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is apparently the only person in the country who does not yet believe that the minimum wage would cost a substantial number of jobs if it were implemented. The only debate about the national minimum wage is not whether it would put people out of work but how many hundreds of thousands more people would be unemployed, wholly unnecessarily as a result of partisan dogma on the part of the Labour party.

  • PMQT – 25 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Kilfoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 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.

    Mr. Kilfoyle : The Prime Minister recently told the House that the British economy had grown faster than any other in Europe, when it has not; he said that the Japanese economy was in recession, when it is not ; and he said that German unemployment was over 3 million, when it is not. Given that series of gaffes, will he now compound his confusion and tell us that he bears no personal responsibility for the appalling slump that is devastating Britain today?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a recession in a number of countries. I quote from what Sir Allen Sheppard of Grand Met said yesterday :

    “One thing which no one could predict a year ago was exactly how long the recession would last This recession has not been an exclusively British phenomenon–as some people would have us believe. It is a worldwide problem ; only last week we heard the news that Europe’s strongest economy, Germany, had slowed down.”

    Those are not my words, but those of Sir Allen Sheppard of Grand Met.

    Sir Peter Blaker : Will my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the attempt being made to steal the emblem of the duchy? Is he aware that on a previous occasion when such an attempt was made, the miscreant–an imposter named Lambert Simnel, who attempted to steal the red rose from King Henry VII– was not only defeated but sentenced to serve as a scullion in the royal kitchens? What does my right hon. Friend think would be the appropriate sentence now?

    The Prime Minister : It is difficult to find anything entirely appropriate. Perhaps continuous service as Leader of the Opposition would do.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recall saying a short time ago in his personal statement–in this document from the Conservative party– that “if” Government

    “borrowing takes the strain, taxes have to go up”

    Does he still take that view?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was Chief Secretary for two years and Chancellor for one year. Because of the repayments that were made of borrowing during that period, in the midst of a recession we are now in a better position to borrow prudently– [Interruption.] than we have been at any stage in the past : to borrow prudently and to maintain our commitment to a balanced budget in the medium term. Before the right hon. Gentleman reflects further, he may recall that the borrowing requirement was 9 per cent. of GDP under the last Labour Government–the equivalent to borrowing today £55 billion.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister is now borrowing billions to try to finance a pre-election tax cut, so will he tell us exactly which other taxes he would raise to pay for the bribe?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend’s Budget, and I have no intention of doing so. He should also realise that tax is levied on people’s own money : it does not belong to the Government ; it is their money that the Government compulsorily take away from them in taxation. Taxation levels determine how much. We know that the right hon. Gentleman would add to taxation, for he needs to in order to sustain his promises.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister said a very short time ago that “If” Government

    “borrowing takes the strain, taxes–not just our taxes”–

    [Hon. Members :– “We have heard this before.”] And you are going to hear it again : “If” Government

    “borrowing takes the strain, taxes–not just our taxes but the next generation’s too–have to go up.”

    Does not the Prime Minister think that he owes it to the country to say exactly which other taxes he would put up to pay for his bribe?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should have done a little more research. If he had done a little more research and had seen the evidence that I gave to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in 1987, he would have seen then–when we had a fiscal surplus of many billions–that I indicated that it would be right, in a downturn, to borrow money in a recession. Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer to do what Labour last did–cut the hospital building programme and cut the other programmes? That is what it did before.

    Mr. William Powell : I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Corby last Friday to open the magnificent Brooke city technology college. Does he agree that this type of secondary school has a substantial part to play in the future education of our children in the secondary sector, and will he encourage the development of further city technology colleges in our country?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly enjoyed my visit to the Brooke city technology college last week. It is an excellent establishment and has attracted a good deal of support and resources from the private sector. I think that that is the sort of choice that parents want for their children, and it widens the opportunities in education. It is inexplicable to me that the Labour party would wish to stop this continuing and successful experiment.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Margaret Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mrs. Ewing : As the Prime Minister has now had time to appreciate the significance that Scots attach to the phrase “taking stock”, will he elaborate on what that means in the Scottish constitutional set-up? Is it an affirmation of what his junior energy Minister says : that it will be acceptable for the Scottish Office to be staffed by Members from constituencies south of the border, or of what his Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland have said in the past 24 hours : that nothing will happen, or is he considering the possibility of affording the Scottish people the right to determine their own future in a democratic fashion? Will there be a referendum or any other mechanism to establish a Scottish Parliament?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady’s party seeks isolation for Scotland. I do not believe that that prescription is in the interests of Scotland or of the rest of the United Kingdom. I said that we would be taking stock, and I meant precisely that–taking stock on the basis of an increased vote in Scotland, on the basis of more Members of Parliament for Scotland and on ways of seeking to increase the strength of the Union. That is what I mean by taking stock.

    Mr. Dover : Is the Prime Minister aware that millions of people are fed up with having to pay extra community charge to cover those who do not pay? Will he encourage all local authorities to ensure that people pay their bills promptly and will he ensure that future charges are reduced when that money comes into council coffers?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we need to pursue those who do not pay the community charge and, in particular, we should pursue those Members of the House who do not pay the community charge and set a bad example to everyone else.

     

    Q3. Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister agree with the proposition that it is entirely sensible for a Government to borrow prudently in order to fund capital investment to build economic recovery but that it is sheer folly for a Government to borrow in order to buy votes for an election? Would that not be fiscal philandering of the worst kind?

    The Prime Minister : Without in any way prejudging what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will do in the Budget, I seem to recall that the last Labour Government–on the back of a huge borrowing requirement–cut taxes just in advance of the 1979 election. But if the hon. Gentleman wants to know about investment, let me give him some information about investment. We now have the largest investment programme of capital investment in the national health service that we have ever had. Next year hospital spending in capital terms will be 75 per cent. up on the last year of the Labour Government. Those are the fruits of an improved economy over the last 10 years.

    Mr. Tracey : Will my right hon. Friend restate his commitment to the assisted places scheme in our schools, which is an extremely cost-effective way of sending children of high ability to good schools? Is it not short- sighted for both Opposition parties to be pledged to the abolition of this scheme?

    The Prime Minister : It is an extremely popular scheme, as my hon. Friend knows. We will sustain that scheme in the next Parliament. The Opposition parties would abolish it, given the chance.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Williams : Having been Chief Secretary to the Treasury before becoming Chancellor, and Chancellor before becoming Prime Minister, is the Prime Minister really trying to tell us that he bears no responsibility whatever for the recession? Why is the Prime Minister continually trying to blame everyone else when it is his own errors of judgment, mistakes and economic incompetence that have produced the current recession?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman builds too much on too little. I made it clear on a number of occasions over recent years that there was, in retrospect, one change that I wish we had not made at the time, but it was one that was urged on us by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. That was the reduction of interest rates immediately on the back of the stock exchange crash, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we were urged to cut them even more by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). What responsibility will they accept for that?

    Mr. Butcher : Can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that he will never propose the introduction of unnecessary and expensive regional assemblies in England and Wales? Does he agree that when Opposition parties advocate such bodies they do so with the entirely cynical objective of maintaining the over-representation of Scotland in this House in the aftermath of the dog’s breakfast called devolution?

    The Prime Minister : Such assemblies are neither wanted nor needed, and we will not propose them.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jack Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Is the Prime Minister aware that since 1979 the crime figures in England and Wales have gone up by 102 per cent., that in the north of England they have gone up by 123 per cent. and that in the Northumbria police force area–my area–robberies have gone up by 240 per cent. and criminal damage by 238 per cent? The Home Office is advising the police to increase the number of officers while at the same time the Department of the Environment is capping local authorities’ spending. How does the Prime Minister square that circle?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about law and order, perhaps he could explain to me why his party refuses to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, which was introduced initially by a Labour Government and is now opposed by a Labour Opposition. He might also have mentioned in his remarks that spending on law and order is up by 80 per cent. in real terms and that there are 15,500 more police officers, whereas Labour left the police force under establishment by 7,000 when it left office. Labour has opposed our measures which have led to stiffer sentences, it would shackle the police with political controls and its answer to rising crime is to blame everyone except the criminal.

  • PMQT – 20 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Salmond : When the Prime Minister visits Scotland this weekend, will he be big enough to acknowledge that, sooner rather than later, he will have to bow to the wish of the Scottish people for self-determination? Does he not understand that, at a time when even he is forecasting a Europe of up to 30 member states by the end of the century, it is inevitable that the Scottish nation will demand to be a full part of that process of change?

    The Prime Minister : No, Sir. I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. The Union between England and Scotland is greater than the sum of its parts, and always has been. I understand what activates the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that he is profoundly misleading Scotland and treading a path that is damaging Scotland and the Union.

    Mr. Fishburn : At a time of economic difficulty and rising unemployment across the world, does not this nation–as a great trading nation–need, more than anything else, constant tax policy, the lowest possible income tax and competitive rates of corporation tax? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a disaster to adopt a policy that changed almost from hour to hour under Labour, with no constancy or purpose of any sort?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of clear-cut and low corporate and personal tax rates. I note that the Opposition’s tax plans have gone back to the drawing board ; after five years of careful preparation, they have been ditched in a period of five weeks. I also note that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)–who said, when he took on the job that there would be

    “no more phoney shadow Cabinet Budgets”–

    has now promised that there will be a phoney shadow Cabinet Budget.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister confirm that today’s official figures show that the British economy is in its longest recession for over 60 years? As the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor before it started and has been Prime Minister throughout its course, is it not clear that he is not only the Prime Minister of recession, but the prime cause of recession?

    The Prime Minister : Before the right hon. Gentleman goes into overdrive, perhaps he will confirm that, in the past three months, industrial production has fallen faster in Germany, faster in France, faster in the United States and faster in Japan than it has in this country ; and that, if we take the last year as a whole, industrial production fell more in Japan, and more in Germany, than in the United Kingdom. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that is, if he blames me for everything?

    Mr. Kinnock : To put it into perspective, let me point out that since 1988 the German economy has grown by 10 per cent. The British economy, under the Conservative Government, has not grown at all. Will the Prime Minister recognise that and stop groping round to try to find excuses for his own failure? Does he recall that it is exactly a year since he told us in this House, “Our policies are working”? Does he recall that in that 12 months the British economy has contracted by 2.5 per cent. and that unemployment has gone up by 750,000? Do not today’s figures make it clear that it is official–Majorism isn’t working?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman is now keen to look at a longer period than just the last year, he will also be interested to know that between 1981 and 1991 the British economy grew faster than the German economy, the French economy, the Italian economy or the economy of any other country in Europe. Will he now confirm, since he seems to regard all problems as being entirely domestic, that over the second half of the last year industrial production fell in the United States, in Japan and elsewhere and that Germany’s gross domestic product has now declined for three quarters in succession and Germany is in recession? How can this be if, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, it is all a British problem?

    Mr. Kinnock : In the last 18 months of recession– [Interruption.] British people are not on the dole in Germany ; they are on the dole in Britain.

    In the last 18 months of recession, unemployment in Britain has gone up by 1 million and the British economy has contracted by nearly 4 per cent. The figures speak for themselves. During the course of the time the right hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor and Prime Minister he is convicted by his own record and condemned by his own inaction in the face of the slump that he caused.

    The Prime Minister : The House will have noted that the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand the facts and cannot handle the questions. He may recall that in Germany more than 3 million people are unemployed and he may bear it in mind that a higher proportion of people are in work in this country than in Germany or in any other European country except Denmark. Let me try again to help the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the world is in an economic slow-down, as even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has now acknowledged. That makes domestic politics even more important. That is why we have cut interest rates seven times in a year and halved inflation in a year, have the lowest number of strikes for half a century and have cut the basic rate of tax. As a result of our action, real earnings are rising and we have lower interest rates, lower mortgage rates, lower inflation and the right circumstances for recovery. The people of this country will not let the right hon. Gentleman throw that away.

    Mr. Stanbrook : When my right hon. Friend sees the new Irish Prime Minister soon will he tell him that the biggest contribution the Irish Republic can make to peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is to renounce its claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland, as that claim encourages Irish Republican terrorism and gives it legitimacy, as well as being the strongest stumbling block in the way of all-party talks aimed at constitutional progress?

    The Prime Minister : I have already spoken to the new Taoiseach and we have agreed to meet shortly. I think that we must wait and see what his detailed policies will be, but everything that I have seen and heard suggests that he is certainly very understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. Amendment of the Irish constitution is, of course, a matter for the Republic, but I am glad that it continues to be an issue that could be tackled in fresh political talks.

    The Government remain committed to the Anglo -Irish Agreement unless and until agreement can be reached on new and more broadly satisfactory arrangements.

     

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

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : Has the Prime Minister had time today to study the Department of Trade and Industry’s figures that were released on Tuesday, which showed that over the last five years Chinese quotas for the importation of cashmere garments into the European Community have been exceeded by 500,000 units and that in 1991 the actual importation exceeded the quotas by over 400 per cent? Is the Prime Minister aware that 500,000 cashmere jerseys are worth £75 million to textile communities such as my own in the central borders in Scotland? Will he take a personal interest in stopping this scandalous dumping and make sure that the overshoot is clawed back during the next two years, the time remaining to the EC-Chinese trade agreement?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises, not least because he was courteous enough to give me an indication of what he was going to mention this afternoon. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into the matter and to contact the hon. Gentleman.

    Sir Robert McCrindle : To revert to the Scottish question that was raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has the Prime Minister noted the statement today by the leaders of the financial services industries north of the border that in the event of a measure of devolution or independence, to which the Opposition parties aspire, the likeliest result would be that many of the financial services companies would move south of the border? In his forthcoming visit to Scotland, will the Prime Minister underline the fact that these are matters which the Scottish people should also take into account before moving in the direction Opposition Members would like them to go–in favour of devolution or independence?

    The Prime Minister : I did notice those remarks, which were widely reported this morning. We have made it clear for a long period that we believe that devolution or independence would damage very severely the degree of inward investment into Scotland and the degree of self-generating investment within Scotland as well. The Union has been in the interests of both this country and Scotland for many years, and it remains so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Fatchett : May I also raise a matter with the Prime Minister, of which I have given him prior notice? It concerns the tragic death on 5 February of six-year-old Carley Reavill who died in hospital of meningitis. That is the reason why I gave the Prime Minister prior notice of the question. She died not because, as the Department of Health says, she was too ill to be moved, but because, according to her paediatrician, Dr. Alison Schurtz, no intensive care hospital bed was available at St. Mary’s hospital or Great Ormond Street hospital. Is not that a tragic waste of a life? Does it not provide further evidence for the argument that if money is available it should be spent not on tax cuts but on our health service?

    The Prime Minister : I asked for a report on this tragic case this morning. As the hon. Gentleman has raised it, I reply assuming that he has received the permission of the family for it to be the subject of a public exchange. I am advised that doctors at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital have confirmed that Carley could not have been transferred when the hospital test results showed that she had meningitis and the test results were available within one hour of Carley’s admission. Carley’s decline, I am informed, was sudden and fast. Medical advice is that paediatric intensive care is unlikely to have arrested this.

    The House may wish to know that between 1979 and 1990 the perinatal mortality rate for England and Wales dropped by 45 per cent. It is now at its lowest ever recorded level. As for national health service resources, the hon. Gentleman will know of the very large real-terms increases that have been made–in excess, in fact, of the real-terms increases promised by the Opposition at the last general election.

     

    Q4. Mr. Brazier : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Brazier : Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of those who live on their income from savings are either widows or those who retired early, very often to look after an elderly dependant? Does he further agree that it would be a grave injustice indeed to put swingeing extra taxes on the savings of these people as a result of the profligacy of socialism?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that such people would find it inexplicable if that were to happen. We have sought to encourage savings by abolishing the investment income surcharge and by introducing tax-exempt special savings accounts. It is the Labour party which wants to increase tax by extending national insurance. Its plans would hit more than 1 million people, three quarters of whom pay tax at the basic rate. So much for the Opposition’s promise that no one earning under £20, 000 a year would be hit. That promise is worthless and that pledge by the Opposition illustrates why the promise is worthless.

     

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

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the stabbing to death of the young black schoolboy Rolan Adams and in the year since then 15 black families–council tenants and owner-occupiers–have been driven out of their homes on the Thamesmead estate. The campaign, including a fire-bombing, has been orchestrated by the local headquarters of the British National party. Is there anything that the Government can do to change those events? Will the Prime Minister support the unanimous decision by Greenwich Conservative councillors to support the demonstration called by the Anti-Racist Alliance for Saturday at noon in Plumstead High street to demand the closure of the British National party headquarters?

    The Prime Minister : I have every sympathy for Rolan Adams’s family at this sad time and I wholeheartedly condemn racial attacks and those who commit or incite racial hatred. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me in December and my office subsequently corresponded with the mayor of Bexley. Although the location of the British National party office is a matter for Bexley council, we have drawn the council’s attention to the laws available to deal with racial hatred.

    The local police searched the BNP premises in January and evidence has been submitted to the Crown prosecution service which is considering a prosecution. Rolan Adams’s murder a year ago led to the speedy identification and prosecution of the attackers and the murderer subsequently received a life sentence. I very much hope that in the future that will deter similar attacks which are a blot on our country.