The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Education

  • PMQT – 23 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lichfield

    Q1. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister what analysis he has made of the effect of the Government’s social and economic policies on the people of Lichfield; and if he will make statement.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Lichfield has benefited fully from Government policies which have given the United Kingdom a stronger recovery than any comparable European country, the longest run of low inflation for 50 years and the lowest mortgage rates for a generation. Unemployment in Lichfield has fallen by 40 per cent. in the past three years.

    Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that businesses in Lichfield are experiencing real problems due to the postal strike? Has he been deafened, as I have, by the absolute silence from Opposition Front-Bench Members, who have refused to condemn the postal strike? Might that be because the Communications Workers Union has contributed some £250,000 to Labour party coffers?

    The Prime Minister: The strikes last week were completely unjustified, and I hope that future plans for industrial action will be called off before more damage is done. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the sponsored silence by Opposition Members continues on this matter. [Interruption.] The deputy leader does not have a sponsored silence this afternoon, nor did he last week when he apparently told his leader to backtrack on what he had said in public–which is no doubt what the right hon. Gentleman was doing when he met the unions yesterday.

    Mr. Brian David Jenkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm for the 20,000 residents of Lichfield district who live in my constituency that, under the Tory Government, crime has risen by 147 per cent., education funding from central Government is the lowest in any shire district in England and residential mental health care is being closed for lack of funds? Moreover, when those 20,000 people were given the opportunity to vote in the recent South-East Staffordshire by-election they overwhelmingly turned to new Labour: new life for Britain.

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman make that devastating attack on the spending policies of the shadow Chancellor, who has made it perfectly clear that it is not his policy to spend any more money than the present Government. The hon. Gentleman had better discuss his own difficulties with his own Front-Bench spokesmen. As for crime, it is falling throughout the country and has been falling for some time–the first time that that has happened for a long period. No doubt it might have been easier to achieve that if we had occasionally had the support of Opposition parties for the measures that we adopted.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

    The Prime Minister: 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.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the recent call by the chief executive of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority for the teaching of modern British history to be reinstated for GCSE? Does he further agree that any open-minded student will come to the conclusion that over the years socialism has done this country a great disservice, and that history would be likely to repeat itself should new Labour ever get the chance to implement new dangers?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that young people should have the opportunity to study the history of this country, and I hope that the examination boards will be aware of the popular concern among many parents on that subject. Whether students study British history or world history, I think that they will see that policies of high regulation, high spending and high taxes have consistently failed, and that, when people are asked to make a choice between a party that believes in low taxes and one that believes in high taxes, they will choose low taxes yet again at the 1997 election.

    Mr. Blair: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I think that people will remember that they were supposed to have chosen low taxes at the last election, but then got the largest peacetime taxes in history. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the following question with an unequivocal yes? Does he agree with his Chancellor’s recent statement that he can see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: We have made the position on a single currency entirely clear. I shall make a judgment on what is in this country’s national interests, which means that we shall need to know the circumstances of the time, and precisely what a single currency would mean for this country. We need to be engaged in the debate right until its conclusion, whether or not we enter. If we did not enter, a single currency would still have an effect on this country, so it is still important that Britain’s voice be heard in the negotiations until they are concluded.

    Mr. Blair: Why could the Prime Minister not simply answer yes to my question? After all, I am only asking him to agree with his own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does not his response show precisely the paralysis of policy? Let me offer him another chance. Can he, like his Chancellor, see circumstances in which he would recommend that Britain join a single currency during the next Parliament–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House whether he agrees with the argumentation in the pamphlet that I have here–a pamphlet produced by Labour Members of Parliament which led to Labour Members squabbling in public this morning and denouncing the shadow Chancellor. I have told the right hon. Gentleman what the Government’s position is. We have set it out in a White Paper. That is the position, and it has not changed.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister asked me whether I agreed with the pamphlet. The answer is no, I do not agree with it. Now let us have a clear answer from him. What sort of situation are we in when a Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot keep his own Ministers, and the Prime Minister’s closest political friends are saying that his party cannot row together or work together? Why should the country put up with another nine months of drift and decay? After six years of that type of weak leadership, are not people entitled to say that enough is enough, and that the only reshuffle that matters will be one that reshuffles the Government out of office and gives the country a fresh start?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to commit himself to decisions without the facts that would affect this country. If he will not commit himself to a decision, he had better make up his mind whether he is in favour. He won’t because he can’t, because his party is split from top to bottom on the issue. The reality is that we shall consider the facts–not the prejudices, but the realities–and make a decision on what is right for this country.

    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this Michaelmas the Treasury will be receiving around £1.5 billion from the sale of the armed forces married quarters estate? What excuse is there for the Chancellor to delay the essential announcement on the procurement orders which we all expected before the House rose for the summer recess? He cannot have it both ways. First, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that we have the best armed forces in the world? Secondly, does he agree with our Secretary of State for Defence that they should also be the best equipped?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of the armed forces. I also invite him to agree that we have provided the resources to ensure that our armed forces have the best equipment. He will recall the announcement a week or so ago and the £500 million committed. We are evaluating our assessment of the bids for the various pieces of equipment now due for replacement. When that evaluation is completed, but not before, suitable announcements will be made.

    Mr. Ashdown: Let me put it to the Prime Minister another way. At the end of a Parliament which began with the farce of devaluation and ended with the fiasco of BSE, which has seen Tory Members leave their party and Tory Ministers desert their Government, and which has gone from cash for questions to cash for dinners in Downing street, is it not time for the Prime Minister to lead his exhausted and divided party out of power to fight their civil wars somewhere else?

    The Prime Minister: I think that in his litany the right hon. Gentleman misses some facts of importance to the British people. He cannot recall an occasion in his political lifetime when the British economy has been in such good shape, when inflation has been so low, when unemployment has been falling so well, when growth has been at the top of the European league and investment is coming into this country as it is coming into no other country in Europe. That is happening because of the policies of this Government–policies that his tiny party has objected to throughout this Parliament.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As next Sunday, 28 July, happens to be the 25th anniversary of my resignation from the then Government over their decision to join the EEC, does the Prime Minister accept that there is growing contempt among the voters for people in all parties who pretend that there are any easy answers to the difficult and complex problems of the European Community? Will he think seriously over the summer recess about the possibility of seeking the advice of the voters of Britain as to which way they wish to proceed on Europe? Would not the best answer to the Opposition be to remind them that the country belongs to the people, not to the political parties?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt from the Opposition’s European policies precisely what they would surrender in the European debate. However they try to hide it, the veto would go and qualified majority voting would increase. They signed up to the socialist manifesto, and the Leader of the Opposition cannot wriggle away from it now. In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, of course we shall consider what is in the interests of the United Kingdom. I do that and I shall continue to do that.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

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

    Mr. Hain: Will the Prime Minister rule out any bid from Mr. John Beckwith for the £1.5 billion sale of defence homes and the £750 million sale of benefit offices, in view of his role in organising Premier Club dinners where business men pay £100,000 to bend the Prime Minister’s ear? Is there not a clear conflict of interest between being premier of Great Britain and the right hon. Gentleman’s position as patron of the Premier Club?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all the facts. I saw the story that interested and misled him. No one can buy access to Ministers. [Interruption.] No one is promised favours. [Interruption.] There is one exception in public life: it is possible to buy access to Labour party policy through the trade unions; it is possible to buy votes; it was possible to summon the leader of the Labour party to explain his remarks about the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers last week; it is possible to change Labour party policy, but not ours. As regards Mr. Beckwith, any bid is independently assessed before being approved.

     

    Q4. Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 July.

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

    Mr. Baker: Will my right hon. Friend condemn from the Dispatch Box the politically motivated strikes by London underground drivers and postal workers? Will he confirm that he has no plans to introduce legislation to give trade unions increased powers or to increase the powers of strikers, which is precisely what is on offer from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. The deputy leader of the Labour party talks about £100,000. Perhaps he will remind the country how much the union that sponsors him pays to the Labour party year after year. Perhaps he will explain that that is why he will not condemn a totally unjustified strike. Perhaps he will explain that not one of the candidates in the shadow Cabinet elections will condemn the strike. If they were standing for election to a Trappist monastery, they could not have been more silent than they have been on the subject of the strike. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) knows that the Labour party’s relationship with the trade unions is a disgrace to British democracy: they rule, and the Labour party follows.

  • John Major’s Speech to the 1996 Welsh Conservative Party Conference – 14 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Welsh Conservative Party Conference in Porthcawl on Friday 14th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Britain Transformed

    People will ask you ‘What have the Tories ever done for me?’

    It’s an honest question – bluntly put – and deserves an honest answer, equally straightforward.

    So spell it out for them.

    Remind the questioner there’s been a revolution in education. In 1979 one in eight young people went on to higher education. Today it’s almost one in three. A third of all families can look with pride to their child’s achievement. A third of our young people enter the world of work armed with a better education.

    ‘Well’, they may say “So there’s education. But what else have the Tories ever done for me?”

    Under the last Labour government, if you needed an operation, you had a one in five chance of waiting over two years. Today, only a handful of people are waiting that long.

    ‘Fine – there’s education, health. Fair enough. Anything else?’

    Inflation. There’s another certainty. If we’d kept inflation at the level we’d inherited and followed Labour’s policies, today a loaf of bread would cost £1.25 and a pint of milk 70p. About double today’s prices.

    ‘All right. I give you that. But what else have the Tories ever done for me?’

    Well, there’s tax. If we still had the tax system we inherited from Labour, the average earner would be paying £17 more a week- £17 a week – in tax. How about that?’

    “Mmmmm. Education, health, inflation, tax. Is that all the Tories have ever done for me?’

    Look, don’t have to tell you ladies and gentlemen, they’re tough on the doorstep. So come right back at them.

    There’s the unions. In 1979, we lost twenty nine and a half million days to strikes. Twenty nine and a half million. The dustmen, the council workers, the car workers all proving Labour doesn’t work. Since then, the number of days lost to strikes has hit the lowest since records began.

    ‘Yes, well’ they may say. ‘Apart from education, health, inflation, tax, strikes. That’s all very well, but what have the Tories ever done me?’

    Take a deep breath, and broaden the picture.

    Under Labour, loss-making nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £50 million a week.

    Today, privatised industries contribute £50 million a week in tax. £50 million a week – enough to pay for 11,500 hip replacements, 1 new hospital a month and 5 new schools.

    What’s more, electricity bills are down £18. Gas bills – excluding VAT – down over £90. Phone bills still falling – down £44 in the last three years. Privatisation works.

    ‘So there’s education, health, inflation, tax, strikes, household bills. But what have the Tories ever done for me?

    Jobs. Under Labour, unemployment rose by 122 per cent. 2.500 people became unemployed every week. This week, unemployment fell again – down by 800,000 since its peak. We’ve more of our people in work than any major country in Europe.

    ‘Sure, sure. That’s all very well. But how else have the Tories helped me?’

    There’s mortgages. Average monthly mortgage payments are around £170 lower than they were 6 years ago. At less than 7%, they’re at a 30 year low. The average rate under Labour was 11 per cent.

    ‘So that’s it, is it?’

    No. Here in Wales. William has been working to improve the environment. Intending to designate the Menai Straits as a nature reserve. Aiming for 50 of Wales’ beaches to be of the highest, blue flag, quality. Helping to protect Wales’ coast. So there’s health. Education. Inflation. Tax. Strikes. Bills. Jobs. Mortgages. The environment. How about that for a success story?

    ‘Yes … but why didn’t you tell me about all that in the first place?’

    Madam Chairman, that’s what life under the Tories has brought about: it’s quite a story. The story of a Britain transformed.

    Which part of our United Kingdom do you think has recorded over 1,500 new inward investment projects, worth billions, during the last thirteen years?

    Where has unemployment fallen by almost 26,000 over the last three years?

    Where has self-employment risen by almost 30 per cent since ‘79?

    Where have days lost from industrial action fallen to less than 1% of those lost in 1979?

    Here in Wales. That’s the kind of change Conservatism brings in its wake. Change for the better. And it doesn’t stop there.

    Look at Caerphilly. Once overshadowed by Cardiff and Newport, today a thriving major retail and commercial centre in its own right.

    Or the new Severn Crossing. Built with private finance as a vote of confidence for the growing South Wales economy.

    Or the new Ford plant I visited this morning, a £340 million investment bringing almost 500 new jobs to Bridgend.

    One success after another under a Conservative Government. To borrow a phrase you may have seen about town: ‘Yes, it worked’,

    Life is better. And if people want a change, they need to be clear what they’re changing from, and what they’re changing to.

    The Next Election

    At the moment too many people are sleepwalking into the next election – which is precisely what Labour want them to do. It’s the whole point of their strategy. They want to drug people into thinking that voting Labour is risk free. They don’t warn people to realise that if they vote Labour, Britain will never be the same again.

    Madam Chairman, that’s not my idea of politics. Britain is the oldest democracy in the world. I’ve always believed that if you give the people the facts, and treat them like adults, then you can trust them to make their own minds up.

    Our job is to set out our case. To make people think before they vote. And to leave them in no doubt what the consequences would be for Britain if they decide to cast aside everything we’ve achieved and take a massive step into the dark.

    Because the next election is a watershed election. Many of the changes Labour want to slip past us are irreversible.

    Three over-arching issues will lift this election out of the run of the mill. Issues that will decide the kind of country we live in.

    First, there’s the United Kingdom itself. You might think it’s right to give Scotland its own Parliament and Wales an assembly. Or you might think that’s a rotten idea, as I do. But whatever you think, once you go down that route, it’s difficult to turn back. The change might be irreversible. It would be no use saying ‘No one told me that would happen’. It would be too late. The Union would be gone.

    Then there’s Europe. You might think that Britain’s destiny lies in being drawn ever deeper into a federal Europe. Or you might, like me, believe we should resist that tooth and nail. Because once you’ve given powers to Europe it’s all but impossible to get them back. No use saying ‘Oh I didn’t think that would happen’. It would have happened.

    Finally, there’s the economy. You can eve an argument about whether you have more state control, as Labour believe, or less, as you and I think we should. Whether or not you agree, don’t doubt what’s at stake. You’d be throwing away the strongest economy in Europe – I repeat the strongest major economy in Europe. No point in complaining ‘Oh, I didn’t think that would happen’ when taxes, strikes, inflation all start going up – as they always do under Labour. By then it would be too late.

    Britain’s success, our Union, our nation – that’s what Labour threaten. Between now and the next election I’m going to set out the difference, the major difference, if I may say so, between us and Labour – and I’m going to say it and say it and say it until everyone understands all that is at stake.

    The Choice

    On the day they go to the polls, people will think of a number of things. High on their lists will be which party will make me and my family better off?

    The Conservative answer is simple. We believe in rewarding hard work. Encouraging people to set up their own business, to save and invest for the future.

    We want to give people the chance to spend more of their money as they wish.

    So as soon as we can safely do so, our instinct is to cut taxes. They’re still too high.

    Britain will never be able to compete in tomorrow’s world if we’re lumbered with high taxes, cramping enterprise and investment. That’s what you’d get under Labour.

    But to cut taxes we need to keep spending under control. We’re doing just that. For the first time in its history, spending on the welfare state will grow slower than the economy. Of course we’ll always help those in genuine need. But let spending spiral out of control, and we can wave goodbye to a strong economy.

    Now look at Labour, they’re addicted to the spending state.

    Look at what they’re planning.

    First, anyone earning as much as Clare Short could be taxed more. Care has a bee in her bonnet. She thinks they’re doing too well. So it’s bad news for them.

    It’s also bad news for anyone living in Scotland. They’d be clobbered by Labour’s Tartan Tax.

    Bad news for any middle class parent with a child staying on at school. They run the risk of losing their child benefit. Labour’s Teenage Tax.

    Bad news for anyone who owns shares in a privatised utility. Labour’s Windfall Tax.

    And heaven help anyone who uses a company car or drives to an out of town shopping centre. They’d run straight into Labour’s Shopping Tax.

    Oh, they’re high on tax in the Labour Party. So to keep your money, make your choice: lower taxes under the Conservatives, higher taxes under Labour.

    As for jobs, we’ve the lowest unemployment of any major European economy.

    Why? Because of our policies.

    Look how much it costs to employ someone across Europe. I don’t mean wages. I mean extra costs over and above wages.

    For every £100 an employer spends on wages, he’d have to pay an extra £32 in Germany. An extra £34 in Spain. An extra £41 in France. An extra £44 in Italy.

    But here in Britain, the cost is just £18. That’s why we’re competitive. It costs less in overheads to employ people here than in other European countries.

    That’s why we’ve attracted more foreign investment than any other country in Europe.

    And that’s why I won’t sign the Social Chapter or have a minimum wage.

    But Labour would. They say they’re after full employment – what they’d get is more unemployment. The minimum wage would price job-seekers out of the market. The Social Chapter would price Britain out of the market.

    So once again, the choice is clear. Policies to create jobs under the Conservatives. Policies to destroy jobs under Labour.

    Of course, the only way Britain will remain competitive is if our children learn the skills of the future. Education is vital.

    Conservative Britain has come a long way. Schools are no longer a secret garden. Just look at our record. A national curriculum, tests, performance tables, regular inspection. Choice for parents – every parent – even Labour politicians. That’s all right. We’re broad minded. And more young people going on to higher education than ever before.

    That’s the Conservative record on education and I’m proud of it.

    And here’s the future under the next Conservative Government.

    More choice.

    More grant-maintained schools.

    Tougher teacher training.

    More selective schools – including grammar schools.

    More Assisted Places.

    More results published.

    Every child is different. Every parent deserves choice. Opening doors for everyone. That’s Conservative policy.

    Labour’s idea of education is a scorched earth policy. First they enjoy it, then they destroy it.

    Some Labour politicians went to private school. But do they support them? Not a bit of it. They’d deny others the chance they had by abolishing assisted places.

    Some of them went to grammar schools. So now they’d like to abolish them.

    Some of them make the most of choice. They send their children to grammar or grant- maintained schools. They’d be abolished too – once the children have left.

    Labour standards are double standards. And their motto: ‘do what I say, not what I do’.

    When it suits them Labour mouth platitudes about teaching children the basics. But when it came to the crunch, oh, that’s different. Where were they when we had to fight to introduce the national curriculum, tests, and league tables and the rest? Who opposed us at elections, in Parliament and in councils up and down the country?

    You’re right – Labour. My motto is: ‘watch what they do, not what they say’.

    So it’s clear. More choice, higher standards, more freedom under the Conservatives. Less choice, more control, more restriction under Labour.

    The Nation

    A strong economy. A skilled workforce. A nation that’s winning in markets around the world. That’s how we’ll become the Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    But, just when we’re enjoying economic success, nothing would be more disastrous than Labour’s plans to carve up Britain. It would be an act of constitutional vandalism.

    Our nation’s prosperity and future depends on unity. Once broken up, it would be difficult – probably impossible – to put it together. And that’s the second reason why the next election is all important.

    I don’t say this for party political reasons. Nothing would improve the partisan, political fortunes of the Conservative Party than to see Scotland and Wales with Labour and Nationalist MPs going their own way. But we don’t want that.

    For one thing, we want Scotland and Wales electing more Conservative MPs. But irrespective of how they vote, we believe the people of Scotland and Wales want to remain part of the United Kingdom.

    Our United Kingdom has been moulded over the centuries, battered by the tide of history. Yes, it has changed. And it is changing. But necessary change, not change for change’s sake.

    Yet Labour’s plans are just that.

    When was the last time you heard someone looking for a job saying ‘What we really need is an assembly. Then I’d get a job?’

    Or parents concerned about their children’s education. Are they thinking ‘An assembly! That’s what my child needs to get through school’?

    And how many pensioners have you heard muttering ‘Welsh assembly. Welsh assembly – that’s what we need to fight crime on the streets’?

    Madam Chairman, a Welsh assembly is as pointless as a blunt pencil.

    Worse still, Labour’s plans are an humiliating, patronising slap in the face for Wales.

    Labour’s lust for power has forced them to promise Scotland a tax-raising Parliament. Why? Because the only way Labour can hope to compete against the Scottish Nationalists is to propose barmy plans for their own party political advantage. That’s why Labour want a Scottish Parliament. It’s their bid for Scottish votes.

    As a result, Scotland would become widely over-represented at Westminster. The only way Labour could attempt to redress the balance is by lumbering England and Wales with totally irrelevant assemblies.

    I come to Wales as an Englishman. A Conservative Prime Minister. But Prime Minister of a United Kingdom.

    Labour Prime Ministers – one of them even sitting for a Welsh seat – have governed the United Kingdom without holding a majority of seats in England. But they never said they had no mandate to rule England. They never said England should go its own way.

    But now Labour are singing a different tune. My duty is to point out the dangers of following Labour down the route they’d take us.

    Wales will choose.

    If the Welsh people want a focus for division, then a good way of doing so is to vote for a Welsh assembly. If they think an inspiring way to greet the Millennium is to have more politicians, chattering away in an assembly, then by all means they can vote for one.

    If, unlike Mr Blair, they can guarantee that an assembly won’t demand powers to spend other people’s money, they can vote for one.

    If they know why a Scottish Parliament should be elected by PR, but a Welsh Assembly by first past the post, they should telephone Mr Blair- because he hasn’t the foggiest.

    I have only one vote. I know how I’ll be using it. To protect and defend the United Kingdom from policies that would hurt and never work.

    But Labour’s madness knows no bounds. It spreads to the third great issue – Europe.

    Labour believe that our future lies in a sort of superstate. Let me remind you, Labour would undermine the veto. Jeopardize our rebate. Sign up to the Social Chapter. Give more powers to the European Parliament.

    No wonder Mr Blair says he’d never be isolated in Europe. Armed with a blank cheque, he’d agree to what is wholly against our nation’s interests. With his set of policies, he’d have little choice.

    Some people might like his idea of being part of a European superstate. If so, they can vote Labour. That’s their prerogative.

    Others – like all of us here – have a very different vision. It’s a vision of a Europe of nation states, linked by traditions of freedom and democracy and a single market, trading together but preserving their own identity.

    I don’t want to see our nation swept aside. Our Parliament at Westminster must remain the focus for British democracy – not Brussels.

    Yes, of course we must remain a part of the European Union. We can’t afford to be outside the world’s largest single market. We created that single market. It remains in our national interest to be part of it. The Union has made co-operation, not conflict, the habit between the nations of Western Europe.

    But we need to persuade our partners that the way forward is by building a partnership of nation states. A partnership that respects the cultures and traditions of European countries.

    We will argue for the Europe we want. And if we disagree, and think Europe is going in the wrong direction, we’ll simply say politely but firmly – ‘no, that’s not for us’.

    Europe must be flexible enough to allow us to do that. As more countries join, we can’t hope to fit into some universal blueprint. Nation states can’t be expected to march in institutional step.

    Flexibility, patience and understanding are essential. So I say again, if Europe goes federalist. Britain will not follow.

    Peroration

    Madam Chairman, no party has the right to point the British people towards the polling booth anaesthetised by warm words, hollow generalities, and a vague wish for change.

    We Conservatives inherited a Britain on the rocks.

    We’ve spent seventeen years rescuing this country from that inheritance and turning it round.

    Turning the tide of progressive thought in schools takes years.

    Reversing liberal approaches to crime takes years.

    Curbing the powers of the unions takes years.

    Getting inflation down to all time lows takes years.

    Building a Europe of nation states takes years.

    But on Britain’s doorsteps pointing to what we’ve achieved is only half the picture.

    We need to alert people to the choice they will have to make. When they go into the polling booth and pick up that stubby little pencil, what they’re voting for will be nothing less than the future of Britain.

    Say to the people before they vote ‘If you want a fragmented country, a weaker Britain, the end to our economic strength and that’s what you vote for, then fair enough, that’s democracy. You have that right’.

    But don’t leave them on the doorstep under the illusion that they’re voting for something else. Don’t let them be conned by that sort of thing: it’s a false prospectus.

    These issues are too great, too important to be brushed aside. If Labour had their way, the face of Britain would be changed for good. Forever. And irredeemably for the worse.

    We Conservatives can’t afford to let that happen – and we won’t. Which is why New Labour, Old Labour, any old Labour, are trying to pull the political wool over people’s eyes.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the 1996 Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 11 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the 1996 Scottish Conservative Party Conference, held on 11th May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I want to touch first on two issues of great concern.

    When last I came to Scotland, I went to Dunblane. The events there were a horror, almost unimaginable – a mad act that robbed innocent children of a happy future.

    Michael Forsyth and Michael Howard have already announced an amnesty on illegal guns to gather them in.

    Lord Cullen – one of Scotland’s most senior judges – is to advise us on what further action is needed.

    Should legislation be necessary – and it may well be – I can promise you we will move speedily. We have already set aside time in the Parliamentary programme for this purpose.

    I intend that we will do all we can to ensure such a crime cannot happen again.

    Secondly, beef.

    The European ban on beef has caused frustration and anger.

    Not just amongst farmers, but amongst everyone.

    Certainly here in Scotland, as Scottish beef is a by-word for quality.

    The ban is totally unjustified. It’s the result of panic, not science. And it must be removed.

    The ban turned a problem into a crisis, not just in Britain, but across Europe where beef markets have also been hit.

    Next week, the first steps towards lifting the ban are going to be discussed in Europe. I hope that progress will be made.

    For the ban was introduced by the Commission. And it is the Commission that has now unanimously recommended a partial lifting of the ban.

    Against that background, our European partners must understand the level of resentment that will be created if they fly in the face of scientific arguments and the Commission’s recommendations and continue to damage our beef industry.

    But let us be frank. Even when the ban has been lifted, we will need to rebuild consumer confidence to regain our markets. We need to make the case for quality again and again.

    Many beef herds have never had a case of BSE. So, while we aim to get the ban totally lifted, we’ll also be pressing to get rapid exemption for specialist beef herds.

    Such a move across the UK will particularly benefit Scotland, and the premium, grass-fed beef herds for which Scotland is rightly famous.

    We’re already consulting on proposals to get mature, prime beef from these herds back on the market in Britain.

    But to regain our markets around the world, we must – in our own interest – look at any sensible proposals to speed up the already rapid decline of BSE throughout the UK.

    I met with the Scottish NFU this morning, and heard from them first hand of the fears and anxieties of their members. I promise you this – we will stand by this industry.

    We have already committed huge resources. In addition to that, I am confident that we can deliver significant extra help for beef producers within this year’s European farm settlement. And, to help the exporters, we’ve agreed to pay more money to those whose stocks were destroyed or devalued in the initial crisis.

    I pay tribute to the leadership which the NFU has given over this difficult period, and to the effective and influential role they have played.

    We’ve made a start in tackling this crisis but we need to remove the threat of BSE once and for all. British beef is the best in the world.

    It’s good to be back in Scotland and to find you in such good spirits.

    So am I.

    I always enjoy coming to Scotland. Not least because you always doctor my water in a most agreeable way.

    We’re now within a year of the next General Election.

    And, when it comes – next year, I expect – we Conservatives are going to win that election – by working together, north and south of the border.

    It’s a good Tory word, “together” – and especially so here in Scotland.

    It emphasises that ours is a United Kingdom.

    And we’re the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    We believe in working together, north and south.

    And, so long as there’s a Conservative Government, that’s how it will remain.

    Some people say to me – why? Surely, if Scotland breaks away, England will save on public spending and can have lower taxes? And surely, it’ll be easier to win elections without the SNP, Labour and Liberal MPs from Scotland?

    True. But the United Kingdom as a whole would suffer. And so would Scotland.

    And we Conservatives put the United Kingdom first, even though it’s not to our Party advantage. That’s not the way Labour behave. Their devolution plans put the interests of the Labour Party first. We put the country first. And that’s the difference.

    For months, Michael Forsyth and his team have been taking the argument to Labour, exposing their flawed plans.

    Showing how they would wreck Scotland.

    Showing how the devolutionists are laying a false prospectus before the Scottish people.

    I have a message for you Michael. The battle you’re fighting for Scotland is as important as any that has been fought before.

    Fight hard. Punch hard. Punch often.

    And you’ll have from me all the support you need.

    When I became Prime Minister I spoke of a classless society.

    Many scoffed that this had happened without my noticing it.

    Others said it was a preposterous and even undesirable aim.

    Well, there have been remarkable changes in British society over the last 50 years. Indeed, I’m a beneficiary of them.

    But don’t tell me that a child brought up in deprived circumstances – and given an inadequate education – has the same prospects as one from a more prosperous background with a good education.

    There are many who achieve good results from bad beginnings. But one of our principal risks as a Government – and as a Party – is to ensure that fewer and fewer of our children have those bad beginnings. And that’s what our education reforms are about.

    We don’t believe that people in difficulties always have only themselves to blame. Don’t forget I’ve been poor and unemployed. And I know that our Party has done more than any other to relieve poverty and to finance the National Health Service and social security.

    It was practical compassionate Conservatism that marks me a Tory and millions like me.

    And it’s values like that that have underpinned the last 17 years of Conservative Government.

    17 years.

    Some people on the cocktail and chattering circuit think it’s time for a change. As though Government were a game of street cricket with everyone having a bat in turn. But what sort of change?

    Labour wouldn’t bring to Britain the sort of changes we’ve brought.

    Taxpayers. Cuts for everyone. The lowest basic rate for 50 years. Change that?

    Homeowners. Lowest mortgage rates for 30 years. Gas, telephone bills falling. Change that?

    Workers. More of our people in work than any major country in Europe. Change that?

    Savers. TESSAs and PEPs flourishing. Scotland is thrifty. It saves. And now it has a 20p rate of tax on savings – a new low. Change that?

    Businessmen. The longest period of low inflation for almost 50 years. Why change that?

    Parents. More choice than ever before. We shouldn’t change that – and Labour agree.

    Not only do they agree, they welcome our change and take advantage of it.

    You don’t believe me. Check with the Blairs. Ask Harriet Harman.

    Pupils. More going on to higher education than ever before.

    Patients. More being treated than ever before.

    The changes we’re brought about are changes for the better.

    Thanks to them, Britain is the best performing economy in Europe. The world’s leading companies are pouring in investment and jobs.

    Britain, with her unique heritage of trading links, and a mother tongue that’s the world’s common language, is winning new markets around the globe.

    Today, Britain stands on the threshold of a new era of opportunity and prosperity as a global trading nation. A small island that’s an international success.

    Of course, there’s much we have to do. But look what we’ve done.

    Take our schools, for instance.

    We inherited a system that had become a secret garden, overgrown with so-called progressive theories.

    Today, children are taught the basics. Labour called that a “fanatical doctrine”.

    We’re going to make sure that children are regularly tested. Labour said tests “encourage a climate of failure”.

    Exam results are published. Labour called that “political propaganda”.

    Schools can now govern themselves. Labour said that was “wrong”.

    Wrong? It’s precisely the kind of education parents want. That’s not wrong. It’s just commonsense.

    The same goes for crime. We’re been turning back the tide of political correctness that excused the criminal and forgot the victim. It meant once again taking on the so-called progressive establishment that dominates Labour thinking.

    Well, we took them on.

    For example, we increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children. For dealing in drugs. We gave the police new powers to stop and search suspects.

    And right the way down the line, Labour opposed almost every change.

    If Labour had won their arguments, dangerous criminals who are in prison today would be out – walking the streets.

    So, change? Change back to that? Surely that would be folly.

    Some of the changes we’ve made have been painful. They’ve hurt people. And they have hurt us politically in by-elections and local elections.

    But although it hurt, it worked.

    And when we look around us we can see life getting better and our country becoming more prosperous.

    So when people talk of change, ask them “What kind of change do you prefer?”

    “Higher inflation? Lower taxes? More jobs? Tougher laws under the Tories?”

    That’s the kind of change you and I want. And it’s the only way to meet the challenge of the future. A change to Labour would be a change all right – a change for the worse. Don’t let it happen.

    Mr Chairman, before these changes, British companies and British businesses were fighting just to keep their heads above water. Now they are fighting to lead the field.

    And that’s especially true in Scotland.

    Which place in the UK do you think has gained most from our reforms of the last 17 years?

    Seen living standards grow by over a third?

    Grown faster than the rest of the United Kingdom over the last five years?

    Exports 40 per cent more per worker than the United Kingdom average?

    Brought unemployment down to its lowest rate for almost fifteen years?

    You’re right: that country is Scotland.

    Could this remarkable success story have happened without the Union?

    It’s out of the question.

    Labour or the Scot Nats would never have given Scotland the changes she needed. Instead of sunrise industries we’d have had sunset industries, propped up by subsidy, but doomed to disappear. The only question was when.

    Our way has delivered the private investment that’s the key to Scotland’s success.

    In one year alone, almost 100 projects brought Scotland over one billion pounds worth of planned investment, creating or protecting over 12,000 jobs.

    International companies – like Motorola, NEC, BT – they’re all investing in Scotland.

    And they’ll continue to do so as long as they’re sure Scotland will stay in the United Kingdom and income tax will not rise above those in England.

    But, if either of these things do happen, they won’t. They’ll go elsewhere.

    That’s the choice for Scotland.

    One of the reasons they come here is that a Conservative Government has built an economy that encourages investors by controlling expenditure and keeping inflation down. That’s meant we’ve been able to cut interest rates and keep taxes low.

    Again – yes, it hurts. But it has worked. It’s making life better. Don’t throw it away.

    Enterprise has many elements. But high among them is something that goes right to the heart of running the country – and dips into the pocket of every family in the land. Tax.

    Tax is always a battlefield between the parties because we have different instincts.

    We believe in low tax because it stimulates initiative and enterprise, fosters personal independence, and helps the country create enough wealth to help those in need. So we cut taxes when we can. But, as Ken Clarke said yesterday, when, and only when, it’s sensible to do so.

    Labour’s instincts are different. They increase spending.

    So, as Roy Hattersley put it, “Labour now has a clear choice. It can either be the party of higher taxation and proud of it, or the party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe, afraid to admit and incapable of calculating with any accuracy. It cannot be the low taxation party”.

    For once, he’s right. People will have a clear choice, a party whose instinct is for less tax, or a party whose instinct is for more tax.

    That’s why our opponents don’t like talking about their tax plans.

    But there’s no honest reason why Labour shouldn’t come clean about them. Britain’s books are open.

    After all, I’m perfectly happy to talk about our tax plans. They’re quite simple.

    We’ll cut taxes whenever we safely can.

    Labour are the exact opposite. Believe it or not, I’m told there are actually people who say Labour are addicted to the politics of envy and want taxes for that reason. And New Labour too. Shocking isn’t it?

    Be that as it may, one thing is certain. Whatever Labour say for public consumption, people know from past experience they’d be worse off under Labour.

    Tory scare tactics, the spin doctors who rule Labour till say. Is it?

    For example, any family with a sixteen to eighteen year old child who is in education had better watch out. Under Labour, their child benefits could disappear.

    Let’s call it a Teenage Tax – a tax increase of up to £560 a year for families whose children are 16 or over and at college. For some families, that’s the same as an increase of 5p on income tax.

    Under Labour, anyone who earns more than Clare Short would be easy pickings for the taxman. Clare’s salary is about £35,000. Many people would love to earn that much. But thanks to Labour’s ThirtySomething Tax, they’d be worse off.

    There are other taxes lurking.

    And, of course, anyone living here in Scotland would be hit by the Tartan Tax. But if they don’t need it, let them reject it now.

    Think how it would damage Scotland to pay more tax than the rest of the country. Who’d be hit most? Not those on high incomes, those on low ones. Someone earning, say, £76,000 a year would see his tax bill rise by 9%. At the same time, someone on £12,000 would see it rise by 14%.

    And this from a Labour Party that has the nerve to talk about ‘fair tax’.

    Before the last election, Labour published their plans. They said they’d increase spending, so naturally Labour would raise taxes to pay for it.

    The New, unscrupulous, Labour Party are different. Whenever Mr Brown threatens honesty on taxes, Mr Blair contradicts him. And Mr Prescott tries to keep up, but doesn’t quite know what’s going on. Well, I can tell you what’s going on.

    Labour still want to spend more of your money, that’s what’s going on. They can’t kick the habit – it’s a sort of reflex action. So they’d tax more. They always have. They always will. And nothing is going to change them.

    I sometimes wonder what on earth Labour stand for these days.

    Their leadership is trying to shed all its history, philosophy and creed with one contemptuous shrug and replace it with – what? A burning desire for office.

    But a lust for power is not, and never has been, a qualification for being entrusted with it.

    But it’s not just taxpayers who’d be worse off.

    Parents would be deprived of a choice of school for their children.

    Patients would see hospitals turned upside down as Labour tried to turn back the clock.

    Shareholders in privatised companies would find their shares threatened.

    But don’t just look at what Labour would do to our reforms. Don’t just think about how Labour would hit the pockets of the people. The real danger is to the very fabric of Britain itself.

    By their own admission, Labour say that they’d bring in the most extensive package of constitutional reform our nation has seen.

    Mr Chairman, this constitution of ours has run like a thread through this land for centuries. It’s been our backbone and our heritage. And without so much as a qualm, Labour would cut it in two.

    I wonder sometimes if they have any idea what their plans would mean?

    Labour would change our United Kingdom for good. Or rather, not for good. Palpably, flagrantly for the worse.

    If we were to let Labour tear this ancient island of ours apart, it could well be impossible to put it together again.

    Labour has tried the devolution gambit before.

    And now they’re at it again. A Scottish Parliament here, a Welsh Assembly there, regional assemblies heaven knows where. Will they never learn? What a way to mark the Millennium by tearing up the United Kingdom.

    Mr Chairman, this fiddling by Labour is a wild and dangerous game. No one can say where it would end.

    No-one can answer the questions it raises.

    No-one, least of all Labour – can tell how such totally irresponsible and disruptive plans would affect this nation and the real concerns of all its people.

    Would it help the Scots if they paid more tax?

    Do the Welsh think a talking shop would improve their lives?

    And when was the last time you heard people saying, “What Britain needs is more politicians in regional assemblies”?

    And all this would be just the tip of the iceberg.

    Proportional representation. No government ever able to take decisions without backroom deals.

    A Bill of Rights.

    Elected mayors – to do what, for heaven’s sake?

    A whole raft of constitutional doodling. That’s Labour’s irrelevant manifesto.

    Would it mean more jobs? Yes, for bureaucrats and politicians.

    More investment? Well, no actually – probably less.

    More prosperity? No. Just more taxes.

    Would Britain’s voice carry more weight in the council chambers of Europe if we divided her into three? No, much less.

    Mr Chairman, the changes Labour plan, no matter how slickly packaged and presented by their media gurus, would destroy in years what has been built up in centuries.

    Nor are the dangers Labour post restricted only to devolution. Their European policy is demeaning and disastrous.

    Now, I fully understand that the European issue raises the most passionate feelings. Who, in this country, would know that better than me? It’s a central issue of our time. But that shouldn’t distract us from a cool, dispassionate assessment of what is truly in our nation’s long-term interests – and what is not? That is my guiding principle. Getting the balance right for Britain now and in the years to come is the key to our approach to Europe.

    Yes, Britain must be a part of Europe, and a partner of Europe. But a Europe of nations, not a united states of Europe. Not a federal Europe. When people say “Let’s have a referendum on whether we want a federal Europe”, I say “why?”

    Because, Mr Chairman, there’s no need. Once again, I make this pledge. While I am Prime Minister, if others should opt for such a Europe, then Britain will not be part of it. We don’t need a referendum to know that we don’t want a centralised Europe.

    But let no one doubt that Labour would accept such a Europe. Already they’re committed to sign up to the Social Chapter. To give more powers to the European Parliament. To re-negotiate our rebate. To undermine our veto.

    So on both counts – what Labour would do to Britain at home and what Labour would do to Britain abroad – the whole future of this nation is at stake.

    Mr Chairman, come the election, the future we’ll be fighting for is a Conservative future.

    One where everyone feels that they belong.

    Where all our people, no matter what their background, have a chance to realise their dreams.

    To go to a good school, university, get a job, have a home of their own.

    To do what they think is best for themselves, their families, their children.

    To enjoy more of what they’ve earned and saved.

    These are the building blocks of the future.

    They’re what drive the people of our country.

    A people independent of spirit, proud of their past. Who look to a future of enterprise encouraged and work rewarded.

    Who want to protect the freedom and responsibilities of the family against the intrusions of the state.

    Who believe in the rule of law.

    And who love our country.

    Mr Chairman, at the last election, when I said I would fight to protect the United Kingdom, I was accused of wrapping myself in the Union Jack. It was meant as an insult. But I didn’t take it as such.

    You don’t have to dislike other nations to be proud of ours and I am proud of ours. I never feel more comfortable than in defending our nationhood and our unity as a Kingdom.

    The Union Jack in the flag of this United Kingdom – and we Conservatives, by nature a kindly Party, need to be ruthless, remorseless and relentless in defence of that Kingdom, as we always have been when that unity has been under threat.

    It is so once again today. Labour’s slick world of the soundbite and the over-simplified solution to problems of immense complexity has nothing to offer to bind this nation together. The superficiality of their policies – many of them disingenuous and ill-thought out – is breathtaking. What’s more, they bear little or no relation to the reality of government.

    When you walk through the door of Number Ten, reality walks in with you. Reality on a world scale. Over the years a Conservative Government has faced that reality and learnt how to handle it. So let me give you, here in Scotland today, this assurance.

    We Conservatives have the confidence and the tradition and, yes, the experience to guide us as we take our nation forward, out of this troubled century and into the next.

    That’s why we’re going to win the next election.

    Why we deserve to win that election.

    At stake is more than just our achievements. More than just the strongest economy we’ve seen for decades.

    This election will decide the very future of the United Kingdom itself.

    The future of our Parliament, our Union, our Country.

    It’s a fight for our Nation’s Future.

    And it’s a fight we’ll win.

  • Mr Major’s Conservative Central Council Speech – 30 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to Conservative Central Council on Saturday 30th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Within a year or so we’ll fight a general election.

    At stake will be not just who forms the government, but what that means.

    In the Tory years, the quality of life has changed immeasurably for the better and now it’s moving up again.

    We are poised for a step change in prosperity.

    The world knows it and says it. The Opposition knows it – but denies it. Because Conservative success means Labour failure. But I can live with that. And so, I think, can you.

    We must tell people about the opportunities ahead.

    Tell them what’s at risk.

    Never mind the opinion polls. Bucking the trend is the story of my life.

    So, it’s time to stop underselling what we’ve done, what we stand for, and time to start selling what we care about and what we’re going to do.

    Mr Chairman, as you know we have been holding hundreds of meetings up and down the country. It has been the biggest consultation exercise the party has ever had.

    It’s shown our gut instincts haven’t changed: we still back the traditional values that brought us into the Party in the first place.

    But we’ve always been able to move with the times.

    So, we’ve been turning our beliefs into practical political action.

    Enterprise

    Now to business. First, some facts.

    We’re enjoying the longest period of low inflation for nearly 50 years.

    The lowest mortgage rates for 30 years.

    Fewer days lost to strikes since records began.

    More of our people in jobs, more investment.

    And the lowest tax burden of any major European economy.

    And yet it is fact, fact, fact. When – in all the long history of our country – could any Government have said as much?

    This is the result of a government getting the important things right. It didn’t happen by magic. That’s the prize tough decisions have won for us.

    Britain can be proud of what Britain is achieving. But we must go on. We must build on what we’ve done and make Britain the unrivalled Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    There can be no future for high taxing, high spending governments. That’s a nightmare from the past. A socialist vision – let it go. We don’t want it back.

    Our aim is to get taxes down.

    And not only income tax. I want to cut and, when possible, abolish inheritance tax. Labour wince when I say that.

    But I can’t defend a tax that stops children inheriting what their parents have worked to earn and save.

    It’s a tax on the family. And helping the family is what we’re about.

    So I don’t want our children to see the fruits of their parent’s life time work disappear forever into the Government’s coffers. I just believe it’s wrong.

    Taxes should come from a growing economy. And a growing economy comes from competition – the drive of the market.

    Competition works.

    The state once ran industries into the ground, often. But look at them now.

    Telephones – now amongst the cheapest in Europe.

    Electricity – where prices have fallen and are set to fall further.

    Gas – where prices have fallen by 20% and are set to fall further still.

    This hasn’t happened in the water industry – yet. But it will. And I’ll tell you why.

    Because we’re going to introduce competition into the water industry. It’s worked wonders in gas, phones and electricity. And it should do the same for water.

    How Labour hate all this. They know none of it would have happened if they’d been in power. They mouth the words of the market – but they don’t believe a syllable.

    They loathe the thought of the private ownership of British Rail.

    They can’t stomach the fact that enterprise and competition will improve the service and bring down the price.

    They’re positively mortified that new private investment will build in a new railway system for a new millennium.

    They’d rather defend a public sector monopoly that’s become a music hall joke.

    Perhaps you think I’m being unfair.

    But am I?

    These are the same people who said that privatising British Airways would turn it into the pantomime horse of capitalism.

    Well, some pantomime. Some horse.

    British Airways is now one of the most successful airlines in the world.

    Don’t ask me. Just ask the champagne socialists. Would they rather travel on British Airways or good old state run Aeroflot?

    Privatisation has given millions of people the chance to own shares. There are now more shareholders than trade unionists. And there are many Trade Unionists who are shareholders.

    Take the rail union, RMT.

    They own shares in privatised companies. They want the profits of the market. But that doesn’t stop them attacking the privatisation of British Rail.

    Don’t do as I do. Do as I say. That’s the theme that runs right through the Labour movement.

    Once Labour promised common ownership. Now they call it stakeholding. But – as usual – it’s common deception.

    We mean ownership by individuals for themselves and their families. They don’t.

    We want to make the capital owning democracy a living reality. They don’t.

    They want people’s wealth. We want wealth for the people.

    More ownership.

    More people owning a share of the company they work for.

    Let’s be clear. I’m not just talking about directors or managers on the executive floor. I’m talking about staff on the factory floor and at the supermarket checkout. They can be owners too.

    In the last Budget, Ken Clarke made it even more attractive for employees to own shares in their company. Now it’s up to industry to spread employee share ownership.

    Here’s a challenge for them. Let’s have the majority of workers in Britain’s large companies holding shares in those companies by the end of this decade.

    That will be an important part of making Britain an enterprise culture to its core.

    We must make change work for us. That’s what enterprise is about.

    Twenty years ago, pocket calculators were an oddity. Portable phones were hardly heard of. The information superhighway was somewhere off the M6. A lap top was something you sat on, not worked on.

    We’re having to learn a whole new vocabulary.

    New technology is going to affect all our lives.

    We’ll be able to work or shop from home, to send messages to anyone, anywhere, any time. These opportunities are on our doorstep, but for many people it’s still difficult to imagine. We need to open the Nation’s mind to the opportunities ahead.

    So we’re getting together with industry on a project for the millennium. To let as many people as possible try out computers – in schools, libraries and shops in the high street. These skills will equip us for the new century. They offer tremendous and exciting opportunities. We need to know about them.

    We’re not just creating jobs and prosperity, this year and next year. We’re out to build the enterprise and skills to secure jobs and prosperity that lasts.

    Opportunity

    I tell you who does love these new things: children.

    Tomorrow’s their world. But they won’t stand a chance of making the most of it unless we deliver world class education.

    Education is the door to opportunity.

    Every parent wants the best for their children. Especially parents in the Shadow Cabinet.

    There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s every parent’s right.

    But there’s the little matter of other people’s children too.

    We believe it’s right to offer them the best as well.

    We do. Labour don’t. And that’s the difference.

    Labour can’t decide its policy on education.

    For GM schools, against GM schools: for selection, against selection.

    Every time they settle the line, some Labour frontbencher breaks it.

    While they divide, we deliver.

    Under the Conservatives, education has changed a lot.

    Year by year, we’ve been clawing back from the worst excesses of the comprehensive system. Choice is expanding. Standards are rising.

    The National Curriculum, tests, performance tables, regular inspection, a whole range of schools.

    All this is new.

    But there’s more to be done.

    Gillian Shephard has put standards and discipline firmly back on the agenda – and she’ll have more to say about them soon.

    Teachers deserve our support on this and I promise you, they’ll get it.

    Every parent is concerned about those crucial years at the start of schooling. So we’re turning nursery education over time from a nice dream to a reality for every four year old whose parents want it.

    But that’s not all. We have ambitions to ensure that by the time children are seven, they can master the basic skills that underpin all learning.

    Teaching children basic skills is just the bare minimum. Children need to use today’s technology with confidence. They can access a huge library of information in seconds. The computer can be their personal tutor to help them learn arithmetic or a foreign language.

    So we’re working on training teachers and staff, putting the latest kit in our schools and linking schools up to the new world of information.

    Britain already has a head start.

    We’re now developing substantial and practical plans to build on that progress. To engage industry and private finance in our ambitions to transform technology in schools for the next century. Giving our nation’s children the skills they’ll need for our nation’s future.

    Not just pipe dreams – we’re delivering practical action.

    The education system we’re building reflects a simple truth every child is different. And every child is special.

    Let me turn to a controversial matter.

    I believe choice and selection does have a place in education. And so do you.

    Not the old 11 plus – that’s gone – but more selection in schools. And if parents want them, that could mean more schools like the old grammar schools.

    It’s time to say goodbye to the political correctness of the levellers-down. We’re going to give all schools more control over their own affairs.

    Earlier this week, Gillian Shephard set out our aim: to give all schools as much power as possible to take their decisions about as much as possible of their budgets.

    More of the money delivered straight into the hands of teachers and governors, bypassing bureaucracy.

    We want to free our schools from the straitjacket of uniformity.

    Freedom to demand the best from our brightest pupils.

    Freedom to help the weaker pupil.

    Freedom to give opportunity to every pupil.

    Conservatism instinctively knows that freedom works.

    Mr Chairman, there’s another point: there’s no place for intellectual snobbery in the classroom.

    Practical skills must be respected.

    We’re planning a single clear national framework of qualifications with common certificates that all children can aim for. And with that will come new opportunities to combine academic work with learning at work. New modem apprenticeships are a success. We intend to open that opportunity to more and more of our young people.

    Welfare

    Mr. Chairman, fate does not equip everyone with the same gifts or the same good fortune. We are a generous hearted nation. We’re more than willing to help those who genuinely need it.

    I believe we must encourage the successful so that we can protect those who need help.

    To do that, we must build a welfare system we can afford: one that reflects Conservative values – self-sufficiency. Responsibility. Independence.

    That means doing three things.

    First, cracking down on fraud and abuse. On Monday, Peter Lilley will launch another step in our campaign – an area by area focus to put the spotlight on benefit cheats. We’re going to protect the taxpayer and close down the welfare rackets.

    Second, we’re going to direct money to those who genuinely need it to help them back on their feet.

    People out of work and looking for a job deserve help. They’ll get it.

    The long term unemployed need special help. They too will get it. We’re piloting schemes to help get them back to work. But after that, if they refuse to accept work on offer, their benefit will be reduced. I believe that’s fair and right.

    Third, we must help people secure independence for themselves and their families.

    More people are living longer. We need to help families support relatives who can no longer be cared for at home. Our Party feels strongly about this.

    So, next month we’ll set out our proposals to deal with this challenge – to help protect the family home and lifetime’s savings.

    Our starting point is the classic Conservative theme of partnership.

    Very simply, if people take out insurance to help pay for their care, the state will reward their contribution by safeguarding more of their assets when that insurance runs out.

    And we’re looking at ideas to help people in the near future, not just in the far distance. There is no perfect solution to this. But our ideas are fresh and far- reaching.

    Responsibility will be rewarded. Prudence will be recognised. And the elderly will have the chance to protect the savings they’ve worked for all their lives.

    Public services

    Mr. Chairman, the usual dismal voices say Britain won’t be able to afford high quality public services in the future. I think that’s nonsense.

    We taxpayers pay for public services. We pay with taxes compulsorily taken from our income. I’ll tell you what I think.

    We taxpayers have a right to expect the best as if we’re paying cash on the nail. In fact, we’ve done better; we’ve paid in advance. And when we deal with the public sector, we shouldn’t be shunted from file to file.

    To make sure they’re not, we’re breaking down the large bureaucracies.

    Wherever possible, less bureaucracy at the centre, more choice at the grassroots.

    In this, we are the polar opposite to Labour.

    They’re wedded to control by anyone except the people. Bureaucracy, not taxpayers. Trade unions, not consumers. Politicians, not people. Labour don’t trust people. Unless they’re people in authority – lots of them – calling the shots.

    I’m not prepared to let public services remain an outcrop of socialist planning, a kind of prescriptive service, oblivious to the needs and wishes of the people who pay for it.

    So, let’s have an end to the faceless institutions, the bureaucratic assault courses, the unanswered telephones, all run from the top down. Instead, services should be run on a human scale. Decisions taken close to those they affect. And that’s what we’re building. The benefits are already clear.

    In self-governing schools – schools run by teachers, governors and parents.

    And in our hospitals – where team work has cut waiting lists. Are our reforms working? Yes – indeed they are.

    One example: since our reforms began, the number of people waiting more than a year for an operation has fallen by 90%. Thousands of people, old and young, are enjoying a better quality of life because they have been treated better and earlier.

    Let no one doubt our commitment to our National Health Service. Our commitment is there – in concrete, bricks and mortar.

    Labour founded the NHS. They’re proud of it. But built it up. Every week, since 1979, we’ve seen a new capital scheme worth a million pounds.

    And we should be proud of that.

    And we should also be proud that, thanks to our reforms, GPs now have greater power and freedom to serve more and more of their patients’ needs.

    We’re going to build on that. We want to give Britain’s 30,000 GPs the freedom to provide, in the communities they serve, the treatments that people need.

    In the summer, we’ll set out some of the next steps down this road – including opportunities for GPs to offer a range of hospital treatments in their surgeries.

    Our aim now is a far reaching one: it is to allow GPs’ practices to become the cottage hospitals of the 21st century. To ensure we offer better health care, closer to people, than any other nation can provide.

    Law and Order

    Mr Chairman, in building Our Nation’s Future we must also take forward our natural Conservative instincts for a society based on law and order.

    For decades rising crime and lawlessness seemed unstoppable.

    There was a culture that tried to excuse crime.

    But crime is caused not by society, by poverty, by circumstances. It’s caused by criminals kicking the door in for personal gain.

    For every crime there is a victim. A victim for whom the fear, loss, outrage and intrusion far outweigh the financial consequences.

    Let me take one illustration of many.

    Burglary.

    I had a flat burgled many years ago. Not much was taken because there wasn’t much to take.

    But it was vandalised.

    I was young. Fit. But I never felt quite the same in that flat again.

    How much worse for people whose family home has been ransacked.

    Whose possessions have been rifled through, whose security and safety shattered – quite apart from financial loss.

    I have no hesitation in seeking tougher punishment for such a crime. And especially for the criminal who burgles again and again – the serial thief.

    Let me tell the Conference: I am absolutely behind Michael Howard’s proposals to secure longer sentences for those who commit crimes like this time and again. And we will introduce laws to that effect.

    I believe it’s a fair punishment. Let me tell you why. I believe it will deter.

    But more important still, if we know somebody is likely to go out and commit more crimes, we owe it to the public to put them out of harm’s way.

    That’s the surest way to continue cutting the crime rate. And that’s exactly what we’ll do.

    But we need to put equal emphasis on order – or perhaps civility. On a society where the decent common courtesies are expected and observed.

    We should not have to tolerate loutish behaviour. People’s rights to quiet and privacy should be respected. Simple obvious rules – on the roads, in the parks, on public transport – should be followed.

    To some, these things may seem unimportant compared with major crimes. But they cause many people distress in their daily lives.

    So, as we build and extend the role of schemes like neighbourhood watch, we’ll put order as well as law back where it belongs – in our communities.

    So when people say to me, is it cost effective to have policemen on the beat, to have special constables patrolling our neighbourhoods, my answer is unequivocally yes. That’s how we’ll give people reassurance. That’s how we’ll nip crime in the bud.

    That’s what you want. That’s what we’ll deliver.

    The Nation

    Mr Chairman, amidst a sea of change, a united nation brings security. We need that security now more than ever.

    Our nation’s history is one of change. But sensible, careful change, never change for change’s sake.

    Scotland and England united are the cement that binds the United Kingdom together. Scotland is vital to the Union. The Union is vital to Scotland. And the whole United Kingdom would suffer if that Union were damaged.

    For me, this issue dwarfs the daily political debates.

    Some cynics ask: why do I care about the Union? After all, they say, why should I care about devolution? With Scotland out of the Union, there’s more likely to be entrenched Conservative majorities at Westminster for ever and a day.

    That may be true, but they’re forgetting the overall interest of the United Kingdom.

    I reject the narrow selfishness of a little England or a little Scotland. I believe that Scotland and England – and Wales and Northern Ireland – have all benefited from the historic constitutional settlement which created our United Kingdom. A unity Labour plans put at risk.

    So Scotland faces a choice.

    It can share in that success – lead it even – and be at the heart of the Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    Or it can cut itself off. Saddle itself with higher taxes. Destroy jobs with the Social Chapter and minimum wage – carrots held out by Labour that would become sticks across industries’ backs.

    And it would watch, helplessly, as investors get out their pocket calculators and their airflight timetables and go away.

    The scheme for a tax-raising Scottish parliament is separatism by instalments. The Scottish Nationalists have already acclaimed it as the fast track to independence and they’re right.

    Could there honourably be devolution without fewer Scottish members at Westminster? No, there could not. Without such a cut, Scotland would become the most over-represented part of the United Kingdom. There’s a word for that – an old word: gerrymandering.

    And could it possibly be right that Scottish MPs at Westminster should be able to vote on purely English matters, while English MPs would have no say over matters devolved to a Scottish Parliament?

    My answer to that is simple.

    ‘I don’t believe that we could for ever maintain a situation in which Scots and Welsh Members vote on, say, English education and pay beds while the English cannot vote on Scottish and Welsh equivalents’. You won’t ever guess who said that. Robin Cook. That’s what Robin Cook thinks. The first good sense he’s ever spoken.

    Then there’s Labour’s Tartan Tax. Why should people in Scotland pay more tax than in England? What does the Labour Party have against the Scots?

    Labour have the cheek to suggest that they might even cut taxes. What an untruth to set before the nation! For how long do they think English MPs will vote 30% more money to Scotland so that a Scottish Assembly can use it to cut taxes north of Berwick? The proposition is ludicrous.

    Mr Chairman, my commitment to the Union is total. It’s not just a political commitment. It’s emotional as well. I admit it. And I’m not ashamed of that.

    I feel, with every fibre of my being, that the result of this folly would be the dismemberment of the United Kingdom.

    That would be the burial of our history, the interment of a great good. It would deprive future generations of a sane, flexible, tolerant system. It would weaken England, weaken Scotland and would begin the destruction of a kingdom whose very reason for being is to be united.

    People who support a tax-raising Scottish parliament are sowing dragon’s teeth. These proposals will lead – implacably and irrevocably – to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is not speculation, it is fact. I do not say “may” or “might”; I say “will”.

    Scotland and the Scots are central to the British identity. We are that close.

    Let us work and live together, as one nation, as we have been for centuries. If we do anything else, we shall grow smaller – all of us – separately.

    PERORATION

    Mr Chairman, I’ve set out some of our plans. There is much more yet to come.

    Ahead of our United Kingdom lies tremendous – and exciting – opportunities.

    The opportunity for more people to realise their ambitions and their hopes and their dreams.

    A better life for their family. Their own home. Their own savings. A secure job. A good education for their children.

    I became a Conservative because I was brought up to be proud of our country. Our traditions, our heritage.

    I still am.

    And so are the vast majority of the British people.

    Our hopes are their hopes.

    That’s why we’ve trounced Labour four times in a row.

    And that’s why we’ll do it again.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Opportunity – 19 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on opportunity, given on 19th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Introduction

    Building a nation of opportunity is one of the five themes I set out last year. Opportunity is at the heart of my philosophy. And it marks a great divide in British politics.

    The word ‘opportunity’ has particular meaning for me. The same opportunity – for everyone, whoever they are, wherever they come from. I want people to get on. I want them to want to get on. I want them to believe that, if they have the talent and the application, there’s nothing they can’t achieve.

    To do that, people need freedom and encouragement to take responsibility for their own lives. To know the pride and security of independence.

    That’s the political divide. Politically correct and fashionable views often pull us in the opposite direction. Undermining opportunity by destroying choice and independence in favour of a patronising ‘we know best’ attitude.

    But I don’t view people without position or money from some lofty pedestal. I was one of them. I remember their hopes and the obstacles in their way.

    Those hopes are as varied as the leaves on the trees. For every family that wants to save there’s another that wants to spend. For every family that wants to decorate their living room, there’s another whose greatest dream is to own their home. For every child with the ambition to bat for England, there’s another thinking only of conquering disease.

    You can’t lay out a common high road – and say to everyone “This and this and this is right for you”. You give each family the tools to make their own choices and find their own way forward. It’s called opportunity. Choice. Freedom.

    Education

    Education is the first vital step on that road.

    Every child deserves the best possible start in life, no matter where they live, who their parents are, what school they go to.

    That’s why standards are crucial. The National Curriculum, testing, regular inspection, performance tables, action on failing schools and improving teacher training will all help raise standards.

    Little by little, we’re doing away with the fads and fashions that short-changed a generation of children.

    They called it progressive education. But it took us backwards, not forwards. Educational theorists said that to stretch minds and push talent was narrowing. Salting away facts and knowledge would kill self-expression. Testing children and telling them if they weren’t doing well enough would lower their morale. That was such folly, such crippling folly.

    Because facts give you armour and argument and self-esteem. Tests tell a teacher how much a child has learnt. And competition at school is preparation for life beyond school.

    But facts were out. Tests were out. Competition was out. And – of course – selection was out.

    So the public schools weren’t abolished, but grammar schools were. Progressive education was a tragi-comedy. It betrayed the very children it meant to help – those from low and middle income backgrounds.

    In an opportunity society, every parent should be able to choose a good school for their child. If they wish to choose private education, they should be free to do so without political hectoring. That choice is part of freedom as well. But they shouldn’t have to pay for good education. They shouldn’t have to pay for choice. And they shouldn’t have to pay for their views as parents to count. They shouldn’t have to pay to ensure they receive good information about how their child is doing. And they shouldn’t have to pay for the sort of school that is right for their child.

    So we’ve created a spectrum of schools. A spectrum that reflects the fact that every child is different. Grant-maintained schools, specialist schools, church schools, city technology colleges, and grammar schools.

    We are currently considering how to increase that rich variety with more selective schools. We’re consulting on raising the percentage of pupils that schools can select without seeking prior approval from government.

    Selective schools represent an important part of the rich spectrum of schools which has become one of the great legacies of the Government’s education policies.

    In addition, we have expanded the Assisted Places Scheme and are currently doubling the number of places available.

    Some people would like to abolish selective schools and the Assisted Places Scheme.

    That’s like saying “We don’t want you getting above yourself’. It’s towering humbug.

    Well, I do want children to get above themselves. I want our youngsters to follow their own skills and ambitions, and not be confined by artificial barriers and outdated social conventions.

    Some children will choose to learn vocational skills. I’ve had enough of people who look down on those children and treat them as second best. Society depends on the men and women who have practical skills to do practical jobs.

    So practical skills are being put on an equal footing with academic subjects. We have a framework of vocational qualifications, with status and rigour. The old divide between universities and polytechnics has gone. Little by little, we’re chipping away at the prejudice that has turned too many of our young people away from vocational education.

    One epic change, though, has already happened. Barely seventeen years ago, one in eight of our young people went on to higher education. Now, it’s one in three.

    That’s more than a statistic: for countless families it’s something they never thought they’d see. I never had the chance to go to university, and neither did many of my generation. I’m glad, and I’m proud, that today’s young people aren’t shut out of these opportunities.

    In our schools and colleges, I want the gates thrown open and ladders let down. Good education should be for the many, not just the few.

    We have made many reforms in education. There are more to come. Evolution, not revolution, is our watchword. And our objective is an ever rising quality of education – in the interests of our children and in the interests of our country.

    Politicians over-use the word ‘passionately’. But if I ever wanted something passionately in my life, I want that.

    Jobs

    I’ve welcomed the chance to take on the forces of political correctness to get our young people a decent education. And I don’t intend to let political correctness destroy their chances of getting a job after school.

    18 million people are unemployed in the European Union. The unemployed are a nation in their own right: one that exceeds the combined populations of Sweden, Denmark and Ireland.

    Unemployment in Europe has been getting worse for about 30 years. In the last 20 years for every job created in Europe the USA has created 4.

    We should ask why. And the uncomfortable answer is that Europe’s politicians have quite simply priced their workers out of jobs.

    To be popular, politicians have imposed obligations on employers and benefits on employees. And, although they were well meaning, they have overdone it. So fewer people have jobs. It’s affecting young people most of all.

    In France, over a quarter of young people are unemployed. In Spain, almost a third are.

    But here, in the United Kingdom, youth unemployment is below the European average. We’ve more of our people in work, and fewer out of it, than any major European country.

    It costs less to employ someone here in Britain than in Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

    And I don’t mean in low wages. The OECD survey suggests that the average British family enjoys higher take home pay than their counterparts in Italy, France and Spain.

    I mean costs on business. For every £100 spent on wages, a British employer has to add an extra £18 for non-wage costs. But that same employer would have to add £32 in Germany, £34 in Spain, £41 in France and £44 in Italy.

    So why on earth should we sign the Social Chapter and put more burdens on business?

    The employer made to pay above what he can afford employs fewer people. More – literally – means less. It hurts the young most of all, because they’re at the bottom of the ladder. So why have a minimum wage?

    The Social Chapter and minimum wage are not only a threat to jobs. They’re economic handcuffs. They are a guarantee of higher unemployment when our main task must be to bring unemployment down.

    The people who advocate these policies say they want to create jobs. And so they do – sincerely. But wanting isn’t doing. It’s a sort of wrongheaded piety. It’s a mistake the young people of Britain cannot afford – because it’s their future it would destroy.

    So I won’t sign the Social Chapter. I won’t have a minimum wage. My aim is to build a dynamic, enterprise economy, in which people can build up a business free from the heavy hand of government.

    An enterprise economy in which small businesses are encouraged. 95 per cent of firms employ fewer than 20 people. Those small firms are the power house of our economy. And I’m not going to throw a spanner in their works by foisting new burdens on them.

    An enterprise economy is not negotiable.

    Enterprise needs low taxes, which fire the incentive to work hard and invest. We’re now back on our tax-cutting agenda, giving people the opportunity to spend or save more of what they earn.

    We want to cut taxes further and that means controlling public spending. When we spend public money – your money – we must spend it well. When we spend money on the benefit system, it must give protection to the needy but foster independence. And it must be a system we can afford.

    Here too there’s plenty of political correctness to battle with. It’s easy to be warm hearted with other people’s money. Too many still argue that the way to entrench opportunities and security is to increase constantly the size of the welfare state.

    But that’s not only unaffordable – it’s counterproductive. It perpetuates the myth that the State can satisfy the dreams of its people, individually and collectively. It ignores the fact that people have a desire and a responsibility to provide for themselves and their families. Our reforms of the benefit system have been designed to underpin incentives and offer a route to independence. Look at what we’ve done.

    Extra help to get back to work. New programmes to stop people sliding into the misery of long-term unemployment. New ‘Project Work’ pilots, that recognise that people receiving unemployment benefit ultimately have an obligation to accept reasonable work on offer.

    A whole new system of benefits for the disabled to help with their problems and make it easier for them to work.

    Making family credit more generous and helping parents who need childcare when they’re out at work.

    Finding practical solutions to the problems of single parents.

    I have no patience with people whose only response to our reforms is to snipe and criticise. I don’t accept that the only good benefit system is a bigger benefit system.

    Which would people most prefer? Income that comes from the state in the form of benefit? Or money they know they’ve earned and can spend as they please?

    Which brings us to the fundamental freedom of choosing and owning.

    Opportunity and ownership belong together. People naturally want to build to last.

    Some call this materialism, and criticise the Government for putting such selfish ideas into people’s heads.

    That’s patronising rubbish. The aspiration to choose and own was always there. People who had nothing always wanted to have something. All we did was make it possible.

    Take pensions. Private investment for retirement now stands at nearly £600 billion. It rose by £100 billion last year, more than the sum total the state spent – £90 billion – on social security. Year by year the value of what people save privately for retirement increases.

    The same goes for other savings. I’ve always believed that people should be encouraged to save for the long term. So when I was Chancellor, I launched TESSAs – tax free savings accounts. 4.5 million accounts were opened, and £30 billion was invested in them.

    We gave people another choice. Did they want the state to own and run industries, or did they want a piece of it for themselves? The privatisations of the 1980s and the introduction of PEPs brought share-ownership to the people. Share-ownership is no longer confined to the leafy stockbroker belt in the Home Counties. Today, there are more shareholders than trade unionists. And, thanks to the last Budget, more people will be able to have a share in their own business.

    But the most tangible way to take control of your life is to own your own home. Home ownership has risen dramatically over the last fifteen years of Conservative Government. I’m proud of that. I’m tired of hearing the people who became home-owners for the first time parodied as if they were only interested in making a fast buck.

    The desire to own your own home is the most natural thing in the world. Ask anyone who has grown up being buffeted from one rented place to another, with little security and no chance to put down roots. Where’s the independence when you’re in the council’s hands to get the leaking roof mended? I understand only too well how people in that trap dream of a place they can call their own.

    Yes, too many people who bought homes during the past few years have been hit by negative equity. But there are no quick fixes to put this right. Nor does the problem – which time will correct – negate the argument for home ownership. The best way to help the housing market is to keep interest rates – and thereby mortgage costs – down. They’ve now fallen by 8% since 1990 – which saves the average mortgage holder £160 pounds a month. Mortgage rates are at their lowest for 30 years.

    Combine rising earnings, today’s level of house prices, low inflation and low mortgages, and you have one of the most favourable times ever to buy a home. It provides the right conditions for a sustainable recovery in the housing market. House prices are already starting to edge upwards. Most housing commentators expect this recovery to continue in the year ahead.

    But let’s not forget: most people want to own their home not because it’s a financial speculation, but because of the independence and security home ownership brings. Ownership and independence that lie at the heart of an opportunity society.

    Labour

    Of course, the Labour Party also talks about opportunity. I don’t want to be unfair in analysing them, but there’s a world of difference between opportunity and opportunism.

    The first is what I stand for: the other I concede to Labour. Labour have always opposed our opportunity policies.

    They wouldn’t have given workers the chance to own shares in the once crumbling nationalised industries – although they’re the party that supported common ownership.

    They wouldn’t have given tenants – suffering under Labour councils – the chance to buy their homes.

    They wouldn’t give those parents, who face the appalling prospect of sending their children to failing schools run by Labour councils, the choice of schools in other areas – unless, of course, they sit in the Shadow Cabinet.

    They wouldn’t give bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds the chance to go to private schools – denying them the education some Labour politicians enjoyed.

    And to people who want to take home more of what they earn, to save or spend it as they wish, what do Labour say? “We’ll save you the trouble. We’ll spend the money for you.”

    Labour think most people can’t do anything for themselves, and good people like Labour politicians should do it for them. In other words, “Leave it to Labour. Labour will tell you what to do”.

    That’s an appalling mindset. Yet it’s how Labour think.

    And it’s what they say to people they claim to represent. People often dependent on the state, but who want more independence from it. “Onwards and upwards” offends Labour’s sense of planning. In Labour’s eyes, they have to know their place – in Labour’s hands, state-controlled and dependent on it.

    Of course there must always be a helping hand for those in need. But the state isn’t the panacea for all our ills. There is a limit to what the state can do and we politicians should admit it.

    We should also tell people that the world is a complicated place and so are the problems we face. Complex problems cannot be resolved easily with the stroke of a pen on a cheque book or the flourish of a sound bite on the media.

    But they can be solved if the state knows its place and keeps to it. And if it elevates to its proper role the freedom of choice and opportunity, the rights of reward and enterprise, and people’s obligations to themselves and their families.

    Many worry these days about the role of the family. They have some reason to do so. Yet I remain an optimist. The family is the rock of security and personal freedom.

    In a fast changing world, we need to do all we can to strengthen families, to bolster their freedom and independence to take responsibility for themselves.

    I believe we should ensure that the tax and benefit system helps people who take their family responsibilities seriously. I believe that people should keep more of their own money to spend on themselves and their families.

    One way of strengthening families’ independence is to allow parents to pass on more of their wealth and savings to the next generation.

    Families continue to be, as they always have been, the main way in which we care for the old and sick in our society. That’s how it should be – and should remain. But as more people live longer, the demand for long term care can drain a family’s assets. So we’re looking closely at how we can help them meet those costs, and I hope we’ll have announcements to make shortly.

    For the same reason, I have always harboured an aim to cut inheritance tax. Inheritance tax robs people of the chance to pass on to their children and grandchildren the rewards of their life’s work. Every parent would like their children to enjoy opportunities they didn’t have. That’s why I plan – as a long-term goal – to cut and then abolish inheritance tax.

    But parents want to pass on to their children more than just the fruits of their life’s work. That’s why most parents care about their children’s education – and why education is the bedrock of opportunity. Yet they also want to know that their children are going to inherit a better world, with a richer quality of life.

    Enriching Britain’s quality of life is central to the National Lottery. Across the country, hundreds of small sports clubs, amateur dramatic societies and local museums have been able to realise their dreams thanks to Lottery funds. In the past year, nearly £1,500 million has been raised for over 5,000 projects. Soon those awards will go wider still – to skilled athletes, artists, young people and others, so that British talent can flower and blossom as we enter the Millennium.

    These projects are giving all young people the chance to take part in sport, the arts, music. They give new opportunities to the disabled, those in the inner cities and the disadvantaged. They help nurture a talent for life.

    Peroration

    Decent homes, rewarding jobs, a good education, shares, quality of life. Giving more people those opportunities is what One Nation Conservatism is all about.

    Do-gooders with schemes, plans, and grand designs won’t achieve that. Their sort of help rarely works, but simply reinforces divisions, destroys dignity and ambition. It conditions people – in that appalling phrase – to “know their place”.

    I don’t want people to “know their place”. I never want to hear people saying “That isn’t for us” or “I could never do that”. I don’t want people to suffer from a poverty of aspiration. I want them to have high ambitions and the chance to achieve them.

    We are now well beyond the recession that so inhibited our hopes and ambitions for the country. We will soon be setting out our future policies in detail. They will be centred on trusting the people, building enterprise, giving people freedom, extending further opportunity and choice, and setting the framework in which people can make the best of their lives as a result of their own efforts and their own decisions.

    That is what the ancient Conservative adage – of trusting the people – really means.

    It is the heart of what we are building. Some of the structure is in place. But more needs to be built and I am determined to do it.

  • PMQT – 29 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th February 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is carrying out official engagements in the far east.

    Mr. Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Dover and Deal we have a selective system of education that offers choice and diversity and requires no parent to send his child 15 miles to school? Is he aware that we have grant-maintained grammar schools, high schools, a grant-maintained comprehensive school and we now have a Labour-run county council that wants to try to change what the Conservative county council set up? Is he further aware that the Labour party’s policies in Kent reek of old Labour hypocrisy? Is the Labour party trying to change the policy or the guidelines, or is it just being hypocritical?

    Madam Speaker: Order. I have cautioned the hon. Gentleman before. Ministers at the Dispatch Box are not responsible for the policy of any other political party. They are responsible for Government policy and they should be asked matters relating to that policy and for which they are accountable. I have no doubt that there is something in the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments to which the Deputy Prime Minister can reply, but I am sure he will relate his comments to Government policy.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that I can stretch my answer to embrace your suggestions, Madam Speaker. The fact is that my hon. Friend has described the excellent range of choice and policies that Conservative education policy represents. He will be well aware of the criticisms of the alternative structure of comprehensive education that we have heard from the Labour spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who said:

    “In spite of 30 years of comprehensive education, the pattern of excellence at the top and chronic under-performance at the bottom persists”.

    That is the most comprehensive criticism of Labour education policy that I have ever heard, even from a Labour spokesman.

    Mr. Prescott: Why did the Prime Minister refuse to answer parliamentary questions about the names of the people he will be meeting on his publicly funded visit to Hong Kong?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend’s programme will remain flexible during the course of his visit. Any Labour Member who has ever represented his country abroad will know the great importance of being able to respond to suggestions of meetings in the margins of international councils. It is ludicrous to think that one can plan all those things with so many world leaders in one circumstance at a time. It shows that the Opposition are so devoid of reality that they are unfit to govern.

    Mr. Prescott: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that there is a great deal of public concern because, during the Prime Minister’s last visit to Hong Kong, he met a number of wealthy Hong Kong business men who then gave millions of pounds to Tory party funds, none of which was publicly declared? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, on this occasion, no such meetings will take place?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman would ever take the trouble to find out about the world outside Britain, he would know that there are a number of wealthy Chinese business men in Hong Kong, because it is one of the most successful capitalist economies in the world.

    Mr. Prescott: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to be open and honest about Tory party funding? Have we not returned to the fundamental question about the Tory party–what does it have to hide?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman would be a great deal better off telling the country about the clandestine meetings that are taking place with the trade unions to do the deals that will enable them to support the Labour party, in the hope that it will get power.

    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that top British companies succeed because they are no longer hamstrung by trade union domination, and that that has resulted in the lowest strike level for more than 100 years? Will he give the House a commitment that the Conservative Government will not engage in any sleazy backroom deals with trade unions to do away with the trade union legislation that has enabled Britain to be the enterprise economy of Europe?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend an unequivocal assurance that we will do no sleazy backroom deals with anyone, whether in the trade unions, the capitalist system or anywhere else.

     

    Q2. Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Tyler: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall who was the last Conservative Minister to take full accountability for the actions of his Department and to resign on principle? Does he think that certain Ministers in the present Government should follow that example?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will remember that he lost the vote on Monday. I recall that my noble Friend Lord Carrington resigned in circumstances with which the hon. Gentleman will be as familiar as I am, but the fact of the matter is that my right hon. Friends explained our views on the Scott report. The House listened to the arguments and found in favour of the Government.

    Sir Patrick Cormack: As my right hon. Friend quite clearly and rightly believes in retaining the rank of Prime Minister, will he please explain to the House why we are to abolish the rank of field marshal?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend misunderstood the recent announcement. As I understand it, the rank of field marshal will now be awarded only to generals commanding an army in the field in times of war.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Gapes: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall that, before he was appointed to his elevated position last July, the Labour party was leading the Conservatives by 27 per cent. in the opinion polls? Has he seen the MORI poll in The Times today, showing that Labour’s lead over the Conservatives is now 31 per cent? In view of that, does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that he should continue in his responsibility for the presentation of Government policy?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The answer–[Interruption.] I thought that the House might be interested in the answer to the question, which is best summarised in one word: yes.

     

    Q4. Sir Alan Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to examine the workings of the Land Compensation Act 1973? Is he aware that claimants against Stansted airport have to wait between four and five years for settlement, and that that is causing a great deal of anguish, if not hardship, in many cases; whereas the airport operator can still sustain claims up to 1988 and has absolutely no idea of its total liability? Is that not a recipe for maximum discontent?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sympathetic to the point that my hon. Friend has made, and I know the efforts to which he has gone to make representations on this issue. However, the matter is not under ministerial control; it is a matter of quasi-judicial responsibilities and the processes must unfold in the way that he has described.

    Mr. Rooker: Will the Deputy Prime Minister address the issue of the standards of conduct in public life? Are the Government planning to do anything to close the loophole–about which we are criticised–whereby hon. Members use the freedom of aircraft tickets to travel between constituencies to gain private air miles for their families? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should listen to questions, and to the answers.

    Mr. Rooker: Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain the difference in that action and the actions of a publicly funded Prime Minister travelling to the other side of the world to fill the coffers of his party’s political funds?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raised a serious issue in the first part of his question, and I shall deal with it seriously. Guidance to Ministers is quite clear: they are not allowed to use air miles incurred in public services for private purposes.

     

    Q5. Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government would be prepared to walk away from the conference table at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference if they cannot get a deal that is acceptable to the majority of British voters?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government will shortly publish a White Paper on their approach to the intergovernmental conference. The British Government will represent the interests of this country at the conference, and it is their view that they will do that more effectively if they participate in the dialogue.

     

    Q6. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Flynn: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the heartbreaking pollution from the Sea Empress is the worst environmental catastrophe ever to hit the United Kingdom? Is he aware that an internal inquiry by civil servants of the conduct of other civil servants and their Minister is not a satisfactory inquiry? Will he give the undertakings that a full inquiry will take place, preferably under Lord Donaldson, and that it will be public and entirely independent?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport told the House last week, the marine accident investigation branch will carry out a thorough and independent inquiry into the cause of the incident and the conduct of the salvage operation.

    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to recall that, when he was the Secretary of State for the Environment, he pursued the excellent policy of defending the metropolitan green belt? Does he agree with me that the metropolitan green belt is the greatest bulwark against urban sprawl? Will Her Majesty’s Government continue to make that policy the centrepoint of their environment policy?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is as determined as any former Secretary of State in his advocacy and maintenance of Government policy on the green belt. He will act in compliance with planning policy guidance and with the law. He must consider any matters that are put before him, but no one should doubt his commitment to the green belt.

     

    Q7. Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the enthusiasm of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the Prime Minister for efficiency in Government Departments–which was shown clearly by their support for market testing–is it not now appropriate for the British people to market test the Government?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: They would find that they are looking forward to an economy that is as strong as any in contemporary history. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained at the time of the Budget statement, they are looking forward to an increase in average incomes of £9 a week. Since then, there have been two reductions in interest rates. We have the lowest inflation rate for many years, falling unemployment and a competitive currency. It is obvious that the Government have presided over extremely exciting economic prospects.

  • PMQT – 15 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how long it took him to read the Scott report?

    The Prime Minister: I am a very rapid reader.

    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the destruction of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords is but a short distance from the destruction of the hereditary monarchy?

    The Prime Minister: I am surprised at the hostility of the Labour party to the hereditary principle, for this reason: when the Government were defeated in a vote last week, we were defeated by the votes of hereditary peers. As it happens, one of the Labour frontbench remarked to the House, “the people have spoken”.

    Mr. Blair: In retrospect, does the Prime Minister believe that the Scott report would have been better handled if it had been released in the way in which Sir Richard Scott requested? Does he have any regrets about the extraordinary disparity of treatment given, on the one hand, to Ministers and the Conservative machine and, on the other, to Members of Parliament, Opposition spokesmen and civil servants–a disparity about to be exemplified by the shambles at 3.30 pm?

    The Prime Minister: Nothing has been given to the Conservative machine–the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark. Sir Richard wrote–I think to you, Madam Speaker–on 31 January to say:

    “Subject to the imposition of strict conditions on access (which Mr. Cook is prepared to observe), I view his request sympathetically.”

    We permitted access at 12 o’clock. I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman disagree. The arrangements are exactly those offered to the shadow Home Secretary when we published the Learmont report. We even offered him sandwiches. Not only did he not describe the arrangements as “outrageous and insulting” but, when he made his statement, he said:

    “I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in arranging for me to see the report earlier than is usual.”–[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 33.]

    I look forward to similar thanks from the shadow Foreign Secretary later.

    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend believe that British Telecom’s doubling of the amount that is spent on building the information super-highway by people other than BT is the Government’s competition policy in action, or does he believe that it would be better to sign a sweetheart deal just with BT to have the information super-highway built more quickly?

    The Prime Minister: The information super-highway has been in the process of being built for some years. The sweetheart deal that was entered into–apparently by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)–seems to have come badly unstuck since its initial publicity.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Hoon: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many of his Ministers who had early access to the Scott report have since been confined in a secure room, have had their mobile phones confiscated, have had all their messages brought to them by civil servants and have been escorted throughout by officials who are present for their convenience and security?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman heard what I said to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman is overacting outrageously on this issue. I shall tell the House why Labour Members are behaving in this fashion. The right hon. Gentleman did not want to sign a form promising secrecy and decided to attack the Government for asking him to do so. He then discovered that the requirement to sign the form was not that of the Government but that of Sir Richard Scott and that all Ministers, including me, have signed it. To save face, the Opposition went into sulks and denounced the whole arrangement.

    Mr. Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend share the following view expressed in today’s The Times:

    “Kenneth Clarke, the Chancellor, was yesterday presented with a golden economic scenario of low inflation and falling unemployment.”?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with the comment. That economic scenario has resulted from the sustained policies that the Government have followed for some time. We now have the lowest sustained level of inflation for 50 years, which today has fallen to below 3 per cent; the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years; the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years; more foreign investment than any other nation in Europe; and we export more per person than Japan and the United States.

    The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), in his usual heckling form, talked about taxes. Let him tell us about the new taxes that the Labour party plans: the windfall tax, the tartan tax, the training tax and the social chapter tax on jobs. The right hon. Gentleman should realise that the Labour party is the taxing party– it is in opposition now and that is where it will stay.

     

    Q3. Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. McFall: Why has it been necessary for the Government to prepare a shorthand version of the Scott report for distribution to Conservative Members and to the media? Would it not have been preferable to allow people to make up their own minds, based on Sir Richard Scott’s key conclusions and not on the Government’s version of events?

    The Prime Minister: That is rich coming from the hon. Gentleman. Most Labour Members made up their minds about this issue three years ago–long before Sir Richard started his report. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall read to him a large selection of quotations from Labour frontbenchers that show that they had made up their minds before Sir Richard Scott started his investigation.

    I set up the inquiry so that we could find out precisely what happened and so that the matter could be investigated independently and publicly. It was investigated under the conditions that Sir Richard Scott wanted. I was determined that the report be published and debated by the House, as it has been. The hon. Gentleman will see the outcome shortly.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that more than 7,000 head teachers are members of the Secondary Heads Association? Is he aware that that association has described Labour’s education policy as naive? Is it not typical of the Opposition’s arrogance that they have now said that those 7,000 hard-working headteachers should go to the bottom of the class for not doing their homework?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend characteristically understates what was said by the secondary heads. What they actually said was:

    “The document is an uncomfortable combination of the naive and the messianic”,

    that they find

    “little evidence in the document of thought in detail or research”

    and that they regret

    “the absence of recognition of valuable initiatives already in place”–

    put in place by this Government.

    We have learnt over the months that Labour’s education spokesman has a tough job. Teachers openly criticise his policy and shadow Cabinet Members openly contradict it–but now that they know what makes a good school, I am sure that they will be able to improve their education policy.

    Mr. Radice: In April 1994, the Prime Minister wrote to me to say that, if Ministers fail to give accurate and truthful information to the House of Commons, they should relinquish their positions. Is that still the case?

    The Prime Minister: I have said before that, if I judge Ministers to have knowingly misled the House, they cannot stay. That remains my position.

     

    Q5. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend join me in rejecting the insulting suggestion made last night by the Leader of the Opposition–that when old-age pensioners want a treat, they should steal it? Is he aware that shoplifting costs every household in the country £90 a year? Does he agree that the idea that shoplifters from certain groups should not be prosecuted is yet another example of Labour saying one thing and wanting to do quite another?

    The Prime Minister: Shoplifting is certainly a serious crime. It causes a great deal of loss for small and large shopkeepers. If the right hon. Member for Sedgefield did indeed describe it as my hon. Friend suggests he did, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw those remarks. They certainly cannot reflect his settled consideration.

     

    Q6. Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Hill: As the Prime Minister has had a full eight days to read the Scott report, and as I have only eight minutes, would he care to advise me which of the 1,800 pages I should find the most interesting?

    The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that, in addition to examining the report so that I and others can be answerable to this House, there have been some other things to do. The hon. Gentleman has 11 days now to consider the report. I hope that he will contribute to the debate in the House then–on the basis of fact, not of sneers, smears and innuendo of the sort that we have heard for three years.

     

    Q7. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we have the most encouraging set of economic indicators that this country has had in modern history? Will he further accept, although he knows that I have had concerns in the past about aspects of the health service reforms, that the private health sector is now so popular and so instrumental in playing a role in the health service that my socialist opponent at the next election works for it?

    The Prime Minister: I am truly shocked at that example of how Labour does not always do what it says. I hope that we will not find it in other elements of the Labour party.

     

    Q8. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Prentice: Did Lord Justice Scott not make it quite clear that all hon. Members should receive his report at the same time? Is it not almost a contempt of court that backbenchers such as me have no time at all to absorb his important report and that we will find it impossible to quiz the President of the Board of Trade intelligently on its conclusions?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should really come off this silly line that he and his hon. Friends–[Interruption.]–this silly line that he and his hon. Friends are concerting. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is having hysteria, would be better advised to look at the precedent, to see what happened to the shadow Home Secretary, and to see what he said a few days later.

    Hon. Members have tried every trick to prejudice the reception of the Scott report. I suggest that they would be very wise to wait for just a few minutes to see what is in the Scott report. They can then deal with the reality of it on the basis of knowledge, and not on the basis of the smears that they have been putting around for the past three years.

  • PMQT – 8 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative and Unionist party will always stand four-square behind the Union? Is it not the case that the British constitution has evolved over centuries, but that it could take a matter of months for a meddling, middle-class public school boy to undermine or even destroy it?

    The Prime Minister: We have made some evolutionary changes to the constitution in recent years, and I believe that there is scope for more evolutionary change in the years ahead. I do not believe that large-scale changes that would significantly alter the face of the United Kingdom and the Union as we know it are in the interests of the United Kingdom. Frankly, I believe that many of the plans that have been put forward do not address the difficulties.

    I see no reason why Scotland should be taxed more highly than the rest of the United Kingdom. Neither do I see any reason why Scottish Members should vote on Scottish matters that English Members cannot vote on, and then vote in the House on the same matters as they affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those issues need very careful examination. I hope that they will receive that careful examination, as they clearly have not had it yet.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent newspaper article about education by the Labour transport spokesman, which I shall quote–[Interruption.]–which I shall paraphrase. It refers to public schools producing more social cripples than any other form of education devised by man. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that is yet another veiled attack on the Labour leader and some of his Front-Bench colleagues, or is it simply another example of hypocrisy?

    The Prime Minister: I feel as though I am in an air raid shelter on this occasion, speaking as a grammar school boy. My hon. Friend should not be too hard on the hon. Member concerned. I think that Labour Members are required to put their children down for private school these days so that they can remain in the vanguard of Labour education policy.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Scott inquiry was entirely fairly conducted and that no criticism can or should be made of its processes or procedures?

    The Prime Minister: As I said in the House on a previous occasion:

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”

    Mr. Blair: I must press the Prime Minister on that because he will know that, in the past few days, there has been a concerted attempt to rubbish the inquiry. Will he say unequivocally that he accepts that it was entirely fairly conducted?

    The Prime Minister: I just said to the right hon. Gentleman:

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have every confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”

    The right hon. Gentleman is saying that neither he nor anybody else can comment fairly on the Scott report until people have had the opportunity to study it. I agree with that point, but it also applies to the past three years. It applies to the fact that the Opposition have made crude and blatant smears throughout those past three years without having had the evidence of the Scott report before them. If, in his question, the right hon. Gentleman was making it clear that he believes that those were unjustified attacks without any evidence, I would be pleased for him to withdraw them now and make it clear that he will repudiate them.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is not even prepared to say whether the report is fairly conducted. When he says that we should await the findings of the report, let me remind him that he and his Ministers will have had the report for eight days, that four Government Departments have units working on it and that we are to get it a few hours before publication. I am not asking him to comment on its findings, but on whether it was fairly conducted. He set up the inquiry. He chose Sir Richard Scott. Is he now prepared to state that he is confident that it was fairly conducted? If he does not say that, the final vestiges of respect will be removed from the Government.

    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman had carefully prepared his third soundbite before my first answer, and I am tempted to refer him to the two answers I have just given. I made it clear that

    “I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have confidence that he will do so”–

    and has done so–

    “thoroughly.”–[Official Report, 6 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 15.]

    I have now said that three times. Will the right hon. Gentleman now stop preparing his soundbites in advance and listen to my answers before he prepares his questions?

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley: Why cannot the Prime Minister publish such an important document as the report of the Scott inquiry a few days before the statement on it next week so that the Opposition, and indeed the House, can be properly informed? Is it not disgraceful that a few Conservative Members will have had that report for eight days, but the rest of the House will receive it on the day of the statement?

    The Prime Minister: We plan to follow the precedents for a weighty report of this nature, and to permit Opposition spokesmen to see the report several hours before the statement is made. Of course, the House will also wish to study and comment on the report. That is why we propose to find time in Government time for an early debate on the report a few days after the statement has been made, once the whole House has had the opportunity to study the report and comment on it on the basis of detail, not of innuendo and smear, which has been the nature of the comments thus far from a number of Opposition Members.

    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House of Lords provides a useful and important advisory service for this country at very little cost? It has no power to overrule or frustrate the will of the House of Commons. Has my right hon. Friend heard of the old phrase, “If it ain’t broke, don’t mend it”?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that this House should treat constitutional reform of any sort with care and consideration, and examine what the outcome of that reform might be before being committed to it. I do not believe that the reforms proposed to the House of Lords are relevant to the problems and opportunities facing this country over the next five to 10 years. It seems to me that the reform in question is irrelevant–and intended to be a spiteful, thoughtless irrelevance.

     

    Campbell Soups

    Q3. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit a Campbell Soups exhibition stand at a United Kingdom food trade fair.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans at present to do so.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister will be aware of the call for an international boycott of Campbell Soups and Fray Bentos products, arising out of the appalling decision by the company to close down the highly profitable Homepride plant in my constituency–having purchased it for £58.6 million only 11 weeks earlier. Are not the real stakeholders in Homepride not the greedy shareholders in America who do not give a damn about the people of Maryport, but the work force who have invested their lives in making that company a success and who are now being put on the scrap heap? Will the Prime Minister join the 341 Members of Parliament–a majority of this House–who have called on the company to reverse its decision?

    The Prime Minister: I realise the extent of the disappointment that must be felt at Maryport over the decision. I understand that Campbell’s has offered employees jobs at one of its five other plants–although, self-evidently, that will not be appropriate for many employees. I also understand the depth of the hon. Gentleman’s concern for his constituents, but I hope that he and everyone else will bear in mind the fact that Campbell’s has been in the United Kingdom for over 30 years. It employs more than 2,000 people here and has shown its commitment to the United Kingdom by investing more than £100 million here in the past 12 months. I would not wish to threaten and damage those investments, or the jobs that are safeguarded and are being created as a result of those investments.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Chidgey: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Social Security Secretary, who has described today’s proposed cuts of £1 billion in the social security budget as devastating?

    The Prime Minister: That is in no sense what my right hon. Friend has said about the outcome of the public expenditure round. The whole House will recall that, in recent weeks, I have been criticised by the Opposition for administrative costs being too high. Here we have a practical illustration of the Government seeking to cut administrative costs, in the interests of the taxpayer, to preserve the resources available for benefits–yet on that point the Opposition criticise me as well.

    The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind: does he criticise the Government for not cutting administrative costs or for making administrative savings? Even though he is a Liberal Democrat, he cannot have it both ways.

    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy to maintain that one is committed to the elimination of state subsidy and then to do the reverse? Do not the recent decisions by the Transport Commissioner show that the Labour party–whether old Labour or new Labour, in Westminster or in Brussels–is committed to state subsidy and to Spanish practices?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House will know of our concern about the Iberia decision. It is certainly not in the interests of the air travellers of Europe, and we have made that known to Commissioner Kinnock and to others.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February.

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

    Mr. Hoon: In a statement to the House about the setting up of the Scott inquiry, the Attorney-General stated that matters of form and procedure were a question for the learned judge. Why will not the Prime Minister condemn unequivocally those, such as Lord Howe, who have sought to impugn the integrity of the learned judge and to attack the contents of his report before publication?

    The Prime Minister: On attacks on the contents of the report, if anyone has predetermined what the contents of the report might be, it is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and not my noble Friend Lord Howe.

    On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I refer him to what I said on 13 January 1994 at column 332.

    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Lord Palmerston, who said that to be born British is like winning the lottery of life? Will my right hon. Friend now go further and say that to be born or to live in Milton Keynes is like winning the national lottery, and join me in welcoming the grant of £19 million to build what will undoubtedly be the best theatre outside London?

    The Prime Minister: There may be some challenges about the scheme being the best theatre, but I know that my hon. Friend is proud of the scheme and I congratulate him on it.

    As for being proud of being British, I just hope that we do not reach the situation where to live in Scotland is to lose the lottery of taxation because it has to face extra taxation and a tartan tax.

  • PMQT – 1 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming another successful year for the Manor House private hospital, which is funded by the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions to provide private health care for their members? In view of the Labour party’s long-term opposition to private health care, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a classic case of the Labour movement saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fascinating point. I think that he mentioned the Transport and General Workers Union. It sponsors many prominent hon. Members, so they will certainly be familiar with its activities. I was not aware of the case my hon. Friend raises, but if it is true it certainly calls into question the deep and apparently sincere hostility of so many Opposition Members to the private sector of medicine that they have set out for so many years. It is surprising that they seem keen to use the private sector, but are keen to condemn it.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister about the national health service. Can he confirm the figures of the Consultants Association and the Audit Commission that show that, under his Prime Ministership, within the past five years, the costs of administration have doubled? Given today’s news about the pay awards to top administrators, does not the Prime Minister think that the Secretary of State for Health should say clearly to the trust boards that, in future, the average pay rises for managers should be very similar to those for doctors and nurses?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot confirm the detailed figures that have been released–I have no reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about them, but I cannot immediately confirm them. The right hon. Gentleman should take great care before he returns to his old line of attacking management in the national health service and its costs.

    Mr. Skinner: Why?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks why. I shall give him several reasons. First, because that is precisely what the Socialist Health Association told him not to do. Secondly,

    “I don’t think it’s really in question any more that the NHS has been under-managed in the past”.

    [Hon. Members: “Undermanaged?] I am sorry that Opposition Members scoff–those are not my words but those of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when she was Labour’s health spokesman. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”]

    Of course one would wish to ensure a fair division of pay among all people in the health service. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the present Government, under my Prime Ministership, gave the nurses a pay review body, whose recommendations we have always honoured.

    Mr. Blair: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the Secretary of State to do as I ask? [Interruption.] “No,” say Conservative Members, but I was quoting the words of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Instead of the Prime Minister saying things that are in his folder and my putting things to him, will he answer the basic question? Why have administrative costs increased by more than £1 billion a year in the past five years–when the number of nurses is falling, when patients are on trolleys and when there is a shortage of acute beds? The question that the Prime Minister must answer is, why is the national health service safe in the hands of a Government who place administrators before nurses?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is mistaken on almost every point that he puts to me, but let me deal directly with his point about management costs. It is fair to raise the important issue of management costs. If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about management costs, and I am sure that he is sincere in what he says about them–[Hon. Members: “Oh.”]–can he explain why he does not support the 8 per cent. cut of administrative costs next year that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health proposes? The right hon. Gentleman does not support that. Can he explain why he voted against the abolition of regional health authorities, which saved a whole tier of management?

    We have provided the resources for more medical staff and for the treatment of 1.5 million extra patients. A few years ago, it was impossible to check properly how resources were used because there was no proper management in the national health service. As the right hon. Member for Derby, South said, that had to be put right. We have put it right. Now that we have put it right, the right hon. Gentleman criticises it.

    Mr. Blair: Let us debate at least on the basis of facts. Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that the extra costs are more than £1 billion a year? If they are, instead of spending that money on bureaucrats, administrators, company cars and pen-pushers, why does he not spend it on nurses, doctors, patients and beds?

    The Prime Minister: The money is being spent on patients. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be able to grasp that point. To spend it on patients, it is necessary to do what we have been doing–put resources into medical care and manage them so that money is available for medical care. Until the right hon. Gentleman understands that, he will continue to ask me questions that are, literally, senseless. I suggest that he examines the matter again with the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who understood those matters when she was Labour’s health spokesman, but who obviously disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman–which may well be why she has almost disappeared from public view in recent months.

     

    Q2. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Jenkin: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that boot camps are for the punishment of young offenders, humanely but firmly? May I urge my right hon. Friend to make use of the military corrective training centre at Colchester garrison and ignore the blandishments and objections of Liberal Democrat and Labour Colchester councillors, who once again demonstrate that the Opposition parties are the villain’s friend?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I shall certainly examine his suggestion. We hear much from the Opposition parties about their approach to crime, and in some cases about how tough it is. We do not see it at a national level and, if my hon. Friend is correct–I have no reason to doubt that he is–those parties clearly take the same inadequate approach at local level as we have seen them take at national level.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Hain: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on Tuesday that the British economy is now the best in the western world, when in fact seven European countries are growing faster? Does he also recall telling the House that crime in Britain is falling for the first time for 40 years, when in fact crime fell in 1977 and 1978, under Labour? Was he deliberately misleading the House or just reverting to his old, routine incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right on crime figures, but I understated what I might have said to the House. The fall is not the first for 40 years–the hon. Gentleman is right about that–but the largest fall in crime since records began 100 years ago. It was achieved against the opposition of the hon. Gentleman and many other Opposition Members to almost every measure that we have brought forward in recent years.

    The hon. Gentleman referred also to the economy. I said that we have the best performing economy in western Europe, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should look at exactly what I said. The facts are that we have the lowest level of inflation for 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest unemployment of any major European country and the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. We are number one in Europe for foreign investment and we export more per person than Japan or the United States. Which European country can match that record?

     

    Q4. Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that privatised companies are a very attractive proposition to investors? Is he aware of a pamphlet issued recently by a Labour Member of the European Parliament that shows that nearly £1 billion has been invested in privatised companies by Labour local authorities, including Southwark, Lewisham and Islington? Is not that yet another example of Labour hypocrisy? They opposed privatisation, but now they profit from it.

    The Prime Minister: I have seen the brochure and I commend it to hon. Members. It was written by a Labour Member of the European Parliament and has a foreword by the leader of the Labour Members of the European Parliament. Its case is set out as my hon. Friend claims. I am delighted to welcome Islington, Lewisham and Southwark to the stockbroker belt, but it strikes me as odd that the Opposition opposed privatisation, they fight privatisation in the House, they go on television to attack privatisation, they attack the management of privatisation, and yet they buy shares in privatised companies and enjoy profits from them. As usual, they are saying one thing and doing another.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Hardy: How does the Prime Minister think the British people will recall his widely publicised promises in the 1992 general election campaign to cut taxes year after year, given that he then increased them by more than at any other time in British history? Is not that the most glaring example of saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that taxes are now going back on a downward trend. He might like to hear some examples of saying one thing and doing another. The Opposition are claiming that they will not put taxes up; but what did the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) say some time ago?

    “Well, I would say is this: that if the Chancellor, to raise money to do things, did raise the tax level on the top rate from 40 to 50 per cent., we would not oppose it”.

    That is not what the Leader of the Opposition says. Of course, the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is temporarily absent–[Hon. Members: “Where is he?”] I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman is–he has decided to heckle someone else this afternoon. He said, however, that Labour

    “should not follow the Government down the road of reducing the basic rate of tax”.

    How does that square with the promises made by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about taxation?

     

    Q6. Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.

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

    Mr. Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme provides an excellent opportunity for thousands of children? Is it not another example of hypocrisy and double standards that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition health spokesman have benefited from the excellent facilities in private education, yet wish to do away with the scheme?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. The assisted places scheme is another policy that increases choice and opportunity, particularly for people on modest incomes. That is why we are committed to doubling the scheme.

    The Labour party is opposed to the scheme–or at least that is what I thought until the Labour leader gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) an assisted place in the shadow Cabinet.

    Mr. Alfred Morris: When does the Prime Minister expect to be able to respond to the motion on Members’ and Ministers’ pay that stands in my name and in those of 300 other right hon. and hon. Members? Meanwhile is there any comment he can offer the House on the subject today?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there needs to be a new mechanism for determining Members’ pay for the future, as the existing link to civil service pay grades disappears following civil service restructuring. That has been the case for some time. We have been considering how to take the matter forward. Of course we shall take account of the views expressed by the House in the early-day motion standing in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. We have not concluded our consideration and consultations. As soon as we have, we shall bring our conclusions to the House.

  • PMQT – 30 January 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th January 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    United Nations Secretary-General

    Q1. Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had on the election of a successor to Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, when he last met (a) President Chirac and (b) Chancellor Kohl.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): None.

    Dr. Godman: In addition to a new Secretary-General, is there not a need for a deputy Secretary-General, as advocated by Sir David Hannay, to take charge of administration and finance, thereby allowing the new Secretary-General to re-examine most carefully such serious matters as Lockerbie and Libyan sanctions? At the very least, do we not need a public debate on those appointments and on reform of the United Nations?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree about the need to reform the United Nations. I raised that at the last meeting of the G7, where there was general agreement about it. In terms of internal reform, I can see some justification for a deputy Secretary-General, and I can certainly see some for a proper reform of the United Nations. By reform, I mean not just a reform of procedures but the abolition of many United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

    The Prime Minister: 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.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of my constituents strongly support the Government’s measures to give the Attorney-General power to appeal against unduly lenient sentences? Is not the fact that the Labour party voted against that yet another example of hypocrisy?

    The Prime Minister: It is a matter of record that the Labour party voted against that measure, but it has voted against many other law-and-order measures over recent months, such as the right to silence. We increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children from two years to 10–Labour opposed that. We increased the maximum penalty for carrying a gun in crime–Labour opposed us. The reality is that it may sometimes use tough words on crime, but when it comes to actions it is very soft.

    Mr. Blair: Conservative Members should remember that under their party crime has doubled.

    Does the Prime Minister share and understand the sense of anger of the British people at the behaviour of the privatised water companies? Given the figures released today showing that the cost of delivering water to customers has risen by almost £300 million and that although water companies’ profits rose to a record level last year their investment fell, is not it high time that they were properly regulated in the public interest?

    The Prime Minister: With reference to his earlier remarks, the right hon. Gentleman might also remember that under this Government crime is falling for the first time in 40 years. [Interruption.] Statistics show that quite clearly, across a whole range of crime, and that is something that no previous Government have been able to say.

    When he refers to the privatised water industry, the right hon. Gentleman would do well to remember, too, that “Governments cannot run companies”. [Interruption.] I am interested to hear that the Opposition disagree with that, because I was quoting the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

    Mr. Blair: Yes, but Governments can regulate those companies, and this Government are not regulating them. Will the Prime Minister confirm that over the past few years investment has been falling, that prices to customers have risen by more than 40 per cent., that 500,000 gallons of water are now being leaked every minute of every day and that customer complaints have doubled? Those are the facts about the water industry under this Government. Why do the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and his other colleagues defend each and every action of the water companies, rather than standing up for the customers who are being fleeced by them?

    The Prime Minister: About £15 billion has been invested in the water industry since privatisation, £1 billion more than originally planned. That is because over several decades in the public sector there were not sufficient resources for investment in the water industry or in other public utilities. Of course, there is investment in them now, not least by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers as a shareholder. That union sponsors the deputy leader of the Labour party; it is one of the stakeholders in the Labour party, and also one of the shareholders in the water industry and in most of the other privatised industries. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We have very little time. Keep quiet.

    Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend will have seen the lead stories in today’s editions of the Financial Times and The Times. Will he confirm that universities are, in law, private bodies, that their financial relations with their students are a matter for them to determine and that the Government have no intention of nationalising the universities?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly see no need for universities to introduce top-up fees. They certainly complain about how they have been treated by the Government. Between 1989-90 and 1994-95, university funding rose by 23 per cent. over and above inflation. I hope that the vice-chancellors will recall that when they consider their future policy.

    Mr. Ashdown: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his claim last night that the Conservative party is the only party interested in law and order with the fact that although he promised at the general election to increase the number of police officers on the streets by 1,000, the latest figures show that the number has fallen by 1,000? Is that what he means by saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks more carefully at what is happening in law and order. If he does he will see that right across the range, for the first time in 40 years, crime is falling. He will also see the resources there for an extra 5,000 police officers–

    Mr. Ashdown indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman’s living in some Disneyland of his own and waving his hands about; those are the facts. It is the Conservative party that has toughened the law and order position time and again, and his party, and the Labour party, have been in the Opposition Lobby whenever we have sought to do that.

    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give the House a firm undertaking that he will not take advice on law and order from the party that would change the meaning of the Sunday joint?

    The Prime Minister: I happily give my hon. Friend that assurance.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Davies: To return to education, does the Prime Minister recall that his Government slashed school budgets by £500 million last year, causing great difficulty to school heads? Does he recognise that the Government have slashed the higher education budget by £300 million this year, causing great difficulty to vice-chancellors? Why should our institutions and their students suffer because of the Government’s economic failure?

    The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, the Government’s economic policy is exceeding in a more spectacular fashion than that of any other Government in western Europe. Spending per pupil in the mainstream sector has risen by about 50 per cent. over and above inflation since 1979.

    Mr. Blunkett: The true figure is 4 per cent.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), Labour’s education spokesman, is shouting from a sedentary position. It is a novel relief for him to do so, rather than be undermined by the Labour leader in every single thing that he says about education.

    On higher education, the hon. Gentleman would do better to refer to his party’s policy document, which says that

    “Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using”–

    [Interruption]

    I apologise for my cold, Madam Speaker, but the reference to Labour’s policy document stands. It reveals that

    “Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using and directly benefiting from higher education.”

    That is Labour’s own policy document–I hope that it will not deny that policy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Thomason: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that selective schools will remain a part of our education system? Did he hear the Leader of the Opposition yesterday ducking and diving on his party’s schools policies?

    The Prime Minister: Not only yesterday. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman ducks and weaves. The hon. Member for Brightside says that he has no truck with middle-class, left-wing parents who preach one thing and do another. I cannot think who he might have had in mind. The hon. Gentleman tells us to watch his lips–there will be no more selection under a Labour Government. The party’s education spokesman says one thing, while the leader says another. Labour is split on education from top to bottom.

     

    Q5. Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Tipping: How would the Prime Minister describe someone who, before the general election, promised not to extend the scope of VAT, but after the election extended VAT and imposed it on fuel at 8 per cent.? Would he describe that person as a hypocrite or a liar?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look at the economic performance that has been achieved under this Government. If he does so, I defy him to find any western economy that can match the current performance of this economy under this Government.

    Mr. Hawksley: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read of the four children aged 11 in Handsworth in Birmingham, who have been put through the fast-track education system and who have received the praise of the Leader of the Opposition? Is my right hon. Friend aware that all four have won places at a grammar school, and will he reassure the parents of those children that, under this Government, their grammar school places will be safe?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer my hon. Friend that assurance. He highlights yet again the shambles of the Opposition’s policy. They say that they support grammar schools, but they oppose selection. They say that they support special treatment for pupils, but they oppose streaming. They say that they support parental choice for the shadow Cabinet, but for no one else.

     

    Q6. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Saudi Arabia to discuss human rights.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

    Mr. Corbyn: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is time that the British Government put human rights before arms sales, sought an urgent meeting with the Saudi Government on the abuses of human rights there, explained why BBC broadcasts to Saudi Arabia have been censored and explained why the British Government, with their craven attitude towards that autocratic regime, are trying to deport Dr. al-Masari from this country?

    The Prime Minister: We and our European partners regularly discuss human rights with the Saudi Arabian Government and with others. I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman has a rather unusual version of human rights, because it was him who said:

    “We assert the right of all people to follow their own conscientious beliefs even if it involves them in breaking the law.”