Tag: Education

  • Mr Major’s speech to the 1992 Local Government Conference – 7 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to The Conservative Local Government Conference on Saturday 7th March 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Britain is fortunate in the dedication of her Councillors and her council officers. This Party is particularly fortunate. Let me start by thanking you for all you do.

    When I spoke to this Conference last year I referred to my own period in local government. I learnt then that being a Councillor is not easy, it means commitment. It can mean days – weeks – of spare time surrendered, late nights – perhaps after a long day. Meals snatched, sleep lost, problems coming at all hours. Every one of them urgent to those who face them. Councillors must sort them out, without fuss, often without thanks, usually without personal assistance. There are no deputising services for Councillors – no-one to stand in for you. It’s your name in the Council book.

    So it isn’t easy I know. But I hope you will go on working for your communities. Because a properly conducted local council, the kind which so many of you here influence or control, can have a greater impact on the quality of life for most people than central government itself. And the converse is also true – a poorly conducted Council means more than inconvenience for its tenants, schools, and residents. As we have seen in far too many inner city areas, it can bring them to the very edge of despair.

    Every voter should remember that at the local elections in May. There’s only one way to be sure of value for money, quality service, and priorities that match public needs. To vote Conservative. And that’s what we must persuade them to do.

    Across the world Socialism is dying. We must help it on its way in this country too.

    Together, we must take municipal socialism, designer socialism, closet socialism, the whole paraphernalia of this modern Labour Party, and send it packing. And, while we’re about it – since they agree so much – let’s send the Liberal Party along with them.

    As we’ve moved towards an Election, we’ve faced a barrage of strident Labour campaigns. I’m relaxed about that. But the public expect and deserve reasoned debate. And we must make sure that they get it. So we’ll concentrate on policy, compete on policy, and we will win on policy.

    A Conservative victory is crucial for Britain. Crucial because we want to take our country forward – not slip back into old habits, long discarded. Crucial because Britain is ready to come out of recession – and only a Conservative Government can bring it out. In present world conditions, there is no quick fix. I wish there were – but the plain fact is that there isn’t. Across the globe some of the strongest economies have slowed. Britain cannot evade the effects.

    Succeeding in the 1990s will take hard work. Keeping inflation down. Keeping taxes low. Offering incentives to those with the will to succeed. Doing all the things we’ve done in a decade in which the face of Britain has been changed immeasurably for the better.

    It is high time some of Britain’s home-grown critics stopped talking her down. Just think what we’ve achieved in changing the everyday lifestyle of the average Briton.

    Whereas in 1979 one in eight of young people went into higher education, it’s now one in four. And soon it will be one in three.

    Whereas less than half of all pensioners had a telephone, it’s now five in every six.

    Where just over half our families owned their own home, it’s now nearly seven out of ten.

    Where just one home in a hundred had a video recorder, it’s now more than two out of three.

    Where only one in twenty had shares, it’s now one in three.

    And where we did some 3000 heart by-pass operations, it’s well over 14,000 today. Where only 3 heart transplants, it’s over 300 today. Where not one single person had a personal pension, now over four and a half million do.

    I don’t believe people will tolerate attempts to write off a country that’s made such progress as if it was some kind of banana republic. Banana republic? Bananas.

    The truth is we’ve taken giant strides forward. But we can go much further. New expansion and new prosperity lie within our grasp.

    What the country needs now, above all, is confidence. Self-confidence. Confidence in our future. And if confidence in business is to grow, there’s nothing will make it grow faster than a Conservative victory at the next General Election.

    All the other ingredients for recovery are in place. So we must make sure that we’re back in place. To build prosperity in the ‘90s. And with a clear majority.

    Any other outcome would shatter Britain’s prospects. If you were inventing a policy to destroy confidence, where would you start?

    You’d start with higher taxes. Higher inflation. Higher interest rates. New levies and new surcharges. A green light for the trade unions. A minimum wage policy tailor-made to destroy jobs. The wilful upending of every existing policy – simply because it’s there.

    In other words you’d start with Socialism. Such policies would be a disaster for every family. A disaster for every business, a disaster for every community. Labour’s tax and spending plans are the road back to the day before yesterday. They would put a ball and chain around our ankles. Shackle our country, as we are fighting to compete in a challenging world.

    They simply haven’t the wit to see that if you grab people’s money, if you hit people’s hopes, if you block people’s choice, then you don’t just blight the prospects of the families themselves. You risk the whole future of our country.

    Take education, a crucial local government service. What could be more important than getting the best schooling for all our children?

    What our Party stands for is commonsense in the classroom.

    Proven teaching methods. The learning of basic skills. Proper reward for the best teachers. That’s what our new Review Body will bring.

    We want local management for schools, a trend led by my own county council in Cambridgeshire, and backed by Conservative councils across the country.

    We want what our Citizen’s Charter guarantees. More power for parents. A report for every parent on how their child is doing. Regular inspection of their school and a sight of the inspector’s report.

    And we want better choice for parents. We’ve given them the right to send their children to the school they like. Now we need to tell them how that school performs. Then every parent can compare them – and can choose the best, the most appropriate for their child. Such a decision is far too important to be left to the chances of school gate gossip.

    I want children to have the kind of education that best equips them for life. Helps them understand what it’s all about, gives them the chance to enjoy it, helps them make the most of it. That’s why we want variety in education. Because our children deserve it.

    That’s why we want good comprehensive schools teaching on the right principles.

    Why we’ve given every school more control over their future.

    Why we’re bringing quality and hope into the inner cities with the new Technology Colleges.

    Why we’re helping bright children from every background through the assisted places scheme.

    Why we also defend the rights of independent schools. And why we’ll back any council that puts standards first in everything they do.

    Our agenda on education is straightforward. The best for every child, the best from every child.

    Who on earth could oppose these ideas? I’ll tell you who. Those educational ostriches who bury their heads in the sand. Who can’t see around them the desert that a generation of Left-wing ideas has created in far too many of our schools.

    I find it hard to understand such bunkered attitudes. And so, in the campaigns ahead, will every parent, every grandparent, every would-be parent in Britain. Every person who wants the best for their children and grandchildren will reject Labour’s plans to turn back the clock.

    For theirs are not the actions of a party that cares; they are the actions of a party that scares.

    That is not our way. We want all our children to enjoy opportunity and choice throughout their lives. That means levelling up. And saying no to levelling down.

    The levelling down brigade have just one last outside chance to renew their experiments on our children. The return of a Labour Government. We must – and we will – deny them that chance. For our children. And for their children, too.

    There are many reasons for the Conservatives winning the next General Election. But few are better than Labour’s attitudes to the education of the men and women of tomorrow.

    Yesterday Ken Baker announced details of our plans for a National Lottery. It’s expected to raise £1 billion net a year. That money will be used for improvements throughout Britain – on projects that could never take priority over the first calls on taxation – the National Health Service, education, pensions and defence.

    It will help us to preserve our heritage, safeguard our great buildings, and create a legacy for future generations. We will be able to help young artists, actors, and musicians; improve our galleries and museums; provide matching funds for new charitable causes; help Britain’s Olympic bid for the year 2000 succeed. The prospects are limitless.

    Who doesn’t wake to a thrill of pride when we beat the world at sport? How much better we could do if we gave the right training to the champions of the future, who in their turn will inspire a whole generation of the young. I want to see the fund being used to find more Gooches, more McColgans, more Linekers, more Carlings, more facilities for our young athletes right across the board.

    We won’t produce a Wimbledon champion without a real commitment to tennis. And we won’t produce the Currys or the Torvills and Deans if we don’t have ice rinks.

    We marvel at the skill of young Russian and Rumanian gymnasts. But our youngsters have the same talent, the same ambitions. Give them the same opportunities and support – and watch them go for gold.

    I want to do better still for all our young people, champions and beginners alike. I’ve long believed in a National Lottery. Well, now we’re going to have it. And with it a better Britain, for the charities, the artists, and the sportsmen of tomorrow.

    I sense a powerful revival of local pride in our country. Greater interest in our heritage. Concern for our long-term future. I believe those attitudes will mean a growth in interest in local government at all levels – from parish to county.

    It will be a time for councils that innovate and adapt. For those that listen and don’t dictate. That help their communities and don’t insist on doing everything themselves. It will be a time for councils that keep charges on their citizens low. A time for Conservatives. In other words – you.

    There will, of course, be changes. Conservative Councils are already taking the lead in new ways of managing local government. Cutting back on red tape. Bringing in private sector skills. Rigorously conducting performance review.

    That is the right way forward. The way that will enable local government to enter the next century with the same self-confidence that it had at the start of this one.

    As I said there will be changes. But we are proceeding cautiously with discussions on structural change. We want the new Local Government Commission to listen to your views, and the views of the people you represent in a way that’s never been done before.

    This week, in Wales, David Hunt suggested important changes. These reflected lengthy discussion among councils and public alike.

    Whatever changes the Commission may recommend for England must reflect your views. We are not seeking to impose any single blueprint. But I’ll make one thing clear. I don’t believe that some of the bodies created in the 70s have captured public loyalty in any way. Local pride draws from deeper wells. Older traditions. That’s where public affinities lie.

    I cannot predict the outcome of this review. It is necessary for all of you to take part in the debate. But two promises I can give you.

    There will be no return to the wasteful GLC and super-metropolitan bodies of which Labour became so fond.

    And we will not bring in costly regional assemblies in England, as Labour and Liberals propose.

    There is no case for such assemblies. There is only one reason why these are on the Labour and Liberal agenda – to mask the fact that their self-seeking devolution strategies for Scotland and Wales are falling apart. They know that people don’t want these unnecessary assemblies, but they want people to have them because that suits their own political interests in Scotland. In England, people don’t want such an unnecessary new tier of local bureaucracy. And there will be no place for them under a Conservative Government.

    This is a watershed for local government. A time for a new start. The Town Hall should be a forum for the whole community, not a fortress for one political ideology.

    Huge damage has been done to local government by political posturing. High spending councils destroyed the credibility of domestic rates. High spending councils undermined the principle of the community charge. Too often the result of their actions has been tension between town hail and centre. I regret that. I want to put it all behind us. I want to rebuild the historic partnership between us. It has always been the strength of this Party. Together. That is the right way for us to work.

    The new Council tax – now passed by Parliament – will provide a lasting basis for stability in council finance. It preserves the principle, the just principle, that the widow living on her own should pay less than three adults next door. Of course, our opponents say they would repeal it. They promise a return to the rates. Back to yesterday again. Well, by all means let Labour go to the doorsteps and campaign for the rates. That’s another sure way they’ll lose.

    Your elections in May are vital. Labour councils have always been careless with the public’s money. What was it Tony Crosland said ‘The party’s over’.

    But that’s not Labour’s message today. No. ‘The party’s on’. That’s Bryan Gould’s message. Open season on the pockets of the public.

    The party would be on again alright – in Labour Town Halls up and down the country. But the public wouldn’t be getting the invitations – they’d be getting the bills.

    Can you imagine what would happen if the loony Left – and too many loonies still are left – if those people ever got to work with Labour’s plans?

    No controls on spending.

    The Audit Commission abolished.

    Competitive tendering abandoned. Councils allowed, in Mr Gould’s own words, to do ‘anything they want’. Anything? Anything?

    Just imagine it. Lambeth free of spending control. Haringey allowed to do anything they want.

    Anything they want? Why don’t Labour councils just get on with what the public want?

    Collecting the rents.

    Finding people homes in empty council property.

    Taking politics out of the classroom.

    Collecting the rubbish – not talking it.

    Backing the police, not running them down.

    They tell us the extremists have gone from Labour town Halls. If only they had. Gone quiet, maybe. But not gone, as all too many of you know. And if ever Mr Gould’s ‘do what you like, spend what you like’ policy gave them a chance, Labour’s extremists would be out of the woodwork so fast you’d think chemicals were being injected. A case of Rentokil meets Rent-a-mob, if ever there was one.

    At this conference we see the responsible face of local government. The true face of local government that has served our country well. Too many local councils have drifted away from the public. Become remote; sometimes resented. I want us to see more of the right people attracted onto local councils. I want us to restore the friendly face of local government. That must be our aim for the 1990s.

    And we will succeed in that aim by working on Conservative principles. Principles of public service. Principles shaped by open minds and steady hands. Principles of leadership.

    One thing must not change. The Conservative Party belongs to the people. It is, quite simply, on the people’s side.

    It is an historic choice that Britain faces this year. Five hundred years after the new world of America was discovered, the ancient continent of Europe is rediscovering its destiny. Just as in 1492, it is a new world that we see opening before us. A single market in our community. A single continent after generations of division and of strife.

    And, as ancient nations are reborn as democratic states, as hope is rekindled, it is plain to see that the rebirth of our continent is rooted in something far older than the froth and frenzy of Socialist philosophy. What has Socialism done in this century throughout the world. Socialism in this century has sown seeds of envy, division, and spite. Seeds that have borne bitter fruit in countless ways in the lives of countless millions.

    But now that rotten fruit is dropping from the trees. What you hear is the dying fall of Socialism. The springtime of a new Europe. Founded on lasting free market principles. On freedom. On wealth creation. On the responsibility, to others and for others, that this Party and those who support it always affirm. On the right to own. And the power to choose.

    Under the Conservative Party, throughout the 1980s, Britain under Margaret Thatcher, stood firm when the wind was still cold from the East. The stand that we made in those difficult times helped to make the new Europe possible. And it is this new Europe we are beginning to shape now.

    Yes. In a Conservative Britain you do – and you will – have the power to choose. To choose between the past, the old ways, the rabble and rubble of Socialism. Or the future, the way of hope, the way of partnership, the way of prosperity – the Conservative way, where welfare and wealth creation for all the people go hand in hand. A true partnership with the people. I know that in 1992, wherever that choice is made, it is to our way that the people of Britain will turn. And with our Conservative Party that they will stand, and fight, and win.

  • PMQT – 11 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Andrew MacKay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. MacKay : In the light of yesterday’s public sector pay settlements, which were particularly welcomed by teachers, will my right hon. Friend give the House some broad indication of just how many teachers will now be earning more than £20,280 a year? Will he also use this opportunity to give a categorical pledge that under no circumstances will he lift the ceiling on national insurance contributions, because that would, in effect, claw back the extra pay that teachers gained yesterday?

    The Prime Minister : I can tell my hon. Friend that well over 120, 000 teachers exceeded £20,000 a year even before yesterday’s pay increases. We anticipate that something over an extra 50,000 will now do so. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we will not remove the limit and impose an extra 9 per cent. national insurance on those teachers.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister join me in reaffirming that no group either using or supporting violence will be allowed by any Government to bomb its way to the conference table? Does he agree that when terrorists inflict danger and disruption on ordinary people anywhere–in Britain, Northern Ireland or anywhere else–they are not so much demonstrating their support for any cause as demonstrating their hatred and opposition to every community?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir. I am happy to agree without reservation with the points put to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. If terrorists believe that incidents like this morning’s will deflect our policy on Northern Ireland, they are mistaken. They have not been successful in the past, and they will not be successful in the future.

     

    Q2. Mr. Andy Stewart : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Stewart : When I last had the opportunity to question my right hon. Friend, he confirmed that under the Conservatives, miners and other earners in my constituency would not pay a higher rate of income tax. Can he confirm that he will not extend national insurance contributions to savings, because a large number of my constituents took early retirement from the coal industry and use their savings to supplement their income?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that guarantee. Conservative Governments have reduced the taxation on savings. We have abolished the investment income surcharge, and have cut the standard rate of income tax to 25p in the pound. We have introduced savings schemes such as TESSAs, and we believe that excess taxation is iniquitous when we seek to encourage people both to save and to invest in our economy.

    Mr. Lewis : Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1986 he announced the closure of DHSS resettlement centres and gave a firm promise that they would not close until alternative accommodation was available? Is he now aware that four centres, including the Walkden centre in my constituency, will close next month and that alternative provision is not yet available and will not be available? Is the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, going to allow the Resettlement Agency to rat upon his pledge or is he not?

    The Prime Minister : I set out at the time the details of the areas where we would see new and better facilities reopening, and those better facilities have reopened. In addition, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Government are also spending very nearly £100 million over three years to provide accommodation for people who are homeless in London. So far nearly 2,000 extra bed spaces have been provided, and the number of people who are out on the streets is substantially lower than 12 months ago. The hon. Gentleman would do well to acknowledge those facts.

     

    Southampton

    Q3. Mr. Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit the city and port of Southampton.

    The Prime Minister : Tomorrow.

    Mr. Hill : When my right hon. Friend visits the port of Southampton he will realise that two Conservative policies have changed the position of the port from stagnation to prosperity. The first policy was privatisation and the second the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. All the hospitals in Southampton have been rebuilt over the past few years. There is only one fly in the ointment– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let the hon. Gentleman ask his question–but briefly please.

    Mr. Hill : My right hon. Friend will know that there is a Labour-controlled council. Not only are its policies extremely wasteful, but one of the companies that it set up is just collapsing, insolvent, and this is costing £8 a head to every community charge payer in the area.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend puts his point with great clarity and in some detail. Southampton is already part of a highly successful privatised group of ports. In some of the privatised ports, ending restrictive practices has led to an improvement in productivity of 50 to 100 per cent.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Jack Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Is the Prime Minister aware that, after a little local difficulty in the House, there was a meeting this morning between the Engineering Employers Federation and the northern group of Labour Members, at which one of the representatives of the federation said that the Department of Trade and Industry suffered from inertia? Will the Prime Minister consider removing this inertia from the DTI by sacking his Secretary of State?

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ian Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Taylor : Does the Prime Minister agree that there is an increasing role for responsibility and involvement of individuals in improving their career prospects, whether through training credits for young people or through performance-related pay? Are these not better ways of improving the skills of British industry than the rigid structures favoured by the feudal barons of the trade union movement?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with the training credit principle which puts buying power in the hands of the people who seek training. If my hon. Friend will be patient, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly have some comments which will please him.

    Mr. Robert Sheldon : Has the Prime Minister seen today’s Financial Times ? If he has, has he noted the three pages of advertisements by receivers and administrators of companies that have failed? The exercise is repeated in the columns of the Financial Times three times a week. Is it not clear that, in the light of all these industrial failures, it is the failure of the Government which really needs to be brought to account, and that it is the Government’s task to put things right?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the essential basics to make sure that things are right are to keep inflation down, to keep interest rates down, to have the right tax structure and to continue with the improved industrial relations that we have had in recent years. With his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will also be interested in the views of the CBI. If he is, he will know that the CBI opposes absolutely the reintroduction of the labour laws that the Opposition propose, the tax changes that the Opposition propose and the minimum wage that the Opposition have in mind. Each of those policies would be deadly to the future of British industry, British jobs and British companies.

     

    Q6. Sir Anthony Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Sir Anthony Grant : Will my right hon. Friend warn other world leaders, especially in the United States, of the dangers of a wave of trade protectionism and the catastrophic effect that it can have on the world economy in a recession? Will he emphasise to the Americans in particular the need to reach sensible agreements within GATT?

    The Prime Minister : I have had the opportunity of discussing that with President Bush on a number of occasions, and he is as committed to a speedy conclusion of the Uruguay round as we are. I believe that that is vital. The paper set out by Mr. Dunkel provides a basis round which the United States, the Cairns group and the European Community could rally to provide a satisfactory settlement. That settlement is as vital for the future of the international trading organisation as any other matter under consideration.

     

    Q7. Mr. Martlew : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Martlew : In a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on Thursday, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would not be supporting the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which will come before the House on Friday, but did not clarify whether he is in favour of a ban on fox hunting. Will he take this opportunity to tell the House and the country whether he favours such a ban?

    The Prime Minister : We always examine legislation before the House with great care. The Bill before the House is not adequate.

    Dame Jill Knight : In connection with an incident that my right hon. Friend has mentioned already, is he aware that hon. Members and staff were unable to work in their offices at 1 Parliament street between 9.30 and 12.30 because of three IRA bombs placed in Whitehall? Is he further aware that immediately the road was made safe, but before any traffic was allowed to pass, there was a demonstration by IRA supporters, well equipped with banners and placards? Does he not feel that, as they were so ready to move and so well equipped, they knew all about the IRA bombs and probably the timing as well? Will he ensure that the police are given the photographs of that demonstration, taken close up by the media?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware–I have not yet received reports–of that demonstration, but I believe that it is ironic that the IRA and its supporters should at the same time be enjoying the privileges of democracy and using the methods of terrorism. I can assure them that they will have no progress until they renounce violence and terrorism. I believe that that is the united view of all the parties in the House.

     

    Q8. Mr. Grocott : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Grocott : Does the Prime Minister recall that it is now more than 12 months since he first started dithering about the election date, since when 750,000 people have lost their jobs? Is it not about time that he said to the 44 million voters who are sick and tired of the phoney election campaign that the general election will be on 9 April? When will he have the courage to say that?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know that in the last year we have also cut interest rates seven times and halved inflation. I have no doubt that when we come to the election the electorate will have spotted that as well.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is the first Prime Minister in history to attend the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union? Is he aware that the warmth of his reception was genuine, as the farmers very much appreciate his understanding of their difficulties with the planners and with marketing? Is he aware that they welcome his determination to do all he can to improve their lot, both at home and abroad?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly enjoyed my attendance at the National Farmers Union meeting this morning. I was able to talk to the farmers about the difficulties that their industry faces at the moment, the need for reform of that industry and the importance that farming will undoubtedly have in the future of our country.

     

    Q9. Mrs. Irene Adams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mrs. Adams : Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), recently wrote to him pointing out that the Paisley post code area lost 76 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs between 1979 and 1989 and a further 3,600 jobs since then? Does he recall that he replied that he did not consider those circumstances grim enough to undertake an economic initiative for Paisley? Will he now change his mind or shall we have to wait for the people to do that for him?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Lady ought to be clear about what she means by assistance. When the Labour party speaks of incentives it means subsidies. Perhaps the hon. Lady will remember the success rate of the National Enterprise Board. It invested in 102 firms, of which one third went bankrupt or went into receivership. Less than one third of those firms returned the taxpayers’ investment. The right way to help manufacturing industry is to produce the right level of inflation and the right economy for people to make their own decisions.

  • PMQT – 4 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir George Gardiner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Sir George Gardiner : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to suggest that there is one kind of school that can cater for the needs of all kinds of pupils is an example of the naive theorising that has caused so many problems in education, which we are seeking to address today? Will he continue to press for diversity in education through grant-maintained schools, through city technology colleges and through local management of schools responsive to parents’ wishes?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the premise underlying my hon. Friend’s question. We will certainly continue to encourage diversity through grant-maintained schools, CTCs and locally managed schools, all of which give greater opportunity and choice to parents and pupils. We will continue to offer that choice.

    Mr. Kinnock : At the time when the Prime Minister said that if his policies

    “were not hurting, they were not working,”

    did he realise that those policies would cause the longest recession since the 1930s?

    The Prime Minister : We have taken action to ensure that we come out of this recession in a way that will ensure sustained recovery. As the Governor of the Bank of England said only yesterday, “the conditions are now in place to underpin a sustained recovery.”

    Mr. Kinnock : Having caused the longest recession since the 1930s, does the Prime Minister agree with the words of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said last month : “the policy would not have been different even if we had known the outcome.”?

    The Prime Minister : Caused the recession?–Did we cause it in the United States, in Sweden, in Japan, in Australia, in New Zealand ? If the right hon. Gentleman believes all that, he is certainly not capable of leading his party, let alone this country.

    Mr. Kinnock : There is no question of doubt that this Government caused the recession in this country. Since the Prime Minister made the statement that I quoted, nearly 1 million jobs have been lost, there have been over 100,000 repossessions and 80,000 businesses have been lost, in those two years. This Government caused the recession, they continued the recession, and now they have not got a clue how to get out of the recession.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. Gentleman has to say– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. Gentleman has to say is economic illiteracy. If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about recovery, what does he think that higher taxes would do to it ? What does he think that his jobs tax would do to it ? What does he think that his investment tax would do to it ? What does he think that his minimum wage would do to it ? The policies which the right hon. Gentleman pursues would mean perpetual recession for this country.– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will hon. Members please settle down ?

     

    Chancellor Kohl

    Q2. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of Germany; and what issues he intends to discuss with him.

    The Prime Minister : Chancellor Kohl and I are in frequent contact by telephone to discuss matters of mutual interest. I expect to meet him again soon, but I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Hunter : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the extent to which the German economy has suffered from the worldwide slowdown and the fact that German output has decreased during the past two months for which figures are available? Does not that conclusively show that economic difficulties are not confined to the United Kingdom, as the Opposition try to claim?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend’s question is more apposite than he might have imagined. He is entirely right. I have noticed that fact, even if the Opposition have not. Again, the Governor of the Bank of England noted yesterday that the recession has proved unexpectedly persistent in north America and that in continental Europe, Japan and elsewhere economic activity has slowed and unemployment has begun to rise. Only the Opposition adopt their typical stance. They ignore other countries’ difficulties and concentrate solely on those in this country, to the damage of our interests.

    Mr. Radice : After the two opt-outs negotiated by the Prime Minister at Maastricht, does Chancellor Kohl still think that the Prime Minister is a good European?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman had better ask Chancellor Kohl that question. I have enjoyed the closest possible co-operation with Chancellor Kohl in the past year and I intend to continue to do so in the same capacity in years to come.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Lee : The massive growth at Manchester airport since the Government have come to power–a 1,100 per cent. increase in fixed assets– has given a tremendous boost to the economy and pride of the north-west. Indeed, the north-south divide has now ceased to exist as an issue. When my right hon. Friend next has a free Saturday, will he fly up to Manchester, look at what has been achieved by the airport, and then pop over to Old Trafford to watch a first-class football side in action? It will win the first division championship, just as my right hon. Friend will certainly win the next general election.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not respond to one part of his question. Manchester airport, however, is a success story. It has benefited especially from the growth in the liberalisation of air services and, as a result, three times as many passengers now use the airport as when the Government came to office. That is a direct result of liberalisation introduced by the Government. The concept of a north-south divide was always too simplistic and sweeping. Many areas of prosperity and some of difficulty exist in each and every part of this country– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have less barracking.

     

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

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

    Mr. Cohen : Is the Prime Minister aware that, in my constituency of Leyton, unemployment has risen by 84 per cent. in the past 18 months? As last night the Governor of the Bank of England backtracked over the duration of the slump, will the Prime Minister now institute an urgent programme of recovery? Failing that, will he explain to my unemployed constituents why the Government consider them a “price worth paying”?

    The Prime Minister : Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening a few moments ago when I quoted directly the Governor of the Bank of England saying that the conditions necessary to underpin a sustained recovery are now in place.

    Mr. Allason : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a review is to be undertaken of the use by the security and intelligence agencies of informants and other sources? When he receives that final report, will he bear in mind the fact that the security intelligence agencies rely on the use of informants, and the intelligence that they receive will never be any good unless a measure of protection can be granted to those sources?

    The Prime Minister : We do, of course, constantly keep these matters under review and I believe that it is important that we continue to do so.

     

    Q5. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Winnick : Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that since the Government came into office in 1979 nearly 2.5 million full-time jobs in manufacturing have been lost, 34 jobs for every hour this wretched Government have been in office? In view of the devastation, the unemployment and the misery caused to our people, is it any wonder that the Prime Minister is so reluctant to hold the general election?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is joining the Opposition trend of seeking to talk down what manufacturing and other industries are doing. He should remember that export volumes of manufactured goods grew faster than in the United States throughout the 1980s, that manufacturing grew faster than in France or Italy during the 1980s, and that Britain exports a larger proportion of its national product than Japan, a point recognised by even the Scottish National party.

    Mrs. Peacock : Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending congratulations to a Yorkshire manufacturing company, Spring Ram plc, which at the end of the month will open two new factories in my constituency, creating 400 new jobs, which is at present building two new factories in Barnsley which will create 400 new jobs, and which has a plan to create 1,100 new jobs in Bradford over the next four years?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to send my congratulations to my hon. Friend’s constituents. There are, of course, many other companies up and down the country which are similarly investing and growing, and laying the foundation for prosperity in the 1990s.

     

    Q6. Mr. Carr : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Carr : Can the Prime Minister tell the House how he squares his vision of a classless Britain with the experience of a constituent of mine from Fulwood, who was told last May that she needed a hip replacement but that she would have to wait 14 months for the operation under the national health service, and who was told that she could have had the operation immediately had she been able to cough up £4,300?

    The Prime Minister : There were no hip replacements available just a few years ago. It is now a relatively routine operation available in the national health service. Hip replacements are becoming more widely available month after month. That is the direction in which we must go to provide the best health service, the best opportunities and the best element of the classless society that I have talked about.

    Mr. Norris : Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing that business needs is for business rates to be brought back under the control of uncapped, loony Labour authorities who will send rates sky rocketing, as they did during the early 1980s? Will he give the House a pledge that such a crazy proposal will never be included in a manifesto issued by the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. It is well known to every hon. Member that under the old system, councils could put up rates by more than the rate of inflation. They did and, among other evils, they forced many jobs out of inner city areas by doing so. Those who doubt that might remember the rate rise of Labour-controlled Ealing council of 57 per cent. in 1987. They might also recollect the wriggling of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on television the other day on precisely that problem. It would be a problem, he said. It would be a problem not just for the Labour party but for business men up and down the country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Since the Government have supported independence in Russia, Lithuania and other parts of the world, when the people of Scotland democratically and peacefully vote for independence, what will the Government say to them?

    The Prime Minister : This Union has served both Scotland and England well, and I would not wish to see it undermined. The proposals of the Labour party, the Liberal Democratic party and the Scottish National party would undermine that relationship that has served us so well in the Union. Devolution is not just a matter for Scotland ; it is a matter for the whole United Kingdom. If an Assembly were given tax-raising powers, how would that fit in with the other fiscal arrangements? What would the increased taxation do to prosperity in Scotland? The hon. Gentleman should put a fair proposal before the Scottish people, not the half-baked one that he has made.

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

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has not yet asked a question of the Prime Minister.

    Mr. Gregory : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue as the party of denationalisation, and confirm to the electorate of York that the Conservative party will not take away the shares of those who have invested in Northern Electric, British Telecom and other such denationalised companies?

    The Prime Minister : I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. The denationalisation programme has been good not only for the consumer, but for share owning and the improvement of both investment and wealth in this country. We believe in those propositions and we shall continue to support them.

     

    Q8. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 January.

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

    Mr. Jones : I am sure that the Prime Minister will have enjoyed reading the Western Mail last Saturday, where he will have seen the results of a telephone survey showing that the people of Wales now support the setting up of a Welsh Parliament by a margin of four to one. When will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the aspirations of the Welsh and Scottish people cannot be sidelined for ever, and when will Parliament act?

    The Prime Minister : I seem to recall that there was a referendum once before on devolution in Wales when there appeared to be a majority in favour. But the reality was that the referendum showed that there was no majority, and the people of Wales recognised that it would be in the best interests of their country and the United Kingdom to sustain the present arrangements.

  • Mr Major’s NCVQ Speech – 23 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on education at the Cafe Royal on 23rd January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prefatory Remarks

    Mr Chairman, this is the second opportunity I have had to speak on educational matters here at the Cafe Royal. It’s a splendid location, and rather apt for your proceedings today. It has lots of levels. When I spoke last time I was at level 6 but now I find myself down at level 4. I hope this downwards progression doesn’t give the wrong signal to all those people working hard to move upwards through the NVQ levels.

    Introduction

    Mr Chairman, many of you will know by now that I believe it is vital that we continue to raise standards in education and training. The reason for this is clear. It is because I believe that every young man and woman has talents, in-built talents, which we all want to see them develop to the full.

    But there is another reason too: it is because I know – as all those of you in business know – that in this competitive world our country is involved in an unending struggle for markets. And in that struggle it is the businesses and services which offer quality that win.

    Business success will increasingly rest on people at every level who are equipped with good training and good qualifications. Qualifications that carry esteem, are coherently structured and capable of being updated throughout working life.

    For individuals, education and training are the gateways to opportunity and progress.

    For employers, a well-educated, well-trained workforce is their lifeblood.

    We live in a time of rapid and expanding technological change. No one should underestimate the scale of the challenges that we face. But nor should we underestimate our capacity to meet those challenges. We in Britain can develop the skills of our young people and of our workforce at least as effectively as any of our rivals. And we must.

    Opportunity for All

    Eight months ago, together with Michael Howard and Kenneth Clarke, I launched the Government’s White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century. We had two overriding aims. To give much greater priority to the needs of the 16 to 19 year age group.

    And at the same time to break down those artificial barriers which for too long had divided an academic education from a vocational one, and which treated those who followed the vocational route almost as second-class citizens.

    The themes which run through that White Paper are at the very heart of this Government’s philosophy and of the society in which we believe. A society without barriers. In which opportunities are available for all. In which high standards are expected and become the norm. In which people – whatever their background and wherever they work – can make the very most of their abilities.

    When I left school at 16, I was lucky. There were people to encourage me to work for qualifications. Not all young people are so lucky. I want to see us develop the framework that will give them the incentive and encouragement to get qualified – and encourage employers to help them on their way. Today more young people stay on at school, but there are still far too many 16 year-olds who bale out as soon as they can. And too many of those are never able to recapture the opportunities they have lost.

    Parity of Esteem for Vocational Training

    So as we prepare for the twenty-first century we must see that young people have the opportunity for further education, or training in job-related skills, to the very best of their capability. And if they are to have real choice, vocational education must become a high status route to follow.

    Why? Because it is important if we are to encourage the right people to develop the right skills. In this country we have always failed to give status to the practical as compared with the academic and the professional careers. All that is changing. Must change. These old-fashioned prejudices and snobberies can have no place in the world of education and should have no place in our society.

    Good vocational education is not inferior in status to good academic education. I hold vocational qualifications in trades, crafts and business in very high regard. The next generation must be able to decide between academic and vocational education and training without distinction or reserve – choosing a course of the kind that suits their own temperament and aptitude.

    That is our objective. But if the vocational route is to have equal status we must offer a range of qualifications that is both wide – yet at the same time easily recognised, understood and esteemed. Anonymous qualifications are not valued.

    It also means developing a system by which people’s acquisition of skills through life can be measured and recorded. We want to create a ladder of opportunity which encourages each and every young person to climb rung by rung – higher, in the end, than he or she may have thought possible at the start. We want to see learning and development treated as a life-long process.

    Employers as well as students stand to gain from such a system. They need a comprehensive and coherent framework of qualifications. Standards set by industry, to meet the needs of industry.

    It was Government that began this reform. But it is the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, in partnership with employers, that is turning Government vision into practical reality. I believe that we are now creating the most effective and flexible system of vocational qualifications in the world.

    Mr Chairman, we set you and your Council a challenge in our White Paper last year: that the system of national vocational qualifications which you have been developing since 1987 should spread right across industry and be within the grasp of all. The aim, stated in the White Paper, was to cover 80 per cent of the work force by the end of 1992. There were some who said that it simply could not be done. But it will be done. And I warmly congratulate you on reaching the 50 per cent milestone which John Hillier announced this morning. That is tremendous progress. I am confident that by the end of this year you will have reached 80 per cent coverage.

    And the purpose of this Conference is to make sure that the new system is used to full effect. Everyone here is aware that the skills of our people are the most valuable national asset of all.

    Of course, in one respect the future for today’s young people will differ from everything known before. Never again will a qualification once earned be sufficient for a lifetime. Training, re-training, updating will become increasingly necessary. In nearly all aspects of endeavour life-long learning will be needed.

    Quality and Choice in School

    The foundations for that must be laid in school. Our programme of reform in education, carried further in the Citizen’s Charter, will ensure that all schools concentrate on getting the basic things right. Step by step, Ken Clarke has been applying this principle to all age-groups in schools. From next September all pupils aged 14 will be following the National Curriculum course in English, maths and science. We will have clear national standards for the teaching of this key age-group on the threshold of decisions about their future education and working lives.

    But we are broadening as well as deepening the National Curriculum. Since 1990, all our 11 year-olds have been studying Technology, starting out for example on electronics, computer-aided design or working with metal and textiles. From 1993, technology will be extended to the curriculum for 14 year-olds – and will lead to GCSE or vocational qualifications.

    And we intend to enhance choice by developing a new breed of schools which will specialise in technology. The idea builds directly on our experience with City Technology Colleges. CTCs have become beacons of excellence in this field. We want to light more such beacons around the country.

    We are therefore committing 25 million to provide capital funding for a number of existing schools, which want to enhance their technology equipment and facilities. These will be chosen from amongst schools with a clear commitment to technology teaching. This initiative, I am happy to say, has attracted support from a number of industrial companies.

    The successful voluntary aided schools have already been announced. But I am particularly pleased today to be able to announce that 18 grant-maintained schools have now been chosen for the coming year.

    Good grounding is essential. But it is not good enough, if education stops at 16. By 1990, 60 per cent of 16 year-olds in England chose to stay on in full-time education and training. That is a sea-change from 1980 when it was only 40 per cent. And in 1990 no less than 90 per cent were doing some kind of education or training at least part-time. That was an investment in their future – in Britain’s future.

    As more young people stay on, one of the difficult decisions they face is how best to develop their skills. The choice of one route or the other is rarely clear cut. It’s hard to decide at 16 whether to study for higher education or to train for a job. Options need to be kept open. That was why we announced in the White Paper that we would develop a new system of more general vocational qualifications.

    New General NVQs

    These new vocational qualifications are designed mainly for young people still in full-time education. They are designed to be worked for in school or college rather than on the job.

    I can tell you today that we will be introducing the first General National Vocational Qualifications from September in a number of further education colleges and schools. Initially they will be at Level 3. They will be distinct from the existing NVQs, which are specific to a particular job or type of work. They will cover five broad areas – business and administration; manufacturing technology; health and social care; leisure and tourism; and art and design. And these new qualifications will be much more widely available from September 1993.

    The new courses will be structured to appeal to young people across a range of abilities. They will not replace GCSE, or our highly-valued A-levels but will run alongside them, thus widening choice. But some very able students may prefer them to the academic approach of A levels. I am confident that they will also appeal to many employers as a prelude to specific on-the-job training.

    But let me make it clear. This new qualification will not be an easy option. The aim is to offer young people the genuine choice between worthwhile, high-standard qualifications, along both the academic and the vocational paths. Qualifications of equal value – achieved at the end of courses of equal rigour. That way, they will attract equal esteem. Each offering the individual the opportunity to go as far as his or her own abilities allow. That was the vision in the White Paper. And – through NVQs and their new general equivalent in colleges and schools, that is what we are on target to deliver.

    Advanced Diploma

    We also announced in the White Paper our intention to introduce Diplomas to enhance the choice between an academic and a vocational education. There has been great interest in the idea of an Advanced Diploma which could be achieved either by those studying for A levels or by those who choose instead to study for NVQs. We intend to press forward now with the Advanced Diploma so that the first awards can be made in 1994.

    After consultation, we have decided what the qualifications for an Advanced Diploma should be. On the one hand, three advanced GCE passes (of which two may be only at A/S level); or, on the other, an NVQ at level three.

    On top of that, however, we shall also require a given level of attainment in English, mathematics and a modern foreign language from all those applying for a diploma -whether they have chosen the academic or vocational route. The evidence for this might come from GCSE, from A or A/S levels, or from within NVQ courses. Kenneth Clarke and Michael Howard will be consulting SEAC and NCVQ on the specific requirements.

    Attainment in English, maths and a foreign language will be assisted by the revision of GCSE for which I called last July. Work on this is progressing well. The new courses will begin in September this year. There will be a wider range of papers, so that we can not only cater for weaker candidates but also stretch the most able. There will be a sharp reduction in the proportion of marks awarded for coursework, and a rigorous examination at the end of the course. And the new GCSE will be related to the clear standards laid down under the National Curriculum.

    The National Record of Achievement

    But I believe that it is not just formal qualifications that give the measure of the individual. Almost a year ago, Michael Howard launched the idea of a National Record of Achievement for young people. Such records would give them credit for their many informal achievements, which are not reflected in exams, diplomas or degrees – but which may be just as important to them – and to their employers, too. Voluntary work, for example. Excellence in sport. The enterprise shown by pupils in running a business at schools. Or the leadership of an employee who heads up a project team. These are individual records. They foster pride in past achievement and encourage future effort. In a few short months this idea has become a phenomenal success. Over 2 million record forms have so far been ordered – by many thousands of schools, and more than 600 firms.

    I want to encourage this trend. But that is not really a job for government. So we are today inviting your Council, Mr Chairman, to take responsibility for its future development. I know you will work hard to spread the use of National Records of Achievement, so that they become a permanent and valued feature of the landscape of personal achievement.

    Taken together, the extension of NVQs, the new general qualification, the Advanced Diploma, and the Record of Achievement are all substantial initiatives. But we intend to carry the underlying philosophy further and deeper into training through life.

    Training and Enterprise Councils have given local employers a key place in establishing patterns of training that are suitable for their area. At the same time, our new pilot project with Training Credits will give young people the purchasing power to become investors in their own future. They will have the choice as to how they use this new opportunity.

    And we have evolved other innovative ways of creating new incentives for people to invest in their own training and development. Career Development Loans, for example. And, from April this year, a new tax relief for the fees which individuals pay for training leading to NVQs.

    These increasingly open and flexible approaches to learning are bringing better education and training within reach of all – even to those who once would have been prevented by work or domestic circumstances from pursuing them. Now qualifications that count can be gained by anyone who can demonstrate competence -whether it was gained under formal instruction or whilst doing a job.

    The Role of Employers

    It is right that employers should be involved in defining the standards of occupational competence. And I should like to add my personal thanks today to the thousands of employers who are actively engaged in that work.

    I believe that so many employers are sharing this commitment because they recognise the benefits which the new qualifications can bring. Real tangible benefits, which some are already enjoying.

    Being able to match people’s skills much more closely to the needs of their business.

    Knowing exactly what additional training anyone needs in order to move to another job.

    Choosing the most appropriate form of training.

    Knowing that people have been trained systematically to clearly defined high standards.

    Working through qualifications developed by and for the real world of employment. They are already in regular use in key sectors such as retailing, catering and construction. But the success of our reforms hinges on the wider use and understanding of the qualifications which we are developing.

    The Skills Revolution

    This Government has launched a Skills Revolution – a revolution that is gathering momentum year by year. And yet, in truth, to say that under-states what is happening. For it is really two revolutions which are happening together. A revolution among individuals, who are demanding and playing a much greater part in their own training and development. And a revolution among employers who are training their employees as never before. I have no doubt that employers must be in the lead in this skills revolution.it That is why I have supported strongly the establishment and development of TECs. And why this Government will always resist a return to the old centralist policies of compulsory training levies and bureaucratic control that some still seek. Industry is proving its commitment to high quality training. And it is doing that, too, by the support that it is giving to this Council.

    You, Mr Chairman, can be sure of this Government’s support in the work you still have ahead. For your council is developing a system which is raising our nation’s skill levels. You are developing a system of quality against which employers can assess the skills of their people and individuals can judge their success in developing their talents.

    Wider choice. Personal motivation. Employer leadership and commitment. That is the basis of our approach. It is the best path to personal fulfilment and to more competitive enterprise. It is the path that will lead to high standards in education and training. And to success for our country in matching – and outclassing – our trade competitors in the years ahead.

    It is the right path. And I wish you well in developing it.

  • PMQT – 26 November 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Robert Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Can the Prime Minister remember those heady, happy days a year ago when his predecessor was tossed out of office? Now that his policies, the economy and everything around is in disarray, and with the right hon. Lady making a comeback, who will be the first to put him out of his misery in Downing street–the people at the election or his right hon. Friend?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has clearly not observed that in the last year inflation has fallen to 4 per cent. and the interest rate to 10.5 per cent., the tax burden on business has been lightened, there is a pay review body for teachers and better standards and choice for parents–all of which were opposed by the Labour party. When the time comes, the hon. Gentleman will have the pleasure–if he holds his seat–of staying on the Opposition Benches.

    Mr. Haselhurst : Does my right hon. Friend agree with the comment made on Sunday that we should not commit ourselves now in advance of 1997 to a single currency as a point of agreement that all sensible people could hold? Will he contrast that with the words of the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that Labour would sign up to a single currency now, irrevocably?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. That was certainly the view of the right hon. Gentleman in the debate last week, but it was flatly contradicted by his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor on television at the weekend. Of course, he did say that not committing ourselves to a single currency was the point of agreement that “all sensible people” would have.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister still take the view, as he told the House last Thursday, that he has the full support of his predecessor?

    The Prime Minister : My predecessor supported me in the Lobby last week, as did the vast majority of the House.

    Mr. Kinnock : That answer demonstrates just how hollow was the vote for the right hon. Gentleman last Thursday night. Does the Prime Minister not remember saying just a year ago on the steps of Downing street that the Conservative party was

    “fully united for the future”

    and is that not patently false now when, in the approach to the vital meeting at Maastricht, the Tory party is in a state of open warfare?

    The Prime Minister : It is within the recollection of the House that there were around 28 Labour abstentions in the Division last week. We also know from the honest remarks of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that around two fifths of the Labour party opposed its Front Bench’s policy on Europe.

    Sir John Stokes : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first time that I have asked him a question since his appointment, and I intend to enjoy it? Is he further aware that he carries the good wishes of the party behind him in the difficult few months to come and should go to the talks in great confidence, knowing of the great contribution that this country has made to Europe since the days of William Pitt?

    Mr. Speaker : Will the hon. Gentleman get on with it, please?

    Sir John Stokes : Does my right hon. Friend realise that in dealing with things that we hold so dear we want to make sure that the European Community gives us a good bargain and that what we give to it will be given back to us?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am pleased to be in a position to answer his question. He is entirely right about the British contribution to Europe, both in the long term and in the past few years when much of the present shape of the Community has arisen from initiatives by this country. We can play a role in developing Europe or we can turn our backs on the Community. By turning our backs, we would forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community and I am not prepared to do that.

    Mr. Ashdown : As the Prime Minister approaches the first anniversary of his move into his new home, will he spare a thought for the tens of thousands who, because of his policies, are now losing theirs? Does he realise that mortgage repossessions were 16, 000 in 1989 and 44,000 last year, and that this year they are predicted to rise to 120,000, or 1 per cent. of all mortgage holders? Does he realise that he cannot sit on the fence on this one, and what does he intend to do about it?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman should have noticed, a few days ago my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced further steps to help all those in receipt of income support who have mortgages. The right hon. Gentleman says that that helps nobody, but it costs £400 million a year, so it must help rather a lot of people.

    Mr. Soames : Will my right hon. Friend contrast the judicious, prudent and honourable way in which he and his right hon. Friends are negotiating in the European talks with the cynical sell-out proposed by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)?

    The Prime Minister : It is the case that we have set out our position perfectly clearly so that our European partners know what is acceptable to the House and what is not. The Labour party’s position is now perfectly clear. If somebody else in Europe wants it, it will sign up to it.

     

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

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

    Mr. Eadie : Will the Prime Minister consider the abolition of standing charges to pensioners by the private monopolies? Does he agree that with the massive increases in salaries for those bodies’ chairmen and the ridiculous spend on advertising that we are witnessing, those companies can well afford to drop the standing charges? Why does not the Prime Minister arrange to meet pensioners’ representatives at No. 10 Downing street and listen to their powerful case on the matter?

    The Prime Minister : The abolition of one or other of the energy standing charges has been a popular mission for many people for many years, but abolition would undoubtedly lead to a higher unit cost and as many of the most vulnerable people use the most electricity or the most fuel generally, they would in fact be net losers and not net beneficiaries.

    Mr. Thornton : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the chairman, trustees and staff of the Aintree national health service hospital trust on the establishment of a new £7 million project that will give it the largest accident and emergency unit in Europe? Is that not the best possible example of how the Government’s commitment to the NHS is working?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not aware of that investment, but I very much welcome it. It shows the huge investment currently being made in the national health service and the excellent way in which many trusts are using the resources available to them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Turner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Turner : How does the Prime Minister justify sending his son to a private school where nearly £4,000 a year is spent on each child when at present half the children in Tory-run Cambridgeshire’s secondary schools receive only half that amount and when that authority is currently reducing its budget by almost £2 million? [Hon. Members :– “What about choice?”] I ask that question in terms not of choice, but of equity for all children.

    The Prime Minister : Our party believes in choice. I note yet again the Labour party’s hostility to any persons exercising any choice in the interests of their family. I believe that millions of people in this country will acknowledge that there would be no choice for them if there were a Labour Government.

    Miss Emma Nicholson : Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the 1992 legislation does not come into force until 31 December 1992 and that the same is true of the 1986 Single European Act? Will he confirm to the House, the country and the international community that he will then be in his second term as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to confirm that to my hon. Friend. One reason why that will be so is that we have a coherent approach to Europe, not one that changes every weekend.

     

    Cyprus

    Q4. Mr. Cox (Tooting) : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Cyprus.

    The Prime Minister : I next plan to visit Cyprus for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 1993.

    Mr. Cox : As Cyprus is a Commonwealth country and we are one of the guarantor powers for that island, how does the Prime Minister justify the ongoing occupation of much of that island by the Turkish army? Against that background and the highly critical comments of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 8 October about the attitude and behaviour of Mr. Denktash, when will the Government–and the Prime Minister in particular– show some evidence of active involvement in the affairs of Cyprus for the benefit of both communities, Greek and Turkish? When does he intend to do that?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have had a number of meetings with President Vassiliou during the year and that I have already met Turkish Ministers, as has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We continue to give support to the United Nations Secretary-General’s efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement. The United Nations is soon to resume discussions with both sides. I hope that sufficient progress can be made for the Secretary-General to convene an international meeting soon, as endorsed by a number of Security Council resolutions. We shall continue to do all that we can to resolve the problem.

    Mr. Nelson : Will my right hon. Friend confirm today that the Conservative Government are planning to spend more next year on local–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The question is about Cyprus.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Mullin : Does the Prime Minister agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who said on Friday

    “We are not accepting the principle of a single currency”

    Yes or no, please?

    The Prime Minister : It is entirely clear from the documents in front of us in the treaty that we are enabling ourselves to have the option to opt in. We are not committed to opting in by anything in either clause 2 or any later part of the treaty.

     

    Q7. Mr. Gill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Gill : Does my right hon. Friend agree that any proposal to double the European Community structural funds will inevitably result in higher tax bills for the British taxpayer? Will he therefore assure the House that that proposal, which is supported by the Labour party, will be resisted most strenuously at Maastricht on the basis that one man’s subsidy is another man’s tax bill?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, although the issue is not directly on the table at Maastricht. We have made it clear that we see no case for a further massive increase in the structural funds. They are already substantial. They were doubled in real terms in 1987 over a five-year period. The contribution from some member states represents as large a share of gross domestic products as Marshall aid did after world war two.

     

    Q8. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Ross : Has the Prime Minister had time to study the excellent article in the Glasgow Herald yesterday by the last Conservative leader of Glasgow district council, reflecting on the problems facing the Tory party in coming to terms with the need to give Scotland its own Parliament? If the Prime Minister gets a chance to read it, will he accept that it more accurately reflects the views of the people of Scotland than his Front Bench team does?

    The Prime Minister : The strict answer is no, Sir, I have not yet studied that article, but in view of what the hon. Gentleman says I will most certainly do so. I do not believe that people in Scotland wish to break the Union. That is the direction in which the Labour party’s policies are going.

  • PMQT – 21 November 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Does my right hon. Friend believe that there should be a referendum on the Maastricht summit? What is my right hon. Friend’s opinion about a referendum to be held sometime in the future on the single currency?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to my hon. Friend’s question in both cases is no. The Government do not intend to hold a referendum on the outcome of the Maastricht negotiations. There is no case for one and the Government will not offer one. On the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, that issue would, self-evidently, be a matter for a future Parliament, but my view remains that we are a parliamentary democracy and I see no need for a referendum.

    Mr. Kinnock : I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that answer. Will he, therefore, confirm that for as long as he is leader of the Conservative party it will never accept referendums on European Community matters?

    The Prime Minister : I have just made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman. On this issue I do not see the need for a referendum.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hannam : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to read the speech of Mr. Jacques Delors in which he said that no single group of nations had survived purely on the basis of intergovernmental relationships? Will my right hon. Friend remind Mr. Delors of the existence of NATO, where intergovernmental agreement has succeeded, and contrast it with the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, where excessive central control has undoubtedly failed?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a very telling point. The Community including the Commission, must adapt to the changes in Europe. There is a case for flexible arrangements and I set that out yesterday, but they are for Governments to determine. They are expressly not policy matters for the Commission to determine.

    Mr. Ashdown : Having yesterday heard the views of his predecessor with regard to Europe, surely the Prime Minister must now realise that he has to make a choice. He can either have Finchley or Maastricht, but he cannot have both. Will he now choose Europe or her? Or will he stay lamely stuck on the fence?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman was here yesterday when I set out quite clearly and in some detail the Government’s position on the negotiations at Maastricht. As I recall, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) began her speech by giving me her full support– [Interruption.]

     

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

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

    Mr. Batiste : Since our success in exploiting the opportunities of the European Community must depend considerably on getting the maximum benefit from our education system, is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that mixed ability teaching in secondary schools is causing widespread under-achievement by pupils at both ends of the ability spectrum? Will he therefore join me in welcoming the comment yesterday of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that streaming is the only effective way of getting the best from all our children?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and with the remarks by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Over the past few months he has shown clearly that he will make one of the great Secretaries of State for Education and Science.

     

    Q4. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Jones : Following his reply last Tuesday to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will the Prime Minister now promise to restore the unemployment benefit rights which so benefited him when he was a young man in the 1960s and which he abolished in the 1980s? Is not the Prime Minister guilty of kicking away the ladder now that he has got to the top?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the social security system any more than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If he did, he would be aware that since the early 1960s all sorts of care allowances have been introduced such as invalid care allowance and the hon. Gentleman clearly did not know about that.

     

    Q5. Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Dunn : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be aware that we have more inward investment than any other European Commission country, partly as a result of our lower taxation policies on income, profits and employers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are likely to lose our advantage in attracting inward investment if we sign up to a policy of binding minimum rates of taxation in Europe, a policy which is already supported and endorsed by the Labour party and was yesterday by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?

    The Prime Minister : Higher corporate taxes are bound to mean lower inward investment from abroad, particularly in many of the regions of this country. It would be particularly damaging for Scotland, and that is also why a Scottish assembly with tax-raising powers would be very bad news indeed for Scotland. We will leave it to the Opposition to advocate higher taxes on companies and individuals. That is not our policy. We will advocate lower taxes and in so doing will encourage more inward investment.

     

    Q6. Mr. Callaghan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Callaghan : In view of the terrible brain damage suffered by two boxers in recent bouts, will the Prime Minister give the House his views on boxing? Does he agree with the British Medical Association that boxing should be banned in this country?

    The Prime Minister : No. I do not agree with banning boxing in this country. It is important that there is proper medical attention and that the referee has full discretion to stop the bout whenever he wishes. Boxing should not be banned in this country, and any move to do so would not have my support.

     

    Q7. Sir George Gardiner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Sir George Gardiner : Will my right hon. Friend give his assessment of the kind of man who, after declaring himself to be a reluctant European, can argue today in favour of an immediate signing-up to a single currency and joining a headlong rush to a federal Europe? In an attempt to resolve that enigma, will my right hon. Friend find time to have a private word with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)?

    The Prime Minister : I have a busy day, and I doubt whether I will have time for that, but I share my hon. Friend’s concern at the U-turns that we have seen, but not just from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)–although certainly from him–but from the Labour party. We should remember that, if we had listened to the Labour party, we would not be negotiating at Maastricht, we would be queueing outside the Community trying to get back into it.

     

    Tibet

    Q8. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Bush about the implications of that section of the State Department Authorization Act 1991 which relates to Tibet and the position of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile.

    The Prime Minister : None, Sir.

    Dr. Godman : The United States Congress, by way of that Act, holds to the view that Tibet is an occupied country whose true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile. It would appear, would it not, that President Bush also has that perception, as he signed that Act on 28 October? Does the Prime Minister share the belief that Tibet is an occupied country whose true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile?

    The Prime Minister : Tibet has never been internationally recognised as an independent country. No country in the world regards Tibet as independent now. Having said that, we have taken every opportunity, including my recent visit to China, to set out our concerns about the way in which Tibetans are treated and to urge that they have proper human rights.

    Mr. Quentin Davies : While rejoicing with the rest of the civilised world at the release of Terry Waite and the other hostages– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The question is about Tibet.

     

    Engagements

    Q9. Mr. Tim Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Smith : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for the first time since the start of the recession, responses from Milton Keynes business to the latest quarterly economy survey show an increase in home sales and orders and that the more benign economic climate, with falling interest rates and falling inflation, has resulted in a further large increase in business confidence and an expectation of higher turnover and higher profits over the next 12 months? Is not that very good news indeed?

    The Prime Minister : It is, indeed, but it was foreshadowed by the authoritative CBI survey which shows rising expectations for investment, output and exports. That means an increase in planned spending on training and innovation which has now returned to pre-recession levels.

    Mr. Beggs : Can the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no further concessions to the Irish Republic in order to obtain the extradition of terrorist suspects to stand trial in the United Kingdom? Further, will he assure us that, if Her Majesty’s Government decide to appoint a commissioner to supervise terrorist interrogations, that commissioner will be a British citizen?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not bargain and that we do not do deals. That has remained, does remain, and will remain the position.

     

    Q10. Mr. Cran : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Cran : Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in the great northern constituency of Beverley would like to get away from the iron grip of Labour-controlled Humberside council? As the Boundary Commission has already asked for that council to be abolished, does my right hon. Friend agree that the local government commission that he is to establish should consider abolishing Humberside council before any other?

    The Prime Minister : I know of my hon. Friend’s particular interest in that matter, but it would be wise to wait until our new local government commission has examined the overall structure of local government before making any specific decisions. I assure my hon. Friend that we intend to ask the new commission to make that task one of its early priorities.

    Mr. Benn : I rise to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I called the right hon. Gentleman to ask a question.

    Mr. Benn : In that case, Mr. Speaker, my question touches on a point that I will raise with you in a moment.

    Mr. Speaker : I would much rather that the right hon. Gentleman asks his question of the Prime Minister, not me.

    Mr. Benn : The whole House understands that the Prime Minister’s view is that the British people have no right to be directly consulted on the constitutional changes that may emerge from Maastricht. However, the Prime Minister will know, having been present for yesterday’s debate, that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House argue for a referendum. If the Prime Minister believes in parliamentary democracy, does he not agree that the House has a right to decide whether there should be a referendum, and will he provide an opportunity to hold one?

    The Prime Minister : Many views can be held on the subject of referendums. I have expressed my own, and I do not intend to change it.

  • PMQT -7 November 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have been asked to reply.

    Hon. Members : Where is he?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I call the Leader of the House.

    Mr. MacGregor : This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a bilateral with President Bush in Rome. He is currently attending the NATO summit now under way there. That summit will set the future course for NATO to ensure that it remains as it has been–a bedrock of stability in a still uncertain world. The fact that Opposition Members should regret the fact that my right hon. Friend is in Rome, shows how little attention they pay to defence and NATO matters. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This kind of thing gives a very bad impression elsewhere.

    Mr. Jessel : On Europe, to put it beyond all doubt in this House, in the country, and on the continent, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government that Britain shall not go down the route of a federal Europe and that it is for Britain to decide on the future of her own currency?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are not going down the route of a federal Europe. With regard to a single currency and economic and monetary union, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are not prepared to commit Britain now to a single currency. We will be able shortly to debate those matters more fully in the House, but we have on many occasions made it clear that this Parliament will decide on the single currency issue at some date well into the future if and when it should arise.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I call Mr. Kinnock.

    Hon. Members : Where is he?

    Mr. Kinnock : All present and correct, Sir.

    Is the Leader of the House aware that three times in the past 24 hours the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to answer direct questions about the Government’s plans for further increases in VAT? Is that not surprising because the Chancellor has repeatedly been eager to make precise pledges of cuts in income tax to 20p in the medium term? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now, in precise terms, what are the Government’s plans for making further increases in VAT?

    Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman will be all present on the Opposition Benches for some time to come and will not be leading for Britain at future NATO summits. In answer to his question, the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the commitment to income tax is one that would extend over the lifetime of the future Parliament and perhaps beyond that. That is a general commitment for some time to come. No precise dates have been given. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to ask questions about tax, given the very high public spending commitments to which his party is committed.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Leader of the House has even changed the line on what the Chancellor said on income tax this morning. As far as talking about tax is concerned, I realise the right hon. Gentleman’s sensitivity. His Government have, after all, lifted the tax burden on the British people to the highest of any Government in history. The right hon. Gentleman is wriggling. Since the Prime Minister has announced the target rate for income tax, surely he can announce the target rate for VAT. If he can tell us the one, surely he can tell us the other. Why are the Government so specific on income tax and so shifty on VAT?

    Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the commitment on income tax is a longer-term one and that we hope to achieve it as and when conditions permit and when it is prudent to do so. We have made that clear on many occasions. But it is really not for him to argue the case about taxes because, as we well know– [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like that. The reason they do not like it is that they are so sensitive about it. We know perfectly well that the Labour party has committed itself to an additional £35,000 million of public spending and no capping on local authority expenditure. The two combined would mean a very high increase in the tax and community charge burden on all people.

    Mr. Kinnock : The longer that the right hon. Gentleman speaks, the less he convinces. Will he tell us now? After making huge rises in VAT in the past 12 years, what are the Government’s plans to make further increases in VAT?

    Mr. MacGregor : The Government have made their public expenditure plans absolutely clear, and they are clear on the normal basis. It is equally clear–the right hon. Gentleman has not refuted this–that, in fact, the £35 billion spending commitment of the Labour party would mean either a very big increase in income tax and/or a very big increase in VAT, and it would be likely to be both.

    Mr. Michael Brown : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s proposals to introduce powers to prevent local authorities from excessive spending by means of capping will be very well received by all those in Labour-controlled authorities who have to put up with excessive tax bills? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that those people will not welcome the pledge that was given from the Opposition Benches yesterday to ensure that high-spending Labour authorities can go with gay abandon to yet higher spending?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a point that will have to be stressed again and again. On top of the increased taxes-direct and indirect taxes that would come from their spending pledges–the Opposition have now committed themselves to no capping on high-spending local authorities. That can mean only higher community charge and council tax bills as well.

     

    Q2. Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Sir David Steel : Is the Lord President aware that, at the end of last week, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry warmly welcomed the Government committee report recommending, among other environmental measures, an increase in petrol tax? They have referred that recommendation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will he ensure before the Budget that, in any such conservation measure, account is taken of the needs of rural areas where– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Interruptions take a lot of time.

    Sir David Steel : Admittedly including the area that we will represent after today, in rural areas in which the car is a necessity and in which the cost of petrol is already high, what compensatory measures are the Government prepared to support?

    Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friends have not committed the Government to any position on tax, but I notice that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman wants to have it both ways. As it would put it, the Liberal Democratic party claims to make people face up to hard decisions by increasing pricing and taxes. However, because some of its Members of Parliament come from rural areas, they want those rural areas to be protected. It is typical of the right hon. Gentleman and his party to make different noises in different places.

    Mr. Lord : Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing is more damaging to the fabric of a nation than the failure properly to educate its children? May I urge him to press for a return to traditional standards of teaching in our primary schools as soon as possible?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that what we are doing through the national curriculum, and especially in the testing of seven, 11, 14 and 16-year-olds, will ensure not only that we can monitor progress on standards, but that pupils who are falling behind will be given the assistance that they need to improve. The point of our educational reforms is to improve standards.

     

    Q3. Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Campbell : The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that 22 November is the first anniversary of the sinking of the fishing vessel Antares in the Firth of Clyde as a result of its gear being snagged by the submarine HMS Trenchant. However, is he aware that the Royal Navy is proposing to hold a similar exercise in the same waters on the day immediately following that anniversary? Is not the timing of that exercise particularly insensitive, and is there any reason why it should not be postponed for a period of, say, a week as a mark of respect to the crew of the Antares, all of whom perished when the vessel was sunk?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows the considerable steps that have been taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to deal with the aftermath of that tragic incident. I shall draw the hon. and learned Gentleman’s particular point to my right hon. Friend’s attention.

    Mr. Rathbone : As our Prime Minister is away at such an important summit conference–important for the security of the whole of the western world–does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate at this moment to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to that European pillar, the Western European Union?

    Mr. MacGregor : Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it absolutely clear that, in our view, that body will play an important part in our future defence position. I am sure that that will be discussed today at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gareth Wardell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Wardell : In view of his admission some weeks ago that this Government have imposed the heaviest tax burden in British history, will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise for the Chancellor’s wholly inaccurate statement to the House yesterday that the Government have been cutting taxes ever since 1979?

    Mr. MacGregor : The truth of the matter is that we have seen a substantial reduction in direct tax rates, a substantial improvement in standards of living and, as a result of the reduction in tax rates, an improvement in the tax base, which has enabled us not only to achieve increased public spending on a large scale in our key priority areas, especially health, but to achieve a reduction in direct income tax and, overall, considerably to improve our public sector borrowing requirement.

     

    Q5. Mr. Andrew Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Mitchell : Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread support among parents for the Government’s proposal that schools should make their public examination results available for publication in common form? Does he agree that that would give parents an objective answer to the question, “How is my child’s school doing?”, as well as further pressing back the frontiers of choice in education?

    Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He refers to an important part of the reforms that we are undertaking. I pay tribute to him for first raising the subject of league tables for schools’ performances in the Bill that he introduced earlier in the year. League tables of examination results, destinations of school leavers, truancy rates and all the other items that we are suggesting will be an important aid towards improving parental choice. I was glad to note that that was endorsed by the chairman of the Audit Commission this morning.

    Ms. Primarolo : Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government voted against the EC directive on maternity leave which would have given women a minimum of 16 weeks of maternity leave and protection from being sacked because they are pregnant? This is the second time in less than two weeks that the Government have failed to respond to the Prime Minister’s so-called commitment to women’s equality. Why should women believe anything that the Government say?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Lady is wrong. An agreement was reached yesterday which represents a sensible balance on maternity pay. It carries forward the interests of women without imposing an undue burden on employers. The Government abstained on a different aspect relating to the Treaty of Rome basis. We did not believe that the issue should have come within that particular article. That is why we abstained. The political agreement was reached clearly.

    Under our policies more than one in three of the jobs created in the European Community for women were created during the past eight years in Britain. That is a clear indication of the opportunity and choice that we give.

     

    Q.6 Mr. Thorne : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Thorne : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures given yesterday for expenditure on the national health service, education and transport show our clear commitment to expenditure on those items? Does he agree that those people in the House who advocate expenditure without saying how much they are prepared to spend are entirely unconvincing?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. The autumn statement yesterday demonstrated that we have substantially increased in real terms– after inflation–the spending in each of the three areas that my hon. Friend mentioned. Indeed, in health the additions announced yesterday represent £50 more for every man, woman and child in Britain. That means that the increase in health spending since we took office is 55 per cent. in real terms. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the high additional spending programmes of some £35 billion advocated by the Labour party, which would put a crippling tax burden on so many families in Britain.

  • PMQT – 15 October 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th October 1991. John MacGregor responded on behalf of John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of The House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have been asked to reply My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing will prevent the dismantling of Saddam Hussein’s capability to manufacture nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend made a particular personal contribution in the Gulf war and I therefore understand why he has made that point. I am happy to give him that assurance. He will agree that this country has played a major part in securing resolution 687 which stated that we would seek, identify and destroy Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. As a result of the United Kingdom’s initiative and of the courage of members of the teams including scientists from several countries under United Nations auspices, it is becoming clear just how extensive and advanced was Iraq’s nuclear weapons capability. [Interruption.] I do not understand why Opposition Members are reacting in that way, because they must know that this is one of the most crucial international issues at the moment. The Iraqi Government are still trying to cling to it and are still cheating and lying. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) that they will not be permitted to succeed. One way or another, their nuclear capability must go, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a very important matter.

    Mr. Kinnock : Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government propose to do to stop the process of privatisation of the national health service?

    Mr. MacGregor : The first thing is to make it clear–time and again- -as I believe the right hon. Gentleman now knows, that there is no question of privatisation. [Interruption.] That is why the right hon. Gentleman is now retreating to his charge of creeping privatisation. Let me tell him what that amounts to. It amounts to issues like contracting out of services and competitive tendering. It amounts also to other issues to ensure better reforms of the health service. Even allowing for all the savings that Labour claims that it would make, the net loss to patient care as a result of Labour’s proposals for abolishing competitive tendering and charges and introducing a statutory minimum wage–proposals that would cost nearly £400 million a year–is equivalent to 400,000 fewer acute in- patient treatments or 16,000 fewer heart transplants, 12,000 fewer liver transplants or 40,000 fewer kidney transplants. That is the point the Leader of the Opposition has refused to answer. The policies that we are pursuing are not creeping privatisation, they are achieving proper reforms to ensure that the resources are better directed to patient care.

    Mr. Kinnock rose–

    Hon. Members : Tell the truth.

    Mr. Kinnock rose–

    Mr. Dickens : Lies– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Withdraw that remark.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

    Mr. Kinnock : Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows–

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Dickens : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been a custom — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. No point of order arises. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the comment.

    Mr. Dickens : In accordance with your wishes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “lies”. We do not lie in the House of Commons.

    Mr. Kinnock : There is another withdrawal in order. It is the withdrawal of opt-outs and privatisation, for which the Government have no mandate.

    Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the closure of geriatric wards in NHS hospitals means that old and very sick people are forced into private medical homes? Is not he aware that people now have to pay the commercial rate for eye tests? Is not he aware that people are having to use their life savings for urgent operations? The people call that privatisation–so do we.

    Mr. MacGregor : Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is engaging in the smears and fears again? There is no question of national health trust hospitals being outside the national health service. On eye test charges, he will know that about 40 per cent. of the population do not have to pay for those eye charges. Is he really saying that he would abolish them and thus deprive patients with serious hospital needs from getting the extra resources that he would take away? Is that what he is saying? On elderly people in homes, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the number of elderly people supported by public funds in residential care has more than doubled since 1979.

    Mr. Kinnock : The more the Government protest, the less the Government are believed. Is it not clear to the right hon. Gentleman that, when people have to pay for services at the point of use that were free at the point of use, that is privatisation in anyone’s language?

    Mr. MacGregor : May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Labour Government supported the idea of some charges in the health service? He simply has to answer the question that we have increased resources of more than 50 per cent. in real terms in the health service. He is putting forward the only proposals that seem to be different. The only proposals that he can possibly say are creeping privatisation, are actually designed to improve the amount of money that goes direct to patient care. He has failed to answer the question why he would pursue that policy and thus deprive patients of operations which are currently taking place.

    Mr. Ken Hargreaves : When the Leader of the Opposition refers to opt-out hospitals, is it not the case

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Please deal with Government policy.

    Mr. Hargreaves : Will my right hon. Friend agree that in response to his recent remarks, the opting out of NHS hospitals is simply the return to their status before 1974, as in the case of teaching hospitals which were then hospital trusts? Is it not the case that a large number of those hospitals wish to have the management of their own affairs in that state to which they were accustomed before 1974?

    Mr. MacGregor : I would go further than my hon. Friend. The reforms are ensuring better use of resources in the health service directly on patient care. The reason why we are getting wholly unfounded smears and fears is that the Labour party has nothing to say about improving the management of the national health service.

     

    Q2. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Skinner : On the subject of facts and figures, does the Leader of the House recall that on 8 November last year the Prime Minister forecast that there would be a surplus on the Budget account of about £3 billion? He was wrong. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the budget for this year forecast a deficit on the Budget account of £8,000 million. He was wrong again, because the forecast for this year looks like being at least £18 billion. The truth is that the Government cannot get their economic sums right, and that is why they cannot be believed on the national health service or anything else. The Tory Government would not recognise the truth if it were sprayed on their eyeballs.

    Mr. MacGregor : This Government have succeeded in achieving a rate of economic growth throughout the 1980s that has been a good deal faster than in previous decades. That is why we have been able to increase spending on the national health service and in many other areas. It comes very rich from the hon. Gentleman’s party to accuse us about issues relating to public expenditure when we know that the Labour party has already committed itself to an increased expenditure bill of £35,000 million.

     

    Q3. Mr. Roger King : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. King : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the city of Birmingham is blessed with a superb education system based on choice? We have six grammar schools, a city technology college on our border, a growing number of grant-maintained schools and many church schools. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will maintain that element of choice in our education system, in contrast to the Labour party which is intent on nationalising all that choice?

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend. I have visited that city technology college and some of the grant-maintained schools. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the reforms that we are undertaking and the extra choice that we are giving are raising educational standards and increasing parental choice. It is very noticeable that grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges are increasingly popular with parents because demand for places at them is rising substantially. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Labour party would abolish that choice.

    Mr. Ashdown : How does the Leader of the House reconcile a Government who say that they want to privatise British Rail with a Prime Minister who appears to want to run British Rail? Is not the problem the fact that the travelling public are now paying in full for the Government’s 11-year neglect of our rail system, and is not the answer to give BR access to the private markets to increase investment and to give private services access to the rail network to increase competition?

    Mr. MacGregor : At present, BR is engaged on a massive programme of capital investment to improve services. I believe that the public are prepared to pay more in charges to secure that improvement in services. As for the charge about the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend had a view to express about those lines that were faced with a higher-than-average increase to reflect the benefits of extra investment and better services. In the case of one line, he said that that should happen only when the better services were delivered. That is the citizens charter already operating.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Bowis : Has my right hon. Friend been able to study the case of my constituent who stands to lose his job and is being victimised at his place of work because of his support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-poll tax campaign, despite the fact that 30 of his workmates take the same view and are not being sacked? Will my right hon. Friend look into this matter? He will understand that on this occasion I cannot name my constituent, but his job is as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Time is getting on.

  • Mr Major’s 1991 Conservative Party Conference Speech – 11 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s 1991 Conservative Party Conference Speech, made on the 11th October 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Earlier this week this Conference welcomed Mrs Thatcher. You gave her the most tumultuous reception. She deserved it. She led our country for over 11 years, our Party for over 15. We owe Margaret a great debt.

    The Britain she left us is immeasurably stronger than the Britain she found. Above all, she helped others to believe in us and us to believe in ourselves. And on those foundations she laid three great Election victories.

    It’s good to applaud; it’s grand to cheer. But the greatest tribute we can pay her is to do as she did. To win, and win, and win again. At this Conference – and what a successful Conference it’s been – you have heard how the next Conservative Government will secure the best future for Britain.

    We’ve heard some cracking speeches this week. From the right team. A young team – in fact the youngest Cabinet this century. A professional team.

    Just think for a moment. When the going gets rough in international affairs, who would be the first person you would send for? Gerald Kaufman? No. He would be the second person. The first person would be anyone but Gerald Kaufman. But far and away the best person would be Douglas Hurd, one of the finest Foreign Secretaries this country has ever had.

    Of course, Labour’s Captain tries to talk up his team. “A winning team” he calls them. After three election defeats? Well, it goes to show that there must be more than one way to look at history. Take waterloo. You thought Wellington won Waterloo? No, Waterloo was a smash hit for Napoleon. But we can help Labour to win one thing – the record for the longest run of election defeats. Played four. Lost four. And a probable vacancy for team captain.

    Last week at Brighton we had speech after speech about a fairy-tale future for the British people. In Labour’s Never-Mind-the-Cost-Never-Never Land. Then there was singalongaleader. It was all good fun if you like that sort of thing.

    But while this was happening out front, there was something thoroughly nasty seeping from under the platform. I refer, of course, to what Labour pretends to believe are the Government’s plans for the National Health Service. There’s only one way to deal with a lie: nail it to the wall of truth, as William Waldegrave so conclusively did yesterday. We have all been brought up with the Health Service. We use it. We cherish it. We are proud of it.

    I know that for millions of people in this country the National Health Service means security. I understand that. Because I am – and always have been – one of those people. I know that even when you’re fit and well, it brings peace of mind – just to know it’s there. It is unthinkable that I, of all people, would try to take that security away. A genuine belief I can respect, even when I profoundly disagree with it. But deliberate lies – repeated, repeated and repeated – merely diminishes its authors.

    The Health Service has been in existence for over 40 years. And who has been in Government for most of that period? We have. For 29 of those years it has been a Conservative Government. It has been under Conservative Governments that the National Health Service has been built up, enlarged and improved. And our reforms will carry that right through into the 1990s. So let me say now, once and for all, and without qualifications – under this Government the National Health Service will continue, to offer free hospital treatment to everyone.

    And so that no-one can misunderstand the position – and I hope the whole country is listening – let me make it even clearer. There will be no charges for hospital treatment, no charges for visits to the doctor, no privatisation of health care, neither piecemeal, not in part, nor as a whole. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not after the next election. Not ever while I’m Prime Minister.

    And if, after all I have said, there are still those who set out to frighten the vulnerable, the weak, and the old, with carefully calculated smears, then the public will know where to find them – in the gutters of public debate. Such people are not friends of the Health Service. They are the parasites that live on its back.

    No Conservative need be defensive about the Health Service. On the contrary, every Conservative has the right to share my disgust at what is said. Go to your local hospital. What do you find? You’ll find Conservatives. In the hospital shop. Serving with the League of Friends. Working on the wards. They are not just friends of the Health Service. They are part of the Health Service.

    The National Health Service doesn’t belong to the Labour Party. As its name makes clear, it belongs to the Nation. And – in both senses of the phrase – Labour isn’t going to get away with it. The Health Service is not a political football to be kicked around in the hope that, somehow or other, it will reopen the door of Downing Street to a Labour Government. It won’t. Neither by hook or by Cook.

    This is the first Conference I have addressed as Leader of the Conservative Party. It is hard to explain how I feel about that. It is a long road from Coldharbour Lane to Downing Street. It is a tribute to the Conservative Party that that road can be travelled.

    Perhaps at the back of this hall today there is another young man or woman who stands where I did 30 years ago. Who knows few people here. Who feels it is a long road to this platform, too.

    They should remember the last two leaders were a builder’s son from Broadstairs and a grocer’s daughter from Grantham. We don’t need lectures in the Conservative Party about opportunity. We are the Party of opportunity.

    This Party is open to all. And to all those who may be watching, wherever you come from, whatever your background, I say simply this, “Come and join us”. There are no barriers in our Party, just as there will be no barriers in the Britain we are building together.

    Some people ask whether we will have a different sort of Conservatism in future. Of course we will. We all bring our own beliefs, our own instincts, and our own experiences to politics. And I am no exception.

    But the fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, those beliefs that brought me into this Party, are the beliefs that Chris Patten expressed so brilliantly on Tuesday. They remain as strong today as ever. Old though our Party is, the values behind it are older still. They are rooted in the instincts of every individual. And it is through our policies that we make them come alive.

    What is it that we offer? A strong Britain, confident of its position; secure in its defences, firm in its respect for the law. A strong economy, free from the threat of inflation, in which taxes can fall, savings can grow, and independence is assured.

    I want to give individuals greater control over their own lives.

    – Every mother, every father, a say over their child’s education.

    – Every schoolchild, a choice of routes to the world of work.

    – Every patient, the confidence that their doctors can secure the best treatment for them.

    – Every business, every worker, freedom from the destructive dictatorship of union militants.

    – Every family, the right to have and to hold their own private corner of life; their own home, their own savings, their own security for their future – and for their children’s future.

    Building the self-respect that comes from ownership. Showing the responsibility that follows from self-respect. That is our programme for the 90s. I will put it in a single phrase: the power to choose – and the right to own.

    Do you know what Labour believes? That choice is something for them. They just can’t accept that choice is something most of us can be trusted with. You might make mistakes, they say. What arrogance. As if the State have never made mistakes, in our name, with our money. Try telling that the tenants of the crumbling tower blocks that disfigures our cities.

    And tell that to the citizens of Eastern Europe, who have risked their very lives for these freedoms, for the right to own, and for the power to choose. Ordinary values – for which ordinary people have, in our time, fought an extraordinary fight.

    During the summer I did quite a bit of travelling – Headingley, Edgbaston, Trent Bridge, Lord’s, the Oval. Also Moscow, Peking, Hong Kong and Kennebunkport. Wherever I went abroad, I found the same story. Britain is respected again. We don’t always realise the admiration and affection for Britain abroad.

    We’ve earned it, because when others have hesitated, we have always stood firm and given a lead. As we did again this year. In defence of freedom in Kuwait. We didn’t want that war, its waste, its suffering, its grief. But to achieve greater security in the world, we had to reverse the annexation of Kuwait. And to keep that security we must destroy Iraq’s nuclear weapons capacity. They are still trying to cling to it, still cheating, still lying.

    They cannot be permitted to succeed. One way or another that nuclear capacity must go. I hope it will go peacefully. If not, it must go by force. But go it will. In January I flew by helicopter over our army in the Gulf. I can still see the scene below me. A great convoy of troops and heavy equipment moving forward across the sands. For mile after mile. You could only marvel at the organisation and planning involved.

    But down on the ground, I had a different impression. Dug into position each unit seemed almost alone. Young men – mostly very young – thousands of miles from home in the wastes of the desert. Let me tell you what was in my mind when I met them. What would they think? Here was a new Prime Minister, unknown to them, untried, asking them to prepare for battle, perhaps not to return. How would they respond to that? And would they understand the reasons why they were there?

    Whatever doubts I had soon disappeared. They knew why there were there. They knew the cause was right. And they knew that they could do the job. They asked only to be allowed to get on with it. And, when they did, my goodness, how they proved their point. They really were the best of British.

    I learned something else from that extraordinary war and especially from that precision bombing that amazed the world. It’s this. If our troops are to do the job we ask, it is absolutely vital that their equipment and their training are the best.

    That is why in the last few weeks we have bought the new anti-submarine helicopter from Westland – the best. Why we are moving ahead with the new Challenger tank from Vickers – the best. And that’s why we will keep our own independent nuclear deterrent, Trident. The best security for Britain.

    And we will take with just a little pinch of salt the conversion of those who campaigned for CND for the past thirty years – and then suddenly let their principles ….what was the word? … lapse? What principles? First, peace at any price. Then power at any price. I know what this country will say to that. Never at any price. For a man who with no fixed view on the defence of Britain, there can be no fixed abode in Downing Street.

    As we saw again in the aftermath of war, a confident Britain is a force for good in a troubled world. If we had not created those safe havens in Iraq, hundreds and thousands of Kurdish people would have died last winter in bitter, freezing mountains. We spoke out strongly for human rights in Peking and spoke out first against the return of tyranny in Moscow.

    Alone among all the nations of the world we stand at the hub of three great interlocking alliances. Of NATO, which is and must remain the core of our defence. Of the European Community. And of the Commonwealth, which meets in conference next week. There we must persuade 50 nations, some – frankly – with a chequered political history, to a formal commitment to democracy and human rights.

    And in the 1990s I hope to see one former member of the Commonwealth once more take its rightful place. We have always fought for an end to apartheid. But we have worked just as consistently for the long-term goal of a fully free and prosperous South Africa. I believe that both goals are now in sight. And when they are reached I want to see South Africa back where she belongs – as a fully-fledged member of our Commonwealth of nations.

    A great debate is now underway in Europe. One in which the Conservative Party can speak with authority. Harold Macmillan first sought to take Britain into the Community, Ted Heath finally led us there, and Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act – with its vision of ever closer union between states. Closer union between states. Not a federal merger of states. That is still our policy.

    I believe strongly in partnership in Europe. Britain, as a great European power, has gained from our membership of the Community. That is the verdict of those people in our country who live by business, banking and trade, the very people on whom our prosperity and jobs depend. But it must be the right Europe. Let me set out for you the objectives that I have in mind, the principles that I will fight for, and the propositions I will resist.

    First we want a Community that will in time embrace the new democracies of the East. We have the chance to heal the scar that divided and disfigured Europe for two generations. The nations of Eastern Europe – Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States – need to know now that when their economies are ready for the Community, the Community will be ready for them.

    Second, I want a genuine single market, open for business right across the Community. It must have common rules. And these rules must be obeyed. When we sign up to something, we put words into actions. Some of our partners, I fear, are keener on making new rules than on keeping them. We need a system that can deal effectively with those who call themselves good Europeans, but who hijack lorries or hold up free trade.

    We are now negotiating new Treaties on political and economic union. I am always ready to listen to new ideas. But they must be workable ideas. Ideas that make sense for Europe, and for Britain. There are vital issues at stake. They involve hard judgments of where our true interests lie. The idea of a single European currency is one with enormous ramifications, both practical and political. At best it is an uncertain prospect. And treaty must provide for a separate decision to be taken – not now – but at a future date by the British Government and the British Parliament. It’s our decision. A single currency cannot be imposed upon us. And I would not accept, on behalf of Britain, any treaty which sought to impose a single currency – at however distant a date.

    We already work closely with our European partners in financial affairs. So, too, in foreign policy and defence. When national interest and Community interest coincide, then common action is only common sense. But in no circumstances – not now, not at Maastricht – will a Conservative Government give up the right, our national right, to take the crucial decisions about our security, our foreign policy and our defence.

    We are working to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December. But I cannot guarantee that our negotiations will succeed. For it is no easy task to get 12 nations to agree. And for my part, I shall put the interests of our country before any agreement. Not any agreement before the interests of our country.

    I hope we can reach agreement. If we do, I will submit that agreement to parliament. For it is here in Britain that the crucial decisions must be taken. Not in the European Parliament. Not in the Council of Ministers. Not in the Commission – certainly not in the Commission. It will be for Parliament to decide on behalf of the people of Britain who elected it.

    So far I have spoken of alliances. Of how much we can achieve if we work with other nations. But when it comes to the search for new markets, even our closest allies remain our competitors. I have never accepted the craven argument that Britain can’t compete with Germany or Japan. And I have contempt for the defeatists who run down our country and write of its future.

    Those who said we couldn’t compete in Europe when we led Britain into the Exchange-Rate Mechanism.

    Those who said that we would have to push up interest rates. And that our inflation was bound to stay far higher than the rest of the Continent.

    All that was just a year ago this week. And look what has really happened since.

    We have cut interests rates – eight times.

    Our exports to the rest of the Community have shot up. Our imports have fallen. Our trade deficit with Europe has been almost wiped out. And in case you haven’t heard this morning’s news, our inflation rate has fallen to just 4.1%. For the first time in a generation we have brought inflation down to German levels.

    They said we couldn’t do it. We did it. And in just one year. Let me remind the sell Britain short brigade of just a few facts. We attract more American investment than any other European country, and twice as much investment from Japan.

    Only two years ago, this country had a 17,000 million pound deficit on manufactured trade. This summer, we had a surplus. Our manufacturers sold more abroad than ever before. They didn’t sell Britain short. They sold for Britain. And they had to fight for their markets when the going was hard.

    I know times have been tough. Unemployment has risen. Many people have faced great difficulties. I know how they feel – what it’s like for a family when a business collapses. What it’s like when you’re unemployed and when you have to search for the next job.

    I have not forgotten – and I never will.

    It is because of that that I will never play fast and loose with the economy. Many have pressed us to do so this past year – siren voices, urging us on to the rocks of inflation, and off the course to recovery. The Chancellor and I ignored those voices. And, as he told you, we can now see the way ahead out of recession, to the recovery that will bring investment. To the investment that will bring jobs.

    And the clearer the signs of recovery, the louder the Labour Party complains.

    Look how they rounded on the Governor of the Bank of England. All because he dared to confirm what everyone else was saying. That recovery is on the way. When he said there was a recession – they cheered him. When he said it was coming to an end – they called for his head. What are they going to do with those hundreds of businessmen telling the CBI exactly the same thing? Will Labour threaten to sack them too? All of them?

    Do Labour realise what their policies would do to business?

    – Stab it in the back just when it’s winning the battle for trade

    – Impose new levies

    – Pile on new costs

    – Bring back union power.

    It may be true that a Labour Prime Minister would no longer get his marching orders over beer and sandwiches at No 10. In these days of designer socialism, he’d get them over a G&T – down at the Old T&G.

    A minimum wage would create the very unemployment they claim to care about. New burdens would drive business out of markets. Higher taxes would drive business talent abroad. Above all, inflation would drive our economy out of the future and back to the past.

    Remember who suffers from inflation.

    – Infant businesses

    – People on fixed incomes

    – Pensioners

    Inflation is a tax paid by those least able to protect themselves. It is Labour’s invisible tax. It wouldn’t come through the letter box, though there are plenty that would.

    They have eight new taxes lined up already.

    Well, that’s not surprising. We’ve costed Labour’s spending promises. 35 billion pounds extra and still rising. Of course, they say there would be hardly any more tax for hardly anyone. But that’s hardly credible.

    The next Labour Manifesto will be the biggest tax demand in history. They love nationalisation. High taxes nationalise choice. It won’t be a case of ‘you pays your money, you takes your choice’. It will be – they take your money, they take your choice.

    High taxes would enrich the businesses, the laboratories, the the universities of American and the rest of Europe at the expense of the businesses and universities of Britain. We’d be back with something we haven’t heard of for twelve years – the brain drain. Our low tax policies have built up a brain bank for Britain.

    Our Party has always kept personal tax rates down. And in the next Parliament we will go on doing so.

    Lower taxes don’t just mean richer people. They mean a richer life. A life with wider horizons, in which people can develop their interests. Support their favourite charity, pursue their hobbies. Go fishing or to a football match, the theatre or the cinema, or just save up for a holiday.

    But lower taxes give people more powerful choices, too. The chance to save for the long-term, to invest in the future. Building up a pension. Starting a business. Giving their children a good start in life – and passing on to them the fruits of a lifetime’s work.

    In the 1980s we began a great revolution. Our aim was a life enriched by ownership, in which homes, shares and pensions were not something for others, but something for everyone.

    We can now see the lifeblood of ownership – of wealth – running through the veins of the country. Nearly four million more families now own homes. And eight million people more own shares. And four and a half million people now have personal pensions.

    But this revolution is still not complete. In the 1990s we must carry it further. We must extend savings and ownership in every form. And we now have the chance to make enduring change. For people in their middle years are inheriting homes, businesses, farms on a scale never before seen. The pioneers of the property-owning democracy are the parents of the capital-owning democracy to come.

    We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew, with the past cut off and the future ignored.

    So, in the next Parliament, I believe that we must go much further in encouraging every family to save and to own. To extend every family’s ability to pass on something to their children, to build up something of their own – for their own.

    Labour have their eyes on the money stored in the homes in which millions of people now live – and in the businesses they have created. But I believe that what people have worked to build up in life, the State should never destroy.

    As Harold Macmillan once memorably put it, people walk in public gardens, but they tend their own. I want to build a pride in our common inheritance of town and city, coast and countryside. In the very fabric of our nation.

    I want to foster ownership in its widest sense. In making people feel that public property belongs to them. Giving them more say – at the local level – in how things are run. Giving them a choice. Putting them in control.

    That’s the idea behind our Citizen’s Charter – about which Francis Maude spoke so well yesterday. It will be a centrepiece of our policies for the 1990s. I want to see public services in which the passenger, the patient, the parent can have confidence. And in which public servants can have pride.

    I see that Labour are now trying to copy my ideas. I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised at that. Even the Labour Party has to have some good ideas amongst all the bad. It’s just that they filch the good ideas from us. The bad ones of course they think up for themselves. They don’t even hide it when they steal some of my clothes. Did you see how many of them were wearing grey suits last week? Have they no shame?

    The test for Labour will come in the next session of Parliament. We will be legislating on the Citizen’s Charter. We shall be giving parents a greater say in schools. Making the big utilities more responsive to customers. And as Michael Heseltine promised us yesterday, exposing incompetence in the council chamber.

    And how do you imagine Labour will vote? With us? For the charter? And for the consumer? Or against us? For the trade unions? For the old ways? For the past? But it’s not just a matter of changing the way we run things. It’s a matter of breaking down the false and futile divisions, based on class and envy, that have been around for generations. They are wholly artificial. Labour fosters those divisions. It thrives on them. Our task is to end them for good.

    I spoke of a classless society. I don’t shrink from that phrase. I don’t mean a society in which everyone is the same, or thinks the same, or earns the same. But a tapestry of talents in which everyone from child to adult respects achievement; where every promotion, every certificate is respected, and each person’s contribution is valued.

    And where the greatest respect is reserved for the law. There can be no harmony in a lawless society. The recent outbreaks of violence in some of our council estates involved a brutal disrespect for other people and their property. Such behaviour cannot be excused and will not be tolerated. In the face of such violence, I know that this Party will give the police the support that we always have. We admire the bravery and the professionalism of those young policeman and women who have been the front line against violent attacks. This Conference must leave no shred of doubt. Rioting is a crime – a serious crime. And it will be dealt with as such.

    But dealing with crime is not just something for other people – the police, or the courts, of the Government. It’s a challenge to everyone. And the way to fight crime is to change the attitudes that lie behind crime.

    The attitudes of people who say that theft of vandalism are somehow less serious. They call it property crime. Property crime? Tell that to the widow who has been robbed of treasured mementoes of her past life. That’s not a property crime. It’s a personal wound which can never be healed.

    This Government is going to crack down on crime, as Ken Baker made clear this week. Let me give you an example. What the irresponsible call joy-riding, we know as simple theft; dangerous driving, a disregard for human life, and the destruction of other people’s property. Some of these people are too young for a licence. We will ensure that when they reach driving age they can be banned from the road.

    As for those parents who stand by and watch while their children commit crimes, they are going to be held responsible for their children’s actions. Those in authority – parents and teachers as well – should use their authority to teach a sense of respect for others, for their rights, not just your own; for their opinions, their welfare and their possessions. Without respect for others, there can be no proper respect for the law.

    We don’t help our children by excusing bad behaviour, we betray them. And we lead them into worse behaviour. Sometimes it’s right to say no.

    A great deal has been written about my education. Never has so much been written about so little. Perhaps that’s why I am so keen on the subject. I believe that Ken Clarke’s programme of reform is a turning-point in education. It will mean that parents and pupils come first, that the key subjects are studied properly, and that the status of teachers is restored.

    Some have said that Ken Clarke and I are wrong to insist on simple pencil and paper tests for children in schools. Well, I’ll tell you what marks I would give to people like those. Nought out of ten for concern. Nought out of ten for interest in our children. Nought out of ten for commonsense. And, so long as there is a Conservative Government, they’ll get nought out of ten for influence in our schools.

    What Labour Governments did, and what all too many Labour Councils are still doing, is unforgivable – the years of levelling down; the destruction of good schools; the harassment of good teachers; the kicking away of the ladder of opportunity by those who climbed up it themselves; the setting of the union rule book above all other text books; the neglect even of spelling. That is where the long march of the Left in education has led us. Well, we are now rooting these ideas out. We are giving parents more influence in schools. If we want them to exercise responsibility for their children, we must give them a say in the education of their children.

    I will fight for my belief in a return to basics in education. The progressive theorists have had their say. And they’ve had their day.

    In the last twelve months we have seen the Socialist philosophy collapsing in ruins. Who will ever forget those days of high drama in the Soviet Union last August? Or the three young men in Moscow who gave their lives for reform.

    When I visited the place where they died, I was struck by the number of young people who pressed in around me. They had copied Western fashions, wore Western gear. For decades they and their parents had been taught that Socialism was the destiny of their future. That the Soviet Union would bury the West. But it wasn’t the West that the Socialist system had buried, it was the hopes and dreams of their own people.

    Socialism has gone in Czechoslovakia, gone in Poland, gone in Hungary, gone even in Sweden. And here in Britain, I’ll tell you what you’ll see over the next few months. You’ll see the Red Flag dying here. It’s going. Going. Gone. Suddenly, it’s just so old fashioned, so irrelevant, so out of date.

    What I owe to this country and to its people is difficult to put into words. My greatest wish now is to give back something of what I have been given.

    I want to work for a Britain that is the best educated and the best governed.

    Where schools and universities are the finest and accessible to all. Where inner cities don’t mean deprivation, but communities that bind and belong. And where no-one has to go in fear at night.

    I should like to live in a world where opportunity is for everyone, where peace is truly universal, and where freedom is secure.

    If that is what you believe in, then go back to your constituencies. Tell them what we stand for. Tell them what we care for. And ask them to choose.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Young Engineers Competition – 11 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Young Engineers for Britain Competition, organised by the Engineering Council. The speech was given on 11th September 1991 at the National Westminster Hall in London.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the reasons I am delighted to be here is because of what it actually signifies about the way in which prospects for the future are changing, the opportunities for young people in the future are changing, and the things that we need to do to secure our own prosperity in the future are changing as well.

    The days when young people learned a profession and then stayed in that profession from the time they left school to the time they retired without any fresh learning, fresh innovation or changes have long since gone. That may have been the way of life for generations in the past, but it certainly isn’t for generations today and it is going to be less so for generations in the future.

    The pace of innovation, of technology, the engineering changes that are being brought about are meaning that we are living in a world that is moving more rapidly than anything we have ever known before. And that places a special premium on the skills of those who can make things happen, those who can apply scientific knowledge, those who can make sure that scientific knowledge uses nature’s resources to benefit mankind. And that in the wider application is what engineering is about and it is because of what engineers have done and the fruits of their work that these days we live healthier lives, longer lives, in many ways more comfortable lives than previous generations.

    Maybe politicians occasionally take the credit for it but the reality is that it is the innovation and brilliance of men and women who have been engineers who’ve actually brought about so many of those changes.

    We live also in a time when television and radio have widened our knowledge and horizons. When labour saving devices have freed us, especially women, from the previous generations who faced the endless drudge of household chores. That is rapidly changing, opening the way thank goodness to independent careers for far more people today and tomorrow than has ever been the case in the past.

    And then of course there is the health-care technology aspects of engineering. The technology that has saved countless lives in this country and throughout the world and gives disabled people a great deal more personal freedom than otherwise they would have. Those are two of the fruits of the activities of the best of our engineers. We live in a time when cars and trains and planes give us mobility undreamed of by our ancestors. All those are products, too, of the skills, the resources, mental resources, of our engineers.

    And I believe that there cannot be a shred of doubt that good quality engineers are vital not only to our personal living standards but to our national prosperity. Nearly one tenth of our nation’s wealth is created by engineers.

    Perhaps one clear illustration of the extent to which the financial sector in particular recognises this is the direct link between engineers and prosperity illustrated by putting Faraday and Stephenson on modern bank notes. It’s quite right that they should be there; they have played a significant role in creating that modern prosperity.

    So we live in a changing world and we change with it or we fall behind other people. There can be no doubt I think in our minds, anybody in this country, what we need to do. We need to stay at the leading end of innovation and technology if we are to achieve for this country what it expects of itself and what we wish to see achieved.

    In years gone past, over generations, I feel we have been less good than some of our main competitors at getting enough of the best young people into engineering. And the reason for that is one I feel deeply about myself and have touched upon on many occasions. It is that instinct embedded deep in our culture that previously tended to disdain industry and give more kudos to classical education than to technological education.

    Our aim very clearly my intention, is to change that culture. So that the British engineer enjoys the same status as the German engineer. That is what we need to move towards, both for social reasons and, I think, for economic reasons as well if we are to maximise the opportunities for our country in the future. It will take time. It is a cultural change. It can’t just happen because we pass an Act in Parliament, or because we make a speech or two.

    It will grow, but I believe it is becoming ever-more embedded in the national instinct that people who have the particular skills of technology and engineering are people who are of critical importance to all our futures. And I hope they will not only enjoy the business, but the social status that necessarily should go with that.

    Clearly a part of that is to do with Government and is to do with education. It is for those reasons that we have made many of the changes that one has seen in recent years in the national curriculum. The change that means that every pupil studies maths and science up to the age of 16 to the required level of attainment. And these days far more people are applying to become science and maths teachers and there is no doubt at all in recent years how much we have needed to produce them.

    So we are seeking and finding new ways of meeting the demand for technical education. City technology colleges are proving their popularity, at least three applications for every single place that becomes available. And there could I think be no clearer illustration of two things. First the vast reservoir of people who understand the importance of technology education. And secondly the vast number of our young people who have an aptitude and an interest in that form of education and who wish to pursue it. Their judgement is right, it is going to be critical to our future and their success in that will secure their individual futures as well.

    And so we sought to meet much of those aspirations by increasing the number of engineering places in higher education. By setting in place for the first time a coherent structure of high level vocational qualifications which will raise their status. That is I think frightfully important. It must be understood by employers and others that vocational qualifications are important and that they should enjoy the same status as academic qualifications in the future and we are determined that they will.

    Now the Government of course finds itself in a position where it can do a great deal. But it cannot do it all. We can provide the foundation in Government, but thereafter it is for employers to market engineering. To show the attractions and opportunities of engineering, so young people have a clearer understanding of what engineers do and what a remarkably attractive career it can be for them.

    I know from what I have read about this competition and what I hope to see at the end of this brief ceremony is that the young people in this hall have I illustrated there is no shortage of talent in the engineering sector.

    What we must now do is maximise that talent, utilise it, for them, for us and for the wider country as well. And it is up to employers to demonstrate that engineering can offer satisfying and rewarding careers. The sponsors of today’s competition have recognised that and they have done something practical about it. And John Fairclough, (Chairman of The Engineering Council), who used to be my Scientific Adviser, and never hesitated to speak his mind on these occasions has frequently reminded me of the importance of all that. So let me say to the sponsors how much I appreciate what they have done in the past, are doing, and will I trust do in the future to continue to sponsor engineering. Their help is very much appreciated and we desperately need it.

    Let me also applaud those employers who work with The Engineering Council on the Neighbourhood Engineers scheme, another important scheme that’s doing extremely well. And having engineers working alongside teachers in secondary schools is bound to raise the awareness in those schools of what engineers can offer young pupils, parents and teachers.

    Increasingly technology itself is becoming a subject that young people actually study at school and carry forward. And that is another illustration of the changes that we are seeing in our education system. I mentioned a few moments ago that Carol (Carol Vorderman, the TV and radio presenter on maths and science programmes, who announced the Awards), was an engineer and in that she is amongst a minority and particularly a minority of women. But it is increasingly important to get more women to pursue engineering as a career.

    And I hope that career advisers in schools will throw away these old handbooks of stereotypes of what boys like to do and what girls like to do. Let them actually lift their eyes a bit more. Look at the opportunities that actually exist and encourage people to develop where their natural talents lie irrespective of whether they happen to be a boy or happen to be a girl. There is a fine career in engineering for girls as well as boys.

    And I saw recently a quote from one very high-flying woman engineer. And I think it’s just worth passing it on to you. What she said was this: “The competent woman engineer will have every opportunity to rise in the profession to positions of real responsibility”.
    And what she went on to say was equally important, “Engineering now has as much to do with replacement of hip joints, baby life support systems, and pollution control systems, as it has to do with nuclear power and anti-ballistic missiles. There is room for the woman engineer in all those fields”. And I very strongly agree with that sentiment.

    Not only do I agree with it, I believe that the WISE scheme (the Women into Science and Engineering scheme), that initiative is beginning to change attitudes for the better. The proportion of women engineering students has nearly doubled since WISE started in 1984. And eight, eight of the regional finalists in today’s competition are young women. What we wish to see in the future is to see that rise and very substantially, and I have no doubt that it will.

    So today is an important occasion not just for the innovators who are here amongst whom the prizewinners will be announced very shortly and I have been threatened with the direst results if I leak the results even moments in advance of them being announced. But they are illustrating the changing positions we have in this country.

    There can in a competition like this only be one winner at the end of examining all the entries. But what I have read already of what the entries are, illustrates very clearly to me that there is a dazzling array of skill and talent that the young people have brought here today to this particular competition and I offer them the warmest congratulations for everything they have achieved in getting here today.

    The word “engineering” comes from the same word meaning “ingenious” or “creative”. That applies to everyone who is here in this final. That ingenuity, that creativeness is what we will build on in the years to come if we are to deliver and build the prosperity that I would like to see us achieve in this country. That is why I am pleased to be here, that is why I am pleased you are here, that is why most of all I am pleased these young people are here for without them it would be a fruitless operation and it is my pleasure now simply to ask Carol to announce the names of the award winners.