The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Education

PMQT – 5 March 1991

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th March 1991.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday, 5 March.

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 in Moscow having bilateral discussions with President Gorbachev.

Mr. Michie : Will the Lord President admit that, if the Ribble Valley borough council had been given the £1,192 per poll tax payer that was received in Wandsworth–[ Hon. Members :– “What about Lambeth? Start again.”] I shall start again. Will the Lord President admit that, if Ribble Valley borough council had been given the same £1,192 per poll tax payer, Ribble Valley constituents would have saved £225 per head?

Mr. MacGregor : Ribble Valley is a district council so cannot be compared with the borough that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Ribble Valley received much less than the adjoining Preston borough council and its community charge is 70p per week compared with £1.40 in Preston. Moreover, Ribble Valley community charge payers will benefit in many other ways. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to compare Ribble Valley’s community charge with the minimum community charge in London, I must point out that the London borough of Wandsworth has an external support grant per adult of £1,192, compared with Lambeth’s £1,557. He will know that there is a phenomenal difference in the community charge between boroughs.

Sir John Stokes : In view of the large and growing number of hoax bomb calls, does my right hon. Friend think that the present maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment is sufficient for such a serious and dangerous offence?

Mr. MacGregor : I believe that the matter is being looked at not only by the Government but British Telecom. I agree about the importance of dealing with hoax phone calls.

Mr. Hattersley : Did yesterday’s statement on the poll tax in Clitheroe by the Secretary of State for Health represent Government policy?

Mr. MacGregor : The position on the community charge is clear. The right hon. Gentleman mentions Clitheroe and I think that I know what he has in mind. He will know that the community charge reduction scheme, which we introduced recently, will benefit eight out of 10 households in Ribble Valley next year and that, of those, the average reduction will be about £200. That is a clear position on the community charge, from which many people in Ribble Valley will benefit.

Mr. Hattersley : I think that the Lord President has blocked his colleague’s statement from his mind. Let me remind him what the Secretary of State for Health said, succinctly and precisely, about the poll tax. He said that the Government’s policy was “No regrets, no apology.” Does the Lord President endorse that view?

Mr. MacGregor : I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not like my answer on the community charge reduction scheme, which will clearly benefit a great number of people in Ribble Valley. He will know that we are reviewing all aspects of the community charge scheme–that has been made clear many times.

Mr. Hattersley : As the Lord President has twice singularly refused to answer my question about what his colleague said, may I suggest that what his colleague really meant was, “No apologies, no regrets about the poll tax and no idea what to do next”?

Mr. MacGregor : Might I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not pay so much attention to everything in the newspapers, because my right hon. Friend said no such thing.

Mr. Favell : Now that it looks as though the community charge, in its present form, is going to go, will the Cabinet consider abolishing the right of town halls to raise money and give them 100 per cent., based on a formula of what they need to spend? That would save more than £1.5 billion in collection costs and do away with transitional relief and community charge relief.

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend has made his view known, and will know that the Cabinet is looking at all options in relation to the community charge review.

Q2. Mrs. Fyfe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

Mrs. Fyfe : Does the right hon. Gentleman know that last year no fewer than 1,390 operations were cancelled in the Ribble Valley health authority district? Does he also know that, in Ayrshire senior medical staff were balloted twice about opting out of health board controls and voted overwhelmingly against doing so, but that that decision is still to be imposed on the people of that district? What way is that to run a health service?

Mr. MacGregor : I do know that in Ribble Valley the number of in- patients treated has gone up by 36 per cent., the waiting lists have come down by 65 per cent. over 12 months and £36 million worth of capital has been invested since 1979. That is a clear sign of the priority given to health in that district.

Mr. Squire : Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the consistent attempts of Conservative Wandsworth and Westminster to reduce their community charge to the lowest possible level were described as a “silly battle” by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)? Does my right hon. Friend agree that many thousands, if not millions, of people in this country would welcome other councils joining that battle? The real silly battle is between Labour Lambeth and Haringey to see who will have the highest charge.

Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend. When I am in London I have to live in the London borough of Haringey and have watched its record of mismanagement over many years. It simply cannot be claimed that Haringey receives a small amount of external support in terms of pounds per adult– the amount is high. As Secretary of State for Education and Science, I watched as Haringey spent much more money on central administration for education than any other local education authority in the country. But it is still not able to give the accounts for its education spending later than 1986. Such mismanagement has produced the high community charge in Haringey, Lambeth and other boroughs.

Q4. Mr. Trimble : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

Mr. Trimble : I should like to refer the Leader of the House to the explosion that occurred this morning in the design engineering works of Shorts in Belfast. Does he agree that this was an attack upon jobs and fair employment? Will the Government support Shorts and other firms in efforts to screen out from lists of potential employees those who would actively assist terrorism in this way?

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that the whole House deeply regrets the incidents in Northern Ireland in the last few days, and would want to extend sympathy to all those who have been affected. The Government’s stance on terrorism is well known. We are determined, as always, to use every effort to stamp it out.

Mr. Adley : Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of the running of the final train on the Somerset and Dorset joint railway? After that event, in a fit of corporate vandalism, the track was rendered unusable. Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow I shall present for its First Reading the Railway Re-openings (Tribunal) Bill? The supporters of this Bill include Labour Front-Bench Members, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the leader of the Scottish National party, as well as many other Members in all parts of the House. Will my right hon. Friend please do his best to ensure that his Cabinet colleagues recognise that ripping up a temporarily redundant railway track is an unacceptable act of national vandalism?

Mr. MacGregor : I was not aware of the anniversary to which my hon. Friend has referred, but, knowing his very great knowledge of these matters, I shall take his word for it. Until now, his Bill had not been drawn to my attention. I am grateful to him for letting me know about it, and I am certainly willing to look at it.

Q5. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

Mr. Skinner : Is the Leader of the House aware that the present squalid Tory Government, in their first 10 years of office, handed out £26.2 billion to the wealthiest 1 per cent. of taxpayers? Does he know that that kind of money would give a cold weather payment and a free television licence to every pensioner, slash the national health service waiting list, get rid of cardboard city and stop the education cuts? Why do not the Government, instead of rabbiting on about the classless society, practise what they preach? Why do not they stop redistributing wealth to the rich and give some to the poor and needy?

Mr. MacGregor : I am also very well aware of the much more substantial reductions in income tax for the majority of households in this country. I am well aware, too, of the result of the pursuit of successful economic policies, including the 42 per cent. real-terms increase in expenditure on the health service and the big increases in expenditure in so many other areas. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to return to the regime that we inherited in 1979, is he saying also that his Front-Bench colleagues support a top tax rate of 98p in the pound?

Q6. Mr. Irvine : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

Mr. Irvine : Does my right hon. Friend agree that local management of schools is proving to be immensely popular and that many head teachers, who previously had significant reservations about it, are now included among its supporters? Does he agree that the reason for its popularity is the greater flexibility and the improved decision-making powers that it gives to individual schools?

Mr. MacGregor : As my hon. Friend will know, I have always been a most enthusiastic supporter of the grant maintained schools. That being so, I strongly agree with what he has said. He has drawn attention to two of the virtues of grant maintained status. It is because of such virtues that grant maintained schools are becoming more and more popular and more and more likely to spread throughout the country. My hon. Friend’s point about headmasters is very relevant. I should like to quote one headmaster, who, in the first instance, was opposed to his school becoming grant maintained. After a series of commendations he said, “I wouldn’t miss what is happening here for anything. It is the most professionally fulfilling period of my entire experience as a head.”

Q7. Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

Mr. Wigley : Is the Lord President aware that thousands of people have extreme difficulty in paying the poll tax for the current financial year and that within three to four weeks they will be receiving bills which will be even greater in many areas? Does he realise that for them a promise of legislation in two years’ time to overcome the poll tax is not sufficient? They need an answer now–this April. Can he give an undertaking that the Government will bring in radical provision for those people to help save those on low incomes, pensioners and disabled people from the full impact of the poll tax in the next financial year?

Mr. MacGregor : The answer is twofold. First, the community charge reduction scheme, in addition to the other reduction and benefit schemes, will benefit large numbers of those people. As the hon. Gentleman knows, over half of community charge payers will benefit from that scheme. That will be immediate from the start of April this year. The second answer is for them to vote out at the first available opportunity the high-spending authorities which have caused so much of the increase.

Miss Emma Nicholson : Will my right hon. Friend remind Her Majesty’s Opposition that because of the new initiatives on the community charge and on the back of the excellent service that the Leader of the other place has offered to Ribble Valley, come this Thursday the Conservative candidate will be returned triumphantly and the Liberal and Labour candidates will return to the oblivion from which they came?

Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that that will mean an excellent new Member for the House in succession to my noble Friend, Lord Waddington, who performed such sterling services for Ribble Valley over the years.

Q8. Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

Mr. Williams : Does the Leader of the House know that Mr. Nigel Evans, the Conservative party candidate in the Ribble Valley by-election, said yesterday in a press conference that he favoured the principle of everyone making a contribution towards the community charge–that is, he favoured the retention of the poll tax? Was he expressing a personal view or has someone leaked to him the results of the Government’s review : that the Government intend to keep the poll tax?

Mr. MacGregor : I find that large numbers of people throughout the country, as well as in the House, think that one of the important features of the community charge is that everyone makes some contribution to the local services from which all benefit.

March 5, 1991
Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Local Government Conference – 2 March 1991

Below is Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference made on Saturday 2nd March 1991 at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London.

PRIME MINISTER:

Gulf

Mr Chairman, over the last few weeks the conflict in the Gulf has been uppermost in all our minds. Thousands of young men and women from the communities you represent took part in the battle to free Kuwait. Some gave their lives in that cause and all of us have been touched by their loss. Our hearts go out to their families and friends. We will never forget those young men. Nor will we forget what each of those out there in the Gulf has accomplished. Our duty now is to work for a peace worthy of their achievement and to bring those men home as soon as possible. I know this Conference will pay tribute to their courage.

I am delighted to be with you today. I began my political career in local government some time ago. And I am proud of that. I enjoyed it. I learned a lot from it. Local government is important. It is just as much a trust to be elected as a councillor as to hold office in the Government. Because to be elected is to undertake obligations. That is the trust. And it is something that no-one in politics must ever forget.

Lessons from Lambeth: Conservative and Labour compared

Many years ago, I became Chairman of housing in what was then Conservative Lambeth. And I had good reason to know the housing problems far too many people faced. Indeed in some ways I had shared them. I knew that it was the duty of a Conservative council to help. To help obtain for people what they wanted, not provide for them what the Courcil wanted. We were innovators. We built in Lambeth council houses for sale. We opened the first ever Housing Aid Centre. And we took housing officers out to meet the people of Lambeth face to face and hear their problems. And very interesting meetings some of those turned out to be too.

Few people wrote then about what was happening in Lambeth. It was quiet work and efficient – typically Conservative, in fact. How things changed under Labour. Then Lambeth became famous. Famous for putting politics before people, personal ambition before public service. Famous for red flags flying over the Town Hall. For bureaucracy blossoming, while services withered away. For costs surging through the roof, while quality was kicked out of the window. The very worst in local government. That’s Labour’s legacy.

And, sadly, not only in Lambeth. Camden and lslington; Haringey and Hackney; Derbyshire and Liverpool. All Labour Councils. And all bywords for incompetence and waste. Each of them proving that Labour local government – like Labour national Government – never works. It never has. And, what’s more, it never will.

Commitment to, principle of local government: aims of local government

Mr Chairman, we are here for one reason. Not just because we have served or do serve in local government. But because we care about it. Because we know that when it operates well local government is the best way to see that local services fit local needs. Up and down the country Conservative councillors, like those of you here today, have shown what good local government can mean. You have put in long hours and made many sacrifices. You can be proud of what you have achieved.

But seeing that local services fit local needs doesn’t mean councils must themselves provide every service. Far from it. I believe in the principle of the enabling council. A council that acts on behalf of the public, not the providers. Its job is to ensure that good services are delivered, seek out new methods, and call in specialist skills, wherever those are needed. Its job is to buy in the best quality at the best price, whether from its own workforce or outside, and then to put it to the benefit of its local community. That enabling role is the key to good local government.

But if councils are to be confident and perform well, they must also be secure about their role. They need certainty. They need to know what their tasks are. I am determined to see a stable and lasting framework created for local government in the 1990s. And by that I mean a structure that is effective and will endure. A system of finance that is sustainable. For only that will attract people of high calibre into local service. No-one here should be in any doubt. Good local government will be vital in this Governments strategy to widen opportunity and spread responsibility throughout the country.

Past achievements of Conservatives in local government

No-one should question our commitment to that aim. This Party was the principal architect of modern local government.

– from the enhancement of Victorian city centres:

– through the social improvements of Neville Chamberlain and others in the first half of this century;

– to the new ideas and methods of public service pioneered by Conservative Councils today.

This Government will support all of you in building on that great tradition of reform.

Need to look to the long-term, not immediate worries

The last twenty-five years have not been easy for local government. Amidst many pressures it has been damaged. The infiltration of the Loony Left and the shifty centre into too many of our town halls has seen to that.

Local Government has become too defensive, too inward-looking, too much obsessed with means and too little about ends. Over the next years I want us to look again to the longer-term role of local councils. I want to chart out a fresh vision and a better course for local government.

Finance: cutting costs and relieving needs, attack on non-payment

Many of you, of course, are already involved in the debate about finance. Michael Portillo has already discussed that with you this morning. I want to make just three points today:

First, no system of local government finance can last if the public think their money is being wasted and their services are poor. More Conservative Councils are proving to the public that charges can be cut, yet services developed further. They deserve our praise for that. And the rest of our Party must follow their lead.

Secondly, we have already made considerable efforts to see that most help with local costs goes to those who most need that help. We are now improving support for those whose bills were most affected by change through the Community Charge Reduction Scheme.

Take Lancashire, for example, where as we all know particular problems were faced. There, the relief available next year for couples living in smaller properties – half average rateable value – will in some cases be up to £500. On average across the nation people will pay £100 less than the headline community charge. The help we are giving will benefit some 18 million people nationwide. It deserves to be far better known. And in the next few weeks we must ensure that it is.

The point I will make on finance is this. Conservatives help people in need in practical ways and with practical solutions. How different from those in the Labour Party who posture about solidarity, but push others into breaking the law. Non-payment can be justified in no circumstances. Never by Labour councillors claiming attendance allowances paid out of the community charge. And least of all by Labour MPs. What they don’t pay, others less well off have to pay for them.

It is a disgrace that Labour MP after Labour MP is trooping into the courts to proclaim his defiance of the law. Of this I’m sure: those who break the law have no right to make the law. It should be a source of lasting shame to the Labour Party and its Leader that no action has been taken to crack down on behaviour like theirs.

Bad management discredits local government

But it’s not just over the community charge that Labour leadership has failed. Labour Council after Labour Council and Liberal Council after Liberal Council has wasted the public’s money and let their services run down. You all know some of the examples:

– The council that spent millions of pounds on a new civic centre – and forgot to include a council chamber. Big spending on bureaucracy; no accountability to the public. The very model of modern Labour local government.

– There was the council that lost over £5 million in running a time-share operation. Only the Labour Party could give the time-share sharks a good name.

– And then there was the council that sent a member and an officer on a fact-finding trip about football. What a coincidence that the trip was to Italy during the 1990 World Cup. Labour’s version of the penalty shoot-out; the council shoot out to the sun; and the public pay the penalty.

It is this sort of nonsense that has cast discredit on local government. Because of this sort of nonsense the good work of the many has been missed among the excesses of the few.

The Conservative Agenda: less government, more service

We in this Party must now set a new agenda, provide reforming leadership, and rebuild confidence in local government. Many of you have already begun. Conservative Councils have led the way in cutting back bureaucracy, bringing in private sector skills, and concentrating attention on service to the public.

But we need to do more. There are still attitudes that are wrong. Still too many who see competitive tendering as a threat. Still too many who think the answer to a problem is to appoint an officer. In my experience the better answer is often to disappoint an officer. And still too many committees, too many reports, too many members struggling in piles of paper and mountains of unread bumph.

What we need in local government is less paper and more action. Less empire-building and more innovation. Less government and more service. That must be the Conservative way.

Simpler local government

The very essence of local government should be variety. Some people feel there are too many layers of local government in some areas. It may well be that we need to simplify the structure and reduce the number of bodies we now have overall. We have that position under review. And here, too, your views will count.

But some change surely must come. I do not think that the pattern of local government has to be uniform. Why should it be the same everywhere? Differing structures might be right for different parts of the country. Local opinion must play its part. But on no account will we create wasteful new tiers of local government as Labour and Liberals propose.

Finance and structure are important. But in my view they should be part of, and not control, the arguments about local government as a whole. The key questions are simple. They are about functions. What is local government for? What is the proper range of its activity? Who is it seeking to serve? And how best can it achieve those ends?

Those are the key issues. And in developing new ways to answer those questions, I want our party to stay in the lead. There are two areas, above all, where I want new ideas to be felt – in education and in housing.

Education – local authorities to assist not obstruct, change

I have spoken elsewhere of my belief that education must be top of our agenda for the 1990s. We are now giving more influence to governors and parents. The best local authorities encourage that change; the worst stand in its way. I deplore the way in which some councils have held back funds from schools keen to take on local management.

In some places too much of the schools budget goes into administration and too little into the classroom. We need to shift that balance. The role of LEAs is changing. There will still be crucial tasks to perform. But we Conservatives believe that it is the wishes of parents, not the politics of the councillors, that must determine priorities in school.

Housing – putting people first

In housing, too, changes must come. And, again, Conservative councils are in the lead. Conditions on far too many of our housing estates – owned, managed and maintained by local authorities – are an absolute disgrace. Since 1979 we have set out to tackle those problems:

– Giving tenants the right to buy.

– Developing the role of housing associations.

– Offering new freedoms to those unable to buy their own homes.

Competition, choice and freedom are as always the public’s friend. So what is it that we want to see? In housing I want to see home ownership and our housing reforms go further. But I also recognise that for the foreseeable future many families will remain in properties under council control. They, too, deserve the best service. All too often they are left with the worst.

As one former Labour MP said of Labour Hackney Council, “tenants were not treated as people at all.” Tenants not treated as people at all. What does that tell you of the arrogance of Labour Councils” It tells me that nothing has changed since I lived under the control of Labour’. And it tells me, too, that if there is one thing this Party must do, it is to sweep out of our town halls the outrage of attitudes like those.

Housing management is one of many areas where more use should be made of outside skills. Here, too, the job of councils is to choose the best way of providing what people want. It is to protect their own staff if they are not performing up to the mark. Where there is patronising of tenants, or slow response to repair jobs, it needs to be exposed, not excused.

Yet, all too often, Labour councils react the other way. If a council’s housing management is not delivering results, then it is high time to bring in a new management team. That is true of many other white collar as well as manual tasks. Legal departments. Computer services. Conveyancing. Aspects of planning. All these could be on the competitive tendering list. And when new management is brought in I for one don’t want to hear that every one of yesterday’s administrators have become today’s monitors, and that life in the old town hail is as cosy as ever before.

More contractorization

Conservative councils are making those changes voluntarily. But Labour councils are not. So what we will be looking at in Government is how well compulsory competitive tendering has worked so far, at where we need to revise existing legislation, and in what new areas contracting should be applied. These techniques offer new opportunities for councils to improve their services and provide better quality for the public.

It is not just because we back private sector approaches in themselves. It’s not only private we back; it’s quality and cost- effectiveness from wherever it comes. But we cannot – and will not – accept that the public should be denied the most efficient service their council can provide.

So what is the system of local government we want to see? It is a system that reacts to the choices of the public and which doesn’t deny them. It is a system where those who check on quality are independent from those who provide it. It is a system where information on how services are doing is shared with the public and not hidden from them. It is after all that very same public who depend on and pay for the services themselves. Above all, I want a system in which a good new idea is seen, not as a threat to the workforce, but an opportunity for the public. The principle of competitive tendering will help carry forward all these objectives. And that is why you in Conservative Councils have been the first to embrace it.

It is because Conservative councils have always been leaders in innovation and change, that Conservative local government is trusted, while Labour local government is feared. You can have pride in the part you have played to bring that about.

Neil Kinnock skulks away when the Press ask him about his own local council. Hardly surprising that he does. We took Ealing from Labour last year. Then there were changes. The gender advisers, whatever they were, in every council department were moved. The animal rights officer who was trying to close pet shops – he lost his job. But the key facts are these. Thanks to a Conservative Council Neil Kinnock pays less and receives more than he did under Labour. Funny really that he never mentions it. He’s uncharacteristically silent when the Press come to call.

Well, we in this hall are not going to stay silent. We are going to tell people what Conservative local government has achieved and will achieve in future. We are going to set out our commitment to first- class local services. Together on May 2nd we are going to drive Labour and Liberal councils out of office throughout Britain. And we are going to put into office Conservative councils, committed to the principles we have set out today, and ready to restore integrity and pride to local government in every part of our country.

March 2, 1991
PMQT – 19 February 1991

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th February 1991.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. John Carlisle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Carlisle : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one event in these troubled times that has given much pleasure to people, and especially to our troops in the Gulf, has been the comprehensive English rugby victory at Twickenham? In that context does he further agree that we should begin to think about providing them with some real opposition which can now come only from South Africa? Is my right hon. Friend encouraged by the meeting of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers at the weekend which virtually saw the beginning of the end of the infamous Gleneagles agreement? Will he take further initiatives to restore British-South African sporting relations?

The Prime Minister : In answer to my hon. Friend’s first point, I am not sure that many Scots troops in the Gulf would necessarily agree with him. I recall occasions when both the Scots and the Welsh had rather too satisfactory results at Twickenham and elsewhere. I agree with my hon. Friend’s substantive point that the time has come to resume sporting links with South Africa in areas where there is now proper integration of sport within the Republic of South Africa. I have discussed that matter with other Commonwealth leaders and I hope to take it forward.

Mr. Kinnock : The Secretary of State for Education and Science today said :

“I’m not interested in proposals that transfer expenditure on education from the local taxpayer to central Government taxation”. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Secretary of State?

The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are examining a whole series of options in the community charge review. If the right hon. Gentleman will be patient we shall announce the result of that as soon as possible.

Mr. Kinnock : But the Secretary of State could not have been clearer in ruling out the idea of transferring expenditure from local taxation to central taxation. Will the Prime Minister make his position clear on this aspect of concern? Does he support his Secretary of State for Education and Science?

The Prime Minister : I shall make the position entirely clear on the matter under review when we have finished the review.

Mr. Kinnock : Why does not the Prime Minister save a great deal of time and the country a huge amount of money by abolishing the poll tax and accepting the Labour party proposal for a modern system of fair rates? That is the best way to deal with the poll tax.

The Prime Minister : I am sure that the whole country will have listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman. What a shame that when he announced his proposals in Scotland they did not meet with the acclaim that he expected.

Mr. Malins : My right hon. Friend will be aware that the man who was so cruelly murdered by the bomb at Victoria station yesterday came from Thornton Heath, which is in my constituency, and leaves a wife and baby son. Will my right hon. Friend send the sympathy of the whole House to that family, and can he assure us that no expense or effort will be spared, to bring the callous killers to justice?

The Prime Minister : The whole House will share the views that have been expressed by my hon. Friend. I certainly offer to the family of the gentleman who was killed, and to all those who were injured, our very warmest sympathy. One is bound to ask what sort of people it is that can carry out attacks of this kind. They are certainly consumed with hate, and they are certainly sick of mind. And they can be certain of one thing–that they will be hunted and hunted until they are found.

Q2. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Mr. Marshall : With unemployment soaring past 2 million, with record numbers of homeless people and home repossessions, with pensioners freezing to death because of his penny-pinching policies, is not the Prime Minister reminded of the tale of the king’s new clothes? Can he tell the House just what is different about his premiership, when it is apparent to all that, if he is not altogether naked, he is simply wearing the threadbare clothes of the previous Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure that they would wholly suit me. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s substantive point, I have to say that he left something out of his catalogue. For example, he omitted the work on the £55 million programme to transform a rundown area of Glasgow’s east end. I should have thought that he would know about that. He also forgot that that programme will create 1,000 jobs in that part of Glasgow.

Mr. Gale : My right hon. Friend is aware of the level of public concern that has been expressed about media coverage of Gulf events– particularly reports from Baghdad. Does he agree that it is not incumbent upon either the BBC or ITN to sink to the levels of some foreign news organisations? Is not it particularly important at this time, when the wives and families of service men are watching television, that every effort should be made to ensure that the public are made well aware that any report coming out of Iraq is subject to very severe censorship?

The Prime Minister : I think it is clear to people that reports coming out of Baghdad are subject to censorship, and I hope that the BBC and the other transmission channels will make that clear on every occasion.

Q4. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Mr. Livingstone : In the light of the news from Moscow that President Gorbachev has given Saddam Hussein 48 hours to reply to his peace proposals, can the Prime Minister assure the House that no ground war will be launched by the coalition while those negotiations continue?

The Prime Minister : I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can seriously expect me, on this occasion or on any other occasion, to give information of a military sort. Certainly I can confirm that President Gorbachev sent to me late last night the proposals that he had put to Tariq Aziz.

Q5. Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Has my right hon. Friend seen this excellent report of the North Western regional health authority, a copy of which I sent him? If so, he will have noted that the health authorities of Lancaster and Blackpool top the league in the immunisation against diphtheria of children under two. Those districts also have the lowest rates of death from cancer at all ages.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all those concerned– the administrators, the doctors, the nurses, the ancillary staff and all others involved–on their splendid team effort?

The Prime Minister : Yes, I have seen the brochure that my hon. Friend sent me. I congratulate all those concerned in the Blackpool and Lancaster districts on their achievement in respect of immunisation rates and the low rates of death from cancer. The national target for immunisation is 90 per cent., and that has been achieved. It is worth mentioning that the accelerated immunisation schedule for younger children and the introduction of the new GPs’ contract should further improve the immunisation uptake figures nationwide. It is becoming clear that the health reforms are improving preventive medicine in a remarkable way.

Mr. Kirkwood : Has the Prime Minister had a chance to study reports in today’s press on the progress made to date on the internal Government review of the poll tax? Is he aware that those reports imply that no one involved in those review negotiations is in favour of the Government retaining the poll tax? If that is true, does not the right hon. Gentleman have a duty to make an early statement to the House and the country that, whatever options are still being considered, the poll tax is now well and truly ruled out?

The Prime Minister : We will make a statement at the end of our review and not before.

Q6. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Mr. Greenway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his commitment to an excellent education for all our children is widely supported and welcomed throughout the House and the nation? To that end, is he pleased that Her Majesty’s inspectors’ report shows that the first year of national curriculum maths is going extremely well for five and 11-year-olds and throughout the age range, and that children and teachers are working well to achieve that? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate them?

The Prime Minister : Yes, I am happy to do as my hon. Friend suggests. The report demonstrates that the national curriculum has stimulated a range of improvements in schools and that teachers have worked hard to take advantage of the opportunities. That can be only to the benefit of the children and I look to see it continue.

Q7. Ms. Primarolo : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Ms. Primarolo : Given the expected statement this afternoon by the Secretary of State for the Environment giving poll tax exemption to forces serving in the Gulf, will the Prime Minister this afternoon agree to extend exemption from this vicious tax to all deserving groups, such as the nurses?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady and her colleagues will carry more weight on the community charge matter when all of them pay their community charge and their fair share of local government taxation. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady has already done so. [ Hon. Members :– “She has not.”] I note that the hon. Lady has not and I hope that others will have noted that, too.

Ms. Primarolo : The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have paid my poll tax.

The Prime Minister : The community charge reduction scheme will help 18 million people who face community charge bills.

Q8. Mr. Knowles : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Mr. Knowles : Despite the scaremongering from some local authorities, I welcome the community charge relief scheme, but will my right hon. Friend comment on the effects of that scheme throughout the country? If he had available the figures for Nottingham in particular, I and my constituents would welcome them.

The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the community charge reduction scheme will make a significant difference to a large number of people this year with more than 18 million people being eligible for rebates under it. If Nottingham city council sets the same level next year as it did this year, a couple living in an averagely-rated property would receive a reduction of £238 between them.

Mr. Turner : Will the Prime Minister comment on the recent statement by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) that unless substantial funds are made available to the NHS before the end of the financial year, elderly people and people from other groups might die? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that statement? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I did not hear that.

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) sitting behind me says that he said no such thing.

Q9. Dame Jill Knight : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Dame Jill Knight : Has the Prime Minister any up-to-date knowledge of the British airmen who were shot down or who ejected over enemy territory? Will he assure the House that any peace terms that are accepted will include as a priority the return of those airmen unharmed?

The Prime Minister : I wish that I could say to my hon. Friend that I had the information that she seeks. We have tried repeatedly but thus far have had no success in getting it. I share my hon. Friend’s great concern about Iraq’s failure to fulfil its commitments under the Geneva convention and to grant the Red Cross access to prisoners of war. We remain in constant touch with the International Committee of the Red Cross and are urging it to do everything possible to get Iraq to live up to its obligations. I agree very much with my hon. Friend that the immediate release of prisoners of war, including our airmen, must be part of any ceasefire.

Q10. Mr. Strang : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

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

Mr. Strang : If President Saddam Hussein responds to the Soviet peace initiative with an undertaking to withdraw all his forces from Kuwait unconditionally, does the Prime Minister agree that the allies should respond by stopping the bombing and halting moves towards a ground war in Kuwait?

The Prime Minister : We are all aware that proposals have been put by President Gorbachev to Iraq. I confirmed that to the House earlier. In his message President Gorbachev specifically asked me to keep the proposals confidential. Therefore, upon those I can offer no substantial comment. In any case, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, we have to bear it in mind that it is the Iraqis who have been asked to respond, not us. We await a response from them. Nothing has yet happened which would incline us to agree to a ceasefire or a pause in the conflict. If Saddam Hussein wants to avoid a land battle, he knows what he must do : he has to withdraw unconditionally and immediately from Kuwait and implement the Security Council resolutions in full. Unless and until he does that, the conflict will continue.

February 19, 1991
PMQT – 14 February 1991

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1991.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Sir Hal Miller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Sir Hal Miller : Does my right hon. Friend agree that reductions in interest rates following a fall in inflation will sharpen the already competitive position of our motor industry which increased exports last year by 18 per cent? Are not rising exports, rising investment and increased skill levels proof positive that we are achieving what Labour claims to want, and that we should stick with our policies, rather than cut and run?

The Prime Minister : I can scarcely disagree with my hon. Friend. The motor industry has a very impressive export record, which is a tribute to good design, increasing competitiveness and the increasing work rate of employees in the industry.

Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to explain to the 110,000 people who lost their jobs in the course of the last month that they did so as a direct result of his incompetent economic policy?

The Prime Minister : It is interesting that during the 40 months in which unemployment fell, month after month after month, the right hon. Gentleman made no mention of this matter. I regret the rise in unemployment, but the right hon. Gentleman will have to concede that the level of unemployment in this country, at 6.6 per cent., is not only well below the European Community average but very well below the average levels of most of our European partners.

Mr. Kinnock : Today’s figures show the biggest January rise in unemployment since 1981–the time of the last Tory slump. When the Conservatives have done this twice in a decade–regardless of who has been the leader, or who the Chancellor–is it any wonder that they will always be known as the party of unemployment?

The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman may find it difficult to explain the following unemployment rates : 9 per cent. in France, 9.9 per cent. in Italy, 9.3 per cent. in Canada, and 6.6 per cent. here. He may also have overlooked the fact that there has been a considerable rise in the number of job vacancies.

Mr. Kinnock : Perhaps the Prime Minister–who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not of France–will explain why, if Tory policies are to work, hundreds of thousands of people have to stop working.

The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman’s track record on such predictions is simply not good. He will recall predicting that mass unemployment of 6 million was inevitable. It was not, and his predictions now are wrong.

Sir Anthony Grant : When my right hon. Friend reflects today on the position in the Gulf, will he consider that a dictator like Saddam Hussein, who has been unscrupulous enough to murder his own people over several years, will probably have no scruples about allowing innocent people to suffer in a bombing raid for propaganda purposes? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tragic event in Baghdad and the sad loss of life should not mean that a single allied soldier should be put at risk by a premature land assault?

The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we shall consider very carefully when it is right to launch a land assault. The position in that regard remains as I have described to the House in the past. Everyone regrets the death of civilians, particularly in the tragic circumstances of the past few hours. But the United States has explained why it attacked that particular site : it did so on the basis of an assessment that showed that it was a legitimate military target, which played a part in the Iraqi war effort.

Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister agree that, in considering the lessons of the terrible tragedy that took place in Baghdad last night, we should not forget that Saddam Hussein has, not through inadvertence, but through acts of deliberate policy, killed more Muslims than any other living person? Does he also agree that, as the terrible toll of the war rises, so should our determination to build a just and durable peace to follow it?

Will the Prime Minister answer the question that I fear he dodged last week and say whether he is prepared to give the United Nations, in whose name we are fighting the war, the lead role in building the peace that follows?

The Prime Minister : I agree with the observations that the right hon. Gentleman made at the outset of his question. To avoid doubt, I shall repeat the point that the allies are not targeting civilians, unlike Saddam Hussein, who continues to fire missiles wholly indiscriminately at built-up population centres. On the subject of the United Nations, clearly we must consider with all our colleagues in the allied forces, particularly the Arab states upon and around whose lands the conflict is taking place, how to proceed at the end of the conflict.

Mr. Dykes : Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on his successful visit to Germany on Monday? If he will forgive the pun, far from being a “brugeing” experience, it was a successful visit, both bilaterally and in terms of the resuscitation of European solidarity?

The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to ensure that we play a leading part in the centre of the Community, which means that we have the closest possible bilateral contact with all our European partners.

Q2. Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister if the will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

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

Mr. Nellist : Was yesterday’s massacre of women and children in Amiriya a good example, under the 1977 Geneva protocol, of precision targeting of the right or wrong target? Was not the burning and lasceration of those children’s bodies, to correctly use a military euphemism, the degrading of nobody in Baghdad but of those in whose name that slaughter took place?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman puts the matter with his customary bad taste and inaccuracy. As I explained a moment ago, there has been precision bombing, and that site was bombed because there was legitimate reason to believe that it was a military target.

Q3. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

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

Mr. David Nicholson : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern at the advertising and the unsolicited temptations to borrow pursued by banks and other lenders in recent years, for which many businesses and many individuals are now paying a painful price. As interest rates come down, will my right hon. Friend use his influence as Prime Minister, as former Chancellor and as a former banker to impress on the banking industry the need for responsible lending–and will he consider what role the Government might play in that?

The Prime Minister : I have done as my hon. Friend suggests. My views on this subject are well known. I am very glad to see that the banks and building societies are addressing the issue of the marketing and provision of credit. As the banks have freely acknowledged, the code that they have covers only banks and building societies. That is why, in December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry issued a consultative document proposing a number of specific changes to tighten the law on consumer credit. These measures will have a wider field of application than just banks and building societies.

Q4. Ms. Armstrong : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

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

Ms. Armstrong : Did the Prime Minister notice the figures published yesterday that show that the top 20 local education authorities providing nursery education are Labour, and the bottom 20 are Tory? Given the abysmal performance of Tory authorities, when the Secretary of State for Education and Science two weeks ago abandoned any commitment to the expansion of nursery education, did he have the Prime Minister’s approval?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady should look at the whole provision of education services throughout the country, and if she is looking at lists of the top and the bottom authorities she should also look at the authorities with the highest community charges.

Q5. Mr. Robert G. Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

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

Mr. Hughes : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to send a message of congratulations to the voluntary bodies and statutory agencies that have worked so hard during the past few days to provide shelter for the homeless in London? Will he note the comments of the deputy director of Shelter, who said the other day that the arrangements made were magnificent and excellent?

The Prime Minister : I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those involved–particularly the voluntary organisations that have co-operated so willingly with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. As a result of that swift response there should be no need for anyone to sleep rough on the streets of London during this period of extreme bad weather.

Q6. Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

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

Mr. Foulkes : What is the Prime Minister going to do now that John Yates, the highly respected NHS management consultant appointed by the Government to advise on reducing waiting lists, has resigned, describing the Government’s policy, of spending £100 million to find out that waiting lists have increased, as a total waste of money? Would not it be better to sack the Secretary of State for Health and keep Mr. Yates?

The Prime Minister : As it happens, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health invited Mr. Yates to see him to discuss the reduction in waiting lists. Mr. Yates refused.

Q7. Mr. Hague : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

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

Mr. Hague : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the successful expansion of higher education under this Administration? Are not the one in five school leavers going into further and higher education, compared with the miserable one in eight when Labour was in power, a crucial part of building a better trained and educated workforce? Are not this Government providing the resources for that?

The Prime Minister : Indeed they are. My hon. Friend is right and I entirely agree with his remarks about the importance of higher education– both universities and polytechnics–and the role that they are playing in trying to equip our young people for a better start in life.

Mr. Andrew Welsh : Is the Prime Minister truly aware of the crisis facing agriculture, with farm incomes at their lowest in real terms since the second world war and record numbers leaving the industry? Why then is the Ministry of Defence supplying Argentine and Uruguayan beef to British forces in the Gulf when British cold stores are jam packed with intervention beef, subsidised and paid for by British taxpayers? Will the right hon. Gentleman assist taxpayers, the armed forces and agriculture by sorting that out?

The Prime Minister : It is because of such absurdities that we are keen to see a proper reform of the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made it clear that that is a top priority for us and we shall seek to negotiate it with our colleagues in Europe.

Q8. Mr. Riddick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

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

Mr. Riddick : Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s problems of homelessness have been caused, first, by the way in which the private rented sector has been regulated almost out of existence and, secondly, by the incompetence of many local authorities, mainly Labour controlled, which have more than 100,000 vacant council houses up and down the country? [Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will take the necessary radical action to free and deregulate the private rented sector in order to bring many hundreds of thousands of empty flats and rooms back on to the market?

The Prime Minister : Nothing could better have illustrated the Opposition’s hostility to the private rented sector than their activities while my hon. Friend asked his question. It was absurd that the private rented sector was declining and properties were left empty because of rent control. We have introduced to the subsidy arrangements all sorts of incentives to encourage local authorities to bring properties into use. We continue to examine further ways to stimulate the private sector.

Q9. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

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

Mr. Marshall : What does the Prime Minister have to say to the record number of 40,000 home owners who had their homes repossessed during the past 12 months as a result of his high interest rates policy? What advice does he give those people?

The Prime Minister : All repossessions are a tragedy for those who are involved. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that repossessions account for less than one fifth of 1 per cent. of home owners and that the overwhelming majority of those are as a result of marriage breakdown.

February 14, 1991
PMQT – 12 February 1991

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th February 1991.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Maclennan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February 1991.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also called on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and presented her with a gift from the Cabinet to mark her 90th year. In addition to my duties in the House, I will be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Skinner : It was a cold weather payment.

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Maclennan : While welcoming the Cabinet’s recognition of my constituent, the Queen Mother, in that way [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Maclennan : Would the Prime Minister say why, when he came to the House last week to announce the waiver of the exceptionally severe weather payment seven-day condition, he gave no inkling that it was to last 24 hours and that within four days, his Minister for Social Security and Disabled People would announce that things were to go back to where they are now. The “now you see it, now you don’t” approach cannot be the way to look after those who are so heavily dependent upon that payment.

The Prime Minister : If there is doubt about that point, let me seek to remove it beyond peradventure at the moment. As I said last week, given the exceptionally severe weather, we wanted to ensure that vulnerable groups would take appropriate steps to keep warm so we waived the seven-day qualifying period. Given the continuation of severe weather since then, we shall once again be waiving the seven-day period. Of course, we shall continue to monitor the situation carefully and if the cold weather continues we shall take similar measures.

Q2. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

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

Mr. Evennett : While my right hon. Friend was enjoying his much publicised breakfast at the weekend, the people of Lithuania were voting in a referendum. Does he agree that the desire for independence by the Lithuanians, as expressed in the result of that referendum, should be heeded by the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister : I sympathise very much with my hon. Friend’s point. I would like to see the Soviet authorities negotiate with the elected representatives of the Baltic authorities about their aspirations. That is a point I hope to be able to put to President Gorbachev when I meet him next month.

Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister share our deep concern that unemployment, business bankruptcies and factory gate prices are all up while investment and output are down? Whose policies does he blame for that–the current Chancellor’s or the previous Chancellor’s?

The Prime Minister : I think that everyone shares the concern about bankruptcies and unemployment. We also share the considerable degree of pleasure at the growth that there has been in recent years, at the growth in the number of businesses–which, even last year, was running at more than 1,000 a week–and at the prospects that will continue to exist for this country as we increasingly drive inflation downwards.

Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister understand that he has taken many of those new businesses–and longer-established businesses–straight into slump with his policies? Why will he not now cut interest rates, use a more sensible system of managing demand and try to stop the slump now, before the damage gets even worse and goes on for even longer?

The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should know that the generalised slogans that he uses simply will not do. Let me quote to him what even The Guardian said of the alternatives :

“As for the Opposition parties, their call for interest rate cuts with no accompanying recognition of the economic realities is politically opportunistic and economically naive.”

I agree with The Guardian.

Mr. Kinnock : May I put it to the Prime Minister that, this very week, factory gate prices are up, unemployment will be up and bankruptcies are up? Is that what he intends to continue to do? If so, I put it to him that his policies are hurting just about everyone and working for just about no one.

The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that our policies are working. I believe that that will become increasingly apparent. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the rise in output prices. I must say that I think that that is a suspect figure. In any event, the January figure may well reflect the delayed and continued impact of the autumn increase in oil prices. Throughout this year, the right hon. Gentleman will see a continuing fall in the rise of inflation.

Mr. Rowe : Although at this moment it may seem bizarre to imagine that there could be advantages in transferring from road to rail, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in better times, when the Department of Transport appraises capital projects it allows for both freight and passenger savings on roads?

The Prime Minister : In so far as I could hear the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I believe that I agree with him. British Rail has a substantial investment level at present ; indeed, it is the highest level for 30 years. As the former chairman said not long ago :

“the investment programme is about the maximum rate we can physically manage.”

Q3. Mr. Fisher : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

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

Mr. Fisher : Is not the Prime Minister ashamed that an estimated 50 young homeless people are sleeping rough on the streets of Stoke-on-Trent? They are not eligible for his severe weather payments or his emergency aid. What place is there for them in his classless society?

The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, on a number of occasions I have expressed my concern and outlined the action that we are taking to deal with the position of young people who are sleeping rough. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning set out some policies some time ago and explained that a considerable amount of resources would be devoted to implementing them. One of the problems that is recognised and acknowledged by the voluntary groups – if not, perhaps, by every hon. Member – is that some of those who sleep rough have every option to go into shelters but frequently do not exercise it.

Mr. Janman : Is my right hon. Friend aware of press reports which speculate that the public sector borrowing requirement for 1991-92 will be £9 billion? Does he agree that during the forthcoming 12 months it is important that the Government apply the same discipline to themselves as companies in the private sector are having to apply, and that Government spending should take into account prevailing economic conditions, not pretend that they do not exist?

The Prime Minister : We must certainly always take into account the prevailing economic conditions in terms of public expenditure control. That is certainly what we shall do.

Q4. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

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

Mr. Bennett : Does the Prime Minister recall one of his early votes in the House of Commons on 20 December 1979, when he voted to break the link between pensions and earnings? Does he realise that as a result of that, pensioners have not enjoyed increases in their standard of living through general improvements and that they are now worse off by £22 a week for a married couple and £13 a week for a single pensioner? Does he realise that if those links had not been broken, people would have had sufficient money to pay for fuel, make sure that they had enough to eat and put on warm clothing and so combat the cold weather? Does not the Prime Minister realise that against that background, the announcement that he has made today of the extra £1 heating allowance is extremely miserly?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is being very selective in the figures that he quotes. If he cares to examine the degree of net disposable income among all sectors of the community, including the elderly, he will find that it has risen substantially throughout the past decade.

Mr. Lee : Given that our nation likes a modest flutter as much as it likes a traditional Happy Eater breakfast, does my right hon. Friend care to give some encouragement today to those of us who favour the concept of a national lottery designed to provide additional resources for sports, the arts and museums?

The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises an intriguing question.

Community Care

Q5. Mr. Tom Clarke : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s present policy towards Sir Roy Griffiths’s recommendation that local authorities should perform the lead role in the provision of community care.

The Prime Minister : The Government’s policy on community care remains as set out in the White Paper “Caring For People” and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Local authorities begin implementation of those policies in April this year.

Mr. Clarke : What steps does the Prime Minister intend to take to deal with the increasing problems of many elderly people in residential care who have witnessed a growing number of closures of private and voluntary sector homes as a result of the care gap and inadequate income support? Will he absolutely insist that elderly people do not suffer, in spite of the need for social service and social work departments to reduce their expenditure in order to avoid poll tax capping, even though the real anxiety is to respond to elderly people’s needs, which they recognise in their own communities?

The Prime Minister : The concerns for elderly people that the hon. Gentleman sets out and which local authorities have are well understood and appreciated. He weakens his case by his remarks about community charge capping, not least because a large number of those authorities that face capping do so because of a flagrant and wilful abuse of their expenditure in many aspects.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is considerable anxiety in local government, not least among the staff of part III residential homes and also, of course, the residents of those homes, that many local authorities feel obliged to put such homes into the private or charitable sector, thus creating considerable instability? Will my right hon. Friend take account of the anxiety, particularly among elderly people and their families, who are deeply upset by the instability that is being created?

The Prime Minister : What we are seeking to do is to ensure the maximum availability of the appropriate sort of accommodation and to ensure that it is provided in the most cost-effective manner. That accommodation may, on occasion, be in the public or the private sector, but it is the quantum of assistance with which I know my hon. Friend is most concerned.

Engagements

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

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

Mr. Fraser : Does the Prime Minister recall that shortly before he became Prime Minister he said that the subject that he cares most about is education? He repeated those sentiments at the Young Conservatives’ conference at the weekend. I have in my hand the sum total of all those speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman on education since 1979 – it averages one line a year. Can the Prime Minister put in the Library any other speeches on this subject, which is so close to his heart?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically fatuous.

Hon. Members : Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker : Order.

The Prime Minister : If colleagues insist, I shall withdraw “uncharacteristically”. For the bulk of the period in the House since 1979 I have either been in the Whips’ Office, and thus unable to speak, or a Minister with other departmental responsibilities. If the hon. Gentleman had had what undoubtedly would have been an education to him from listening to the speeches that I have made outside the House he would not have asked that question.

Q7. Mr. Squire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

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

Mr. Squire : Despite my right hon. Friend and I both having left state schools at 16 and therefore, perhaps being poor educational advertisements [Interruption.] I said perhaps. Would my right hon. Friend underline his determination that standards and diversity in our state schools are enhanced and improved, and above all, that the staying-on rate of students beyond 16 and 18 is increased?

The Prime Minister : I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend’s point. Education is undoubtedly the key in the future to opening new paths for people, not just people with high abilities, but, of course, people with much lesser abilities as well. We want an education system that rewards dedicated teachers and provides education in the state sector of which we can be proud. That is what we shall be increasingly reaching towards throughout the Conservative Governments of the 1990s.

February 12, 1991
Mr Major’s Speech to Young Conservatives Conference – 9 February 1991

Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 31st Young Conservatives Conference, held at the Spa Complex in Scarborough on Saturday 9th February 1991.

[Text is from a Conservative Party News Release, some small portions are missing from the original speech]

PRIME MINISTER:

In each of the last three General Elections well over a million young people voted Conservative – three times as many first time voters supported us for every two who voted Labour in 1987.

That is good, but not good enough.

Why did we enjoy that support? It was because young people shared the values that we care about. I believe we want to strengthen and deepen that commitment.

I want them to know that the Conservative Party is open to them and to their ideas.

They will be welcome – and we need them.

Their idealism.

Their willingness to challenge accepted wisdom.

Their readiness to try new ways. And we must respond to their hopes as well.

To their concern for the sort of life they want to build for themselves.

Today the world is changing at an unprecedented rate. We cannot be immune from that.

Our principles and our philosophy are firm. But we must still adapt in order to thrive.

We must be open to originality, to innovation, and to change. And so long as I am able to ensure it, we will.

In a few moments I want to share with you some of my thoughts about our priorities for the future.

But first I want to speak of one group who are uppermost in our minds at present – those in our armed forces in the Gulf.

A few weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting many of them. They made a lasting impression.

They had no doubt that the task they had been set was just. And they left me in no doubt that they were wholly equal to that task.

And since then – night after night and day after day – we have seen them prove that with a skill and courage we can only admire.

They deserve all the support they can get – and they will get from us all the support they need.

And when they have done their job we will bring them back home – as soon as we can.

For here, at home, there are deep anxieties faced by their families.

I have received in recent weeks many letters from them.

Some are worried. Some emotional. All proud.

I believe the whole nation shares those feelings.

We did not want this war.

But we have it.

And we face a difficult period ahead.

But Saddam Hussein must know what he faces.

He faces defeat.

The timing maybe uncertain.

But the outcome is absolutely certain.

Because we intend to complete the job they have begun.

The British people understand very well the key principle underlying the Gulf conflict.

Throughout history the instinct of Britain has always been to defend freedom.

To uphold the rule of law.

That above all is why our troops are in the Gulf.

For our troops back home and all over it is not enough simply to protect the rights and freedoms that we have inherited. We must look beyond the present.

We must extend them.

In the last ten years tremendous advances have been made. Now we must move forward again.

We must look now at the opportunities that should be there and are not.

At the choices we do not yet have.

And at the people who have not yet benefited from change. The success of our Party since 1979 has sprung from our readiness to reform – our willingness to make the changes necessary to produce a better quality of life.

And I promise you today that great programme of reform will continue in the years ahead

In our Party we know you have to produce wealth before you can use it.

Like many other nations, Britain faces economic difficulties at present.

The next few months will be uncomfortable.

I regret that.

But short term expedients won’t do.

They will only lengthen and worsen the problems themselves.

We must follow a policy that will cure those problems, not simply mask them.

That is precisely what people expect of us.

Every time we have faced economic difficulties we have brought the country out of them.

We have a good track record.

And we will come through our problems yet again.

The centre piece of any strong economy is low inflation. And in that there are good signs for Britain.

Inflation is coming down, and will continue to fall throughout the year.

It will halve from its peak.

And we will still be driving it down.

There are some who that say inflation doesn’t matter so very much.

What that shows is that to them people don’t matter so very much.

Well, people matter to me.

I know that inflation is the enemy of personal security and peace of mind – for people of all ages.

It gnaws away at the hard won savings of the pensioner. It disrupts business and destroys jobs.

It betrays the basic trust in the value of money that lies behind every transaction in our daily lives.

That is why we must and will defeat inflation as our first priority

But, you know, when we talk of efficiency, of competition, and of economic success, we do it not for its own sake.

Not for material reasons only.

But for what we can achieve with the resources we create.

In the year ahead we will set out our ideas for the 1990s and beyond.

We have an agenda to work through.

Some of those ideas will be tried and tested.

Some will be new.

Some will involve novel concepts.

But all of them will have one thing in common – the long-term needs of this country and the people that live in it.

Our Party exists to give more people more choice, more independence, more control over their daily lives.

We know that the role of government should be limited. At present it is still too big.

But let there be no question about one thing.

We must never accept the contention that limited Government means lower standards.

That state services must be second-best.

I want to see an unending search for better quality in all our public services. When we deprive people of their money in never taxes, they have a right to ensure that it is never wasted in government.

So I want to see new ideas flowing into public service. More privatisation, yes, of course.

But also more partnership with the voluntary and private sectors.

More use of the best private skills.

For far too long we have tolerated public services that are just not good enough.

Council house repairs that are shoddy and slow.

Hospital appointments that take all day.

Trains that run late and buses that travel in packs. Children refused admission to the schools to which their parents wanted them to go.

In all of these areas we have been investing enormous sums – in health, in transport, and in education.

But are we getting proper value?

We must make those services operate better for the people who use them.

And operate with the same efficiency within the public sector as we would expect outside the public sector.

At the top of my personal agenda for the 1990s is education.

Education is the key to opening new paths for all sorts of people, not just the most gifted and for doing so at every stage of their lives. And it is also the key to the Tory ideal of a mobile, dynamic and diverse society.

So my objectives are straightforward – improving quality and standards.

More pupils staying on in education after 16.

Much more choice, and better training for all young people. I want to see more vocational options in schools of equal rigour and repute to the academic courses.

And this must go hand in hand with greater coherence and quality in post-school training.

There has been great progress over the last ten years. Some parts of our education system are unrivalled.

But others clearly are not.

Right back to the 60s and before, serious mistakes were made. Tried and tested methods were swept aside.

Unproven theories were foisted on our children.

And as a result, standards were lowered. And as a result of that the status of teachers was undermined.

As a nation we cannot be proud of what has been done over the last thirty years for many of our children.

Too many of them have been allowed to expect too little of themselves and too many other people have expected too little of them.

Over a decade ago the Labour Party recognised all this to be true.

They launched what they called a “great debate” about education.

But of course it was not debate that was needed.

It was action.

As usual, it was left to a Conservative Government to take it up after 1979.

In 1979 we set ourselves to tackle those problems.

And since then, we have introduced a great range of reforms in our schools.

Given more choice and influence to parents.

More responsibility to governors.

Set out the building blocks of a new system with better education in the National Curriculum.

These policies are working.

More pupils are getting more out of their education.

There are now five 16 year olds staying on at school for every four just two years ago.

Ten years ago only one person in eight went on into higher education.

Now it is one in five.

And soon it will be one in four.

We have many more young people graduating from our universities than ever before in the past.

Those are the real tests of success. And the policies of the Conservative Government have passed them in the last ten years.

And we are passing them.

So the 1980s have seen an opening of freedom and choice.

But I for one have no intention of resting on the Government’s achievements.

I want to bring the benefits of the best possible education to all. We cannot accept a situation where in some places nearly 40 per cent of school leavers get at least five higher level GCSEs, while elsewhere, less than ten percent do so. The Conservative Party has never accepted the notion that excellence for the few excuses mediocrity for the many.

It is, of course, the teaching profession that must lead the drive to higher standards and aspirations in our schools. I want to see dedicated teachers rewarded fairly.

But I also want to see more effective scrutiny of performance in schools.

And I want the most rigorous standards applied in teacher training.

We must ensure that every subject is taught to a high standard.

Teachers may need to be better trained in the subjects they are going to teach.

It is no good having hours of study of the theory of education if you actually fall down in the practice of teaching it when you get into the classroom.

So we want to see an educational system that is the equal of anything abroad.

Doing the basic things well.

It is not only a question of reading and spelling.

Although it is most emphatically a question of every child having the right to be taught how to read fluently and spell accurately.

And it is also teaching to a good standard with the right combination of factual knowledge and critical understanding in every subject.

And of training people for worthwhile qualifications in job related skills when they choose a vocational course.

And so what is it we seek? In summary we seek a system of education and training able to equip the children of today for the twenty-first century.

That is the objective that we will be seeking in our education policy throughout the 1990s.

And we need that for a variety of reasons, we need it because we need that education, that excellence in education to maximise our success both domestically and in Europe. And also of course, because that education equips people so much better to enjoy all the aspects of life both in work and in leisure, that will be opening up before them in the years to come.

Above all in the 1990’s we will face a competitive future in a world that is becoming increasingly competitive and most especially in a European community that will become increasingly competitive. There will be no hiding place for inefficiency, no hiding place for the shoddy and the second-rate once we get into the Europe of the 1990’s. That will all change as the reforms of 1992 increasingly come to place. Those who are well equipped and do well, work well, think well, produce well, are efficient and effective will be the leaders of the Europe in the 1990’s. And we are, and will remain, an important and enthusiastic part of the European community. It is simply not enough for some people to say, ‘I don’t really like Europe, but I will tolerate it’, for if we take that view about Europe we will never be the centre of it and can not lead it in the direction which we wish it to go.

It may be true in some ways that we need Europe but by golly it is equally true that Europe needs us and we had better make sure we are a key part in it.

It is not only the opportunities in Europe, though I will return to those in a moment. Look at the opportunities opening up in other parts of the world, the increasing democratisation of so much of Eastern Europe, a part of the world that for a very long time indeed we have seen subjugated, and unable to open itself up to a free enterprise system and all the opportunities that will flow from that.

That is all changing and has been changing in the most dramatic fashion in recent years.

And then you see the extent to which throughout the whole of South East Asia and elsewhere there are growing industrial giants with whom we will have to compete in the future and then there is the increasingly growing and important market throughout the whole of Latin America. Those are the opportunities that lie there for British industry, British commerce, and British people in the future.

And to return to the central point, providing we have the education system, the skills and the enterprise we will be able to win in those markets and winning in those markets will mean a much higher standard of life and living for all people who live in this country in the future.

And nowhere will that competitiveness be more needed than within the European community itself.

And that is why I say again that we must remain an enthusiastic partner in Europe.

It is not for nothing that we led the way in the drive for the Single Market. It was not without good reason that we took sterling into the Exchange Rate Mechanism. We propose to play a leading part in Europe’s future and no-one should doubt that for a single second.

And Britain will have a strong voice in the new Europe. Strong because of our commitment.

Strong because we have hard heads as well as soft hearts. Strong because Britain under a Conservative Government has firm principles and a very clear idea of where it wants to go and what needs to be done to get there.

And we will also resist the unworkable.

Set realism in place of impractical dreams and protect the diversity of Europe while removing obstacles to partnership and enterprise.

Necessarily you in the Young Conservatives must look to the long-term, to the year 2000 and beyond.

And so you should.

It is your future for a good deal longer than it is mine. Your Government has the same instincts. We will set our sights on the same horizon and so we should because it is our responsibility to do so.

Mr Chairman, I have a total faith in Britain and in its future.

I don’t accept for a second the craven argument that we cannot compete with the Germans and the French.

I don’t agree with the pessimists who always believe we must devalue in order to remain competitive and I despise the defeatists who run down this country and write off its future. Defeatism is always an excuse for doing nothing. But we have no intention of doing nothing. In the months ahead our agenda will unfold. Throughout the last decade Conservative Governments have proved successful to an extent beyond most peoples’ imagination. I believe that will be increasingly recognised.

Throughout the past decade Conservative Government’s have shown very clearly what it is possible for the British economy and people in this country actually to achieve and do. That is a record that people will look back on, I believe, in years to come with some envy and with a considerable amount of pride.

February 9, 1991
PMQT – 6 December 1990

The text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th December 1990.

PRIME MINISTER:

Engagements

Q1. Ms. Quin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.

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.

Ms. Quin : Does the Prime Minister recall that only two days ago he appealed to his party to close ranks? Can he explain why so many of his colleagues refused to support him in the poll tax debate last night? Can he also explain why the British people, many of whom have suffered hardship as a result of this tax, should be expected to have any confidence in the Conservative party, when it is now clear that Tory Members who originally voted to impose the poll tax on us clearly did not believe in it all along?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady is slightly mistaken. A large number of my ministerial and Back-Bench colleagues were abroad unpaired yesterday, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip saw no need to bring them back, because we are united.

Mr. Holt : Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has not gone unnoticed on Teesside and in the north-east that, on Tuesday night, he supported the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill in the Lobby, and that the Leader of the Opposition did not oppose it? My right hon. Friend will be most welcome throughout the north-east when he makes his frequent visits–unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who has occasionally dropped in on the Durham miners’ gala and then scarpered back to the south.

The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I look forward to visiting Langbaurgh and the north-east on many occasions.

Mr. Kinnock : When he knows what he knows, why does the Prime Minister refuse to abolish the poll tax now?

The Prime Minister : Unlike the right hon. Gentleman and his party– who have, on the latest count, changed their policy on this matter on 52 occasions–we are conducting a comprehensive review to determine how best to deal with it.

Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister confirm for the British people that the poll tax will still be in place at the time of the next general election?

The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made it perfectly clear yesterday that we were undertaking a fundamental review, and a fundamental review is what we shall undertake. We shall see how long that will take. I think that the country will notice that, although he professes to oppose the system, the right hon. Gentleman will make no constructive moves towards a constructive dialogue to correct it.

Mr. Kinnock : When the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal last night did not even convince his hon. Friends, how does he seriously expect it to convince anybody else? Will he now answer the question? Will he confirm that the poll tax will still be in place at the next general election–yes or no?

The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman might confirm that he has made it clear that under his plans the time scale for change may be considerable.

Mr. Fishburn : Will my right hon. Friend win the hearts of Londoners today by endorsing the proposals for leasehold reform put forward last week by the Lord Chancellor? Does he accept that the draft Bill for commonhold will allow London flat dwellers to own their flats on freehold for the first time, thereby ending the injustices of leasehold that make so many London flat dwellers into second-class home owners?

The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, over the past 10 years we have done more to increase owner-occupation, with the personal security that that offers, than any previous Government. It is noticeable that that is not the policy of the Labour party.

Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that we welcome the proposal made last night for discussions with Opposition parties on a replacement for the poll tax? My party will contribute constructively to those discussions. We shall not play parliamentary games while millions out there are suffering from the effects of this unjust tax. In that context, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember the promise that he made in his 1974 election address, in which he said that he would abolish the rates

Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that we need visual aids.

Mr. Ashdown : –in which he said that he would abolish the rates–

Mr. Speaker : Order. The right hon. Gentleman can make his point without the visual signs.

Mr. Ashdown : He said that he would abolish the rates and replace them with a tax related to the ability to pay. Does he still agree with that and does he realise that the only tax properly related to ability to pay is a local income tax?

The Prime Minister : On the last point, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we are considering local taxation at the moment. On the first point, I share what I think is implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman said, which is that the House of Commons need not necessarily be a perpetual cockpit of confrontation. I regret very much that Labour Members, despite all that they said, have no intention of helping to determine common principles for the role of local government. If they do not wish to do so, that is a matter for them, but others will.

Mr. Speaker : Mr. Michael Lord. [Hon. Members :– “Who?”] Order.

Mr. Lord : As our new Prime Minister will have considerably fewer problems to deal with on taking over his appointment, may I urge him to bring to the top of the list the problem of haemophiliacs who have been infected with the AIDS virus through no fault of their own? He would earn the undying gratitude of the victims, their families and the House if he could take steps to bring about an out-of-court settlement as quickly as possible.

The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that we are spending a considerable amount of money to deal with that problem, which we shall continually keep under review.

Q2. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.

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

Mr. Hinchliffe : Is the Prime Minister aware that in the past 12 months a baby has been abducted from a hospital in London, an 11-year-old girl has been raped at a hospital in Surrey, a 77-year-old woman has been indecently assaulted at a hospital in Leeds and last week two doctors were murdered at a hospital in Wakefield? As the Government are committed to spending about £200 million on allowing hospitals to opt out, but a mere £20,000 on hospital security, does the Prime Minister feel that he has his priorities right?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the direct management of hospitals lies with health authorities and, in the case of national health service trusts, with the management of those trusts in due course. I am sure that they will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Cormack : Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be almost universal delight and gratitude if, before Christmas, the problem of the haemophilia AIDS victims were solved by adequate compensation being paid without liability being admitted?

The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we have already made a payment into the Macfarlane Trust. I understand the sensitive nature of the matter, but I have nothing further to add today.

Q3. Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.

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

Mr. Mullin : Is the Prime Minister aware that of the 181 children who left Pennywell comprehensive school in my constituency earlier this year, only 10 found some form of employment, 32 went on to higher education, and of the remaining 150 or so, half went on to Government training schemes, which will lead to the dole, and the other half went directly on to the dole? What hope can he offer the children of Sunderland that life in John Major’s Britain will be any different from life in Margaret Thatcher’s Britain?

The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been considerable improvements in every aspect of life in the past 10 years, and that will continue. On the specific point that he made, a larger percentage of our youngsters now go on to further education than ever before, a higher percentage of our population is in work than ever before and there is a higher level of opportunities and training than ever before. That bodes well for the young people of Sunderland and indeed for young people everywhere.

Mr. Riddick : Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that many local education authorities, including mine of Kirklees, are holding back far more of their education budgets for central administration than was originally intended by the Government? As the Government have announced that they intend to carry out a full review of the structure of local government, does he think that we should consider taking the control of education out of the hands of local education authorities and giving it to schools?

The Prime Minister : I have considerable sympathy with that point of view, not least because of the enormous success of local management of schools. I hope that education authorities will release as much money as possible to go directly into the classroom.

Q4. Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.

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

Mr. Smith : Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, as a result of the frantic trawling for options and ideas that is under way in the Department of the Environment, there will be any reduction whatsoever in the poll tax bills that people will receive in April, or will the amounts be precisely the same as they were always going to be?

The Prime Minister : As for trawling for options, I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party has had 52 changes of mind on local government. That is not so much a U-turn as a merry-go-round.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : Does my right hon. Friend accept that manufacturing industry is the only genuine source of non-inflationary growth and that the continuing use of high interest rates is damaging to investment and to competitiveness? Will my right hon. Friend look again at an alternative industrial manufacturing strategy?

The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the central core of economic policy is to bear down on inflation. As it reduces–and I expect that it will reduce, which is the general view of external commentators as well- -the options may exist for a reduction in interest rates. I can give no indication of when that may be.

Q5. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.

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

Mr. Bennett : Does the Prime Minister agree that given that two of the Polaris submarines are no longer seaworthy and that the other two were on the Clyde earlier this week, he is the first Prime Minister for 20 years not to have had a nuclear deterrent at his fingertips? Does he further agree that that did not cause him or the country any problems? Will he now agree that, rather than trying to patch up the remaining Polaris submarines, he should abandon the whole programme and give a clear lead to the non-proliferation talks in January that we want to have a non-nuclear world?

The Prime Minister : Our nuclear capacity remains a deterrent and remains an important part of our defence.

Sir Robert McCrindle : As my former area Whip–which until now has, no doubt, been his greatest claim to distinction–will my right hon. Friend comment on the possibility of some change being brought to the hours that the House works? Will he tell me why, having had that matter raised on many occasions in the 20 years in which I have been in the House, I remain sceptical? What can my right hon. Friend do to reassure me?

The Prime Minister : I have fond memories of being my hon. Friend’s Whip some years ago. The hours of work in the House are essentially a matter for the Procedure Committee and for hon. Members themselves. Each will have his own individual views. If the House were to express views, I do not think that I would stand against them.

December 6, 1990
Mr Major’s Written Question on the Burnham Committee – 2 December 1980

The text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on the Burnham Committee, published on 2nd December 1980.

Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he proposes to announce the revised composition of the Burnham committee; and if he will publicise the criteria determining membership.

Dr. Boyson My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make an announcement in January 1981. The Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 does not require criteria to be specified for determining membership. Successive Secretaries of State have considered relevant membership figures to be important but not paramount. It has been customary, though not mandatory, to consult other interested parties.

December 2, 1980
Mr Major’s Written Question on the General Teachers’ Council – 25 November 1980

Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on the General Teachers’ Council, published on 25th November 1980.

Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to support the establishment of a general teachers’ council.

Dr. Boyson My right hon. and Learned Friend has consistently supported the establishment of a general teachers’ council, but for the teaching to become a self-governing profession agreement must first be reached by the parties involved on the terms of reference and composition of a teachers’ council. To date such agreement has not been forthcoming, but my right hon. and learned Friend is ready to listen to suggestions from the interested parties as to how the Department might help to take the matter forward.

November 25, 1980