The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Education

  • PMQT – 20 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Parry : Will the Prime Minister today decide when he intends to visit Liverpool, where he can meet local trade union leaders to discuss the very high level of unemployment? Incidentally, he might visit Liverpool, Riverside, which has the highest level of unemployment in England, Scotland and Wales–32 per cent. Will he also consider visiting Liverpool next month for the commemoration of the battle of the Atlantic and western approaches? Her Majesty the Queen is coming and, in 1940, Mr. Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister, came several times, as did King George VI. Will the Prime Minister consider coming there?

    The Prime Minister : I have indeed received an invitation to attend the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, in which Liverpool and its people played such a significant part. I have accepted that invitation and I look forward to that event very much indeed.

    I am aware of the very high level of unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It has fallen over recent years, but it is still far higher than in many areas in the United Kingdom and is one of the worst pockets of unemployment anywhere in the country. I will not be able to visit Riverside on this occasion, but I understand the particular problems faced by the hon. Gentleman and if he, with a small delegation of his constituents, wishes to come to see me to discuss the problem, I will be happy to meet them.

    Mr. Ottaway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of Norway’s largest ship owners, Gearbulk, has recently decided to relocate to London, giving as its reason that it wants to be at the centre of things? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that Britain, with a low corporate tax structure and a Conservative Government, remains the best place in the world in which to do business?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of that piece of welcome news and I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has said. We very much welcome inward investment from both within and beyond the European Community. We are determined to maintain in this country the economic circumstances and the relatively low on-costs to employment which will continue to attract inward investment.

    Mr. John Smith : While it is essential that the sanctions against Serbia be intensified and properly enforced, as indeed they should have been months ago, is it not now necessary for a clear ultimatum to be issued to the Serbs that they will not be allowed to continue their aggression unchecked and that, if they continue that aggression, their lines of supply within Bosnia will be subject to air attack?

    The Prime Minister : We had a lengthy statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday in which he set out the present position and the discussions we are having with our partners in the United Nations. The House recognised yesterday that the road to further action, particularly if it leads to military action, which is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question implied, is fraught with peril. Once one goes down it, there is no turning back. We must first be confident that that is the right direction.

    Mr. John Smith : While there are risks in any course of action, and I would not seek to minimise them, do not they have to be weighed carefully against the possibly greater risks of non-action? Surely what is badly needed is a demonstration of United Nations determination. How will the Government respond, for example, if the Serbs proceed to take the crucial towns of Gorazde and Zepa? Should not they be warned now that such action on their part will not be tolerated?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend say again yesterday, we are not excluding those options ; we are considering them seriously and discussing them with our allies. I have spoken recently with both the French and American Presidents, but we have not yet reached a decision about the balance of advantage in those particular courses. They could cause fighting to escalate, civilian casualties to rise and an end to the humanitarian operation.

    On that last point, I remind the House that it was the expectation in the House some months ago that over the winter hundreds of thousands of Bosnians would die of starvation and lack of medicine. That has not happened because we have managed to sustain the humanitarian operation. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I would willingly throw that away.

    Mr. Dickens : Following the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of many British citizens who were members of a cult in the United States of America, will my right hon. Friend have conversations with the Home Secretary with a view to setting up a working party to see how we can best limit the recruitment of British citizens into those evil cults?

    The Prime Minister : There are a number of undesirable cults and I share my hon. Friend’s concern. It would be difficult to focus legislation to restrict the establishment of cults or religious movements because it would be difficult to determine what groups should be included in the legislation and what groups should be excluded. However, we have powers under the criminal law and we are prepared and willing to use them to regulate the behaviour of individuals when they may infringe the rights of other people. We also have powers under the immigration laws to prohibit the entry of people who may wish to establish such cults, if it is thought that they would be damaging to our interests.

    Mr. Ashdown : In the Prime Minister’s previous answer, he rightly referred to the importance of humanitarian aid. Has he noticed that today the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has called for the establishment of a United Nations protected safe haven in Zepa and Gorazde? How will he respond to that question?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will know that the UNHCR wants to set up safe areas by agreement with the parties in those areas and does not want the United Nations to be an active participant in the conflict. To that extent, it differs quite radically from the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to me about some days ago.

    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there has to be further military intervention in Bosnia, it should be done under NATO command with American participation, backed by United Nations resolutions supported by Russia?

    The Prime Minister : I see no other circumstances in which it would be practicable to expect any military authority to be there and to succeed. Anything short of action in the circumstances set out by my hon. Friend would be unacceptable and would be unlikely to be agreed. Those are only the circumstances, but I stress that that would be a very grave step and it is not yet the policy of any of the major Governments in the United Nations.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Ross : Has the Prime Minister had a chance to study the public sector borrowing requirement figure announced today? Does he realise that £9.5 billion is the highest recorded figure of any Government for any one month? It is £1 million more than the Chancellor announced in his Budget last month. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many forecasters, who believe that that points to a real underlying problem about our economy? What is he going to do about it?

    The Prime Minister : It is an interesting question from the hon. Gentleman. I hope I can assume from it that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about borrowing that he will support our new controls on public spending. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in imposing limits on public sector pay and on keeping caps on council spending. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why he supported the Delors proposals for Community spending which would have cost us millions. He might explain why his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said that he was prepared to debate with the Community over our rebate. All those matters relate to our borrowing requirement ; upon none of them have we ever had the support of the hon. Gentleman or any right hon. or hon. Member in his party. Words from him about restraints on public spending are very hollow indeed.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers have a moral duty to do their very best for their pupils and that that means carrying out testing this summer? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Britain spends a higher percentage of its GDP on education than Germany and Japan, but that in Germany children are taught and tested over 1,260 hours per year, whereas children in Britain are taught for as little as 850 hours per year and would remain untested if some teacher unions have their way, supported by the disruptive attitude of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : As a former head teacher, my hon. Friend speaks with particular authority on this matter. A boycott of testing would certainly not be in the interests of our children. We need tests–and need them this year–as Sir Ron Dearing, among others, has made clear. My hon. Friend is right that our principal competitors have national curricula and regular testing. Any attempt to sabotage our reforms could damage our long- term ability to compete and damage the education of our children.

     

    Q5. Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Llwyd : The Prime Minister will be aware of the recent integrated administration control system forms which have been issued at the behest of the European Community. These are a great headache to the farming community because they are time limited ; they have to be in by 15 May. Farmers also have to have plans mapped out in hectares. In my constituency, for example, only two thirds of land has been surveyed for that purpose. I urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues to ask the EC to extend the time limit and to consider defraying the expenses of those who have spent on survey fees privately for this purpose.

    The Prime Minister : There are difficulties with this and I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Although I doubt whether it is feasible to extend the time limit, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture is seeking to help farmers in that situation within the rules of the terms of the scheme. Maps that can be used are available, but we have always recognised that some farmers may have difficulty getting maps of the right scale. Where maps cannot be obtained, farmers should provide the best alternative that they can.

     

    South Africa

    Q6. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has recently made to, or received from, the South African Government regarding political change in South Africa.

    The Prime Minister : We are in regular contact at all levels with the South African Government and other parties involved in the current constitutional negotiations. I shall be seeing Mr. Mandela and Chief Buthelezi in the next few weeks. I am also in touch with President de Klerk.

    Mr. Hunter : As the tragedy of South Africa unfolds and, for the time being, the men of violence have their way, will my right hon. Friend urge President de Klerk not to give ground to the enemies of democracy or mob rule, but, rather, to continue negotiations, especially with moderate black leaders, so that the new South Africa may be better than the old?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend knows South Africa well and I agree with him that negotiations are the only way to reach the goal of a non-racial, democratic South Africa. The concessions that the ANC is seeking, covering both the election date and the establishment of a transitional executive council, are matters for the constitutional negotiations. I urge all parties to address issues in that forum.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Connarty : Has the Prime Minister had, as I have, the shared joy of being present at the birth of his children? Does he share with me and the Royal College of Midwives deep concern at the massive increase in the use of Caesarian sections in all parts of the United Kingdom? Is he aware that I have been told in parliamentary replies that the rate has risen from 5.3 to 13 per cent. in England and to 14 per cent. in Scotland and that women are now threatened in one out of eight cases with surgery in what should be the pleasant experience of childbirth? Does he think that it is time that we had a childbirth charter to protect women from the scalpel when they should have a normal childbirth?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of the question is yes, on two occasions. The second part is essentially a matter for the individual mother and her surgeon and doctor. I confess that I was not aware of the growth of Caesarian section births and it is a matter which, in the light of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  • PMQT – 15 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Cousins : Does the Prime Minister agree first, that the supply of weapons to the states of the former Yugoslavia should be choked off and not increased and secondly, that arms and equipment dealers who may wish to dabble there, and their friends, no matter how well connected, will not find a safe haven in Great Britain?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House views with dismay and despair the slaughter in the whole of Bosnia which we see daily on our television screens. For that reason, we have sought over the past few months, not least at the London conference and in a variety of other ways, to play our part in the international community in trying to bring an end to that particular conflict. I share the hon. Gentleman’s view about the need to damp down and not to increase the supply of arms.

     

    Q2. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Staff for calling a strike for tomorrow and on other days which will be damaging to passengers, especially my constituents, and which could put in danger other people’s jobs? What would my right hon. Friend do if his transport spokesman backed the strike? Would he back him or sack him?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the latest strike by the RMT will cause further hardship to the travelling public and that it will damage British Rail’s finances. That does not safeguard jobs in rail or elsewhere ; it actually puts jobs in rail and elsewhere at risk. It is an utterly pointless strike. It is a throwback to the 1960s and it deserves the support of no one. It certainly does not have my support and it does not have the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I regret that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) supports the strike. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition does not and I hope that he will take appropriate action.

    Mr. John Smith : The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that just before Easter, he assured me during Prime Minister’s Question Time that the Government were prepared to widen and to intensify sanctions against Serbia. In view of the appalling slaughter at Srebrenica, will the Prime Minister tell us what action the Government have taken since then?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly stand by the remark I made to the House before Easter. We are keen both to widen and to deepen the sanctions against Serbia. To do that we need the complete support of our allies in the Security Council and elsewhere. I expect that a suitable resolution will be passed in the United Nations this month, but I cannot guarantee in advance of that the support of all other members, which is necessary to ensure that we have that resolution. The British position is clear. We wish to have that resolution as speedily as possible. We should have welcomed it today.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister recognise that even the existing sanctions are not being enforced adequately so that there is no real let or hindrance put upon the Serbs and their present barbarous behaviour? Instead of the Security Council resolution being delayed until towards the end of the month, ought not the British Government be urging that it be brought forward so that the international community can take effective action?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated delicately to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that is the position of the British Government, but we would not get it through the Security Council at this moment for reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can well understand. One of the permanent members would not be likely to support it now, but will be later this month. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows who and why.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that there is really deep anger and concern in Britain about the fact that the slaughter at Srebrenica is a daily affair? Ought there not to be more urgency than this leisurely diplomatic pace?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that neither he nor anyone else has a monopoly of concern or conscience about the matter. His concern is shared throughout the House and the country. No one doubts that. The question at issue is what we can do, how best we can do it and what options will most successfully help to bring an end to the slaughter. In achieving that, we need the support of the other members of the Security Council and the international community. We have been seeking to obtain it for a variety of measures and we shall continue to do so. In the meantime, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will need no reminding of the leading role that Britain has taken in providing humanitarian aid and in the search for a diplomatic settlement. We were the first nation to put a substantial number of troops into Bosnia and to help people facing great difficulties through the winter.

    Mr. Matthew Banks : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the advice of the armchair generals and pseudo-defence experts, all suggestions of substantial military action in the Bosnian region should be totally resisted as in that terrain it would lead to guerrilla warfare and substantial loss of life among British service men and women and those of other countries, and would make no contribution whatsoever towards an early resumption of peace talks and a settlement of the problem?

    The Prime Minister : I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and agree with him. We are seeking a diplomatic means of ending the fighting. That is the only credible way forward for the international community. Other issues have been considered and discussed, but they involve substantial disadvantages. Many of them were cogently set out to the House yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

    Mr. Ashdown : The key question is whether Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to see Srebrenica fall into the hands of the Bosnian Serbs.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has shared for a long time the concern that everyone in the House feels about the issue. What he has never done is suggest a way– [Hon. Members :– “Answer.”]–I will answer the question in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman has never suggested a way in which we could physically prevent military action. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should put British troops on the ground in Bosnia, will he please say so directly or stop implying it?

    Mr. Roger Evans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the respect of the public and parents for the teaching profession was not enhanced by the conduct of certain people at the National Union of Teachers conference last week, and that the proper way to restore public confidence in the education system and testing is the Government’s review and not a campaign of sabotage?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The concern that we have in education policy is to improve the quality of education and the success of all our children as they go through their schooling. I believe that the remark of the president of the NUT that the union’s aim was “to annihilate the tests” was a disgrace. I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member in the House will give any houseroom to that sort of attitude.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jim Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Marshall : Is the Prime Minister aware of the increasing concern among the lower paid and many other people about the proposed increase in domestic fuel prices from April 1994? If so, what advice would he offer to those people who face massive bill increases in the winters of 1994 and 1995? Would he advise them to leave the heat on, turn it down or switch it off?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will provide substantial extra help for people in particular need ; we will announce the details of that in good time and the increases will take effect before any increases in the fuel charges. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might give me a straight answer at some stage as to whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) when he called for an increase in value added tax.

     

    Q4. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Oppenheim : Bearing in mind the importance attributed to manufacturing by many, if not all, people, does my right hon. Friend recollect that manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government, whereas, during the 1980s, Britain enjoyed the fastest growth in manufacturing output of any major European country and that manufacturing productivity in Britain during the 1980s rose faster than in any other major industrial country in the world? Do recent figures show that conditions are now in place to resume and build on that progress in the 1990s?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend clearly knows, the figures released yesterday show manufacturing output sharply up. They underline the fact that our manufacturers are taking advantage of the present opportunities. I very much welcome that. We need a strong and successful manufacturing industry. What we need to see is an industrial renaissance, not the propping up of lame ducks. The fact that we now have the lowest interest rates in the Community, very low inflation and a competitive exchange rate gives our industries and our exporters in particular every opportunity of growing, investing, expanding, and seeking and achieving success in the 1990s.

    Mr. Hardy : The Prime Minister mentioned tests. Does he accept that the testing of English proposed for this year is so outrageously flawed that not only the test should be withdrawn but the present direction of the Department for Education should be withdrawn as well?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the principle behind the hon. Gentleman’s question. I think that there is no doubt that the tests are the key to raising standards, as our main competitors around the world have shown. It is a straightforward matter of common sense. Without tests, teachers cannot identify pupils’ weaknesses and cannot tackle them, parents cannot hold schools to account for their children’s progress and the Government would not know what was happening in the schools. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members do not find the importance of education and tests a matter for seriousness.

    The National Institute for Economic and Social Research found that, at middle and lower ability, pupils in England learnt less than their contemporaries in France, Germany and Japan. That cannot be satisfactory to us and it cannot be satisfactory to teachers. It is vital that we have those tests so that we can identify those weaknesses, find out what the children have not understood and have not learnt and then take action to put it right. Hiding those tests and the results of them is no way to help our children in schools.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert B. Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Jones : Against the background of the scandals surrounding the European bank for reconstruction and development, and persistent reports of fraud involving the common agricultural policy and other European funds, is it not a matter for congratulation that the British Government, at any rate, have made a high priority of proper discussion of, and attention to, the reports of the European Court of Auditors? Will my right hon. Friend read up on his efforts in that direction? In particular, when he has a chance to have a word with Chancellor Kohl will he ask him why the Germans are not so keen as we are on discussing this sort of fraud?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that the United Kingdom has taken the lead in action against fraud both in the agreements that we reached at Maastricht and on other occasions when European leaders have met. We have done that in the past and we will continue to do that in future.

     

    Q6. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Hoyle : Despite the Prime Minister’s boasting about the engineering industry, has he not seen the Engineering Employers Federation report published today which suggests that engineering imports will rise twice as fast as exports? How will that balance of payments crisis help the country? Does it not once more show how far engineering manufacturing industry has declined due to the mismanagement of the economy by his Government?

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. He needs to concentrate, as we are concentrating, on the opportunity that we have to expand and improve the industrial and manufacturing base as a result of the policies that we put in place, which are now clearly becoming successful. I regret that Opposition Members do not like that success, but it is becoming more evident week after week.

  • PMQT – 16 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Byers : The Prime Minister will know that, according to the latest Government figures, there are now 39 unemployed people chasing every job vacancy. Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning Littlewoods pools stated that the odds against winning a dividend on their coupon are 39 to one? Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how it is that, after 14 years of Conservative Government, an unemployed person has as much chance of getting a job as of winning the pools?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that in recent years in his constituency unemployment has fallen by 20 per cent. Perhaps that is something that he should have borne in mind.

    Mr. Bill Walker : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the taking- stock exercise has gone down extremely well in Scotland? Will he confirm that this Government will never bring forward proposals for unwanted, expensive regional assemblies in England, where over 80 per cent. of taxpayers and the population live, nor will they bring forward proposals for assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that, as, indeed, I did at the last general election. We do not believe that such extra assemblies would be helpful either to democracy or to good government in any part of the United Kingdom. I know that there are contrary views in the House. On the Opposition Benches we find unionists, federalists, separatists and devolutionists. That does not add up to a great deal ; often not even effective opposition.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister publish the report by the Department of Trade and Industry on the state of Britain’s manufacturing industry?

    The Prime Minister : The report to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers was private advice to Ministers and I do not propose to publish it all. I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should raise that question the day after the news that manufacturing output rose to its highest level for 18 months and that it was up on the year before. Perhaps for once the right hon. and learned Gentleman will acknowledge good news.

    Mr. John Smith : So much for open government. The Prime Minister knows that he is the first to publish information whenever it suits him. Why does he wish to conceal from the British public the devastating assessment of the Department of Trade and Industry in his own Administration–I quote from its report–that our manufacturing product base is weak and deteriorating?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is up to his old tricks yet again. Whatever he can do to talk down British industry, he will do. If he read a little further in the report from which he gleans his information he would recognise that our productivity has improved faster than that of Germany, France, Italy or the United States. I ask again : when will the right hon. and learned Gentleman help to talk up British industry and stop talking it down?

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister now see that he should publish the report, because it also says that the main source of new products is imports, that British industry is fundamentally weak, suffering from inadequate investment in new technology, and that there are flaws which it will take decades to remove? Is not it clear to everyone that the reason why he is frightened to publish it is that it reveals that 14 years of Conservative government have done deadly damage to British industry?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain why output in the engineering industry is rising, computers are rising and textile output is rising. Perhaps he will explain why the CBI survey shows yet another increase in output expectations– [Interruption.]

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

    The Prime Minister : They cannot accept anything but bad news as far as this country is concerned, so they will not like the fact that manufacturing investment has risen in each of the past three quarters. Those are the figures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman never mentions. He knows them, but they never pass his lips.

    Mr. Brazier : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measure introduced temporarily last November to ease the Treasury rule on capital receipts for housing authorities was sensible? Will he join me in condemning what is happening in Canterbury, where the Treasury rule is being abused and the housing account is being raided by the Liberal-controlled authority to squander funds on leisure facilities?

    The Prime Minister : I was not myself aware of that particular point, but my hon. Friend has made me aware of it in a most forceful way. I shall pass it on to my right hon. Friend.

     

    Q2. Mr. McAvoy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. McAvoy : Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that one sign of a weak Prime Minister is constant clarification of what he really meant to say. Last Tuesday the Prime Minister talked about “when” Scottish water will be privatised and then tried to cover up by saying that he should have added the words “if implemented”. Does the Prime Minister accept that such weak behaviour fully justifies the Paul Johnson quote :

    “Major is what he is : a man from nowhere, going nowhere, heading for well merited obscurity as fast as his mediocre talents can carry him”?

    The Prime Minister : When the hon. Gentleman gets here, perhaps he can make that sort of remark.

     

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

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

    Mr. Rathbone : Following my right hon. Friend’s answer to the Leader of the Opposition, is he aware that people in manufacturing are indebted to him for his confirmation of the importance of those who work making things? Will he spend a moment today commending the engineering skills that make that possible?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly be happy to do as my hon. Friend says. As he knows, and as I have repeatedly made clear, I believe that manufacturing is vital to the United Kingdom economy and that engineers have a key part to play in that. Figures released yesterday showed an encouraging picture, with output in electrical and mechanical engineering rising strongly, as did manufacturing output overall.

    Mr. Eric Clarke : This is the first chance that I have had to ask the Prime Minister a question. When are the Government going to implement the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which stated that emphysema and bronchitis should be considered as industrial diseases for people who have had mining experience? Is the delay one that saves the Government money since, as we have seen in the past, the claimants die off?

    The Prime Minister : The report has been with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who has been discussing it with colleagues. I hope that an announcement will be able to be made very shortly.

    Sir Michael Grylls : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather a sorry reflection on the standards of the Opposition that the Leader of the Opposition has to rely on the material–

    Madam Speaker : Order. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister is responsible only for Government policy, not for what the Leader of the Opposition gets up to.

    Sir Michael Grylls : Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Leader of the Opposition to visit British industry, where he could see some of the great successes such as in motor cars, television and the chemical industry, where we are now leading the world?

    The Prime Minister : I would endeavour to encourage that understanding opposite. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard what was said and I look forward to him taking note of it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Banks : I realise that everyone’s mind is on the Budget, but may I ask the Prime Minister to give some thought today to the future plight of great whales, which has a price beyond calculation? Does he recall when some of us came to 10 Downing Street to present a petition signed by half a million people protesting about Norway’s intention to carry on with commercial whaling? Will he now make a protest to the Norwegian Prime Minister so that she and everyone else in Norway knows that if Norway goes ahead with commercial whaling, there will be no place for it in the Community and that appropriate sanctions will be taken against that country?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly raise the point that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which he has raised with me before and which we have raised with Norway on a number of occasions in the past. But I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s advice on the second point. Norway is keen, I think, to join the Community and I hope that in due course she will.

     

    Q5. Mr. Faber : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Faber : In the light of reports last week that about 30 per cent. of 14-year-olds now achieve a reading age of between nine and 11, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever that these children are rigorously tested regularly and that the results are made available to their parents? Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the disgraceful action proposed by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers which will wreak havoc in the classroom?

    The Prime Minister : I very much agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend’s remarks. No one can be happy with the level of achievement in English that is thrown up by the report, but if we are to help pupils and raise standards, we need testing and the national curriculum. If we get the tests, we shall see which children are falling behind and we shall then be in a position to take action to help them. I would certainly deplore any action to disrupt those tests and I look for support in that from every part of the House.

    Mrs. Fyfe : Would the Prime Minister like to demonstrate his support for open government by instructing the Secretary of State for Scotland to publish details of the secret correspondence he had with the leader of the Scottish National party?

    The Prime Minister : I rather thought that it had been published.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : During his visits behind what used to be the iron curtain, did my right hon. Friend have a chance to go shopping, as I did recently on a visit to Kiev, where I discovered that the contents of the very best department store were about the equivalent of a boot sale on a bad Sunday afternoon? Is not it true that, despite the attempts of the Opposition to talk this country down, this is still the best democracy in the world? But, before we hand over our government to Brussels, should not we consult the British people through a referendum?

    The Prime Minister : For one magical moment I thought my hon. Friend was going to carry me entirely with her. I strongly agree with the first part of her question and I think that no one is in any doubt about the acutely difficult situation faced by the Russian Parliament and by the Russian leadership at the moment. We very much hope that the Group of Seven will be able to help the reform movement in Russia and we certainly intend to do so. So far as the referendum is concerned, I can give no comfort to my hon. Friend.

     

    Q7. Mr. Miller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Miller : On 31 March last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told Channel 4 News :

    “We will not have to increase taxes. I cannot see any circumstances in which that will be necessary.”

    Does the Prime Minister appreciate that if the Chancellor breaks that pledge in a few moments’ time, no one will ever trust anybody on the Government Benches again?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will not have long to wait on that point. It is an odd question to come from him, when the leader of his party said recently:

    “Well, we change our policies as we move towards a different election. We’re not necessarily committed to what we did at a particular election.”

  • Mr Major’s Article on Industry and Manufacturing – 12 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s article on industry and manufacturing, published on Friday 12th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    British manufacturing is vital for our economic future. And British industry is performing far better than most people realise. Time after time, businessmen tell me of international successes that somehow don’t make the headlines. Who is providing the steel to build the new rail terminal at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris? A British company in Bolton. Which country is exporting Nissan cars to Japan? Britain is. The statistics tell the same story. Manufacturing productivity is up in Britain; so is manufacturing investment; so are manufactured exports – up 6 per cent, in the last quarter of 1992, compared with a year ago.

    Of course, we have a long way to go. There will be setbacks along the way; and – sadly – the last element to turn up in any recovery tends to be employment. But the Institute of Directors’ survey for February showed that business leaders are becoming much more optimistic about their companies’ prospects. This message is reinforced by the latest CBI survey, reporting the biggest rise in car sales for nearly five years, more confidence among retailers and a willingness to increase investment. More houses are being built; and the House Builders’ Federation has just reported a 20 per cent rise in sales. All these figures were released in recent days, but you could be forgiven for missing them in the prevailing gloom.

    I want to see every sector of the economy enjoy recovery. We have a strong service sector. The City of London in particular is a huge generator of export earnings for Britain. Before the 1980s, there was a tendency to undervalue such contributions. Even the name we gave to them – “invisible earnings” – suggested there was somehow something unreal about them.

    In the 1980s, we came to realise services were a big plus to the British economy. But making things matters, too. To earn Britain’s way in the world, we also need a strong, competitive and productive manufacturing base.

    Private enterprise – not government – will create that. Unlike our political opponents, I do not want to go back to a failed past of subsidies and state control. They want to rob successful companies through extra taxes to prop up the weak. I want to get government off business’s back; to set business free to succeed. So let me explain what I believe Government can do to help British industry.

    Its first responsibility is to make sure the fundamentals are right. By that I mean – above all else – low inflation. Our inflation rate has been below the average for the European Community for 18 months now. At 1.7 per cent in January, the headline figure is the lowest for a generation. Low inflation helps industry control its costs and compete abroad. We have the lowest interest rates in the European Community. We have a highly competitive exchange rate. And in our factories costs are rising more slowly in Britain than in Japan or Germany – a sure recipe for export success, and for securing a bigger share of our home market, too.

    With the labour market reforms set under way by Margaret Thatcher, and pursued again in this Parliament, we won our way to industrial peace just in time to take advantage of the huge opportunity presented by the European Single Market. Manufacturing investment has flooded into Britain. Companies like Nissan, Toyota and Sony have brought new jobs and confidence to British manufacturing.

    With the unique version of the Treaty we secured at Maastricht, we have achieved the best of both worlds for inward investors: a Britain inside Europe and outside the Social Chapter. If others want to add costs that make their industry uncompetitive, that’s their business – but perhaps not for long. Once the Maastricht Treaty is ratified, Britain will be the best launch pad for manufacturing success in Europe.

    Our European policy is the second element in our strategy to create the right conditions for British business. It leads to the third, which we are pursuing in Brussels, Whitehall – yes, and town hall too: too roll back regulation.

    We have made a start, at Maastricht, in putting the brakes on Brussels intervention. But too much regulation is home-grown: dreamt up with too little thought, enforced with too much zeal. We have to look again at factory regulations that define mild washing up liquids as hazardous substances. And we have to look more closely at the way European directives grow another layer of regulation when they pass through the hands of our own bureaucracy. The rule too often seems to be: two bits of red tape are better than one. Let me offer you a better rule: red tape costs jobs. That is why, as part of his Deregulation Initiative, I have asked Michael Heseltine to take an especially close look at the way we implement European rules.

    Deregulation doesn’t just help our big, established companies. It clears the obstacles in the way of the new ones that will create the jobs of the future – the jobs that will replace those lost as older firms become more efficient. That means encouraging entrepreneurs, and nurturing innovative ideas.

    The fourth strand in our strategy is to build new bridges between British research and its industrial application. That is why I have appointed William Waldegrave to take responsibility for science, research and development at Cabinet level; and he will be publishing a White Paper shortly on the links between research and wealth creation.

    The fifth – and perhaps most important – strand lies in our policies for education, maths, science and technology are now locked into the curriculum for every child. We are expanding the numbers going on to further education, by nearly a quarter of a million young people over the next three years.

    But we cannot rest content with raw numbers. I have spoken before of the need to create, through vocational qualifications, another ladder of opportunity for young people. John Patten and Gillian Shephard are looking across the board at education and training for 16-19 year olds: to ensure that in quality and relevance we equip young people with the skills for success in the twenty-first century.

    This will help to break down some of the ingrained, senseless prejudices that have directed too many able young people away from industry, commerce and manufacturing. We need to build up craft skills and practical training, as well as enterprise and business initiative.

    Harold Macmillan once said: “Exporting is fun”. Maybe; but in the competitive world of the 1990s, it is also very hard work. Government can’t export for business; but it can help to open doors. And that is the sixth strand in my strategy to help build up our manufacturing base.

    In Europe, we have created a Single market of 340 million people – the biggest in the world. But that is not enough. The world is our market; and we will continue to work hard for the successful completion of the world trade talks, because this will bring down tariffs on British goods, protect British inventions and open new markets for British services too.

    In the Autumn Statement, Norman Lamont helped by providing extra export credits. And when I went to India recently, I took a group of top British businessmen with me – a practice I hope to repeat on other visits. Together, on the same trip, we secured some key orders in the Middle East: Challenger Tanks in the afternoon in Oman; and Tornados in the evening in Riyadh.

    The Government will do all it can to help industry fight its battles for Britain. But I know where the real credit lies behind every success: with the businessmen, the engineers, workers at every level in the companies concerned. Together, Government and industry can make a reality of my ambition – to see more of what matters made in Britain.

  • PMQT – 9 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Roger Moate : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Sir Roger Moate : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to sign up to the social chapter would inflict incalculable damage on British business and hold back economic recovery? Will he confirm that he will continue to resist the social chapter and can I tell him that in doing so he certainly has my support and should have the support of everyone on this side of the House?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The social chapter would be bad for Britain. It would damage British industry, choke off foreign investment and destroy jobs. I have to say to the House that delay in ratifying the Maastricht treaty would do exactly the same thing. The treaty is in the national interest and we shall pursue it. We want to be inside Europe and outside the social charter.

    Mr. John Smith : Bearing in mind the widespread support for the Committee of the Regions to be composed of elected representatives, including support for that proposition from the Tory-controlled local authority associations, what on earth did the Prime Minister think he was doing in opposing an amendment that any real democrat should have supported?

    The Prime Minister : It was a very bad amendment and it was a very bad amendment for this reason : we made it perfectly clear in the debate that we are not against the inclusion of elected local government representatives, but there are others, including business men, who could add value to its work. That would add an element of flexibility and other partners in Europe have come to similar conclusions. Only Holland and Greece have so far made their nominations to the committee and neither of those countries has confined its membership to elected representatives.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that it was his own foolishness and obstinacy which led him to oppose an amendment which, if he had an ounce of judgment, he could have accepted months ago?

    The Prime Minister : The reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon takes that view is quite clear. He is embarrassed that he has neglected his principles yet again on this Bill. I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what this country cannot afford : the lost jobs, the lost investment and the lost influence that would be put at risk if we were seen to turn our backs on this treaty and our place in Europe, as he and his vote last night indicate that he would do.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the right hon. Gentleman a fine one to talk about delay, when he promised the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that Third Reading would be delayed until the Danish referendum? Is not the painful truth for the Prime Minister that far from being stabbed in the back, as he complains he has been, he has shot himself in the foot?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said one thing and done another on Europe time after time and in this country and, in Europe, no one will ever trust him again on this issue.

    Mr. Quentin Davies : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the police on their superb achievement in finding a major hoard of Semtex and in making a number of connected arrests? Does he agree that the defence of society against murder by terrorists is a responsibility of every man and woman and every citizen–including Labour party Members, who until now have continually refused to support the prevention of terrorism Act?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the Labour party will soon have the opportunity to improve on that record. The Opposition have now voted against the prevention of terrorism Act on 11 occasions. Unless they vote with us tomorrow on that Act they should pipe down on crime for good.

     

    Q2. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Is the Prime Minister aware of the devastation caused by water cut-offs to tens of thousands of individuals and families in England and Wales? Will he guarantee that there will be no change in Scots law to allow any such domestic cut-offs in Scotland, particularly as part of any Tory plans to steal, privatise or franchise Scottish water? [Interruption.] It is obvious that this lot do not care, judging by the noise that they make, but we do.

    The Prime Minister : I can give the hon. Gentleman no comfort on that point. Privatisation means a better, more efficient service for the consumer and no more subsidies from the taxpayer. I have no reason to doubt that water privatisation in Scotland will be effective and efficient, as elsewhere.

    Mrs. Peacock : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1992 the United Kingdom clothing industry exported goods worth £2.25 billion, an increase of 8.5 per cent? Is not that a fine example of our first quality manufacturing industry?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. There is no doubt that the clothing industry and many other manufacturing industries have dramatically increased their exports, not least as a result of the changed economic climate and the changed management structures in so many companies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Does the Prime Minister consider that there is any connection between the prevailing values of the nation and the prevailing values of the Government? Is not there a clear connection between record levels of crime and social breakdown and this Government, who have consistently, in every policy since 1979, appealed to personal selfishness, personal greed and looking after number one?

    The Home Secretary talks about dealing with nasty pieces of work. Is not it true that this country has been run by some nasty pieces of work for the past 14 years and that we are now having to deal with the social consequences?

    The Prime Minister : In the 1980s the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends blamed affluence for crime. These days they tend to blame unemployment for crime. When, if ever, will they blame the criminal, who is truly responsible?

    Sir George Gardiner : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from Maastricht, he enjoys the united support of this party for the Asylum Bill ; the Education Bill ; the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill ; the National Lottery etc. Bill ; with one exception, the Railways Bill ; the Chancellor’s autumn statement ; and his leadership?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right to point to huge areas of agreement and to the enormous extent to which this year’s parliamentary programme has already passed through this House and is in another place. I look forward to completing the rest of our programme, including the European [small section missing].

     

    Communities (Amendment) Bill.

    Q4. Mr. Chisholm : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Chisholm : Will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that, whatever else he may try to impose on the Scottish people, he will never seek to change the law which makes the obscenity of water privatisation illegal in Scotland? Will he also give an assurance that he will do not deals on that or any other issue with the Scottish National party? If he does, may we have a copy of the letter, as happened last night?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that when a really substantial deal was done between the Labour party and minority parties, it was in 1970 and it was done by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition.

    As far as water privatisation is concerned, I made my view clear a few moments ago and it will remain as I stated it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Faber : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Faber : Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest Institute of Directors survey, which shows that optimism among business directors about the future of their companies is now at an all-time high since August 1988? Does he agree that that is encouraging news for economic recovery and shows that confidence is returning to businesses, despite the best efforts of Opposition Members to talk Britain down?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right and the number of Opposition Members who were scoffing at the good news he just set out illustrates his point more clearly than anything else. The Institute of Directors survey comes on top of an optimistic survey by the CBI– [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like that, but it is true. They do not want to know that retail sales rose 1.4 per cent. in January, that car registrations were up 16 per cent. in February and that housing starts and completions are up. They know that good news for the country is bad news for them.

    Mr. Garrett : Is not it the hallmark of a discredited Prime Minister always to say that anybody who criticises him or his policies is unpatriotic?

    The Prime Minister : Only when it is untrue.

     

    Q6. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Is not the decision of the Home Secretary to publish league tables of the relative performances of our police forces welcome, not least at a time when the Government are spending more than ever on the police and when there are more policemen on the streets? Surely the ordinary citizen is entitled to know the relative performance of his local police force.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that he is so entitled and we intend to ensure that he can. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support that and I hope that Opposition Members will not fight the right to give more information to the public in the way they have fought every other right to give more information to the public. They are in favour of freedom of information only in the abstract, not in the reality.

     

    Q7. Mr. Rooney : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Rooney : Is the Prime Minister aware that tomorrow it will be 22 weeks since the President of the Board of Trade promised to intervene before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner? In view of his absolute lack of intervention in those 22 weeks, are we to assume that he has been on hunger strike, or has there been a military coup?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been asleep for 22 weeks. Let me remind him of some of the things that have happened. There has been the autumn statement, increased capital allowances, the abolition of car tax, maintained capital expenditure, a low inflation rate, low interest rates, competitive exchange rates, pushing towards an agreement on GATT and a large number of tours abroad to sell British business. Where has the hon. Gentleman been that he has missed every one of those things?

     

    Q8. Mr. Duncan-Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Duncan-Smith : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the reports that the Holland Park school, one-time flagship of trendy 1960s educational teaching, has now started to change tack? Will he contrast that with the support it is now giving to the excellent educational reforms which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is pushing through against the rubbishy education policies coming from the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen that report, but I certainly very much welcome it. There is growing recognition that the damaging and discreditable theories of the 1960s so admired by the Opposition belong in the history books, but certainly no longer belong in the classrooms. Even the pioneers of those theories recognise that and I hope that soon everyone will acknowledge it.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Principals and Chairs of Governing Bodies – 1 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Principals and Chairs of Governing Bodies, made on 1st March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nearly two years ago I launched the White Paper “Education and Training for the 21st Century”. I launched it myself because I passionately believe we must open up wider and better opportunities for young people and adults.

    A key part of that reform has been the establishment of the new further education sector. It comes into effect next month. From that time, FE colleges will be cut loose from control by local authorities, and you will gain a new freedom. Freedom to plan courses with much more certainty that the necessary funds will be available. Freedom to expand to meet student demand. Freedom to respond to the needs of local employers. Freedom to manage your own finances and your own buildings.

    We didn’t make this change for ideological reasons. We made it for the strictly practical reason that we want more and better further education.

    We want all young people to develop to the best of their ability. We want to give adults the option of a “second chance”. We want to ensure that British business and industry has people with the right skills. In the global market place, we need a world class workforce. That must start with education.

    The priority we give to further education is reflected in our public expenditure plans. They provide for an unprecedented 25 % increase in student numbers over the next three years. That increased number of students will be taking an improved range of qualifications: the new General National Vocational Qualifications will stand alongside equally esteemed A levels and National Vocational Qualifications.

    The Government’s commitment is reflected in the National Education and Training Targets. And in John Patten’s proposal for a Charter for the further education sector.

    But, of course, none of this happens without people. In particular, without you. I would like to welcome everyone here tonight, especially you, nearly 500 college principals; the chairmen of governors – representing the wealth of local expertise freely brought to bear in each college governing body; and of course Bob Gunn, Bill Stubbs and all the other members and officers of the Further Education Funding Council.

    Over two million students – full and part time – are educated in your colleges. You have a key role to play. You face new responsibilities as well as new freedoms. I give you my very best wishes for the future.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Local Government Conference – 27 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference, held in London on Saturday 27th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Two years ago, at this Conference, I spoke about my roots in Lambeth. It was where I learned how politics shapes people’s lives. That same local government learning curve is followed with benefit by many in our Party – like those who sat in this hall two years ago and now sit in Parliament. They have brought with them the experience of local government: the best experience it is possible to have.

    One thing local government taught me was – don’t always listen to the experts. Listen to the people. It was a lesson I relearned at the General Election. All the experts said we would lose – but we won. And won by doing what the wise men said we shouldn’t do.

    And again, on May 6th, whatever the wise men say, we’re going to see more Conservative Councils and more Conservative councillors. And we’ll do so because Conservative Councils Cost You Less and Serve You Better. And Labour and Liberal Councils cost you more – and serve you right.

    Unemployment

    In a moment I want to turn to the future of local government. But first let me deal with one of the issues that most concern people at present – the need for jobs.

    Every politician cares about unemployment. It’s the trivial politics of simple abuse to suggest otherwise. We all want to see more permanent jobs. But the worst thing any of us can do is to pretend there is some quick fix solution. To kid ourselves and mislead others that with some as yet undiscovered potion there’d be jobs for all.

    As the Government, it is our duty to set out the plain truth. So let me do so. But, because it is relevant, let me first put it in context. Unemployment is not just a problem in this country. It is nearly worldwide. Does anyone think the Spanish government want unemployment at nearly 20 per cent? That France wants three million without jobs? That the [indistinct] government are happy that one in six of their population are unemployed? From Canada to Australia, from the USA to France, from Germany to the UK, unemployment has worsened seriously in every country. In recent days, as Leyland-Daf collapsed in Holland with job losses in the United Kingdom, Volkswagen in Germany cut 36,000 jobs, Boeing 28,000 in the US and Nissan and NTT in Japan announced they would shed 35,000 jobs.

    When pessimists knock Britain and damage our prospects, I hope you will answer back. Set out the facts that show we are poised for recovery. Remind them that interest rates are at their lowest since 1977; inflation is at its lowest since 1967; mortgage rates for first- time buyers lower than at any time since 1956.

    And tell them of our trade prospects. Exports are at record levels. Who would have thought a few years ago that we would be exporting cars to Japan? Yet we’re doing just that – in growing numbers. And now we have the biggest market in the world on our doorstep. More of our workforce in this country are in jobs than Italy, France, Spain, Germany or almost any European country you care to name.

    Last year, in the depths of recession, 400,000 new firms set up in business. In Europe five out of the top 10 companies are British. So are 11 Out of the top 20 and 17 out of the top 30. Today, we have the lowest number of strikes in recorded history. These are the conditions that encourage so many foreign companies to invest in Britain, bringing prosperity and jobs with them. Another £100 million worth of American investment was announced just yesterday creating up to 700 jobs. And on the same day, Michael Howard gave the go-ahead to Derby’s City Challenge Action Plan which will create over 4,600 new jobs. I know there are difficulties. In no sense do I ignore them. But don’t let us overlook the good news or we risk perpetuating the bad news.

    We don’t help the unemployed by spreading doom, gloom and depression. We help our competitors. Other countries don’t talk themselves down. And neither should we. The best way to help unemployed people back into work is to have confidence in our nation and self-confidence in ourselves.

    It has been a long haul to put the economic conditions in place for sustained growth and lasting jobs. Now we must take advantage of them. The European Commission predicts that we will be the fastest growing economy in the EC next year. Let’s prove them right. We have done it before. And we can do it again. And it will help enormously if we ditch this habit of national self-denigration. It isn’t necessary. And it isn’t helpful.

    Getting people back to work will take time and it will take persistence. It will be a hard fight. It will need growth in the economy. But we are determined to achieve it.

    The long-term strategy is right. But we have a short term problem to deal with too. So let me tell you what we are doing. We have a massive programme of support for people who are unemployed. Helping them to find work where possible. Keeping them in touch with the labour market. Encouraging them to use their time constructively. We want to do more to keep people in touch with the world of work, either by giving them new opportunities for work experience, or, in some cases, making sure they take advantage of existing opportunities.

    Our employment programmes are being expanded further from this April. Expanded to offer opportunities for 1.5 million people to get back into work. We are producing practical measures to deal with this problem. Labour call for us to “do something”. But whenever we bring in programmes to help – youth training, job interview guarantees, training for work, Jobclubs, Restart, and our Jobplan Workshops – what do they do? Labour vote against those programmes. “Do something”, they say. Well, they could do something too. Get Out of the ‘No’ lobby and onto the side of those looking for work. And that’s where they’ll find us.

    And one other thing. We reject – and will continue to reject – the Social Chapter. France can complain as much as it likes. If investors and businesses choose to come to Britain rather than pay the costs of socialism in France, let them call it social dumping. I call it dumping socialism.

    Let Jacques Delors accuse us of creating a paradise for foreign investors. I am happy to plead guilty. Again and again we warned our European partners about the Social Chapter. And now that our warning has turned out to be right we are not changing policy. They can have the Social Chapter. We’ll have the jobs.

    The importance of local government

    I don’t need persuading about the importance of local government. I know and feel it in my bones. It forms a central part of my political beliefs. So let me set out for you my credo for the future of local government.

    Above all, I want the 1990s to see a renaissance of local government – with modem, forward-looking local leadership. Rooted in civic pride. Rooted in ideals of public service that made household names of so many Conservative council leaders in the past.

    Second, local councils, like central government, must commit themselves to better quality in public service. People won’t be fobbed off any more with the old excuses – and rightly so.

    Third, local government must work with central government to give people more responsibility over their own lives.

    Fourth, it’s time to set a structure for local government that will last. We need to define its responsibilities once and for all. And then let you carry them out.

    Fifth, we must build a new accountability fit for the 21st century – a new accountability that goes directly from those who run public services to those who use them. Many local government services impact directly on the family. In these areas, particularly housing and education, people want to exercise their own choices, not subcontract them wholly to Government – however benevolent and well intentioned Government may be.

    Local Government Structure

    I believe we have a system of local government finance that will last. Now we must seek a structure of local authorities that will stand the test of time as well. I want this change in structure to be the best – and the last.

    There is, I think, a widespread view that the structure and responsibilities of local government are not as clear as they should be. The pattern is too complex. There is a case for structural change.

    But a structure that lasts will not be one that Whitehall has imposed. It will be one that grows naturally from people’s loyalties and local traditions. That’s why we have no national blueprint for local government structure.

    In the 1880s this Party set out a pattern of local government that endured for a century. In the 1990s I want to agree a new pattern – one that lasts, in its turn, well into the century to come. I want an end to the wrangling and the wrestling about structure and functions. I want agreement about the proper role of local government – where it is, what it is, and how it should perform. I want you to know what that role is. I want the public to know it. Then I want to leave you to get on with the job. My message is straightforward: let’s stop batting one another around the head and get on with good government.

    Where the system works well, don’t let’s change it. And let me tell you one other thing, plain and simple. There is going to be no – repeat no – new tier of regional government set above you. That is a cock-eyed idea of our opponents – without identity, without price, without principle and without purpose. And that applies to our opponents as well as that idea. It’s just another half-baked piece of socialism we can do without. We are getting rid of regional monstrosities in Scotland; we have no intention of re-inventing them elsewhere.

    Local government in the modern era

    We are the Conservative Party. Think what that means. It means we do not change for change’s sake. We only change for improvement. And we look for improvement in local government because we care about it.

    I want our reforms to be the friend of local government, not the enemy. The more effective local government is, the more popular it will be. We want to show people which councils are serving them best – and those councils will be Conservative councils.

    The public pay their taxes compulsorily. They should be given more information voluntarily. That’s why we are allowing the Audit Commission power to publish more comparative league tables of performance – powers I hope they will use. Local people should have the chance to judge how their councils are doing. Let’s give them straight answers to the questions they ask. They deserve them – and we must give them.

    Quality Service from Conservative Councils

    I know that not everyone welcomes the new openness. Even some Conservatives are uneasy. We shouldn’t be. It is one of the great differences between us and the other parties. We recognise that this is the age of the consumer, not the producer. And the new ethos of public service and value for money must apply as much to the local council as it does in the market place.

    No-one here has anything to fear from that. It is in Conservative councils that you’ll find the best quality at the best price. I don’t have to look far for proof of that – Huntingdonshire District have set the council tax for a Band C property at minus £4. But I’m the first to concede that my neck of the woods does not have a monopoly of virtue – Hambleton has come in at minus £10, and Wellingborough even lower.

    It’s in Labour councils that you’ll find the homes left empty, the rents uncollected, the inefficiency and worse.

    If you doubt that’s true, consider this. Labour councils are planning to charge nearly £100 more in council tax than Conservative ones. Liberal Democrats are planning £50 more. That’s the soggy Left for you – Labour will take an arm and a leg; the Liberals an arm or a leg. But the poor old taxpayer is clobbered either way. And isn’t it just typical of the Liberals? They never did know their arm from their elbow.

    Creating a New Accountability

    I spoke also of a new accountability. Let me say more about what we mean by that.

    We mean direct accountability – of supplier to customer. It is parents who have the strongest interest in the success of their children’s school. So give them the right to ensure that the school delivers. Give them the information about how the schools in their town or district are, doing. Give them the chance to choose the school in the first place.

    Council tenants want more control over the management of their lives. So give them the chance to buy – and help them to do so. And if they don’t want to buy, give them the assurance that remote, incompetent and unresponsive management will be shaken up. Give them the information about the standards of service they’re getting, and the right to choose.

    Hardly revolutionary, you might think. Yet there are still some in the Labour Party who claim that to give people more information upon which to base their choices is an assault on democracy.

    Don’t you find that astonishing? Is that not really a perversion of logic and language. How can giving choice be an assault on democracy? How can giving more information be an assault on democracy? So much for the fine talk from Labour about being the Party of the individual. What they mean is that Labour is the Party that likes to tell individuals what to do.

    Let us be the Party that tells individuals what Government is doing.

    We give them information.

    We give them choice.

    And we give them power.

    These are the policies that people want. And if Labour really understood individuals they would know that. All of us here today have a sense of common purpose. Michael Howard and his team have been working hard to build an ever closer relationship between Conservative councils and a Conservative Government. And what you have done to introduce the Council Tax smoothly is a tribute to that new spirit as well. We serve the same people in the same country and we serve them best when we work together.

    Enabling Businesses to Grow

    Let me tell you of some of the other key areas where I want Conservative government – central and local – to be working in partnership in the ’90s.

    All of us in public service have our part to play in getting the economy growing again. You know – as I know – that we are entering a very difficult time for public sector spending. But the truth is that for the economy to grow, we have to reduce the cost of the public sector.

    This year’s local authority settlement is tight. So is public spending as a whole. We have a 1.5 per cent limit on public sector pay. I know many of you are being very robust in your budgeting this year. But with inflation now down to 1.7 per cent, there is no better time for pushing through tough decisions on spending and pay.

    And, in our battle for more jobs, there is more we can do to help business. Take planning. Of course we must cherish and protect our heritage. No one doubts that. But restrictive planning policies can shut the door on business opportunities. Wherever possible, we should be helping new businesses locate in our areas, and help people to move where jobs are available – not stand in their way.

    And you can help, too, by getting unnecessary regulation off businesses’ backs. I acknowledge that we in government have often gone too far in imposing unnecessary regulatory duties on local councils. Well, that’s going to stop.

    But I need your help too. Some council departments enforce such regulations with too heavy a hand. We must stop that as well.

    So here are some questions for you to ask your Environmental Health Officers and your social services departments. And perhaps they should ask their clients too.

    Why do so many nursery schools complain about social services inspection? Do Environmental Health Officers really take account of local needs when they inspect the local shop? Do they insist on higher standards for the private and voluntary sectors than they do in the public sector?

    We have to make deregulation effective. So I ask for your help to do so. It is one sure way of helping businesses to grow. Prospects to grow. And jobs to grow.

    Better Housing

    And, in local government, you have other ways to join us in extending choice and opportunity to all.

    In housing, it was Conservative, councils who pioneered the right to buy. They saw an opportunity to help people achieve their dreams of home ownership. And they did so. And government followed where local government led. As a result, nearly one and a half million council tenants have become home owners under Right to Buy since 1979.

    And don’t believe it when people say that the demand for home ownership is past. I don’t accept that for a second.

    That is why the Housing bill, now before Parliament, gives tenants a new right to become home-owners by converting their rents into mortgage payments.

    And now – with mortgage rates for first time buyers the lowest since 1956 – now is the time to remind tenants that they can have huge discounts when buying their home.

    Michael Howard and his team will be launching a new campaign to spread the Right to Buy. They will be taking that message to more than a million tenants this spring.

    I want you to help them spread that message. Help those people to know the pride of ownership. To have their very own piece of Britain. And to build up something for themselves and for their children.

    Better Education

    We must also give parents a bigger say in the education of their children. More schools are going grant maintained. All schools are running more of their own budgets. And I don’t expect to hear of Conservative councils standing in their way. We must always remember what we are fighting for – and what we are fighting against. In the 1980s, housing was the chosen battleground for the Left. The Right to Buy challenged their biggest power base. Why? Because it gave people what they wanted – independence and a stake in our country’s future. That policy brought great dividends to the Party, our Party which made it possible.

    Education is still a battleground for the Left and for the same reasons. Education can liberate. An educated person is hard to oppress. It is education above all that makes a society of opportunity and breaks the bonds of class. To parents it brings that most priceless gift: the certainty that their children will have better opportunities than they ever had.

    That’s why the Conservative Party – in central and local government alike – must recognise that our education reforms are the most vital of all for our country. Don’t listen to those who want to cloak exam results in secrecy. Don’t listen to those who want to keep parents locked outside the school gate. I won’t mince my words: the campaign against testing is a disgrace – a smokescreen thrown up to cover the disastrous results of failed educational theories.

    So let’s make parents and pupils the driving force in our schools. Let people in years to come look back and remember that it was we – we in this Party – who set the course for a revolution in the standard and quality of education. Who threw away the nostrums of the ’60s. Who let our teachers do the job as commonsense tells them best. There’s a lot at stake in this battle. So go out and win it.

    The Message of Conservatism

    This Spring, we face County Council elections. Take this message with you as you campaign.

    If you want to keep the Council Tax low, vote Conservative.

    If you want high standards in schools, vote Conservative.

    If you want local government that puts people first, vote Conservative.

    Our councillors know no equals in dedication, determination and commitment. You get involved to make things better. You don’t turn away and leave it to others. So don’t be bashful. Go and get out there. Tell them what you stand for. Tell them what you have achieved. Tell them what you plan for the future.

    That is what you’ve always done. That is why you win. And that is why you’ll deserve to win again on May 6th.

  • PMQT – 4 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Liam Fox : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Dr. Fox : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the positive response to what he said last night–that the Government will consider new ways to give extra help to unemployed people and to keep them in touch with the jobs market? Is not that open-minded approach in stark contrast with the closed minds but open mouths of Labour Members?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. My concern is to make sure, wherever possible, that we keep unemployed people in touch with the world of work. Both here and elsewhere, that is a vital issue and I believe that we need a public debate on it. It is right to look at all the radical options and we propose to do so. That may mean offering more opportunities, for example, of volunteering, or extending an element of compulsion, which we already have in Restart. I do not believe that we should shy away from considering those options, and we will not.

    Mr. John Smith : After a week of chaos over Government economic policy and yet more redundancies in British industry, does the Prime Minister understand that it is vital for British manufacturing industry that Leyland DAF should not be allowed to collapse, as there are 5,500 jobs at stake in the company and 10,000 among its suppliers? Will the Prime Minister undertake that if the Dutch and Belgian Governments rescue their parts of the company, the British Government will do at least the same for Leyland DAF?

    The Prime Minister : No. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the receivers appointed yesterday at Leyland DAF have made it clear that they believe that at least parts of the business can be saved as a commercially viable business without unnecessary state hand-outs. I believe that that is the way to proceed.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand the concern which exists in the country because of the Government’s record of neglect of manufacturing industry, and the hesitancy and ambiguity of statements made by the Government? Can the Prime Minister not give a clear undertaking that he will do for Britain what the Dutch and Belgian Governments will do for their countries?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking us to do what has been tried in the past by previous Labour Governments and others and has failed. He should recall the disastrous outcome of the Labour Government’s merger of Leyland with the British Motor Corporation, involving millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money; later they had to nationalise it, which cost even more millions. Much of that money paid for wasteful working practices and unjustified wage increases insisted on by the unions. That was Labour’s idea of industrial strategy and it is clear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it still is. He has learnt nothing.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that that long answer will cause even greater concern to the people in Leyland DAF? Does he not understand that in the real world outside the Carlton club people see a Government lurching from one muddle to another, whether it be interest rates, defence cuts or workfare? Can he not set one simple objective and stick to it? Leyland DAF is a vital British interest and it ought to be secured.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade set out our position quite clearly the other day. Hon. Members must understand that we are not prepared to spend taxpayers’ money to provide working capital for companies in difficulty. Many private companies need more working capital from time to time ; it is simply not realistic to expect the Government to provide it. That approach was tried in the 1960s; it failed. It was tried in the 1970s; it failed. That is the economic reality which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should face up to.

    Mr. Onslow : Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday’s announcement about the size of the Army is particularly welcome as renewed proof that the Government are ready to respond to changing circumstances overseas? As the Opposition are committed to a 25 per cent. cut in the defence budget, will he use his influence with the Leader of the House to make sure that we have an early debate on the subject?

    The Prime Minister : The measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday are a small but necessary adjustment to a changing world situation. They will ensure that the Army has the flexibility and resilience necessary to meet challenges in the years ahead. Had the Opposition been in power and carried out their defence policies, they would have slashed £6 billion off defence. I wonder what they would have said then about the defence jobs that would have been lost.

     

    Q2. Mr. Galbraith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Galbraith : In view of the continuing uncertainty in the money markets, can the Prime Minister say whether his Chancellor will be presenting not only the March Budget but the December Budget? May I have a straightforward answer? Will the current Chancellor be presenting the December Budget–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot imagine anyone other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer presenting a Budget.

     

    Q3. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Duncan : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that criminals, even teenage criminals and other young offenders, are responsible for their own actions and deserve to be punished accordingly? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that it is Government policy to punish such young offenders and not to make excuses for them like the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no excuse for crime. Society is not to blame, and individuals are. For a small number of persistent juvenile offenders we need a new approach. We need new powers to put them into secure accommodation where they can be trained for a useful future. Unless they are trained at an early stage, we betray them, for we leave them in a position where they may believe that crime is justifiable and then wreck their lives as well as other people’s.

    Mr. Ashdown rose– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is a very important time, not only for the House, but for people outside who watch and attempt to listen to us. The House must come to order before we can make any further progress.

    Mr. Ashdown : In the light of the Prime Minister’s previous answer and his speech last night, will he assure the House that he understands that any scheme designed to make the victims of his policies the inmates of a compulsory ghetto of low wage and no hope would be rightly condemned? But a policy and programme designed to give the long-term unemployed real training and real job experience–one like the community programme from which I and thousands of others benefited 10 years ago–would be well worth considering.

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had read my speech before asking his question he might not have asked it in that form.

     

    Q4. Mr. Sumberg : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Sumberg : Has my right hon. Friend noticed reports in today’s press that the National Union of Teachers is requiring its members to boycott the English test for 14-year-olds? Is not that disgraceful decision a grave disservice not only to parents and children but to the vast majority of decent and honourable teachers who serve the community?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I believe that it is a disgraceful decision, and one which, in time, the NUT itself will regret. English is the single most important subject in the curriculum, and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to insist that grammar and standard school English should be taught in our schools. I condemn without reservation the action proposed by the NUT and I utterly deplore the politically motivated campaign being waged by some members of that union. They said yesterday :

    “A boycott of English tests presents militants with an opportunity to broaden the current struggle.”

    Those militants are playing politics with children’s futures, and the sooner the NUT denounces them the better it will be for everyone.

     

    Q5. Ms. Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Ms. Eagle : Is the Prime Minister aware that this week sees the 75th anniversary of the occasion of women’s gaining the vote? Is it not an insult that his Government have decided to celebrate this great anniversary by abolishing wages councils, thereby adversely affecting the earnings of 2 million women?

    The Prime Minister : Certainly not. We believe in equality.

     

    Deregulation

    Q6. Mr. Jenkin : To ask the Prime Minister what conclusions were reached at his seminar on deregulation held on 2 February.

    The Prime Minister : We agreed to review all 7,000 regulations currently imposed on businesses, with the aim of abolishing regulations wherever possible. Where they cannot be abolished–for overriding reasons of health or safety, for example–we shall work to simplify them. We agreed also that future proposals for new regulations must always spell out the costs to businesses of complying with them. We must not impose burdensome regulations on business unless they are absolutely necessary, and we are determined not to do so.

    Mr. Jenkin : I thank my right hon. Friend for his response, which will be most welcome to businesses in my constituency and in all other parts of the country. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his junior Ministers have absolute freedom to seek out and destroy unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation, in whichever Government Department or whichever institution it may reside?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is precisely the task that I have given to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. There is a problem with excessive regulation in Brussels, but there is also a problem in Whitehall. We need to deal with both.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. McGrady : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Mr. McGrady : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the patients charter that he had published and so ardently supported? The charter sees clinical effectiveness and accessibility as the twin pillars of a good acute hospital service. Is the Prime Minister aware that in many areas, and in particular my constituency of South Down, with an area of 750 square miles, all hospital services are being abolished? Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that action as contrary to the patients charter, and will he take a personal interest in seeing that those scandalous proposals are abandoned?

    The Prime Minister : I was certainly not aware of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to investigate and report back to me.

    Mr. Shersby : Further to my right hon. Friend’s earlier reply about juvenile offenders, does he agree that the two single most important actions that the Government can take to deal with the problem are, first, to stop juvenile offenders reoffending on bail and introduce legislation to deal with that secondly, and to provide the resources for secure accommodation so that youngsters who persistently reoffend can be locked up?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the two points made by my hon. Friend. I assure him that we have both those matters in mind.

     

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates

    Q8. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to prevent Ministers from granting public interest immunity certificates in relation to export licences.

    The Prime Minister : The law on public interest immunity has been developed by the courts over time, and they are the ultimate judge of where the balance of the public interest lies. Public interest immunity is within the terms of reference of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry and we await his report.

    Mr. Dalyell : Should it not be the House of Commons now, rather than Lord Justice Scott in the ever-receding future, that asks for an explanation as to why–in order to protect five Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary–Alan Moses QC for the Crown in court, and the Attorney- General on 12 November, were very seriously economical?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Claiming public interest immunity is an obligation, not a privilege. In any case, the prosecution in the Matrix Churchill trial failed not because of the disclosure of documents but because of the change of evidence of a key witness. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the outcome of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry.

  • PMQT – 19 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Sir John Hannam : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the social chapter, which he skilfully negotiated out of the Maastricht treaty, would destroy investment, business confidence and jobs in this country? Is it not therefore the greatest hypocrisy to support such a damaging measure while at the same time claiming to care for the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. When I negotiated Britain’s exemption from the social chapter I seem to recall that I was accused of making Britain a paradise for foreign investment. I hope very much that that proves to be true. The reality is that the Opposition disagree about that. The truth is that they are hostile to industry and do not understand business. Until they drop their commitment to the social chapter they cannot also claim to be seeking lasting jobs.

    Mr. John Smith : On that very subject, is the Prime Minister aware that of all the Prime Ministers we have had since the war, he has the worst record for growth, the worst record for investment and the worst record for jobs? Is he not ashamed of such a miserable record?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a fine one to talk about records. His record as shadow Chancellor lost Labour a record fourth election precisely because he proposed record tax increases.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not note that he failed completely to deny that he had the worst growth record, the worst investment and the worst employment record? Since there is anger throughout the country [Interruption] –I hope that Conservative Members will not treat unemployment flippantly. Since there is growing anger throughout the whole country at rising unemployment why does the Prime Minister not agree to put a windfall profits tax on the excess profits of monopoly privatised companies and use the money to create jobs?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman also forgot to mention another record of mine ; the record for bringing down inflation so that we can recreate lasting jobs. The fact is that what we just heard is the old Labour party speaking ; the party of the 1960s and 1970s. They hate profits. They would rather have nationalised industries making losses than privatised industries making profits. They cannot stand firms being successful and they do not understand that firms need profits to provide investment, to provide growth, and to provide jobs. That is why their record in government has always been one of complete and record failure.

    Mr. Smith : Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country why it was all right for a Conservative Government to introduce an excess profits tax on banks in the first recession but now to oppose an excess profits tax on the privatised utilities? Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that every pound of these excess profits and of managers’ fat salaries has come from the British people? Is not it time that they got some of it back to create jobs for them and their families?

    The Prime Minister : I am quite happy to educate the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that, since he clearly does not understand. In the early 1980s interest rates were raised sharply to control inflation. At that time, the banks did not pay interest on current accounts. As a result of that, they genuinely made windfall profits. That was why the Government taxed them. The utility tax that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. I cannot hear the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : Labour Members do not like understanding reality ; they do not like it at all. The fact of the matter is that the utilities are already regulated. If they make excessive profits, the regulator can change their pricing formula, and he has already changed BT’s from RPI minus three to RPI minus 6.25–real price cuts for consumers, which we never saw under a nationalised industry. That is why the appropriate policy is tough regulation, not 1960s artificial control.

    Mr. Sims : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shares the widespread concern about the collapse of criminal proceedings against a couple whose daughter died a violent death because they invoked their right to say nothing. Is he aware that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has details of 10 similar cases? Whatever the arguments may be for or against the right of silence in cases generally, is not there a strong argument in favour of reviewing its application in cases where children have been cruelly treated or even killed?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot, of course, discuss the particular case raised by my hon. Friend, but I understand the concerns that he expresses. Decisions on whether to prosecute are entirely for the Crown prosecution service. My hon. Friend may know that the right to silence is one of the matters being considered by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. I would not wish to anticipate its report.

     

    Q2. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay : Will the Prime Minister give the reason for the rising and record levels of unemployment in Essex–a county which includes my constituency of Thurrock and, of course, the betrayed people of Basildon?

    The Prime Minister : I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that is very clear about unemployment : it will fall as a result of this Government’s policies. That is what he had better understand.

    Mr. Couchman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic indeed that in the very week when the Leader of the Opposition produces a phoney budget for jobs the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is seeking to destroy 140,000 Sunday jobs, which are vital to many families in this country?

    The Prime Minister : On this and other issues the reality is that Labour policy is inconsistent. It changes not only from election to election but from week to week. Not long ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) proposed the biggest tax increases in peace time. Nine months later, he said categorically that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should not increase taxes in the Budget, but 10 days later he calls for a windfall tax.

     

    Q3. Mr. Rooker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Rooker : Can I ask the Prime Minister if, until unemployment starts to fall, he will make it part of his political strategy to assist the unemployed by easing the rules on social security benefits so that those unemployed people who have household responsibilities and who are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s can genuinely take advantage of opportunities to improve their education and training rather than, as at present, be penalised if they study too much or lose their homes if they have household responsibilities? For a very small investment in people, we could have a huge return for the country.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes a point which is well worth considering, and in the past we have looked at some matters related to it. This is the sort of matter which we are prepared to examine. The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience in social security that there is significant help, for example, with mortgages, and he will also know the additional help that is being given to people towards training and studying.

     

    Q4. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning trendy, mixed ability teaching– [Interruption.] Opposition Members are products of it–which has so damaged the education of millions of children since the 1960s? [Interruption.] I hope they care. Are not moves to return the teaching of children to traditional methods just plain common sense? Is it not now also time to end trendy teacher-training methods?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is a distinguished former head teacher so I particularly welcome his remarks. I agree that the way forward is to return to the basics of education, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said yesterday that we had plans to strengthen primary education. I am sure that we are right to look carefully also at getting the teaching methods right. Common-sense, practical teaching which puts good teachers in front of good children is undoubtedly the right way to improve our education system.

    Mr. Ray Powell : Is it not fair that when an hon. Member is named or mentioned in a Prime Minister’s question the Member involved should have the right to reply? I respect and thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Give the hon. Gentleman a chance to put his question.

    Mr. Powell : Obviously, the Prime Minister, as with a lot of the policies that he has presented to the House, is misguided and is misrepresenting facts. The question that he was asked regarding a Bill that I will present on Friday

    Madam Speaker : Order. I must now call the hon. Gentleman to order. I am looking for a very direct question to the Prime Minister, right away.

    Mr. Powell : The Bill is an all-party Bill supported by five of the Prime Minister’s colleagues. It is not a Labour party Bill and therefore the Prime Minister should correct the answer that he gave just now.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be a firm advocate of his own Bill in a few days’ time. I can tell him that in due course my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will bring proposals to the House and will give it a series of alternatives upon which to make up its mind on this thorny issue.

     

    Q5. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Field : Does my right hon. Friend welcome the publication of the highway code today ? Will he ensure that copies are made available to Opposition Members, some of whom seem to be stuck on a roundabout, uncertain as to which exit to take, while others seem intent on overtaking their leaders on the inside, while we on the Government side look forward to a major road ahead?

    The Prime Minister : I should like, if I may, to try to respond to that testing question. I very much welcome the publication of the new highway code. I am bound to say that it does seem to me extremely important that the Leader of the Opposition perhaps should study it. He might learn, after his proposals this morning, that he should not signal right when he is turning left.

    Sir David Steel : Will the Prime Minister clarify the support that the Government give to enforcement action against Saddam Hussein? Is it correct that that support will be given only as long as the action is in accordance with international law in agreement with our coalition partners and involves the minimum necessary use of force?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that that has been the position thus far, and it is our position, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Defence Secretary set out the other day.

  • PMQT – 12 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Olner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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

    Mr. Olner : I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Many hundreds of skilled workers in my constituency are, unfortunately, out of work at the present time. Quite frankly, they are suffering from the Government’s failure to support employers. Can we look forward in 1993 to no more false dawns but to positive action on jobs so that my constituents and their families can regain some dignity?

    The Prime Minister : We all wish to see recovery–there is no difference between any hon. Members on that subject. We shall get lasting recovery only if we have the right basics. These include low inflation, modest interest rates and the right exchange rate. They are now all in place.

    Mr. Day : Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that the National Union of Teachers is to organise a boycott of tests for 14-year-olds? If those reports are correct, will he condemn such action as disgraceful and highly damaging,

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly prepared to condemn any such call and any such action. I suspect that teachers will be far too sensible to take any such action. Those tests are vital. They are good for children, parents want to see them, teachers need to know how well the children are performing, and parents have a right to know how well their children are performing. Those tests will provide that information.

    Mr. John Smith : Since the wrecking of the Braer is a major environmental disaster and one which could happen again before the inquiries that were announced yesterday have been completed, will the Prime Minister take interim action now to protect our coastlines? Will he convene an urgent meeting with the oil companies to obtain an assurance from them that only the safest routes will be used for the transport of oil while the inquiries are going on? Will he also agree to proposals that have been made to make adequate radar facilities available in sensitive areas so that the continuing traffic in oil can be monitored while the inquiries proceed?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to examine those matters. They may have many ramifications and I think that I should have them examined before I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a concrete answer.

    Mr. John Smith : I at least welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to refer this to his right hon. and learned Friend, but I ask him to engage himself in this important matter. Will he bear in mind that it is frequently the case in matters of aviation that interim action, such as the grounding of aircraft, may be taken while inquiries are being undertaken? Will he bear in mind the acute anxiety that exists in areas all round the coast at what has happened in the Shetlands? May I invite him to look into it personally and to make an early report to the House?

    The Prime Minister : That may well be. As I indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a moment ago, it is prudent to examine a matter carefully before making a commitment. [Interruption.] Were I to make a commitment without doing so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be right to be critical. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend will examine it carefully ; he will report to me and we shall report to the House.

    Mr. Nigel Evans : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that private sector skills have greatly benefited industries such as Rover cars, gas, electricity and British Telecom, following policies which the Opposition have opposed at every turn? Will he confirm to the House today that soon these same private sector skills will be made available to British Rail?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly offer that assurance, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will give further details later this afternoon.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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

    Mr. Ronnie Campbell : Is the Prime Minister aware that Swan Hunter shipbuilding on the Tyne is now on the verge of complete closure, with the loss of 2,000 jobs and disaster for the north-east? Can he therefore confirm that the new helicopter carrier is still in the programme to be built on the Tyne?

    The Prime Minister : We have received tenders and we are considering them at the present time.

    Mr. Dykes : If my right hon. Friend has time to think about it today, will he agree that legitimate attempts to protect the privacy of prominent and other citizens alike should not be used as an excuse to launch a fundamental attack on the freedom of the press, which is so vital to a thriving democracy?

    The Prime Minister : The Government have now received the report of Sir David Calcutt and we shall publish it shortly. The whole House will then have an opportunity to make up its mind on the contents of the report.

    Mr. Ashdown : In view of the grave news of the breakdown of the Geneva talks as a result of Bosnian Serb intransigence, will the Prime Minister now confirm that the British Government are prepared to act with others to protect against the future elimination of the Muslim homeland, to maintain the isolation of the Bosnian Serbs and to increase the pressure, political and military, to force the Bosnian Serbs to return to the peace table?

    The Prime Minister : I share the right hon. Gentleman’s regret at the breakdown of the discussions in Geneva. I believe that Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen have done an outstanding job. They have put forward a fair plan. It is a matter of great regret that the Bosnian Serbs are unpersuaded and unprepared to accept it. Sooner or later there must be a negotiated settlement ; the only question is whether it comes now or following further repression, further suffering and further difficulties. The international community will wish to apply further pressure if the Bosnian Serbs continue to reject this settlement.

    Mr. Mark Robinson : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me on the important role that small and medium-sized businesses will have to play in economic recovery? Will he undertake to sweep away the unnecessary layers of red tape and bureaucracy which so tie down some of our small businesses?

    The Prime Minister : I have indicated that it is certainly the Government’s intention to do so. We have already made good progress since the election, but I now want us to go both further and faster. I have therefore asked every Department in Whitehall to prepare plans for action on deregulation. I shall be meeting every Secretary of State in early February, with their permanent secretaries, and I hope that we can then draw up a detailed plan for deregulation of burdens on business.

     

    Homelessness

    Q3. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Prime Minister, when he next expects to meet representatives of London’s homeless.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing meets representatives regularly.

    Mr. Corbyn : Is it not about time the Prime Minister met representatives of London’s homeless to learn that 40,000 families–about 100,000 people–spent Christmas in temporary accommodation, a 10 per cent. increase on a year ago, that there are 50,000 single homeless in London and more than 2,000 sleeping on the streets, a 10 per cent. increase on a year ago and a fivefold increase on five years ago? Is it not about time money was provided to local authorities to buy and build so that families can grow up in decent accommodation rather than suffering the indignity of bed and breakfast accommodation, and public resources were put where they are needed to provide decent homes for the people of this city rather than building empty office blocks for speculative gain?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention the number of empty houses either in his own local authority’s stock or in that of many local authorities. Liverpool, Hackney, Burnley, Manchester, Salford and North Tyneside all have a very bad record on empty properties.

    When my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing or I next meet representatives of the homeless we shall be able to tell them that recent figures show a continuing decline in the number of families in bed and breakfast accommodation, nationally by 23 per cent. and by 30 per cent. in London and the south-east. I shall be able to remind them of the £750 million housing package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement. That will further reduce the numbers in bed and breakfast. I might also remind them of the £100 million scheme for sleeping rough which has been amazingly successful.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Riddick : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things that the British people expect from the Conservative Government is tough action on law and order [Interruption.]

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

    Mr. Riddick : Does the Prime Minister share my concern about the increasing problem of persistent young offenders carrying out crimes such as car crime, burglaries and joy riding? Will he confirm that the Government will take tough action to combat those problems–unlike the Labour party, which is soft on crime?

    The Prime Minister : I will take scoffing from the Labour party on law and order when they begin to support the prevention of terrorism Acts– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : The House must come to order to hear what the Prime Minister has to say–[Interruption.] All parts of the House, for that matter.

    The Prime Minister : On the assumption that Members of the House did not hear what I said a moment ago, I shall repeat it for their benefit. I will take words from the Opposition on law and order when they stop opposing the prevention of terrorism Acts.

    I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about law and order. I certainly share his concern about the persistent offending of so many young people. I have therefore asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to look urgently at the existing arrangements for dealing with juvenile offenders and to consider what new measures it is sensible to introduce. This is one of the areas of greatest concern in the growth of crime statistics and one with which we are determined to deal.

     

    Q5. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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

    Mr. Skinner : Does the Prime Minister agree that the biggest problem facing this country at present is the scourge of mass unemployment? Is he aware that it is costing £9,000 for the taxpayer to finance somebody out of work? That is a total cost of £30 billion out of a public sector borrowing requirement of £37 billion. If the Prime Minister tackled that problem, he would be tackling the economy’s problems as well. He has the fate of 100,000 people in his hands–30,000 of them miners–in the course of the next few weeks. He could resolve the problem easily. If he will give a subsidy of only half that which is given to nuclear power he will be able to save all 31 pits and 100,000 jobs, export coal to every continent in the world and resolve some of the balance of payments problems as well. Will the Prime Minister stop dithering and do it?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the scourge of unemployment. The difference between him and me would be the right method with which to deal with it and to ensure that there are long- term jobs subsequently available. I note what he says about the problem of the pits, but I have no intention of anticipating the coal review, which will be brought before the House as speedily as possible. While the hon. Gentleman continues to support policies such as a payroll tax on jobs, the social chapter, and a national minimum wage, he is not in the best position to lecture us about job losses.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nicholls : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the wider implications of the rundown or closure of Devonport dockyards? Does he appreciate that the continuing uncertainty is causing unhappiness not just in the city of Plymouth but throughout the west country? I appreciate that he cannot announce a decision today, but will he at least assure the people of Devon and Cornwall that when the time comes for that decision to be made he will have their concerns very much in the forefront of his mind?

    The Prime Minister : I appreciate the great concern in the minds of the people of Devon–and, indeed, of those of near Rosyth–concerning the decisions that need to be taken about the dockyards. I know that that uncertainty is worrying people. The Secretary of State for Defence will announce our proposals as soon as he can. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no undue delay.