The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Economy

  • PMQT – 14 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the drop of more than 40,000 in the latest monthly unemployment count–which, I understand, is the largest monthly decrease for two years–illustrates yet again the success of the Government’s policies in promoting job creation? Does he agree that if United Kingdom employers had additional costs inflicted on them by the EU, that would put in jeopardy the downward trend in unemployment in our country, which has been going on for three years and stands in stark contrast with many other EU countries?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right, both about the welcome trend in unemployment and about the fact that unemployment is falling here in a way that cannot be seen anywhere else in the continent of Europe. That is not unrelated to the fact that we have avoided the burdens on business that so many of our partners have accepted. Of course, those burdens would have been accepted by the Opposition.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s inflation rise, together with the sharp rise in long-term interest rates, should set the warning lights flashing? How does he square that with the promise that he made just a few months ago that he would meet his inflation target by the end of this year?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I know that the retail prices index figures are complex, but I think that he has failed to understand the impact of this morning’s figures. I will explain to him what has happened, and he can then explain it to his Back Benchers. The figures are calculated year on year, and there was a quite exceptional one-month fall last October. That means that the 12-month year-on-year figure looks artificially high. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that that will correct itself over the months ahead and that we expect to meet our target.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that we have ever heard a more ridiculous excuse for a rise in inflation figures. If the inflation figures were so good, why did interest rates have to go up? They went up because of the worry about inflation. Have we not heard it all before? We heard it all before the previous election and we heard it all before 1987, when the Government said that an economic miracle was under way. Will the Prime Minister answer these specific questions? On interest rates and inflation, will he confirm that Britain is now 11th out of 15 in Europe? Do any of our main competitors outside Europe have as high interest rates or inflation as Britain?

    The Prime Minister: I begin to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman truly does not understand; he is not being perverse–he genuinely does not understand. I will explain the position to him gently and easily. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor raised interest rates to prevent inflation from rising, not as a result of existing inflation. To hear lectures on inflation from the right hon. Gentleman, when the lowest inflation achieved by his party in government was 7.5 per cent. and millions remember when it was 27 per cent., and when the inflation figure today is a statistical aberration because of a dramatic fall last year, only illustrates the fact that the Labour party is totally incapable not only of running the economy but even of understanding it.

    Mr. Blair rose–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: The House will have noticed that the Prime Minister did not dispute that we were 11th out of 15 for interest rates and inflation. If he disputes it, let him come to the Dispatch Box and say that the figure is wrong. The House will listen to him when he rises to his feet and tells us that 11th out of 15 is wrong. The simple fact, as on every other matter, is that when he said that he would cut taxes, he raised them, when he said–[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like this because it is the truth. [Hon. Members: “More.”] They want more, so let us give them more–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This barracking must stop. Other hon. Members have questions on the Order Paper and I want to call them.

    Mr. Blair: Let the Prime Minister dispute any of the following facts. He said before the general election that he would cut tax, and he raised it. Does he dispute that? He said that he would eliminate public borrowing, and he doubled public sector debt. Does he dispute that? He said that he would lick inflation, and it has risen. Does he dispute that? If he does not dispute any of those facts, or the fact that we are 11th out of 15 for interest rates and inflation, why should anyone believe a word that he says on the economy?

    The Prime Minister: I had fondly suspected today that the right hon. Gentleman might have broken with tradition and mentioned the fall in unemployment, which his party is supposed to care about–[Hon. Members: “Answer.”] I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that the October inflation figures were the fourth best that we have known in October since the war. It is ridiculous for him to talk to us about taxation and to proceed as he did today, when the deputy leader of his party has said that Labour

    “shouldn’t follow the Government down the road of cutting the basic rate of tax”

    and that under Labour there would certainly be higher tax. I see hon. Members nodding in agreement. The right hon. Gentleman criticises us about tax while his party advocates higher tax. He cannot stomach the fact that the British economy is in better shape than any Labour Government have ever achieved and that he could not match the condition that it is in. He will do everything that he can to pursue grievance politics and damage the British economy in his own interest.

     

    Q2. Mr. Booth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Booth: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that at the European intergovernmental conference he will block any proposal further to erode our right of veto? Is he fully aware that signing the social chapter is not only expensive in itself but would render Britain powerless to avoid becoming uncompetitive as Europe introduces more and more imposts? The Labour party will never understand that, which is one of the reasons why we shall win the next general election.

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly and willingly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The social chapter is a pipeline bulging with potential new burdens on business, all of which would cost jobs in the United Kingdom. As an illustration of the damage that a Labour Government would undoubtedly do, perhaps at some stage today the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would like to condemn the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Durham, who called on the Commission to take action against the United Kingdom including

    “seeking unlimited fines against the UK Government”.

    I want to know whether that is Labour policy or whether the right hon. Gentleman will disown him.

    Mr. Ashdown: Did the Prime Minister see the warning from Coopers and Lybrand yesterday that if we continue as we have so far the Government will be technically bankrupt by the end of next year? [Interruption.] That is what it said. The Prime Minister obviously has not read it. Let me put it to him like this: if a council had done what the Government have done and doubled its debt in six years, doubled the level of borrowing to which it had said that it would adhere two years ago and then, to win an election next year, cut its taxes to make things worse, would he regard that as responsible?

    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman said about the nation being bankrupt is just bizarre–it is just off the wall. If this is a bankrupt nation, why are all those overseas nations and overseas investors, both in Europe and beyond, investing in what he says is a bankrupt nation? I suggest that he looks at what is going on in Britain and stops taking advice from his economic advisers, who clearly know nothing about everything.

    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week marks the first anniversary of the death of my constituent, Leah Betts, who died as a result of taking a single Ecstasy tablet? Will he join me in paying tribute to Leah’s parents, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that other young people learn the lesson of Leah’s death? Will he confirm that the Government will give every support to the Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), which will ensure that night clubs whose managers do not take proper action to stop drug trading will be swiftly and permanently closed?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I met Mr. and Mrs. Betts some time ago and I think that the whole country remembers the tragedy that they had to endure and the courage with which they endured it. I certainly undertake to do all that I can to curb the menace of drugs and I will look most carefully at the private Member’s Bill that is to be introduced. If it is at all possible to give full support to that Bill, as I anticipate that it will be, then we shall certainly do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Pike: The Prime Minister will accept that there is still a major crisis over bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Does he accept that there has been enough dithering over the introduction of the selective cull scheme that was agreed at Florence? Will he give us a date for implementation of the scheme and say when we shall start to see an end to the problem?

    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here yesterday or, indeed, when I answered those questions from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield. Since the hon. Gentleman is asking precisely the same question, I am tempted to refer him to the answer I gave some time ago. The reality is that we are pursuing with the Commission proposals for relaxing the ban on the United Kingdom and the export restrictions on animals from certified herds and on those that are qualified under the beef assurance scheme. Those discussions are going on at the moment.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Robathan: The whole House will welcome the Government’s decision in principle to support international action to prevent humanitarian catastrophe in central Africa. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if British troops are sent to Zaire they will go with carefully considered and clear objectives, very precise instructions and a properly determined chain of command?

    The Prime Minister: I suspect that I speak for the whole House in expressing extreme concern at the situation in eastern Zaire. I believe that everyone is acutely conscious of the refugees’ plight and of the literally hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people who will undoubtedly face death in the next few weeks unless urgent action is taken.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be making a statement in a few moments. I believe that if western Governments have the capacity to help, there is a strong moral obligation upon us to help. We have considered very carefully how we can best provide that help and in principle we are prepared to provide troops for a multinational force.

    I have to say to the House, however, that the situation on the ground is complex and difficult, the terrain is tough, there is inadequate infrastructure and at this stage there is no clear ceasefire. So before sending British troops, or deciding upon the precise numbers, we need to be absolutely clear about what they are being asked to do in detail and the conditions in which they will operate. We also need to look very carefully at the particular circumstances that they will face. A reconnaissance team will be travelling to the region today to do that, and I hope that we shall be able to reach a firm decision before too long as to what troops are to go.

     

    Q5. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I enter a last-minute plea that the Prime Minister reconsider his decision about a free vote for Conservative Members of Parliament next week on the banning of guns? Why cannot those hon. Members be allowed to exercise their own consciences and decide for themselves how to vote on an issue that the public regard as extremely important?

    The Prime Minister: We ought not to forget precisely what the legislation is about: the controls that we place on legally held firearms and the right of law-abiding citizens to use them responsibly. That seems to be a matter on which it is right for the Government to take a decision, as the House expected before the Cullen report was presented to it, and we have done so. Firearms legislation has not traditionally been considered on a free vote in the House and we are not inviting the House to do so on this occasion.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the 1996 Lord Mayor’s Banquet – 11 November 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech given at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at the Guildhall in London on Monday 11th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You set out as the theme of your speech “Making Britain even Greater”. Not just – “great”. But – “even greater”. You acknowledge accurately what we are already and seek to improve it. That is exactly right.

    There is a part of the British character that undersells our achievements and over emphasises our difficulties.

    As a fault it is one on the right side. As a nation, we would not be comfortable with a boastful nationalistic posture, but we shouldn’t let our talent for understatement mislead others either about our prospects and abilities or our national character.

    My Lord Mayor, let me develop your theme. Because it is my theme too.

    Long gone are the days when the British economy was bedeviled by restrictive practices, strikes, high tax levels, runaway inflation and government controls.

    It has taken over a decade and a half to make fundamental, lasting changes to improve our economic performance. But we have done it. Some of it was very hard. There have been setbacks as well as advances.

    In the six years since I first spoke at this dinner, we have passed out of a turbulent recession, and emerged in vigorous economic health.

    We have turned round our economic prospects. We are back in the first rank. We are building a prosperity that will last.

    Too often, past recoveries were derailed by a yawning trade gap or soaring inflation. But not this time.

    All the evidence is that we have moved from a country prone to erratic bouts of high inflation, to one where subdued inflation can be the norm. If that is so, it is a change of historic importance.

    We now have a longer, more sustained recovery than any major European economy, with lower unemployment and inward investment flooding in.

    As a result, we are pulling ahead of the European field. To stay ahead we will need to go on pursuing the policies that are giving us this advantage.

    We have reined back public expenditure to well below the average of our European competitors – a difference worth £2000 to the average household in lower taxes. We now have the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years, and a lower target still before us.

    Strikes are now down to a twenty-fifth of the 1979 figure. And huge swathes of industry – telecoms, gas, water, electricity, airlines and the bulk of the rail network have been transferred to the private sector, where they belong and are prospering. Daily we see evidence of this in lower prices for consumers, more investment in the future, and increased success in overseas markets.

    That is the argument for privatisation, and we shall look at more areas where private sector discipline can improve economic performance and service to the public.

    My Lord Mayor, the truth is that we may have to brace ourselves to hearing an increasing chorus describing Britain as a success.

    We are not going to throw away those hard won advances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that when he acted on interest rates a week or so ago. And we’ll ram the message home with a prudent and sensible Budget – one that will keep us on the path of growth and prosperity for years ahead.

    Next year our country will have the most secure economic base for generations. We can turn to the future and plan with confidence.

    Ahead of us lie changes that we should embrace with enthusiasm because of the opportunities they bring with them.

    I believe we can expect a tremendous growth in world trade and economic development. Around the world trade barriers are withering.

    The dynamism of the single market is on our doorstep.

    Newly industrialised economies are emerging in East Asia and Latin America.

    The collapse of communism has opened up new markets and new competitors.

    We are well placed to take advantage of these opportunities.

    The world is turning to free trade. I welcome this. It makes countries more competitive, and more prosperous, and it gives consumers a better deal. It is in Britain’s interest, given our potential to win in the world markets of tomorrow. And it is the best way to help the developing world into long term prosperity.

    I have always felt there is something rather objectionable about rich countries grandly handing out aid with one hand, while with the other they block trade access that would enable poorer countries to become more self sufficient.

    Earlier today the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade published a White Paper setting out our vision of global free trade by 2020.

    This means free trade in services – especially important for the City – as well as free trade in goods. It goes together with our determination to secure free and open markets for investment and capital.

    Day by day the very nature of trade is changing. It’s no longer dominated by freighters full of coal and steel. Now it’s as likely to be a service like broadcasting or tourism, or some tiny high tech component smaller than a fingernail assembled in four different pieces in four different continents.

    We are well placed to prosper in this new trading environment. In the last great age of British enterprise, the influence of this small island was spread world wide by the efforts of countless men and women, who often risked everything they had to trade and invest around the globe.

    That’s left the benevolent legacy that Britain has Links with nearly every corner of the world.

    They aren’t nebulous links. They have real substance. Britain is second only to the United States in our ownership of overseas assets around the world. Those assets don’t just earn dividends. They give us a vital edge in overseas markets.

    And the City of London remains an asset beyond price, as the dominant financial centre in our continent.

    And, on top of all this, we have the great advantage of the world’s international trading language. Worldwide, one in five people speak some English and it is an official language in over 70 countries.

    Six years of being Prime Minister has shown me these are real assets that can help us to realise our potential as one of the leading global trading nations of the 21st century.

    We are living in a world where the economic centre of gravity is shifting to the massive populations and economic growth of Asia and the Pacific Basin. In the global marketplace, we must compete with these countries in their markets and match their competitiveness round the world.

    We need to raise our eyes to this wider horizon. Some fear the development of global markets. They think it breeds insecurity. They believe that by shutting themselves off they can somehow be stronger. But history shows they are wrong. No country has ever prospered behind closed doors. The free movement of goods, people and ideas has always been a source of wealth.

    Our future economic security and prosperity will come from our success in competing in the free market, not trying to cocoon ourselves from it.

    So I am determined to develop further Britain’s position as the most competitive, low tax, enterprise centre in Europe.

    We have the lowest tax burden on business of any major European country. Low social costs, no Social Chapter and no minimum wage.

    This is what is making us more competitive and marks us out as a prime target for inward investment.

    Today’s investment is footloose and fancy-free. It will go where tax is low and opportunity is high. So it is coming to Britain.

    That’s why we’re bucking the trend and creating jobs, not dole queues.

    So we will continue with those policies and resist proposals that would damage our competitiveness, cost us markets, and lose us jobs.

    That is why the Working Time Directive, on which a European court judgement is expected tomorrow, represents an important point of principle.

    We are in favour of good working conditions in this country. They are very important. But the basic employee protections are long established in domestic law. There’s no case for extra prescriptive legislation from Europe – imposed by qualified majority voting against British objections – on matters that are now best resolved between employer and employee.

    That is why, if the court rules against us, we will require changes in European law to reinforce Britain’s protection from such legislation. Our partners know that. And they know that we shall insist upon these changes before we can conclude any new agreements at the Intergovernmental Conference next year.

    In the next decade the speed of change may worry some people. We British love progress. But we hate change. We shouldn’t – it will bring greater prosperity.

    We must look forward. No one ever reversed into prosperity. Progress will certainly change our lives. Information technology will bring new services available at the touch of a button in the home – banking, buying groceries, booking a flight, access to almost unlimited information and entertainment.

    We will see medical consultants diagnosing and even treating patients through information and pictures piped possibly hundreds of miles to their surgery.

    Dealings with government will be transformed – with services available on a terminal in your library or post office or even in your home.

    Children in schools may be coached at their own pace through a new generation of interactive software.

    These changes will happen. We’re making them happen. And this is a revolution where Britain is well placed to stay in front.

    Our telecommunications and media markets are amongst the most competitive and developed in the world. They will be able to take the new opportunities because two decades of deregulation and privatisation have enabled them to become market leaders.

    We are already one of the leading countries in the use of personal computers at home and in schools. And, by the end of this century, most households will have access to a range of new hi-tech services through cable, satellite and the telephone network.

    We’re becoming one of the laboratories of the world in the development of information technology. All of this means that the new, global information and media industries are truly industries in which we can win – and win handsomely.

    My Lord Mayor, the prospect before us is to become one of the world’s most successful global trading nations in the 21st Century.

    We have been through an industrial and economic revolution. We haven’t been beaten down by that effort. We’ve shown we have the skills and strength to win. But the last crucial ingredient for our future success is national self-confidence. There are always people prepared to write Britain off. They are always wrong.

    Listening to the political debate, you might sometimes get the impression that confidence is something we don’t have as a nation, or even that it’s something that we can’t have.

    But if you lift your eyes beyond the charmed circle of professional pessimists, you get a quite different picture.

    The City of London has the greatest concentration of foreign banks in the world.

    Britain has won more Nobel prizes than any nation except the US.

    As you pointed out, Britain has won a third of all Oscars in the last 30 years.

    Our streets are bustling with foreign tourists.

    Our pubs, clubs and restaurants are packed.

    Our television programmes are in demand worldwide.

    Our education system attracts half a million foreign students a year.

    Our theatres give the lead to Broadway.

    Our pop culture rules the airwaves.

    Our country has taken over the fashion catwalks of Paris.

    And our capital is described in an American magazine as “the coolest city on the planet”.

    So, my Lord Mayor, you are right. We have every reason to believe in ourselves.

    It’s time to parade our virtues as a country. To show – at home and abroad – how far Britain has come in economic progress and in the quality of our life and culture.

    We can surprise others as well as ourselves.

    We have a nation of talent in a world of opportunity.

    Not for a very long time have we been so well placed for future success.

    The fact is: Britain is back in business – and it’s back to stay.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Speech on the 1996 Queen’s Speech Debate – 23 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons speech during the 1996 Debate on the Queen’s Speech on 23rd October 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has already generously paid tribute to the hon. Members who have died during the past year. We shall all miss David Lightbown and Terry Patchett. Perhaps on behalf of everyone in the House, I can not only say that, but thank them for their long service, both for their constituents and for their country, in this place.

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on their excellent speeches proposing and seconding the Loyal Address. My right hon. Friend was the Secretary of State when I first joined the old Department of Health and Social Security. I learned speedily that he had both a generous disposition and a very precise mind. Over early morning interviews, often at short notice, on obscure but controversial social security matters, he was always especially generous and insisted that I took all of them. He was Secretary of State for six years before the sheer weight of work in that combined Department led to health and social security, rightly, becoming separate Departments.

    More recently, my right hon. Friend joined me throughout the last general election campaign. His role was absolutely invaluable, but it did have one drawback: whenever we were together, people threw eggs at him. I had no idea how controversial he was. When he shouted, “Duck,” I thought that it was a warning, but it was not – it was the type of egg. As I told the House, he had a very precise mind.

    My right hon. Friend reminded us that he pioneered the practice of leaving to spend more time with his family. After the general election, I invited him to become chairman of the Conservative party. To avoid any dispute, I should like to make it clear that that was expressly not at the request of his family. He is a distinguished journalist and we cannot say that of many. These days, he is chairman of a newspaper group and he will know the old saying: “Never argue with a man who buys his ink by the gallon.” I do not, and I congratulate him on his speech.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight also spoke extremely well. I was delighted – in some ways relieved – to see him in his place, as he has a poor reputation for time-keeping and tends to arrive for any function at the last moment. On one occasion, I am told, he left to join his wife on the Isle of Wight ferry as it left the dock. Breaking into a sprint, he leapt dramatically over open water and landed on the moving deck. As he did so, he turned around to see his wife on the quay. As he was late, she had got off. Undaunted, he leapt back ashore with the fastest recorded U-turn in political history.

    Apart from his political career, my hon. Friend once owned a large share in one of Britain’s largest funeral director companies. It is often said of politicians that they will always let you down in the end. In my hon. Friend’s 22 case, that might often have been literally true. Today, my hon. Friend let no one down, and I warmly congratulate him.

    There were two light-hearted speeches to begin, and rather a brazen speech to follow. The leader of the Labour party sought to draw Britain’s ills forward with sweeping generalisations about the state of our society.

    Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) Will my right hon. Friend give way?

    The Prime Minister Of course, but a little later.

    Of course I agree with the right hon. Member for Sedgefield that there are many problems to be solved. Some of them, concerned with education and crime, are dealt with specifically in this legislative programme. However, we must examine reality, not what the right hon. Gentleman had to say.

    With more people finding work, regional differences in unemployment are declining. Strikes are at their lowest levels since records began. More young people than ever before are gaining qualifications in full-time education and training. More people than ever before own their homes and have a share in a capital-owning democracy. There is new hope and investment in inner cities. Charitable giving is the largest we have seen at any stage in our history. Voluntary work is at record levels, with more than half the population engaged in it. We have created one of the most mobile societies in Europe, giving people the opportunity to better themselves through their own efforts.

    There is far more that is good in our society than is bad. We should be glad of that, not take every opportunity to run our society down – as the right hon. Gentleman does. Of course we face challenges, but our job as politicians is to find practical solutions, often to complex problems. To over-simplify matters, as the right hon. Gentleman did, is to deceive and not to engage with the real problems with which politicians have to deal.

    Any politician should be cautious about cloaking himself in righteousness. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can disclaim, as he has just done, any responsibility by the Labour party for faults in this society when his Labour party has, over the years, consistently championed every fashionable, politically correct cause that has undermined our traditional way of life, and has opposed every measure that we have taken to correct the balance.

    It was Labour that banned competitive sport in schools. It was Labour that undermined traditional approaches and sponsored every anti-establishment pressure group that it could possibly find. It was Labour that opposed measures to restore standards in schools through tests and league tables. It was Labour that opposed the freedom of grant-maintained schools and has opposed every measure that we put forward to tackle crime. Labour has also opposed common-sense measures to deal with benefit fraud. I do not think that I am inclined to accept sanctimonious lectures from the Leader of the Opposition.

    There was much that the Labour leader did not get around to mentioning. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the longest run of low inflation for a generation or that unemployment is at a five-and-a-half-year low. He did not mention that mortgages are at their lowest for 30 years. The right hon. Gentleman was not only selective and wrong about our record, but equally evasive and misleading about his policies. There was no mention in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech of taking child benefit away from parents of children aged between 16 and 18. There was no mention of the windfall tax that would jack up household bills and destroy the dividends of millions of people. There was no mention of the additional tax just for the privilege of living in Scotland – nothing about that, or about how the right hon. Gentleman’s policies would destroy jobs.

    When the Leader of the Opposition fleshes out his policies with detail, we might listen with some interest to the right hon. Gentleman’s critique of our detailed policies.

    Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) On the subject of consistency, does the Prime Minister recall supporting in 1990 the Government’s White Paper on minimum determinate sentences, which stated that such an approach would result in more acquittals by juries, and in more guilty men and women going free? Is that not precisely Government policy now?

    The Prime Minister I shall come quite specifically to that point in a little while, and the hon. Gentleman will get his answer then.

    The leader of the Labour party ignored the fact that our economy is now the most competitive in Europe, with exports at record levels, business investment rising and more inward investment than any other country in Europe. Last week, Vauxhall announced plans for a huge new investment at Ellesmere Port – 200 new jobs. In August, it was Chiyoda Europe at Bexhill – 600 jobs; in July, LG in Newport – 6,000 jobs; Lite on Tech in Lanarkshire – 1,000 jobs; and Hyundai in Dunfermline – 2,000 jobs.

    Mr. Gordon Brown (Dunfermline, East) indicated assent.

    The Prime Minister The shadow Chancellor nods his head in agreement. How lucky the right hon. Gentleman is that those business men listened to our record and not to his gloomy prognosis for our country. What we have seen – and what foreign businesses have noticed – is a complete transformation of this nation’s economic prospects.

    Mr. Mans Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on a statement made by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield that the last Labour Government spent more in real terms on the national health service? I have checked with the House of Commons Library. At today’s prices, in 1978–79 a total of £23.3 billion was spent on the NHS. In the last financial year, the present Government spent £39.7 billion. Will my right hon. Friend give the right hon. Member for Sedgefield the opportunity to correct that mistake?

    The Prime Minister That was not, of course, the only inaccuracy in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. If he would like to withdraw that statement, I shall give way to him so that he can do so immediately.

    Well, there we are – the inaccuracy must lie on the record in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. As I have said, it was not the only inaccuracy in the litany of misery with which he regaled the House.

    Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) The Korean semiconductor jobs are very welcome in my constituency, but does the Prime Minister realise that they will be located just two fields away from where British semiconductor jobs were located two years ago? Can the Prime Minister explain why the British semiconductor jobs relocated to a country that has both the minimum wage and the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister If the hon. Gentleman looks at the drift of investment, he will see that there is more coming here than to the rest of Europe combined. It is coming here because of our economic framework, our tax framework, the fact that we do not have a minimum wage, the fact that we do not have a social chapter and the fact that we have less expensive on-costs for employment than any other nation in Europe. If the hon. Gentleman talked to the other European Heads of Government, he would find that they know that and if they could get out of the position that they are in, many of them would wish to do so. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue with the inward investment figures that we have seen.

    Our programme will build on the economic success and it will do so in a way that will widen both opportunity and choice.

    Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    The Prime Minister I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a few moments.

    Our programme will encourage personal responsibility. It will increase parental choice over schools, and also patients’ choices from their doctors. It will give the police new powers to catch criminals and the courts new means to deal with them. It will reform civil law. It has measures to combat fraud in the social security system. It will protect our heritage, our environment and our rural communities. It will provide a legal framework for decommissioning weapons in Northern Ireland. By any yardstick, that is a meaty Queen’s Speech, and we intend to carry the programme through in the period between now and the election.

    In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will unveil his fourth Budget next month. It will be a prudent Budget: if we can safely cut taxes we will, but if we cannot we will not. I repeat – if we cannot, we will not. Either way, we have a responsibility to spend taxpayers’ money wisely.

    That is why we will act against benefit fraud. The measures that we have already taken will save £1.5 billion a year, but we intend to save more. Every bit of fraud robs the taxpayer and deprives the genuinely needy of help, and I am surprised that the Opposition Chief Whip scoffs at the thought of cracking down on benefit fraud. We will see where the Opposition are and how keen they are when we come to vote on the distinct measures to deal with the problems.

    Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North) Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    The Prime Minister In a moment – a queue is forming. I know that the Opposition have produced a long list of interventions that they propose to put to me, as someone generously left them on the photocopier. If hon. Members could just shout out the numbers, it would make life much easier. The paper is headed, “Interventions on Major”, and I can look forward to questions on Europe, the economy, education, beef, crime, health and other matters. I look forward to finding out whether hon. Members can remember them after the training that they have undoubtedly had from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield.

    Mr. Simon Hughes rose –

    The Prime Minister I do not think that the questions were handed to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

    Mr. Hughes May I ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have not given him notice? It is a common allegation about the Tory party that it looks after its own first. The Prime Minister has the safest Tory seat in the country, with low unemployment and low crime. My seat has the lowest Tory vote in England, with high unemployment and high crime. Why did the Queen’s speech say nothing about achieving a significant reduction in unemployment in areas such as mine?

    On the day when a national commission of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse recommended that we need a national register of offenders against children, why did the Queen’s Speech fail to mention the register of paedophiles, when all parties in the House would assist the Government in passing it quickly into legislation?

    The Prime Minister I will return to the hon. Gentleman’s second point in a moment. On the first point, as the hon. Gentleman knows, unemployment has now been falling across every part of the United Kingdom throughout the past 30 months, and there is every indication that that will continue. A fall in unemployment is created by the right economic circumstances, a growing economy, low inflation and the lowest possible interest rates. It cannot be done simply by expenditure measures, as we have learnt often enough in the period since the second world war.

    That is why I have said that the Budget will be prudent. It will be prudent to ensure continuing growth because in my judgment that is the best way to get the hon. Gentleman’s constituents back to work. I wish to see that for social and other reasons, and we shall continue to follow policies which try to put as many people as possible back into proper employment. By proper employment I do not mean artificially created jobs, but genuine jobs with genuine prospects for a long-term future. That is the policy that we have been following, and I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about the importance of that.

    Before I was interrupted, I was dealing with benefit fraud. We propose to take further measures to deal with that. Those measures will include fines and in severe cases prison sentences for those who deceive in order to obtain benefits fraudulently. We intend to adopt new measures to detect fraud. If the Inland Revenue knows that someone is working, the benefit offices should know also if that person tries to sign on, and in future they will.

    We want to ensure that local councils are cracking down hard on housing benefit fraud. Some do, but others are less successful. We intend to set up a fraud inspectorate to make sure that they are doing all they can and to impose financial sanctions if they are not.

    We intend to reform the compensation recovery scheme. Millions of pounds are paid out to accident victims each year to cover them before compensation is paid. That is right and proper and no one objects to it. However, when a settlement is reached, it is also right that the benefit element should be repaid to the taxpayer, so we will make two important changes. The compensation that accident victims receive for pain and suffering will remain protected, but we shall make sure that the taxpayer does not lose by requiring a refund of benefits paid out for circumstances subsequently covered by the insurance compensation.

    Our legislative programme will also ensure that rural communities share in the benefits of economic success. We intend to give more power to local parish councils to run their own crime prevention schemes or to set up community transport schemes – more responsibility and more power at the most local level.

    We intend to help small village shops and post offices, which face difficulties as shopping patterns change. Our Bill will reduce their rates bill by at least 50 per cent. and give councils the discretion to waive up to the remaining 50 per cent.

    Let me return to health. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield said a few minutes ago that he would like to see health at the centre of the general election campaign. At the last general election campaign, the Labour party put health, in the form of Jennifer’s ear, right at the centre for three successive days, and we received the largest vote that any political party has ever received at a general election. In this legislative programme, we intend to take action to improve primary health care.

    Mr. William O’Brien (Normanton) Will the Prime Minister consider the situation in which a hospital trust is penalised financially for treating too many patients? That happened to the Pinderfields hospital in my constituency. Will he ensure that that does not happen again?

    The Prime Minister I shall certainly examine that situation. I note that the hon. Gentleman supports trusts because they are treating more patients. I am delighted that he sees how successful they are.

    The main contact with the health service is through the general practitioner. Over recent years, the service provided by GPs has already improved significantly in most parts of the country, not least thanks to the development of fundholding. The more we can improve the care given by the GP, the more we can relieve the pressure which otherwise would fall on hospitals.

    It is far more convenient for patients if they can get their care locally instead of having to travel in some cases to distant hospitals. If patients need physiotherapy or chiropody, for example, why should not their GPs provide it if they wish to do so? If local communities can benefit from a local clinic offering cataract treatment, why should they not have it? I know of no good reason, and we propose to introduce legislation to make that possible.

    Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister I should like to make a little progress.

    I believe that parents have a right to a bigger role in their children’s education. Giving choice to parents is right in itself and it will help to raise standards.

    Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside) What choice is there?

    The Prime Minister If the hon. Gentleman had his way, there would be no choice whatever: no choice as to where children go to school, no choice as to what sort of school they go to, no choice as to whether parents could see the school’s results and no choice as to how the tests would be carried out at that school. The hon. Gentleman would prefer education to be a secret garden for himself and the professionals, with no information for the parents.

    We have provided greater information and greater resources. Our education Bill will raise standards by extending choice. Where parents want more selection, they will have the opportunity for more selection in the Bill. I make that point to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Liberal education spokesman, who clearly did not know it at lunchtime on television.

    Where parents want more grammar schools, they will have more grammar schools, and where they want grant-maintained schools to expand, they will. It is called choice. We Conservatives believe in choice, and we intend to deliver it.

    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister The hon. Gentleman must allow me to make some progress.

    We intend to give schools new powers to improve discipline, by allowing new sanctions against unruly pupils and by encouraging parents to take more responsibility for their children’s behaviour.

    Mr. Blunkett indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister I see that the hon. Gentleman opposes action to help with discipline in schools. I hope that the teachers’ unions will note the position that he is taking.

    For every pupil in the land, we now spend half as much again, over and above inflation, as in 1979. But spending alone does not deliver higher standards. Lambeth – a Labour education authority – spends more per secondary pupil than any other authority in the country, but it is in the bottom five for performance. Islington’s performance is the worst in the country, although only a handful of authorities spend more per pupil. Buckinghamshire – a Tory authority – is one of the 10 best performing authorities, despite below average spending on pupils. So adequate resources are important, but they are not the only ingredient for good education.

    Mr. Blunkett Tell that to the parents.

    The Prime Minister Some of the parents have noted it for themselves. Some parents have moved their children from high-spending Islington schools to lower-spending others. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speaks to parents in the Labour party before he walks into that again.

    If education, education, education is a Labour passion, why does Labour not improve education at a local level now? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that Labour controls the education authorities, so why are they not taking the action that they think necessary now? What action do they take? Absolutely none. Instead, we see parents moving their children out of education authorities such as Southwark and Islington and running away from inefficient and incompetent Labour education authorities. The hon. Gentleman is right about one thing: parents know. They know that in too many education authorities the only standards that Labour knows are low standards and double standards. If there are problems in society, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield might look at poorly performing Labour education authorities as one of the roots.

    I come now to our proposals on law and order. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield had much to say about that. He seems to know everything about crime except how to reduce it. Labour demonstrates its commitment to action on crime just so long as that action is not something that the Conservative Government are proposing.

    The right hon. Gentleman made an offer at the Dispatch Box which I take to be genuine. Both he and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke of the private Members’ legislation on paedophiles and stalking.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours They are not private Members’ Bills.

    The Prime Minister Will the hon. Gentleman let me continue? Both Bills are in the course of being drafted. Drafting approval was given some time ago. They have never been in the Queen’s Speech. They were intended to be private Members’ Bills because we judged that the House would pass them speedily. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker Order.

    The Prime Minister The right hon. Member for Sedgefield today offered the House his unequivocal support for a speedy passage through the House for those Bills as Government Bills. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, the Liberal spokesman, offered precisely the same deal. I accept that deal. We were determined to put the Bills through. We shall now get them through, and I hope that Opposition Members will facilitate their speedy passage.

    If Opposition Members are concerned about crime, I hope that they will give us the same support on the other crime-tackling Bills in our programme. I hope that they will not eat up time on those two Bills to try to wreck the other Bills tackling crime that we have brought forward. I am prepared to accept that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield spoke in good faith. Since there is no dispute in the House as to the merits of the Bills on paedophiles and on stalking, let us bring them forward as soon as they are drafted and pass them speedily as Government Bills. I undertake that we shall do that.

    Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) I do not know whether the Prime Minister has ever tried to take a private Member’s Bill through the House. I am not sure that he has. Will he confirm that the first date on which either Bill could be considered – [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker Order. The right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to put a question. I know what hon. Members are all saying. Wait for the answer.

    Mr. Beith Will the Prime Minister confirm that, if the Bills were presented as private Member’s Bills, those Ministers who have said in the past two days that that procedure would afford them a quicker passage were not telling the truth, and that only if Government time is available for those Bills will they be able to get through the House before the general election?

    The Prime Minister To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he can have taken in what I just said. I said that, in view of the unequivocal offer of support from the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition spokesman, we would bring the Bills forward as separate Government Bills. I shall rely on the Opposition retaining the pledges that they have given. If the measures had been in the crime Bill, which was another option, it would have taken a long time to get them through and they would no doubt have been under consistent attack, for I suspect that much of the crime Bill will be attacked by the Opposition. Now that will not happen on these measures, and I look to the right hon. Gentleman to sustain the support that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has offered to the House.

    Mr. Blair Let me respond to the Prime Minister and say that I am absolutely delighted that he intends to present Bills containing those measures. The offer that he has just accepted is the offer that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made to the Home Secretary and which was rejected yesterday. Nevertheless, we are delighted: it shows the country what we can achieve even in opposition.

    The Prime Minister On certain matters we have always sought to accommodate the Opposition. We have sought, of course, to accommodate the Opposition in relation to delaying Lord Cullen’s report. There are matters on which cross-party support is welcome and will be accepted. Now that we have had a clear statement on the Floor of the House, I am happy to accept it, and we will now go ahead.

    Let me turn –

    Mr. Simon Hughes Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister I think that I have taken enough interventions. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat and not talk across the Floor of the House.

    The Prime Minister I should like to make a little progress now. I have taken a number of interventions.

    Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make a little progress. I have given way to Opposition Members on a number of occasions. I want to turn to other matters relating to crime.

    I think that it is a matter of common consent across the House that criminal gangs respect no county or national borders. National and international crime requires a nationally organised system to combat it. So we intend to legislate for a national crime squad, bringing together the existing regional crime squads into a single body to attack serious crime. I believe that that also deserves strong support across the House.

    I want now to turn to sentencing. If the public see a fraudster sentenced to five years in prison, they are rightly angry to see him released after serving about half his sentence. Sentences served should match more closely sentences passed. I am sure that the public agree with that, and we intend to provide for it. We also propose to change some of the sentences. We have already increased sentences for serious crimes such as drug trafficking and attempted rape. We will now go further and propose automatic life sentences for anyone convicted of a second serious violent or sexual offence. We intend also to introduce minimum sentences for serious offenders such as persistent house burglars and drug dealers.

    We are also looking at new ways to prevent juvenile crime. We intend to publish a green paper setting out some new ideas for consultation within a very short time. Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out the Government’s proposals for firearms control, following Lord Cullen’s inquiry into the tragedy of Dunblane. I know that there are differences in the House on the proposal, but I also know that the overwhelming belief is that the new legislation should be enacted as speedily as possible. That is why we have reached a collective view, as we were invited to do, and we intend to put it before the House in the usual way. The House will then make its judgment.

    Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West) Under the Government’s proposals, as many as 40,000 handguns would still be legally circulating in Britain. How on earth can the Prime Minister justify that in the aftermath of the Dunblane massacre?

    The Prime Minister We undertook a very careful examination of Lord Cullen’s report and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have gone farther than Lord Cullen recommended. I rather share the view of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who was quoted earlier, that many people ‘will still be able to own handguns but they must be kept safely under lock and key at properly run centres.’ The hon. Gentleman took that view, and so, I believe, did the official Labour party until very shortly before the statement was made in the House. I believe that that is the right way to deal with it, but the House will be able to make its own judgment. We shall bring forward our proposals – [Interruption.] We shall bring forward a Bill in the usual way, as I said a moment ago. We have formed a judgment as to what is right, and we shall invite the House and the Conservative party to support that.

    Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) rose –

    Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) rose –

    Mr. Blair rose –

    The Prime Minister I give way to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield.

    Mr. Blair I believe that the Prime Minister rightly changed his judgment earlier on a different matter. Will he now reconsider his judgment on this matter and, on this aspect, about which he is right that there may be different views on both sides of the House, allow a free vote so that the House can make up its mind on that basis?

    The Prime Minister With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we had already provided drafting advice for those Bills. We did not change our mind. I have accepted the right hon. Gentleman’s word that he will facilitate the speedy passage of this measure through the House. That is obviously better than a private Member’s Bill. It is not a change of mind. We have made our judgment on what we believe to be the right response to Lord Cullen, and I have just set it out.

    We propose also to reform civil law.

    Miss Hoey rose –

    Mr. Winnick rose –

    The Prime Minister If hon. Members will forgive me, I wish to make progress.

    Too many people in this country have found their right to justice too often barred by costly and lengthy procedures. If a pensioner is in dispute with a garage about a car repair bill, or a home owner with a builder, they should not expect a huge legal bill for resolving the matter. Our legal system should encourage such disputes to be resolved speedily. With that in mind, we intend to implement Lord Woolf’s recommendations for a simplified set of rules in our civil courts – a system of fast-track procedures to encourage settlements and cut costs.

    We also intend to act to preserve and improve physical heritage. We intend to introduce a Bill to allow lottery funds to be used to widen access to heritage in many ways. I will not now set them out to the House, but the objective is to ensure that more people can be enriched by enjoying our heritage.

    We also propose to introduce measures to enact Lord Donaldson’s report following the Braer incident some time ago. Our measures will create wider powers to inspect suspect ships, enforce exclusion zones around accident sites and make those responsible for accidents bear more of the cost.

    I wish now briefly to turn to Northern Ireland. Earlier this year, the House passed legislation to allow elections in Northern Ireland as the basis for multi-party talks. That process brought great hope. No one, I think, imagined rapid breakthroughs. This is a democratic process, and I think that we all expected that it would grind along exceedingly slowly.

    The IRA and Sinn Fein do not accept that democratic process. They are trying to impose their own terms on the talks. They have not been ready to renounce violence. That is plainly incompatible with joining the talks. They have excluded themselves by their return to violence: it is not us, not the British Government, not the Irish Government, not the other parties in Northern Ireland – it is their own fault that they are excluded from the talks, and no one else’s. But the talks will continue without them.

    The IRA and Sinn Fein should be under no illusion that they can join the process until they have demonstrated real commitment to democratic and non-violent methods. So even if a new ceasefire is declared, there will have to be more than soft words to convince the Government and, I believe, the House that it does not represent another tactical device, to be abandoned at any convenient moment.

    For our part, we intend to go on improving the process of government in Northern Ireland. We will consult on how to develop the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to enable greater scrutiny of legislative proposals, Government policy and Ministers. We also intend to introduce a Bill to allow the decommissioning of terrorist weapons. To encourage the removal of those weapons from the streets, we will ask the House to agree that forensic evidence should not be sought from them.

    But let me be clear: there can be no general amnesty for terrorist crimes and there will be none. I cannot look into the minds of the terrorists and predict what they will do, but I know that the road to a settlement will not be easy. We shall do all in our power to promote a lasting peace and to protect the community from their actions. That is our promise, and I both hope for and expect the House’s full support in that endeavour.

    Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down) rose –

    The Prime Minister If the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way.

    I should like to move towards a position where we can announce in future a two-year legislative programme and, so far as possible, publish draft Bills and consult on the second year’s Bills before they are introduced.

    Several hon. Members rose –

    Madam Speaker Order. The Prime Minister has indicated that he is not willing to give way. Hon. Members will please resume their seats.

    The Prime Minister That will take time to bring about, but I think that it is a worthwhile reform which will deliver better legislation. We have begun to move in that direction this year, with two draft Bills set out in the Gracious Speech. In future years, I anticipate steadily increasing the number of draft Bills brought before the House.

    Our legislative programme is a clear and practical set of measures to promote our aim of wider opportunity for all. We believe in choice, in personal responsibility and in opportunity. That thread has run through the past 17 years of Conservative Government. It runs through the current legislative programme in front of us and it will run through our plans and our programmes for the next Parliament also. It is what our programme will achieve this year, and I commend it to the House.

  • Text of the Queen’s Speech – 23 October 1996

    Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech, held on 23rd October 1996.

    Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to receiving the State Visits of His Excellency the President of Israel in February and of the President of Brazil in December next year. We also look forward to our visit to Canada in June and July and to our State Visits to Thailand later this month and to Pakistan and India in October next year, the fiftieth anniversary of their independence.

    National security continues to be of the highest importance. My Government will continue to play a major role in NATO’s adaptation and in decisions on its enlargement, and to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. The United Kingdom’s minimum nuclear deterrent will be maintained.

    Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a priority. Early provision will be made for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. My Government will pursue negotiations on a Convention to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive purposes.

    In the European Union, my Government will work for an outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference which supports an outward-looking, economically liberal and flexible Union based on a partnership of nations. They will promote policies designed to improve the Union’s competitiveness and economic well-being. They will work towards the opening of accession negotiations with countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

    My Government will promote the further global liberalisation of trade, in particular at the Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation, and will continue to work for transatlantic free trade in this context.

    My Government will continue actively to support peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, encouraging full compliance with the Peace Agreement and promoting reconciliation between the former warring parties.

    Support will continue for the search for a durable peace in the Middle East.

    My Government will continue to work for a successful transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997. They will work on behalf of its people to preserve their way of life and to promote the territory’s continued stability and prosperity, founded on a high degree of autonomy and the rule of law.

    Preparations will be made for the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government to be held in Edinburgh in October 1997, and for the second Asia-Europe Meeting in London in 1998.

    Support for the United Nations remains a priority. My Government will continue to work for a United Nations that is more effective, efficient and responsive to the needs of its Member States.

    The fight against terrorism, organised crime and drug misuse and trafficking will remain a priority as will action to protect and improve the environment.

    My Government will continue to promote respect for human rights and the international rule of law.

    A substantial aid programme will be maintained to help improve the quality of life in poorer countries, by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.

    In Northern Ireland, my Government’s priority will be to maintain progress towards peace, prosperity and reconciliation, based on a comprehensive political settlement commanding widespread support. They stand ready to introduce legislation to provide for the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives in Northern Ireland. They will maintain close and friendly relations with the Republic of Ireland.

    Members of the House of Commons,

    Estimates for the public service will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    My Government will continue with firm financial policies designed to support sustained economic growth and rising prosperity, while maintaining low inflation. Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term. My Government will reduce further the share of national income taken by the public sector. They will continue to promote enterprise and further improve the performance of the economy with the aim of creating the strongest industrial economy in Western Europe in the medium term and doubling living standards over the next twenty-five years. They will promote fewer, better and simpler regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on business.

    My Government will continue to support competitiveness through advancing knowledge, improving educational and skill levels and promoting a flexible, efficient labour market. Legislation will be introduced to widen choice and diversity, improve discipline and raise standards in schools.

    A Bill will be introduced to reform the sentencing and supervision of serious, dangerous and persistent offenders so as to provide greater protection for the public. Legislation will be introduced to support the fight against organised crime, including establishing a National Crime Squad. A Bill will be introduced to strengthen controls on the ownership of firearms.

    Legislation will be brought forward to strengthen the powers to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. A Bill will again be brought before you to authorise the construction and operation of a high speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel.

    Legislation will be introduced to improve and develop primary health care services. A Bill will be brought forward to combat social security fraud.

    Legislation will be introduced to implement proposals contained in the English and Welsh Rural White Papers in relation to parish and community councils and to provide rate relief for small village shops.

    In Scotland legislation will be introduced to abolish automatic early release from prison and to make other changes in the criminal justice system to improve public protection. A Bill will be brought forward to enable the transfer of publicly-owned crofting estates to crofting trusts.

    My Government will introduce legislation to enable reform of the procedures of the civil courts, and other measures of law reform.

    Other measures will be laid before you.

    My Government will also publish Bills in draft for consultation on the introduction of voluntary identity cards and on measures to help people make better provision for their long term care needs in old age.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

  • Mr Major’s 1996 Conservative Party Conference Speech – 11 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s 1996 Conservative Party Conference speech made on 11th October 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam Chairman, we’ve had a good week.

    It’s been the week the Tory family came together – to renew the family contract with the British nation.

    And through the week, colleague after colleague has set out fresh, detailed, new policy for the future.

    There’ve been some marvellous speeches.

    It’s been 21 years since Michael Heseltine first got a standing ovation at this conference. And no one has sat down since.

    The well-being of our country is more important than any political party.

    And the well-being of the Conservative Party is more important than any member of it.

    So the lesson is clear. Everyone in the Conservative Party should work – and if I know them, will work – heart and soul, irrespective of personal interests, to secure the re-election of a Conservative Government.

    Over the last two or three years there’s been attempt after attempt – by our opponents – to sully the reputation of our Party.

    Well, I know this party.

    No doubt it’s not perfect – nor is everyone in it.

    But I grew up in it.

    And that campaign won’t succeed.

    Because this Party as a whole is straight and honourable and true and – like you – I’m proud to be a member of it.

    Unlike Labour, we aren’t ashamed of our past.

    Unlike Labour, we haven’t abandoned our principles.

    Unlike Labour, we haven’t had to reinvent ourselves. We’re proud of what we’ve achieved.

    Because, Madam Chairman, we’ve changed Britain – for the better.

    ENTERPRISE CENTRE OF EUROPE

    When I became Prime Minister, I set out to make Britain a low inflation economy.

    I knew what a fight it would be.

    But we went for it. We took the flak.

    No weakening. Heads down. We did what we always do when we’re challenged: we came out fighting.

    And, as a result, we’ve had the longest run of low inflation this country has seen for a generation.

    I want to thank my colleagues – and you – my party – for standing with me through that battle. Between us, we’ve transformed the prospects for our country.

    And we did it with raw political gut.

    We set out to create jobs. And we’re succeeding.

    Unemployment is lower here than in any comparable country in Europe.

    In Britain it’s falling.

    In Europe it’s not.

    Last year, this year, and next year we’re set to have higher growth here, in our country, than any big country in Europe.

    Curiously enough, the Labour leader didn’t mention these successes in his flight of fancy last week.

    Pages missing perhaps?

    He just said the country was falling apart.

    Inflation down.

    Mortgages down.

    Unemployment down.

    Some fall.

    Of course, there was a time when this country was falling apart. It was when we had a Labour Government.

    So I’ve got some friendly advice for Mr Blair. If you knock your country, you’ll never lead it.

    The plain truth is I’m the first Prime Minister for generations who can say “We’re the most competitive economy in Europe”.

    And I intend to be the Prime Minister who builds on that success after we’ve won the next General Election.

    Madam Chairman, at that election there’s a central question. It’s this: who can be trusted with the future?

    Labour try to persuade people it’s them.

    “We’re different” they say. “We’ve changed our name”.

    “Rely on us – you know we’ve always been wrong in the past”.

    Well, that’s candid – if a touch eccentric.

    Trouble is, they’re wrong in the present as well.

    And it simply won’t do for Mr Blair to say, “Look, I’m not a Socialist anymore. Now, can I be Prime Minister please?”.

    Sorry Tony. Job’s taken.

    And anyway, it’s too big a task for your first real job.

    Mr Blair’s handlers are trying to spread the tale that he’s a very fierce dog indeed. Indeed, but also that he’s quite harmless.

    Another eccentric messages, “Fierce dog – no teeth!”.

    By the way, have you noticed how the less a politician has to say, the more over-heated the language in which he says it?

    When every aim becomes – “a crusade”.

    Every hope – “a dream”.

    Every priority – “a passion”.

    Then it’s time to duck from cover.

    And when the whole show is laced with words like “tragedy”, “catastrophe”, “triumph” and “destiny” – terms with real meaning, but which, ransacked for political advantage, degrade the message – then I think of Ralph Waldo Emerson: “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.

    BELIEFS

    Madam Chairman, I came into politics to open doors, not shut them.

    They were opened for me.

    I was born in the war.

    My father was 66. My mother was – how shall I put it? Surprised.

    We were like millions of others. Not well off, but comfortable, until financially the roof fell in.

    Nothing special about that.

    But for us, it changed our life.

    My mother coped – as women do.

    I left school at 16, because 5 pounds a week mattered.

    I learnt something from that experience. In the game of life, we Tories should even up the rules.

    Give people opportunity and choice, to open up an avenue of hope in their lives.

    And by “people”, I don’t mean “some people”. I mean everyone.

    Opportunity for all.

    It’s in the bloodstream of our party.

    It was Shaftesbury who gave an education to thousands of children from poor homes.

    It was Disraeli who gave many working men the freedom to vote.

    It was Salisbury who brought free education within the reach of almost every family in England.

    All Tories.

    And it was Margaret Thatcher – another Tory, as you may know, who sold council houses and public industries, giving people a real stake in this country.

    Giving people opportunity marks the great divide in British politics.

    In its heart, Old Labour, New Labour, any old Labour still believe that Government knows best.

    I don’t.

    But then, I’m a Conservative.

    I believe we should give families opportunity and choice and a wider, warmer view of life.

    Our belief in choice is the driving force of our policy – its not a political ploy; for me it’s the core of what I believe in.

    EDUCATION

    I start with education.

    There are millions of children in our country. All unique. Everyone an original: different skills, different talents, different needs.

    Should each child – with all his or her originality – be made to fit into a regimented education system?

    Or should we design an education system to fit the originality of the child?

    We of course we should.

    So our task is to provide a rich choice of schools and colleges, giving the best to every child and demanding the best of every child.

    And who should choose the right schools for those children?

    The Government?

    The bureaucrat in Whitehall?

    The councillor in the Town Hall?

    Or the parents, who love and care for those children?

    Of course it’s the parents.

    Wherever possible, they should choose.

    We’re improving that choice every year.

    And we intend to widen it further.

    So, I make this promise:

    If parents want more grant-maintained schools – they shall have them.

    More specialist schools – we’ll provide them.

    More selection – they’ll have it. Why should government say “no” if parents think it’s right for their children?

    And if parents want grammar schools in every town – so do I, and they shall have them.

    We grammar school boys – and girls, Gillian – believe in choice for parents.

    That means parents shouldn’t face a choice between one bad school and another.

    What kind of choice is that?

    I’ll tell you.

    It’s the kind of choice you get in Islington – unless you move out of the borough.

    We’re going to change that. That’s why this autumn, as Gill Shepherd told you, we’ll turn today’s promises into tomorrow’s reality with a flagship Education Bill.

    We want high standards in every school.

    It’s why we set up the National Curriculum. It’s why we insist on tests.

    Without tests, how can you know what a child hasn’t learned?

    And how can parents be sure how well their children – of their school – are doing?

    When we insisted on giving that information to parents, John Prescott called it “Political Propaganda”.

    Just pause and think about that for a moment. It tells you a lot.

    Information to parents about their children – and the Deputy Leader of New Labour calls it “Political Propaganda”.

    Well, well. If education’s a passion for Labour, it’s a passion that dare not speak its results.

    SPORT

    While on education, I want to say a word about sport.

    Firstly, well done England on Wednesday. More please.

    And well done Scotland. I hear it was no effort at all. But you’d have won anyway.

    Last year, at this conference, I told you of my determination to restore sport, and particularly team sport, to the heart of school life.

    It’s natural and healthy for young people at school to have their sporting heroes and heroines: sportsmen and women whom they can choose as role models.

    So with the enthusiastic help of the Sports Councils, I’m going to set up a team of Sporting Ambassadors – widely drawn from the best role models in sports, our leading athletes, past and present – who’ll visit schools and talk to pupils, teaching staff, school governors and parents, to enthuse and inspire and encourage.

    To work up the scheme, I have asked that legendary England cricketer – that man for all seasons – Sir Colin Cowdrey – to chair a small committee whose members will be drawn from the elite of the sporting and academic worlds. Colin is here today and I want you to thank him for agreeing to do this.

    His committee will announce their conclusions by Christmas, and I intend that the scheme will be up and running in schools in the coming academic year.

    Colin scored nearly 8,000 runs for England. Now he’s going to inspire nearly 8 million boys and girls who might want to play, compete and represent their country.

    I want them to enjoy sport. And they’ll enjoy it more if they play to win.

    Take it from me – winning is fun.

    THE FAMILY

    There are those who believe in the self-before-everyone, grab-what-you-can school of thought. They may find opportunity for all an odd philosophy.

    But it’s ours.

    And for the last 17 years we’ve followed it.

    We’ve cut direct tax, given more and more people the opportunity to save, to own shares, own pensions, own homes.

    More than ever before, we’ve given families more independence and more freedom to choose.

    As a result, millions have become owners of homes, savings, shares and pensions.

    But not enough yet.

    Madam Chairman, in our next 5 years, we will seek new opportunities: an opportunity owning democracy.

    Helping more people save and build security for retirement.

    Helping people who need care keep more of those savings.

    We’re aiming for the least possible tax to give the greatest possible choice.

    As we can afford it, we’ll move to a 20p basic rate for all. That’s our priority.

    We know that cutting taxes isn’t government giving anything back to people.

    It’s the government taking away less of people’s own money.

    That’s why low taxes are right.

    We don’t want to soak the tax payer.

    Labour often say they want to soak the rich.

    But they’re the only party in history who also regularly manage to soak the poor.

    And sometimes no taxes are right. So, to encourage wealth creation for the future, we’ll reduce and then abolish Capital Gains Tax.

    Many people in our country build up savings long after they’ve enough for their own needs.

    One reason they do that is to pass on the fruits of their life’s work to their children and grandchildren.

    This is a powerful, human emotion.

    So, over time, our next target is to remove the burden of inheritance tax.

    Building wealth for the many, not for the few.

    WELFARE

    People treasure independence. Their own independence. The State is the last option, not the first.

    The more independence, the less reliance. The less reliance, the more we can help those in real need.

    There are many demands we must meet.

    Health – as science provides more treatment.

    Social services – as we improve care.

    We’ve always accepted this responsibility.

    But as we accept responsibility, so must people themselves.

    Dependency must be about needs, not culture.

    I can’t stand the welfare cheats. I’ll tell you why. They deprive those in real need.

    We’re determined that taxpayers’ money goes where it’s needed.

    Our task is to build a welfare system for the 21st century.

    A system for a self-help society – not a help-yourself society.

    And one way of building independence is to get more people back to work.

    We’re now doing that on a scale that’s the envy of Europe – partly because we refuse to make political gestures that cost jobs. That’s why I say “No” to the minimum wage and “No” to the Social Chapter.

    The minimum wage is the wage of the dole queue.

    It’s not a wage at all.

    How can you talk of a Social Chapter that makes it more difficult for people to find work.

    That’s why I say they’re no-go areas for jobs and no-go areas for us.

    It’s business not government that creates jobs.

    But government can help the unemployed.

    Last year I announced our plans to develop a Contract For Work.

    This week we Tories took a big step forward with the start of our new Job Seekers Allowance.

    We don’t want to pay people to stay on the dole. We do want to help them get back into work.

    So first we’re going to help those who’ve been out of work the longest. They’re the people for whom the barriers to opportunity are highest.

    First, we give them help to find a job and if that doesn’t succeed, they’ll be offered work on a community project.

    For many it’s just the motivation they need.

    But it also shows up those who don’t want to work. I think that’s right.

    So over the next year we’ll be extending the scheme to towns and cities across the country.

    This is part of building a welfare system we can afford. One that goes with the grain of the British nation. Fair to those in need. And fair to those who pay the bills.

    HEALTH

    Madam Chairman, every year, someone writes to The Times to say he has heard the first cuckoo of spring.

    And every year at the Labour conference, some cuckoo distorts out commitment to the National Health Service.

    Listen.

    Our NHS is unique.

    In this country, when you’re ill, we take your temperature.

    In other countries, they take your credit card. While I’m in Downing Street, that will never happen here.

    That doesn’t mean that National Health Service shouldn’t change. It must. If it were fossilised, it would decline.

    I saw that clearly the other day when Norma and I visited a doctor’s surgery – in Glossop actually.

    The family doctor is the gateway to the Health Service. More people see their doctor than anyone else.

    This was a fundholding practice – part of our reforms – and, in its own small way, an example of the quiet revolution of the NHS.

    Waiting lists have been slashed.

    People no longer have to trek to the district hospital.

    More services were available. Osteopathy, acupuncture, Alexander technique, counselling, nursing, physiotherapy and occupational-therapy posts created. Community Care improved. More money spend on patients, not paperwork.

    Tory policy working for the patient.

    Now, this practice is one of the very best. But that excellent service could be the future everywhere.

    Our task is to make it so.

    And this autumn, Stephen Dorrell will introduce a Bill to do just that – giving family doctors greater freedom to develop local services in their surgeries – creating a new generation of cottage hospitals all over Britain.

    And that’s only half of it. In the Autumn, Stephen will set out our ambitious plans to build the National Health Service for the 21st Century.

    And Labour’s vision? Stuck in the past and stuck in the mud – as usual. They plan to end fundholding.

    What ideological madness. Do you know what that would mean? I learnt in Glossop. It would mean that those new clinical posts, new nurses, new physiotherapists, the new occupational therapist – all these would go.

    New Labour, no new services.

    But, in the NHS we must always try to improve our services.

    So, before the end of this year, we’ll unveil new plans to help mentally ill people followed by new plans to reform social care for children, disabled people and the elderly.

    More practical Tory measures.

    And looking a little further ahead, I still hear too many stories of politically correct absurdities that prevent children being adopted by loving couples who would give them a good home. If that is happening, we should stop it.

    Madam Chairman, for over 17 years, through thick and thin, we Conservatives have found extra money for the NHS.

    It’s become a habit.

    So today, I give you a Health Service Guarantee.

    Our Manifesto pledge that the NHS will get more, over and above inflation, year … on year … on year … on year … on year … through the next Conservative Government.

    LAW AND ORDER

    Earlier this week, Michael Howard set out our new plans to fight crime. But there’s two things I’d like to add.

    Firstly, in a few weeks, we’ll published new plans to deal with younger offenders.

    They’re a real problem.

    We must spot school age children turning to crime and stop them in their tracks early on.

    One theme of our plans will be to make them repair the hurt they’ve done. And we’ll have some new ideas.

    But today, let me tell you of our plans for young tearaways who are out of control.

    We only want them in institutions if it’s really necessary.

    But if they don’t deserve that punishment – severe for young people – they mustn’t think they can offend and get away with it.

    Over the last year, we’ve been testing an electronic way of tagging offenders so we can confine them to their homes, and know that that curfew is being kept.

    It’s worked. We think it will work on younger offenders as well – so, we’ll try that too.

    If we know a young trouble maker is out there, night after night, disturbing the peace and committing crimes, we’ll make sure the courts have the power to order him to stay put. At home – off the streets.

    And the tag around his ankle – that can’t be removed – will raise the alert the moment he tries to go out.

    If he can’t go out on Friday and Saturday nights with his mates it might cool him down a bit. If he can’t watch his football team on Saturday, let me say it plain. That’s his fault. Not mine, not yours, his. And it’s time the buck stopped where the responsibility lies. No-one will miss the hooligan on the terrace.

    And he might just learn the lesson.

    And that will help him – as well as us.

    NORTHERN IRELAND

    Earlier this week, the IRA once spat their hate at the British nation.

    Many good people tell me I shouldn’t bother with Northern Ireland. “No votes in it” they say. Maybe not. But there are lives in it.

    And that’s why I bother.

    I don’t believe Northern Ireland will leave the United Kingdom, nor do I wish it to.

    But I know that there can only be a peace in Northern Ireland if all its citizens – Catholic and Protestant alike – feel their traditions have a welcome place in the United Kingdom. And there will only be peace of mind if we remove the causes that have given rise to so much conflict.

    This is a political task. Grindingly hard, I know. But that is what the multi-party talks are for.

    Progress has been slow – painfully slow. But progress has been made. And there is no other show in town.

    Bombs will not bring Sinn Fein into the talks.

    All they mean is that Sinn Fein has slammed the door on themselves.

    I applaud the way the Loyalists have maintained their ceasefire in the face of the IRA’s provocation. Their political leaders have gained in influence and standing as a result. I urge them to stand firm and not to throw away what they have achieved.

    The IRA’s latest betrayal of Northern Ireland means the demand for decommissioning of illegal arms is justified even more clearly.

    We must have decommissioning in parallel with the talks.

    And so that there’s no hiding place for those arms, missiles and explosives, Paddy Mayhew will introduce legislation into Parliament this autumn to set out how they can be taken out of circulation.

    I want those weapons off the street.

    And I want to remove the false excuses peddled by the men of violence for keeping their weapons. Let us expose these men to the world for what they are.

    I also want to make government in Northern Ireland more accountable and give MPs more responsibility. We have already given the Scottish and Welsh members greater ability to question Ministers.

    This autumn, I shall do the same for Northern Ireland. MPs from there should be able to question the Ministers and scrutinise Government policies directly in the Grand Committee, meeting sometimes in Northern Ireland. I will consult the parties about how best to achieve that.

    The IRA has always believed that Britain can be deflected by terrorism. They’ve always been wrong. And they’re wrong now.

    No-one will take Sinn Fein seriously ever again until they show a serious commitment to end violence for good.

    I believe in the politics of reason – backed by strong law enforcement. I know in the end it will prevail.

    And I promise the people of Northern Ireland this;

    For as long as there is a political breath in my body, I will fight for a secure way of life in Northern Ireland for a settlement fair to all.

    EUROPE AND THE WIDER WORLD

    Earlier this week, Ian Lang, Malcolm Rifkind and Ken Clarke set out exciting new possibilities for Britain as a global trading nation with interests around the world. Wonderful speeches, all of them.

    We have links and influence on every continent.

    We have given birth to a whole family of nations.

    I never forget that as I contemplate our future role in Europe.

    The sharpest element of the European debate is the possibility of a single European Currency.

    We Conservatives are in grown-up politics. We know that where Britain’s national interest is at stake, Britain’s national voice must be heard.

    Over recent days in articles, interviews and in this conference hall on Wednesday, I spelt out why we must play a full part in that debate.

    Madam Chairman, Europe is changing. The only thing that is certain is that it won’t be the same in the future.

    In a few years, Europe will have 26 or 27 members. They’ll be widely different. Many of them will never match the economic performance of the larger European nations.

    So, how do we cope with this?

    We believe Europe must become more flexible and responsive. That the only realistic future is a partnership of nations, not a United States of Europe.

    But some of our partners do see the future of Europe as ever closer political as well as economic integration.

    We don’t believe this is practical. Nor, to be frank, desirable.

    It’s not the Europe we joined and it’s not a Europe we can accept.

    This debate about the future direction of Europe is one of the most critical we have ever engaged in. We need to argue it fiercely but fairly.

    Europe is at a watershed.

    Britain is a great nation. Of course, we must be in Europe. But we are in Europe to help shape it – not to be shaped by it.

    NATION

    Madam Chairman, a buccaneering spirit, gritty resolve, give and take, a conviction that everyone is entitled to the same dignity, courtesy, and esteem because of what they are, not who they are.

    These are some of the values we all share. That’s what makes us a nation. Down the centuries, they have moulded our democracy.

    It’s not a concept of government copied across the world because it’s the oldest. It’s because it’s the best. We treasure it. That’s why we must hold on to it.

    The Union. Parliament. Our voting system. It’s naive to think that radical change would be easy or risk-free.

    And it’s revealing to look at Labour’s plans.

    Their priority would be to gerrymander the British constitution.

    They’ve avid for more parliaments, more assemblies, more regional assemblies.

    Their policy in in chaos. On Scottish referenda, they change sides more often than a windscreen wiper.

    What a message. “Vote Labour – for more politicians, more bureaucrats, more taxes, more regulations, more tampering, more meddling, more authoritarianism”.

    If this is the New Gospel, give me the old religion.

    In less than 1,000 days, Labour would vandalise nearly 1,000 years of British history.

    Once again, they show their true colours.

    Labour are the Party of the State. We are the Party of the Nation.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Choice and Freedom for All – 19 September 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on Choice and Freedom for All, made on the 19th September 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    CHOICE AND FREEDOM FOR ALL: THE MORAL CASE FOR A SMALLER STATE

    Tonight I want to talk about the role of government. Not from the perspective of political theory, but from practical experience. Why my aim of smaller government can produce better government and better public services.

    The role of government has changed massively – and is still changing. All around the world, people ask the fundamental question – how much government do we want and what kind?

    Some might have imagined that the 1980s would have settled this debate. The pressures of a global market place were already evident. The centrally planned economies collapsed and the victory of the free market model was clear.

    That remains true. But it doesn’t settle the question. Because within the free market economies there are many differing visions of the role of Government.

    At one end of the spectrum are most members of the European Union, with the state spending half or more of the nation’s income and a long tradition of high state intervention.

    At the other end are the US, Japan, and the emerging Asian economies spending around a third or less – in some cases much less.

    Britain is somewhere in the middle, with the state spending a little over 41 per cent of GDP.

    A look at the growth and job creation records of countries with a smaller state argues persuasively the economic case for restraining public spending.

    And that is certainly one, though not the only, reason why the Government has set a target of getting public spending below 40 per cent of national income.

    When we achieve that I believe we should look further at a lower target.

    But the case for smaller Government is as much a moral case as an economic one.

    “Moral” is a word I usually prefer to leave to the Church but it is apt for what I intend to say.

    For example, is it moral to take from individuals the right to make personal decisions? I think not.

    Is it moral to impose obligations on employers like the Social Chapter and the minimum wage that will cost jobs and prevent those without jobs from getting them? Again, I think not.

    Is it moral to compulsorily take too much tax from people for government to spend and diminish individual choices? My answer is no.

    Smaller Government fits with a belief in individual freedom and choice – still one of the basic divides in British politics.

    I start from the presumption that government should not interfere and meddle where it is not needed. The belief that power, choice and responsibility should, wherever possible, be left with individuals and their families, with entrepreneurs and businesses.

    I don’t want my personal choices made for me by the State. Nor do most people. Nor is it necessary. The British people are better able to order their lives effectively than the most efficient and humane of Governments.

    ‘Trust the People’ is an old Conservative battle cry. It must be central to our future policies.

    We aim to regulate less of people’s lives.

    We trust people to spend their money, or save it, or give it, and to do so sensibly.

    We don’t believe most people are selfish or greedy.

    And we think they can be trusted to exercise those instincts themselves – not to have them exercised on the people’s behalf by men in Whitehall who claim to know better.

    So we aim to tax and spend an ever smaller share of what people earn. To reduce and, in due course, abolish capital taxation.

    I want to do that because it makes good economic sense; it ends a penalty on enterprise and investment; it will release capital and create jobs. And that is the right thing to do.

    There is a moral case for low taxation if you genuinely want to see growing prosperity and more employment.

    And it is that moral view, just as much as the economics, that leads me to the conviction that the state should progressively disengage and do less – but that what it does it should do well. Indeed, I believe that by doing less it is more likely to do better.

    I can hear the cries of ‘uncaring Conservatives’ already forming on the lips of our opponents.

    Cut taxes? Just an electoral bribe, they say.

    End capital taxation? Just a ramp for the well to do.

    But these cries just blur the argument. They are nonsense. We should not be put off by them. They are the baggage of a welfare state mentality that distrusts personal choice and resents personal ownership.

    I reject the muddled thinking that says a smaller state must be uncaring. And I reject the thinking that equates big government with benevolent government.

    We’ve seen time and time again that high government spending and good public services don’t go hand in hand. If they did what a glory there would be in some states.

    But look at the failure of socialism to improve people’s lives in Eastern Europe. Or the recent strains and popular unrest in high spending economies in the EU as they seek to cope with escalating public budgets. And at home you only have to look at the Britain of 20 years ago, with its crumbling state industries, high tax rates and economic malaise.

    Practical experience of Government suggests to me those failures weren’t an accident, a workable philosophy misapplied or derailed by the unexpected. The more I see of Government from the inside the more I believe those failures were predictable, the result of applying fundamental principles that are diametrically opposed to common instinct, common freedom and common sense.

    Underlying socialism, democratic socialism – or even social democracy – is a set of instincts that favours State control. Where there is a choice it is always to be exercised in favour of the State, and too often by the State.

    It’s not always put in those terms, of course. But because the mind set of Socialists and social democrats is to trust Governments more than individuals, their instinct is always to try and bend individuals, businesses, markets, to behaviour they would not naturally see as being in their interests.

    It’s those instincts that lead to high spend, high tax policies, and to ever more regulation. They may be dressed up in the name of better public services. But underlying them is a confident belief that the Government knows better how to spend your money than you do. That government control can produce better outcomes than free choice.

    It’s a philosophy that has two outcomes – both bad. First it stifles enterprise and wealth creation.

    And – second – step by step – too much government control traps individuals in a culture of dependency. Choice, freedom, independence are gradually whittled away until the citizen’s only response is that the ‘government ought to do something about it’. And, of course, all too often the government can’t. The citizen feels helpless.

    At its worst it means that if you are poor the state makes all your choices for you, but if you are well to do you are free. The goal I aim for is to give more choice to everyone.

    If the state takes on more and more responsibilities, it becomes the keeper of the individual’s conscience and duty. There is a danger that people will think their obligations to others are fulfilled solely by paying taxes – whereas they are not, and cannot be.

    I believe that the enrichment of this country – both economically and socially -will come from the people of this country, as individuals, families, businesses, public servants.

    And I believe it is right to think of government as an enabler – not trying vainly to script and control every move, but providing the conditions and support to help people to succeed themselves.

    That’s why we encourage ownership – of homes, pensions and other forms of savings to give people security and independence.

    It’s why we’ve taken steps to reduce the future growth of the social security system, bringing it within the growth of the economy reversing the trend since the war.

    It’s why we emphasise improving standards in education.

    It’s why we are looking again at protecting the public from industrial action in essential and monopoly services.

    It’s why we have opened up the telecommunications industry and deregulated broadcasting, the control of shopping and licensing hours.

    It’s all been about restoring choice and freedom to the individual.

    But while I argue for a small state, I am not arguing for a minimalist state. The state does have a role but we must keep it in proper bounds.

    The great political advance has been to recognise that public interest does not always require State ownership. It is not a paradox to say that a private company can be a public service.

    Not so long ago it was thought that public services like phones, gas, water and electricity had to be publicly owned and had to be monopolies. Now we have shown that private ownership, competition and regulation can protect the public interest better than public ownership.

    It must be galling to those who believe in the innate superiority of State control to see how private ownership has transformed standards.

    Our phone, gas and electricity prices are now amongst the lowest in Europe. Rail fares are capped as never in the past.

    Our water industry is at last able to afford long-delayed investment. The consumer gets better quality.

    We now have phone boxes that work.

    Fewer disconnections.

    Better standards of service.

    Compensation if they let you down.

    And quality is increasingly bolstered by choice, an everyday reality in telecoms and increasingly so for gas – with people actually knocking on doors round the country offering cheaper gas. And soon competition will begin in electricity and water too.

    And if we had not de-nationalised I wonder what the standard rate of tax might be today to deliver services of this quality under public ownership?

    Of course, improving services and giving power back to consumers is not how it is seen by our political opponents. To hear them talk, you would believe denationalisation amounts to abolition. Their mind set has not moved on from their traditional hostility to private ownership. All sorts of scare stories were peddled. But the reality has been quite different, and a huge success.

    But private ownership is not the best answer for all areas of the public sector. There are some where it is simply not right, or acceptable, for the government to cede its role.

    To take an obvious example, no Conservative would argue that the State should not have the responsibility to provide a secure defence, or an effective police force.

    Equally, it is right that we should provide universal access to a taxpayer-funded Health Service, and to provide every child with the choice of a State-funded education.

    And other areas are self-evident, such as the welfare safety net.

    But where privatisation is not an option the Government has a double responsibility to ensure efficiency and good service.

    We owe that to the consumer and taxpayer – after all it is their money, compulsorily extracted. And we owe it to the people who work in our public sector to help them deliver the best possible service.

    But if that is our aspiration, how do we deliver it? There’s no simple straightforward solution. The public service has to be picked up, shaken down, re-shaped and given a new culture. That is what I am seeking to do and I’d like to bring the strands of that policy together for you.

    Our problem is not the many dedicated people who work in the public service, it is the structure and culture of monolithic post war public service that has weighed against them.

    So what are we doing about that?

    First, we recognised that too many public services have been run by organisations that were too large and bureaucratic.

    With control sucked to the centre, they became insulated from the issues and problems on the ground.

    Their front-line workers were often as frustrated by inflexible bureaucracy as the public itself.

    And second, since the system was so reluctant to provide information on service standards, and there was no choice to go elsewhere, there was no countervailing pressure – and few incentives – to put their customers’ interests first.

    To deal with this I believe we needed a revolution in the way Government runs itself.

    We’ve slimmed down the number of government employees – at a time when it has been growing in most of our major competitors – and wherever possible we’ve broken up the large monoliths and created smaller, more manageable units closer to their users.

    The Health Service is a good example.

    I, and successive Health Ministers, have been attacked for years for seeking to improve the service of a much loved national institution. But what our reforms have done has yielded huge efficiencies to be ploughed back in patient care.

    And the smaller, more manageable units that have resulted – Hospital Trusts, GP Fundholders – have a much closer relationship with their local community and a much better appreciation of their needs. The intention is that the people providing the service look outwards to the people they serve rather than upwards to the top of some distant organisational pyramid.

    As our health service develops, I believe these reforms will ensure it always takes account of the need to serve people on a human scale – at local level. People first means efficiency first.

    Of course any reform is traumatic. I was involved in the NHS reforms from the start – and they were no picnic.

    But I also remember why we did it. Who could forget Sir Roy Griffiths’ famous remark that if Florence Nightingale were wandering the corridors of an NHS hospital in the eighties, it would be because she was trying to find out who was in charge.

    A bit too true to be funny, actually. I remember being astonished, as Chief Secretary, how little we knew about where the £20 billion we spent on the NHS was actually going. I asked questions. Officials scratched their heads. No-one knew the answers.

    But it’s not just a matter of changing management structures.

    Increasingly we are also introducing private finance into public services. This makes taxpayers’ money go further, which is the only realistic way to deliver the better services and infrastructure we all want. And the successes are already visible, for example in our inner cities where challenge funding has harnessed public and private money to achieve tremendous results.

    Of course some of the changes we’ve made to devolve management and bring in the private sector have provoked a huge debate about Parliamentary accountability. Some politicians believe Ministers must know and control every tiny action and detail.

    Well, they don’t.

    They can’t.

    Frankly, they shouldn’t. And it’s silly to pretend otherwise.

    Yet, for years past every successive Minister and for that matter Prime Minister has been expected to answer questions of administration that fall far below the level of policy. No wonder Question Time sometimes sheds more heat than light.

    The idea that Ministers are omnipotent is very flattering but history and experience argues against it. And in the complexity of modern government, it is absurd. The important thing is that Ministers are accountable for getting public services properly managed, putting someone in charge with clear objectives and making sure they are kept on their toes.

    I have seen the injustice and indignity and demoralisation that people feel when public service is frustrating and patronising.

    I’m not prepared to tolerate a culture where it is the norm to wait in queues, to be passed around from pillar to post, and treated like a cog in some labyrinthine machine.

    That must change. And the way to change it is to continually ratchet up the quality of service; to tell the consumer the standards he has a right to expect; to give the information about the service he’s getting, and offer decent redress for failings.

    That’s why I launched the Citizen’s Charter five years ago. I saw it then as a ten year programme. But attack came immediately from all sides – as so often happens, when you aim at fundamental change.

    Some thought the standards too demanding: others too modest. Some thought it all a gimmick. Others said we were only tinkering. Most believed we would never deliver targets and standards.

    But these improvements are happening. Spectacularly in some areas, patchily in others. But they are happening.

    Only a few years ago the holidaymaker used to have to wait three months for a passport. Now it usually takes just a week.

    Not long ago, some 170,000 patients had to wait more than a year for hospital treatment. Last year, that was fewer than 5,000.

    Several patients used to be given the same hospital appointments and then be expected to wait the convenience of the consultant without complaint. Patients now get a timed individual appointment in hospitals and should never have to wait more than 30 minutes.

    We see even more fundamental improvements in education, where tests and performance tables are finally giving parents the information they deserve. Gillian Shephard will shortly be announcing further measures to drive up standards, including increased use of targets in a variety of areas.

    In these ways, standards are pulling up public service performance to levels far better than we have seen before.

    And, as they do, I expect them to raise the public’s expectations. And that too is happening.

    The White Paper published tomorrow will show a near quadrupling of nominations by the public for Charter Mark awards – more than 15,000 nominations this year from last year’s 4,000.

    To me that suggests the Charter is increasingly taking root. And in time I have no doubt my ambitions for the Citizen’s Charter – a fundamental shift in power from the state to the consumer – will be fulfilled.

    Of course, we still have much to do. We are only half way through our programme. But the direction in which the Government wants to go is towards more choice, more information, more accountability.

    Some like to claim these days that the main political parties are closer together than ever.

    I wonder how true that is when it comes to hard decisions – rather than oratory.

    The kind of programme I have set out tonight requires perseverance to drive it through. If you come to a boulder in the middle of the road do you drive to the left or the right? Your instincts take over. If you come to problems is your instinct to trust the government or the private sector to find a solution?

    Our instinct is for less government. Our opponents’ instinct is for more government. This is still a sharp divide.

    I believe our programme to reform government is more than a managerial question.

    For me, there is no more political question than how we define the limits of the State, how we run our public services, how they treat their customers, and how the burden of financing government falls on the economy and the individual. These issues touch on the fundamental philosophical and political divide between the parties.

    I have spent my life fighting on one side of that divide.

    My beliefs are for a future with a smaller state and lower taxes. Where individuals and families have more independence to own and save.

    This is a distinctive Conservative agenda with a common theme: choice and freedom for everyone. Not for one class, not one faction, but all in society.

    Having built the strongest economy we’ve known for decades, we now need to turn to giving all in society the chance to take more control of their lives. Those living in Labour strongholds, just as much as those in leafy Conservative heartlands. They all matter just as much.

    Extending choice and freedom is an endless task, performed against the clamour for the government to do something – be it spend more, intervene more, regulate more.

    But, as I have explained tonight, that is not my way. The right role for Government as we approach the millennium is quite different.

    It is to enlarge choice, not restrict it. To extend freedom, not curtail it.

    To trust the people more and control them less.

    That runs with the grain of what the British people want, and that is what I set out to deliver.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy – 18 September 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held at Chequers on Wednesday 18th September 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he planned to spend less money and where cuts would come from].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are two elements, as you say: firstly, expansion of the economy; and second, saving money and spending it more effectively. And that is what we have been doing. If you look at the relative comparisons, most of our partners in Western Europe, in the same economic space, would spend between 47-50 per cent of national income. We are down to 41 per cent, we are continuing to see that drop. As the economy grows, we will ensure that the growth in the economy is not wholly used by the state, that predominantly it is used to reduce the state’s role in terms of taxation. But in addition to that there are savings. It is hard to get savings, no-one should pretend that that is easy. We have been chipping away at elements of waste for 17 years and will continue to do so.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he could get below 40 per cent when it had been higher than that for most of the last 17 years].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set a target for the moment of 40 per cent, just as originally when we wanted to cut tax we set a target of 25, when we got to 25 per cent for the basic rate, we set a new target. So our first objective is to get it below 40 per cent.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how much lower].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we will get it below 40 per cent first and then we will set a further target. I am not going to set a long distance target at the moment. Let us reach the target we have set ourselves for the moment and then see how much further we can take it. That is what we have been doing and is it the only sensible way in which to proceed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would make cuts or believe the economy would grow at a sufficient pace to make cuts unnecessary].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been saving public expenditure for some years. Let me take the most practical example – the welfare state and in particular social security. Social security since the war has been growing at a faster rate than the growth of the economy. Because of changes that we have made, widely supported I think by most people in this country, the growth of the social security budget is now about 1 per cent a year. That has never been achieved before. It opens up options for government either to spend that money elsewhere, on health or education for example, or to spend it partly to reduce taxes.

    The question – is there a single simple way in which you could massively save money? If there were that would have been done by governments a long time ago. It is a steady accretion of cutting out unnecessary expenditure and there are still areas where the government spend money unnecessarily.

    Let me give you a practical illustration. Suppose in the last few years we had not privatised all the utilities – gas, electricity and other matters – they were heavily subsidised when they were in the public sector. Heaven alone knows what the standard rate of tax today would be if we had not shrunk the state in that fashion. And we have to continually look to see where we can extend that thought.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Annual Focus on Scotland Dinner – 3 September 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Annual Focus on Scotland Dinner, held at the Hilton Hotel in Glasgow on the 3rd September 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I’m delighted to be back in Scotland and back here in Glasgow.

    The last time we were due to meet was, of course, postponed after the awful events in Dunblane. No one who was in Dunblane at the time or who, like me, visited it shortly afterwards will ever forget what happened there.

    The Secretary of State asked Lord Cullen to inquire into the events, report and make recommendations.

    He is doing so. As soon as we have his report we will decide on it and act on it speedily. If legislation is necessary we have already reserved a place in our programme for it. There will be swift decisions and swift action.

    Events like those in Dunblane put politics into perspective.

    I love politics but I don’t love it to distraction.

    Frankly, there’s just too much of it.

    But the substance of politics – the hard political policy choices – are important.

    Because politics does change people’s lives.

    Take Scotland, for example.

    Think back to what life was like almost 20 years ago.

    Loss making, subsidised industries. Shrinking markets. Growing dole queues.

    Some 20 years on, things are better. Immensely better. The economy is growing. It’s dynamic and diverse – with exporters who are the envy of the world.

    The transformation has been breathtaking.

    Since 1981, inward investment of over £5 billion – protecting or creating over 80,000 jobs.

    A faster annual rate of economic growth than England over the last five years.

    Record breaking levels of manufactured exports – growing at twice the rate of the rest of the United Kingdom.

    And that success backed by low inflation, lower taxes, low costs.

    These didn’t appear by magic. Getting here meant taking tough decisions, some of them politically unpopular. It meant standing up to the heat of the day and fighting for what we believe in.

    But these hard won achievements – and they were hard won – are easy to lose. They can be thrown away if Britain takes the wrong turning. If it’s lulled into believing the soft sell that many politicians love to peddle.

    It’s always tempting for politicians to sing the tune people want to hear. To promise people new rights, new conditions at work, new minimum wages.

    It’s easy – but dangerous.

    Because these all early a price tag. And the price would be paid in investment and jobs.

    Many of you here tonight are businessmen. You take hard-headed decisions, aiming to get the best for your company, your workers, your shareholders, every day. You know the importance of keeping costs down so the profit on the bottom line goes up.

    I’m in no doubt that Britain’s success – Scotland’s success – at attracting record levels of foreign investment is partly due to our determination to keep costs low.

    Lanarkshire, once the pulse of the first industrial revolution, is now the cradle of today’s technological revolution. After the steel works at Ravenscraig closed, we said we’d help find new jobs. We’ve done precisely that: three projects will offer 4,500 new jobs in Lanarkshire alone.

    Those companies enjoy Britain’s sharp competitive edge. For every £100 spent on wages in Germany, an employer spends another £32 on costs. In Spain, it’s an extra £34. In France £41, in Italy £44, But in Britain, it’s only £18. We must hang on to that edge. I’m not prepared to put it at risk by signing up to the Social Chapter. To open the floodgates to a whole raft of expensive burdens on business.

    Labour like the Social Chapter because they believe it will deliver what the trade unions want by the backdoor.

    It’s no use people claiming that if we gave away our opt out, we could pick and choose what to accept and when to implement it. They obviously haven’t read the Social Chapter’s small print. I have, and I can tell you that once in, there’s no way out. For much of it, there’s no picking and choosing. No saying have that bit, but not that. That’s why I fought for our opt out, and why I won’t give it away. To me, British jobs and business come first.

    Then there’s that seductive little phrase, the minimum wage. Yes, it sounds seductive. It’s meant to. But people can only earn a wage if they have a job in the first place. And if you force an employer to pay a wage he can’t afford, then he won’t employ because he can’t. And if a junior employee is suddenly paid more simply because the Social Chapter or the government says so, everyone else in the company could well demand the same pay increase.

    So a minimum wage spells inflation. A minimum wage spells job losses. And it hinders youngsters looking for work. France has a minimum wage. It also has youth unemployment of over 26%. Spain has a minimum wage. It also has youth unemployment of over 41%.

    Those who argue for the Social Chapter and minimum wage may well have good intentions. I’m sure they have. But they’d be hurting the very people they want to help.

    And, of course, here in Scotland they’d be knocked for six by Labour’s plans for devolution.

    Devolution

    Some may believe devolution would help Scotland.

    How? Would it help create new jobs? Build more homes? Attract new investment?

    The last time people hurtled into the constitutional chaos of devolution it took them four years to produce an unworkable and defective Scotland Act. That futile exercise involved producing a White Paper, revised not once but three times; introducing a Scotland and Wales Bill to Parliament and then withdrawing it; and then introducing the Scotland Bill, which pushed Parliament into a legislative quicksand.

    No wonder it all fell apart. But the rocky road to devolution in 1979 looks like a fast track compared to this steeplechase of stupidity Labour has set up for itself now.

    First, they have to win a General Election. So far as I’m concerned, they won’t get past that first fence. But, supposing they did, they would then have to publish a White Paper on a Referendum; get a Referendum Bill through both Houses of Parliament; fight a referendum campaign; and get ‘Yes’ answers to two questions.

    If they succeeded – and it is a very big IF – only then would they reach Beecher’s Brook: the Devolution White Paper; the Devolution Bill, to be fought through both Houses of Parliament; and eventual elections for a Scottish parliament.

    Then – and this is a further punishment self-inflicted last Saturday – there would have to be a second referendum, asking the Scottish people to impale themselves, their jobs, their standard of living, their inward investment and their competitiveness on the stake of the Tartan Tax.

    That is the stake Tony Blair holds for Scotland: discriminatory income tax starting – but who believes finishing? – at 15 per cent higher than the rest of the United Kingdom,

    This policy has now turned into farce. It’s more suitable for London’s West End, not Westminster.

    It is an absurdity. A nonsense.

    Only a few months ago the Shadow Scottish Secretary dismissed a referendum as a ‘delaying tactic’. Now he’s supporting not just one, but two of them.

    Even pro-devolution commentators are now damning Labour’s botched scheme as ludicrous. And so it is. It wouldn’t help create a job, attract investment, or build more homes.

    Some might think that it would be worth the pain of Parliamentary paralysis to get devolution. That edging towards the break up of the United Kingdom would be a price worth paying.

    I profoundly disagree.

    I believe the Union benefits everyone, irrespective of income, both north and south of the border,

    But those living north of the border, people with hopes and ambitions for a better and brighter future, have most to lose and least to gain from a tax-raising Scottish parliament.

    Ask yourself how it would help them if Scotland had a parliament that could put an extra 3p in the pound on income tax. For starters. More later.

    That increase – the Tartan Tax – would cost many families an extra £6.50 a week.

    Over £330 a year.

    That’s the starting price of devolution. The price Scotland would pay for the privilege of becoming the most heavily taxed part of the United Kingdom. Scotland’s prosperity would be going, going, gone.

    And there’s another thing. People who are forced to pay higher taxes have a habit of demanding higher wages.

    Would it help attract companies from overseas to Scotland if they faced the prospect of wages spiraling up and up? Do you want to send jobs back across the border to England?

    Of course, I know some might argue that the Scottish parliament would actually cut taxes.

    Imagine that it chose to do so.

    At the moment, the government spends a quarter more in Scotland than in England. That’s over £17 more per person per week. Spending per head on health is almost a quarter higher. On education, almost a third higher.

    Overall public spending in Scotland exceeds the amount raised in Scotland by over £8 billion. So why do people want to alter a system that so obviously works in Scotland’s favour?

    So how could a Scottish parliament realistically cut taxes? I have yet to hear how English MPs might be persuaded to continue spending more cash in Scotland than on their own constituents, only to see it spent subsidising tax cuts north of the border. It’s a laughable proposition.

    But what if English MPs proposed to cut Scottish spending? A Tartan Tax would raise only a fraction of the current transfer – a mere £390 million. Where would the shortfall come from: higher taxes or fewer public services?

    These questions haunt the quagmire of the constitutional debate. No one has answered them because they either don’t know the answers, or don’t dare give them.

    Instead, we’re told by our opponents, as they wriggle on the hook, that they have no plans to raise the Tartan Tax at all. If that’s the case, why hold two referendums to give a parliament the power to raise it? Why have these plans at all?

    But suppose the Scottish people were wise enough to vote against this tax-raising power. Suppose they chose not to become the most heavily taxed part of Britain.

    Without that power to raise taxes, a Scottish parliament would have less power than the present Scottish Grand Committee. Scotland would be left with less influence but more bureaucracy – a toothless assembly our opponents have fought against long and hard.

    Jobs, Incomes. Investment. A record of success and a bright future. That’s what these plans put at risk. New taxes and no Britain. That’s no bargain for Scotland.

    Peroration

    Ladies and gentlemen, these issues are at the heart of political debate. They are matters of substance.

    They need to be debated – and they will be. We will return to them again and again and again. That I promise you.

    Change, something different, something new, might sound tempting,

    But new things, untried, untested, have a habit of going wrong.

    Today, life in Scotland is better. People need to ask themselves if it makes sense to risk the opportunities that lie ahead in favour of the most reckless and ill-thought out package of change this country has ever seen.

    You’ll hear it said that a change would be ‘good for democracy’.

    Good for democracy? Unhinging the Union? Setting up a Scottish parliament, half unelected? Sprinkling assemblies across England? Risking the chaos PR would bring? Dismantling Parliament itself?

    That wouldn’t be good for British democracy – a system that’s envied around the world. It could destroy democracy.

    Britain is one nation. Our policies are for one nation. For people who live in Govan and Guildford, in Bournemouth and Belfast, in Carlisle and Cardiff. North of the border and south of the border.

    We need to focus on Scotland’s success. On the bright future that lies before her, And on a United Kingdom that has served this island for centuries, and that we can turn into the envy of Europe in the years to come.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the South East – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the South East, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he would be doing to end the tube strikes in London].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is remarkable the way so many Londoners have found their way to work in these difficulties and I warmly congratulate them on doing so. I don’t think this tube strike is justified under any criterion one can think of. The unions on strike have not honoured an agreement they reached last year, they won’t go to arbitration, and frankly the strike weapon, and the way they are using it against the interests of people not involved in the dispute – the passengers – I think is disgraceful. The best thing I believe that we can do for Londoners, both in the short and the long term, is to stand firm and resist this industrial blackmail.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether it was useful to condemn the strike and asked if the management were to blame].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If it is the management who have reneged, why are they prepared to go arbitration, and not the union? If it is the management who have reneged, why is it that the union have not honoured their agreement of last year? The fact of the matter is that it is the union that has decided to have the strike and withdrawn its labour and I think it should be condemned. Of course they should go to arbitration, and not only go to arbitration, I think they are justifiably condemned for not doing so.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if strikes which affected public services should be stopped].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you look at what has happened over the past five or six years strikes, as an industrial weapon, have been dying out. They are not quite as extinct as the dinosaur, as we have seen with this unfortunate dispute, but they are falling away. And I believe increasingly people will come to see them as something that is just old-fashioned, out-moded and simply a weapon that should not be used. I think to let them fade away in this way is more likely to ensure that we have industrial harmony.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if some Conservative MPs would find such a ban electorally useful].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will look at manifesto pledges at a later stage. For the moment I would like to see this strike settled. I think it would help – you spoke of condemnation – if we had some condemnation from the other political parties. Thus far they seem to have been on a sponsored silence when it comes to condemning a strike that is damaging the interests of Londoners, damaging the interests of the underground and in the long-term damaging the interests of the workforce themselves. But not a word of leadership or condemnation of this particular issue has there been. I think there should be. Now we may have to look at other measures but at the moment I think the first thing is to get this strike settled and to make it clear to those on strike that this is just not a tolerable way to treat Londoners.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would consider legislation to end such strikes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not ruling anything in or out at the present moment. What I am saying is that the industrial relations legislation that we put on the statute book in the last 15 years or so has cut strikes to a level below anything we have seen before.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the strike numbers were increasing again now].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Then there ought to be some condemnation from the opposition parties. Perhaps they believe the opinion polls, perhaps they believe there might be a Labour government, perhaps they noticed the silence of the Labour Party in condemning the strikes, perhaps they think the strike weapon is one that can come back into force. Well if that is the position, I think they gravely mis-judge the people who are being abused by this strike – the Londoners finding it difficult to get to work today – and the way that they will feel about that. I repeat, strikes are old-fashioned, out-moiled and this is not a way, in the mid-1990s, that industrial relations should be conducted, where the passenger is put at risk, inconvenience and expense and the economy is harmed because of a strike that ought never to have taken place.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he might intervene to stop the strikes].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have ruled nothing out.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the strike was good for the Conservatives].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We didn’t call this strike. I don’t want this strike. I have called for this strike to be ended. I wish the Labour Leader would call for this strike to be ended and condemn the people who have called it unnecessarily. But so many of their members are sponsored by the RMT, the Deputy Leader is sponsored by the RMT. Where is he speaking up for passengers today? He is nowhere to be seen, still as I said a moment ago on a sponsored silence. No, it is not convenient for the government. We have delivered over the last few years industrial harmony on a scale we have not previously seen in this century. Now I would like that industrial harmony to continue. The economy is improving, inflation is falling, unemployment is falling, we are beginning to see a rapid degree of investment both externally and internally. That is what is going to improve people’s livelihoods and the re-emergence of the strike weapon is not convenient. What does it say to countries abroad who invest in this country? It says are the old problems coming back? That is not in my interest and it is not in the interests of London either.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the North West – 25 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the North West, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 25th July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when he would be visiting Manchester, as Michael Heseltine had already visited twice to monitor the repairs following the bomb damage].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I expect to be at Manchester within the next few days, I am looking forward to coming and I think Michael will probably be with me. I would like to see for myself the damage that was created and the way it is now being handled and I think there is no substitute – even having the Deputy Prime Minister there – for seeing it yourself and that is what I propose to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would be offering financial assistance for Manchester].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the first thing I want to do is to see what is happening. What we are clearly going to have to do is to look at a tripartite system, you may even say a quadripartite system – the Government, the European Union, the private sector itself and of course the insurance money – all of which will come together and we really need to see how we can produce the best possible use of those resources for the redevelopment of those parts of Manchester that have been damaged.

    It was a dreadful event, it was an attempt to terrorise Manchester and predictably of course it failed, Mancunians would have nothing to do with that. Now we must see what we can do to correct the damage that was done and perhaps improve on what was there.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Government should be doing more for Manchester].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European money is British money, let us not deceive ourselves, it is British money that goes to the European Union and is then redirected back and that is why we have such a very large net contribution to Europe so don’t let us fool ourselves about that, it is British money that is coming into Manchester.

    We need to see precisely what needs to be done, precisely what resources are required and precisely what are available. There will be a great deal of money of course that will come in from the direct insurance, there will be a great deal of money that will come in from the private sector to renovate it. What we need to do is to find out what needs to be done. At the moment we don’t know that. Just pledging a sum of money is neither here nor there. We need to see and then assess and then discuss with Manchester City Council and others what actually needs to be done to ensure that we cannot just replace what was there but improve upon it so this is going to be quite a lengthy business, it isn’t a question of a quick gesture of a few million here or there. We need to look at what can be done in the interests of Manchester, that may take some time but we will do it thoroughly.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the Government paid for bomb damage in Northern Ireland, but not in Manchester].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You don’t accurately describe what happens in Northern Ireland but I want to come and see for myself what the position is. Let me see for myself and then we can assess what the position is. That is the purpose of my coming, it is why Michael Heseltine has been not two, I think perhaps three times by now and there may well be more visits.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why half a billion pounds had been paid by the tax-payer to businesses in Northern Ireland which have suffered bomb damage].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is over a very long period and in very different circumstances. I don’t want to draw a comparison between Northern Ireland and Manchester. There is help for Manchester, there has been help for Manchester, there will be help for Manchester but what we need to do is to find out how best that help can be directed and to bring together all the agencies that can help renovate the areas of Manchester that have been damaged by this terrorist outrage.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why Manchester tax-payers had paid tax which had helped Northern Ireland but weren’t receiving any themselves].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have answered that question three times and I don’t propose to answer it a fourth time. I am coming to see what needs to be done. When we have seen what needs to be done, we can then have a cool assessment of what needs to be done and that is the way think we should approach it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when defence orders for the region would be announced].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You don’t just produce defence orders costing £4 billion without a proper assessment and evaluation of those defence orders. They are very big defence orders. All three of the defence orders announced today will actually benefit the north west, Walton, Chorley, Manchester and other parts of the north west. They are very big orders, they needed a very careful evaluation. These are some of the biggest defence contracts that have ever been awarded. The evaluation has just been concluded, the decisions have just been made and they have been announced so there has been no delay in announcing decisions and they are very welcome news I think for the Armed Forces undoubtedly but also for many parts of the United Kingdom and especially Manchester who, as I indicated, will actually benefit from each of the three orders that have been announced today.