Tag: Education

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Percent Club – 19 October 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Percent Club in London on Tuesday 19th October 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen. Not since the heyday of the Two Ronnies have I seen the Humphrey and John show equalled. I am not sure whether it is going to become an institutional part of this particular occasion but I rather suspect that it well might.

    I am delighted to have the opportunity of being here today. It is around two years now since I last spoke on volunteering to business in the community. They have not, I know, been an easy two years for business. And yet despite that, despite the difficulties self-evident and not needed to be spelt out, many businesses, many present tonight have still increased their support for voluntary activity. I believe that is a very great tribute to your commitment and I want to thank you sincerely for it. It illustrates at the outset that I need not spend my time this evening seeking to persuade this audience that business should support the voluntary sector, indeed that is the very fibre and being of the Percent Club.

    A week or so ago in another place I said that over the last 30 years or so we have been in danger of losing sight of some old fundamental truths. I stand by every bit of that, I believe that very strongly, and I want to see us reassert those old instinctive values, refresh them and place them precisely where I believe they belong, at the very heart of our national character. And they are there to reawaken, because as I said also at the time, all across the country, decency, neighbourliness, consideration for others, remains there in abundance. And nowhere perhaps is that truer than in the voluntary world. About one million people are involved in managing voluntary activities. About one half of all the adults in this country take some part in organised voluntary work. Some three in four lend a helping hand to friends and neighbours, and literally millions upon millions of people have benefited from that help year after year after year.

    They are people we all know, old people who cannot get about, who depend on volunteers to do the shopping, provide a meal or give them a night out. Children at risk of violence or abuse who have been helped by Childline or by the NSPCC. Desperate people who need someone to talk to who perhaps have phoned the Samaritans or been sheltered by the Salvation Army. Victims of crime who have found comfort and help from Victim Support. Or those perhaps whose last months of life have been spent in the warmth and comfort of a local hospice.

    To the lives of each and every person touched by that form of voluntary endeavour, the work of that silent army of volunteers makes a huge difference to their quality of life. And I believe myself that the fact that that help is voluntary, not provided by state servants, adds an extra dimension of affection to the People who receive that help and who often are in bad need of affection.

    Day after day the national news brings its tales of selfishness, violence and hooliganism. But if you strip that to one side and you look at what actually happens in our communities. look at any local paper and you will find People, young and old, doing what they have always done, fund raising, volunteering, helping their neighbours and doing so on a scale myself that I believe is greater than ever before. And that is the real face of Britain, the face of Britain that is so rarely paraded for public acknowledgement, but ought to be, regularly, as an example to everyone.

    There is nothing new or odd about that help by those millions of people, and there is nothing new about business being involved either. The roots of the Percent Club go right back to the great industrial philanthropists of the 19th century, Rowntree, Cadbury, the Wedgwoods, many others, People who believe just as much in the moral and social role of commerce as they did in profits and in markets. And that is the acceptable face of capitalism, responsible capitalism.

    Those of you who are here today prove that modern business leaders have precisely the same vision in the 20th century that their forebears had so many years before. You are at the forefront of British industry’s huge contribution to the wider community. You are here this evening, but of course there are thousands more like you in each and every part of Britain.

    And what do we want to see? I believe that all of us want to see even more businesses widening the scope of their contribution to the community, not just in giving to charities, important of course though that is, but also in seconding staff to voluntary bodies and getting involved directly in voluntary work. I believe that business experience, business skills, can and should enrich nearly every aspect of society. And that is why we set up new bodies to harness the energies and skills of local businessmen and others – training and enterprise councils, local enterprise agencies, grant maintained schools, a national health service trust amongst others – they offer new challenges and new opportunities for businesses to make a direct contribution and to raise their profile locally.

    In schools for example, one of many examples one could provide, the voice of business, of experience, of practical knowledge, can make a. vital difference to the success of the City Technology College initiative, it has done in many parts of the country. A good businessman on the governing body can get the very best out of a school’s resources and he, that businessman, will know better than anyone else what work experience and skills the future job seekers are going to need. And so he uses his skills not just to enrich his company, but to enrich his community and by that I believe we all benefit.

    The last decade has been a remarkable decade but amongst the many things that are so often trotted out when one looks back through that tunnel of a remarkable 10 years, what people I believe so often overlook is the remarkable sea-change in people’s perception of private capitalism and enterprise. It was a decade of massive growth in sponsorship, sponsorship by business of the arts, of sport, of individuals, of charities, and of voluntary activities.

    More businesses now accept they have a broader responsibility to the wider community and not just to shareholders and customers. And not only do they accept it, they are increasingly ready to act upon it and speak about it and that is very refreshing indeed.

    And as a result private enterprise attracts nothing like the venom and nastiness that once it did. Today most people will recognise and acknowledge that profitable business is the foundation stone of a free and healthy society, they are increasingly aware of the contribution business makes through sponsorship and direct involvement in voluntary activities. And attitudes have changed also towards voluntary work.

    A decade ago there was a malign and malicious argument, and it went broadly like this, it was an argument that many people advanced. It was the argument that many people still saw the existence of a voluntary sector as a challenge and as a reproach to the state. I believe that was an absurd proposition. However well, however caring, however much the richest and best organised state can provide, there will always be more that can be provided by the voluntary sector. And it is not just good for the people who receive those services through that activity, I believe it is also deeply rewarding for the people who actually provide those services as well.

    The principle of service is a good principle and in every aspect of life we should encourage Parents want a more responsible society, a less selfish society, and they look to us, government and business working together, to work in partnership to try and promote that attitude. People reject the notion that we can be pigeonholed – commercial sector, public sector, voluntary sector, individuals – they are fed up with us shouting at each other from distant hilltops. Experience tells us that John Dunne was right, “No man is an island”, indeed not, but to men add businesses, government, voluntary agencies, they are not islands either and neither should they be, not islands but taking the opportunity wherever they can to work together for the common good.

    And of course voluntary effort does not stand alone, it cannot be divorced from other aspects of life. An ability to look beyond narrow self-interest is fundamental to a healthy society, it lies behind the ideals of public service that the Citizen’s Charter promotes and it is fundamental to each and every business that wants to keep its workforce loyal, innovative and alert to the needs of their customers. And as you yourself have argued in the Percent Club, for businesses ethical values are not just a passing fashion, they are a long term recipe for success.

    So let me say a word or two about what we in government are doing to promote volunteering and announce perhaps one or two new initiatives. Over the past 14 years the government has transformed the climate in which the voluntary sector operates. Our direct support for charities amounts to nearly half a billion a year, an increase of some 150 percent even allowing for the impact of inflation. We have established a new legal framework for charities to give the public confidence in their management and in their accountability and we have increased incentives through the inheritance, income and corporation tax systems for people and businesses alike to increase giving to charities … behind the tax concessions that we have made to the voluntary sector, I was responsible for some of them. I saw a recent report that suggested that some of them might be withdrawn. Well there are many things that I might say about that proposal, though this is after all a charitable occasion. So let me say simply this. It is the privilege of everyone to submit reports to government departments, but it is the right of government Ministers to reject those reports. And this Prime Minister does precisely that, I want to make absolutely clear that tax relief for charitable giving is here to stay in the long term and not just in the short term.

    Giving to charity of course is one thing, volunteering time to help others is equally important. I said earlier this year that I wanted to see wider and more explicit recognition for volunteers in future Honours Lists. You will see the first results of that in the New Year’s Honours List on 1 January. The formal review of the number of honours is nearly complete and I will announce the outcome very shortly. But I can tell you now that within the existing lists I plan to recommend more than double the number of awards that recognise voluntary service in all its forms from around 150 in the recent past to over 300 in the future. And on that basis many more people who have devoted their life to voluntary service for others will have their work recognised by the award of an honour.

    Now to achieve that does of course require a fine flow of nominations, I asked for them earlier this year and I am delighted that the new nomination forms I introduced are proving a great success. So far, and it is not very long for this to have happened in, so far around 8,000 nominations have already been received, very many for voluntary service. Some of those will be awarded honours in the New Year List and others in future lists.

    Mr Chairman, we are also asking public services to take a far more positive attitude to involving volunteers. Recently, for example, Michael Howard announced a new drive to recruit an extra 10,000 more special constables, volunteers who work as policemen in their spare time. They should not be derided as second-class policemen, they should be praised as first-class citizens. And we are looking too for new parish constables and because we recognise the value of voluntary work to unemployed people we have made it easier for them to take on voluntary commitments.

    Volunteers give a range of support in a vast range of areas. In the Health Service 60,000 volunteers have been recruited under the Department of Health opportunity for volunteering scheme; a further 60,000 work on over 2,000 conservation projects across the nation; and there are 2,000 or so volunteers abroad in support of development projects. Thousands more work in social service.

    Doubtless more could be done and I hope that those who manage those services will set explicit targets to increase the involvement of volunteers.

    We want also to work in partnership with other bodies that support volunteering. All the evidence points to the fact that if you give or help when you are young then you will continue to give or help right the way through your active life.

    Take for example the Prince’s Trust. It does superb work with volunteers. 2,000 young people a year already take part in the Trust’s community programmes. They now want to expand that to take 25,000 volunteers a year within 3 years, 25,000 young people undertaking a vast range of projects within the community from helping in residential care homes to working with children, And the Trust have asked us to help them by encouraging more secondments of public sector staff with the skills and with the enthusiasm to support or lead the Prince’s Trust teams. Already departments are helping, among them the Home Office, the Department of Employment and the Ministry of Defence, and Michael Howard will be meeting the Prince’s Trust next week to offer further support and I strongly commend the scheme to you as well.

    Furthermore, we want to strip away some of the unnecessary obstacles that stand in the way of voluntary work. That means in this instance deregulation. When you have to obtain more than 10 different licences or permits just to run the village hail, when you spend more time sending off environmental health officers, social workers, fire officers, than giving the service you want to give then no wonder many people wonder whether it is worthwhile seeking to help, they give their time for free and they do not expect to see it wasted by unnecessary bureaucratic demands.

    So we have set up a special deregulation force, a force to look specifically at the burdens placed on the voluntary sector, it is no holds barred, it is right across the whole spectrum of regulation. I have asked that task force to report around Christmas and it has already identified 50 areas where there is potential for reform. If you have not yet been approached by them, approach them. If you have been approached and you have not told them what you think then please do so. But this will not be just one more piece of Whitehall paper, it is intended to lead to real action to assist the voluntary sector and to do so soon.

    Finally, let me add a further point. I said earlier this year that we should use the resources and power of government, not to replace voluntary activity on the ground, but to make it more visible both to would-be volunteers and also to people who need the support and help that volunteers are willing to give. We can give that volunteering publicity, we can help spread ideas, we can provide a point of focus, we can ease access and widen participation and you too can help by publicising the work your companies already do in the community.

    Today as a first step I can announce a new initiative to encourage more people to put themselves forward for voluntary work, we are launching an award scheme to recognise the best of the many excellent voluntary projects that exist around the country, local groups, local partnerships, all will be able to bid for grants for projects which will make a difference in the local community by increasing the scale and impact of voluntary effort. We will present the first awards next summer, any voluntary group will be eligible regardless of whether or not they already receive government support. And the proposals we have in mind have this purpose, the purpose is to help in some way to unlock voluntary effort and to link those who want to give help to those who need the help. And we will be looking for projects which genuinely add to those that are already available, not ones which replicate or replace good things that are already happening.

    So what sort of projects do I have in mind? The sort of things I have in mind might be setting up new or improved databases for volunteering opportunities, information points or campaigns targeted at particular groups, the young, older people, ethnic minorities, local helplines, and all against a background of closer cooperation and coordination between existing and new players. Businesses as well as voluntary agencies must play a part in carrying through this scheme so I am delighted that business in the community and its leadership team under Ian McAlister are already involved.

    The thinking behind this initiative is very simple. I believe there is an enormous reservoir of goodwill out there waiting to be tapped. And I know also that there is still an ocean of need, of isolation and of vulnerability, and too often the one does not know about the other. We should be working together to try and create bridges between the need and of people who can help to alleviate that need. And that is why eventually I want to go further, I would like to see a build on what we have and create a national network of local points of reference for volunteers and those looking to help.

    Many of those local points already exist and are doing valuable work but we need many more with the right tools for the job. In some places this will be a voluntary group, in some places a church, in other places perhaps even an energetic individual, but they would all be more accessible if they shared the same basic telephone number, they would all be more accessible if they shared the same basic means of contact. That must be a long term objective but Intend that it will happen and in doing so I look for help from business, from churches and from voluntary bodies to try and make that hope a reality. There are huge reserves of commitment out there, we need to bring them out of reserve and into use and the sooner we can do that the better.

    And perhaps the best way to do it is to encourage people to come forward, not to hang back and believe that someone else can do it better than them, but to encourage them to come forward and remove the impediments and disincentives that so often seem to stand in their way.

    So let me summarise. We will continue to help charities with favourable tax treatment; we will raise the profile and the recognition we give to volunteers in the Honours List; we will work with the Prince’s Trust to increase the number of young volunteers; we will cut down the fussy rules and regulations that so frequently and so frustratingly hamper the voluntary effort; and we will work towards the creation of a national network for volunteers, starting with a grant scheme for projects which encourage more people to put themselves forward for voluntary work.

    And what is to be your role? I want business, I want you to come with us as partners as we continue to spread that message of social responsibility, a message of responsible capitalism. We are I know asking you to do a great deal, we are asking for time, for money, for the use of company facilities, for your expertise and for a commitment which stretches from the Chief Executive’s office right down to each and every cart of the company. I know it is a lot but I believe there is a great will and a great capacity amongst people to respond to that and to work together to meet a common end. And I believe also, profoundly, that it is good for business. I do not mean good for business just in the sense of making the tills turn over, I mean it is good for business in a much wider sense. As your Chairman. Neil Shaw, said recently, and I quote: “By working in the wider community business can help to build the social environment it needs for long term wealth creation.” I am utterly sure that that is right.

    I suppose you might call it a long term investment, good for you, good for us all and good for our country. The point about long term investment is surely this, if it is a good investment it pays off. I believe this social investment is a good investment and with your help I have no doubt it will pay off and pay off richly.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1993 Conservative Party Conference – 8 October 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool on 8th October 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam President, as I walked through the Winter Gardens during Conference Week, I passed the bookstalls and what do I see, I see memoirs, memoirs to the left of me, memoirs to the right of me, memoirs in front of me, volley, volley and thunder. Madam President, let me say right away I’m not about to write my memoirs, not for a long time.

    There’s a job to be done, a job of service to this nation and I believe in service. There’s a job to be done, a job I was elected to do and I propose to go on doing it. Madam President, there’s one aspect of the memoirs that I may write in future that you needn’t wait for – I can tell you now, straight away, precisely what I think of my Cabinet.

    Do you think any of them look worried? Apprehensive? Touch concerned? They needn’t be, they’re a first-class team, they’re steady under fire, they’re united and they’re serving Britain superbly.

    And isn’t it good to see Michael back?

    Did you see those exercises? I dare say they’re going to enliven quite a few Cabinet meetings in the future.

    Madam President, I’ve been coming to this conference on an off for about 30 years. It’s a very great event in the political calendar, but it’s something else as well. It’s a family gathering and like all families, from time to time, we have our squabbles. So today, before I turn to other matters, I want to say something to you, specifically as leader of the Conservative party. Our party has served our country in Government more often and better than any other democratic political party in the world. We’ve done so because we’re the broadest based political party this country has ever seen. Our support comes from all classes, all income groups and all parts of the United Kingdom. Madam President, I know our party. It can bear many things – unpopularity, deep controversy, setbacks – we’ve seen it all before, but there’s one thing that demoralises our workers and that breaks apart our support in the country and that is disunity.

    We’ve always known where it leads, and so, in this private gathering we have today, we might as well state it plainly. Disunity leads to opposition. Not just opposition in Westminster, but in the European Parliament and in town halls and county halls up and down this country. Of course we won’t agree on every single aspect of policy. No one expects that. We’re a democratic party with a whole range of lively ideas. But I think you’ll agree with me upon this – people look to us for commonsense and for competence and we have a responsibility to you and to the people who put us in Parliament to show those qualities day after day. And that means we have to have our agreements in public and our disagreements in private.

    And if agreement is impossible, and sometimes on great issues it is difficult, if not impossible, then I believe I have the right, as leader of this party, to hear of that disagreement in private and not on television, in interviews, outside the House of Commons.

    Madam President, the last year has shown how hard every part of our party can fight for what it believes in. Let the next year show that we can channel all that energy together in a common effort against our opponents and for the policies we care about.

    This week, an unusual week, this week we had two conferences for the price of one. First, there’s the one we’ve been at.

    And then there’s the one we read about.

    You know, I’m not absolutely sure that everyone’s caught up completely with the current mood of our party, so I’m going to ask you three questions and I want to hear the answers loud and clear so that no one can doubt where you stand. They’ve very simple questions and very straightforward.

    Aren’t you fed up with people running our country down?

    Aren’t you fed up with people writing our party off?

    When people ask, “Will the Conservatives win next time?”, what do you say?

    I didn’t quite catch that.

    Yes. Yes. And yes again. And you don’t need shorthand to get that down.

    You see, Madam President, this is a family gathering, just as I said. But now I want to reach out a little further to speak not just to you, but to those outside this hall who may be listening. I want to share some thoughts with you and see if they strike a chord with your own experience. I think that many people, particularly those of you who are older, see things around you in the streets and on your television screens which are profoundly disturbing. We live in a world that sometimes seems to be changing too fast for comfort. Old certainties crumbling. Traditional values falling away. People are bewildered. Week after week, month after month, they see a tax on the very pillars of our society – the Church, the law, even the Monarchy, as if 41 years of dedicated service was not enough. And people ask, “Where’s it going? Why has it happened?”. And above all, “How can we stop it?”.

    Let me tell you what I believe. For two generations, too many people have been belittling the things that made this country. We’ve allowed things to happen that we should never have tolerated. We have listened too often and too long to people whose ideas are light years away from common sense.

    In housing, in the ’50s and ’60s, we pulled down the terraces, destroyed whole communities and replaced them with tower blocks and we built walkways that have become rat runs for muggers. That was the fashionable opinion, fashionable but wrong. In our schools we did away with traditional subjects – grammar, spelling, tables – and also with the old ways of teaching them. Fashionable, but wrong. Some said the family was out of date, far better rely on the council and social workers than family and friends. I passionately believe that was wrong.

    Others told us that every criminal needed treatment, not punishment. Criminal behaviour was society’s fault, not the individual’s. Fashionable, but wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Madam President, on all these things, received opinion with the wisdom of hindsight, received opinion was wrong. And now, we must have the courage to stand up and say so and I believe that millions and millions of people are longing to hear it.

    Do you know, the truth is, much as things have changed on the surface, underneath we’re still the same people. The old values – neighbourliness, decency, courtesy – they’re still alive, they’re still the best of Britain. They haven’t changed, and yet somehow people feel embarrassed by them. Madam President, we shouldn’t be. It is time to return to those old core values, time to get back to basics, to self-discipline and respect for the law, to consideration for others, to accepting a responsibility for yourself and your family and not shuffling off on other people and the state.

    Madam President, I believe that what this country needs is not less Conservatism, it’s more Conservatism of the traditional kind that made us join this party.

    This week, this week we’ve made a start. Now we must see it through. It’s time for this party to return to its roots. Madam President, our economic roots are clear. We’re the party of Adam Smiths, not John Smith.

    And Adam Smith was the apostle of free markets and that is why we regard the present world trade talks as so important. At meeting after meeting, we have battled to keep those trade talks alive against difficulty after difficulty, because nothing will do more for growth, nothing will do more for jobs, nothing will do more for confidence in our future than agreement in those trade talks. But if other governments don’t play their part, if they hold back, if they won’t face up to their domestic difficulties, then those talks could collapse and the dangers of that happening are devastating. They could unlock protectionism, poverty and unemployment on a scale that we have not seen since the 1930s. A great deal is at stake. And because a great deal is at stake, I don’t believe we ought to be mealy-mouthed about the dangers. Today, on this issue, is not a time for holding back. So let me say to some of our European colleagues, “You’re playing with fire”. Or, to put it more bluntly, “Get your tractors off our lawn”.

    People accuse us – accuse us – people accuse us of being the business party. Well, you bet we are. We’re for small business and we’re for large business. We’re for more business, not less business. When business booms, Britain booms, so we’re for private enterprise and we’re proud of it.

    Over the last three years, the whole country has sweated and slogged and suffered to turn this economy around. Now, steadily, it’s happening. Recovery is under way. That’s the message from British business. The economy’s growing. You may not see it yet, but it clearly is growing and it will show. And as the economy grows, the family budget will follow, so people have every reason to begin to start feeling better again. Inflation’s down. Interest rates are down. Exports are up. Productivity’s up. Retail sales are up. Manufacturing output is up. And the number of people in work is up. Madam President, it’s the opportunity cocktail we’ve been wanting for years and it gives this country a head start on prosperity for the rest of this decade.

    So, let’s try and build up that confidence, instead of forever seeing it knocked down. Why don’t we try something different? Why don’t we tell people about Britain’s successes? And let me tell you about them, in the strictest confidence…

    … so they’re sure to leak out.

    Who says we can’t make things in this country? Manufacturing industry is one of our great national assets.

    Three weeks ago – sometimes it seems longer – three weeks ago I was in Japan, the industrial wonder of the world, and there with me were British manufacturers, selling solutions to problems that Japan hadn’t solved. Successful British firms, international leaders in their own fields, firms at the leading edge of technology, selling successfully to the world technology leader. Two days later, I was in Malaysia, and we came back with £1 billion worth of orders for British companies. They didn’t buy British to do our companies a favour. They did it because we made what they wanted and we made it better in this country than anyone else in the world.

    Fourteen years ago, Britain was going nowhere. Now it’s going everywhere and selling everywhere. We’re making goods, making profits, making waves, right across the world. But despite that, despite the growth we’ve had there and the growth to come there, I must warn you, it’s still going to be tough and everyone in business here today, or everyone who listens to what I say today, knows how hard they have to compete. At present, Europe, our biggest market, is stuck deep in recession. It’s held back by social costs it can’t afford. It’s losing markets to Japan and to America and to the Pacific Basin. And that, Madam President, that, amongst other reasons, is why I refuse to accept the Social Chapter. It’s not a chapter of rights, it’s a charter for unemployment and we don’t want it here.

    What we do want is more of our best brains going into manufacturing industry. Let’s see them give politics, the City, journalism a miss and go into manufacturing industry where their skills can be so badly needed.

    And let’s see our great manufacturing centres humming with activity as we move towards the millennium. Let’s turn British inventions into British industries, British factories and British jobs. Let them make pounds for us, not dollars, marks, and yen for other people. Ministers are told, whenever they go abroad, part of your job these days is to open the door for British business. We’re backing exports with cheaper credit, more Government muscle and a new breed of diplomat – people who know as much about exports as they do about etiquette.

    At home, at home we’re taking the ridiculous burden of red tape off business and off citizen alike. And I can tell you, in the next session of Parliament, there will be a big deregulation bill to show how seriously we take that.

    Here’s a good old British maxim you can all remember: if the price is right and the goods are good enough, then sell abroad and buy at home. That’s the way to make sure that British industry continues to boom.

    But there are other things we need to do for industry. Industry isn’t asking us for handouts and special help. It’s asking us, as the Government to play our part in creating the right economic environment for industry to let loose its own energies and compete on a level basis with the rest of the world. So here, Madam President, is another ambitious target for our country: not months but years and years and years of sustained growth without the curse of inflation. That is at the heart of our economic policy for the 90s. It’s a prize for which British Governments have struggled for 30 odd years and yet now, it’s within reach and we are not going to throw it away.

    Just remember, only three years ago, inflation was over 10%. Now it’s under 2% and it must be kept low. Inflation is in check but it’s never in checkmate. Back in the 70s, soaring prices destroyed savings. We all remember that. We all want to make sure it never happens again. But to do that, to make sure it never happens again and destroys businesses and livelihoods and savings, sometimes we may have to hold back our ambitions for tax and spending.

    Madam President, let me get one thing entirely clear. Our views on tax are different from those of the other parties. What the Conservative Party is aiming for is a Government that lives within its income and without your income. Other parties tax because they want to. We tax only because we have to. So come rain or shine, taxes will always be lower under us than any other kind of government.

    But success has another vital ingredient, getting public finances back under control. At the moment, largely because of the recession with the great collapse in come than that created, we have a huge gap between what Britain spends and the tax we take in. We have to narrow that gap. It is true – Government has spent more over the last two years. We had to help the weak and protect the vulnerable through the recession. And that, Madam President, is an important part of Conservatism as well.

    But now Britain’s recovering so we have to cut the deficit. We all agree on that but it’s no good agreeing on the principle unless you take the action and it’s no use people urging us to take the action unless they are prepared to back us when we have taken it for it may often be difficult.

    There are tough choices ahead and we must make them and we will make them because it is in the interest of our country to make them and we have that responsibility.

    Of course, people’s opinions will differ. Some say tax more, some say tax less, some say spend more, some spend less but stay out of my backyard. All that’s perfectly okay for the opposition but it won’t do for the Government party. We can’t have a lobby against every difficult decision. Decisions are what government is for and we have to take them.

    So, once the debate is over, once Ken Clarke has announced out budget proposals, we Conservatives must work together and take that message to every single part of the country. But there is one thing I can tell you that you can take with it: high income tax is no part of this party’s programme.

    It never has been and, as far as I’m concerned, it never will be.

    Madam President, high on every Conservative list is raising standards in our schools. That’s why John Patten’s first concern is with what parents think and what our children need. There are tens of thousands of excellent teachers up and down the country and I’m proud to pay tribute to all they do on behalf of our children. But there is bad teaching as well and many parents and many pupils know that only too well. Our children must be taught what they need to know. That’s why we need a national curriculum. It’s why we need national testing. Not just for the sake of it but to find out what our children have learnt and what they have failed to learn. And when we know what they’ve failed to learn, we can put it right. But without those testing, we fail those children because we never learn what they haven’t understood at an early stage in their school career.

    The principle of tests is not negotiable. We don’t need reams and reams of complex papers that take hours for teachers to handle. What we do need is those simple pencil and paper tests that this party has always asked for and that is what John Patten is going to deliver for us. Because unless we teach a child to read, to write and to add up, then we hobble that child for the rest of his life. Take John Prescott. For the audience at Brighton last week, his speech was a religious experience, mainly because it passes all understanding.

    But push him to one side. I saw a letter recently from over 500 university teachers of English. And they say in their letter that it’s disastrous and harmful to teach standard English, great literature and Shakespeare in our schools. Apparently, teaching Shakespeare threatens to reduce a living language to a dead one. They say – and believe it or not, this is a quite – they say, “It would do serious damage to the moral and social development of our children and to the cultural life of society as a whole and all who are concerned with such matters should oppose in the strongest possible terms.” What claptrap!

    Well, I’ll answer them in words, perhaps, they might approve of. Me and my party ain’t going take what them on the Left says is okay, right.

    Madam President, over the past few months, in meetings with party workers – many of them I think will be here today – I’ve made it clear in private that the attack on crime would be the centrepiece of next year’s legislation. On Wednesday, after one of the best conference debates I have ever heard, Michael Howard delivered the first instalment. Lord Archer, if I may call him that…., made it clear how much we’ll have the support of the whole country in that programme. But don’t let’s pretend that we’ve been idle over the last 14 years; we haven’t. We’ve increased sentences, built more prisons, spent more, recruited more police, and those police have served us magnificently. And no other party would have done as much.

    But we know now, it was not enough. In many parts of the country, crime figures have risen remorselessly. Crimes once confined to the cities have spread out into the rural areas, bringing alarm where alarm was never before. And that is the reason for our new approach. We have tried being understanding. We have tried persuasion. Madam President, it hasn’t worked.

    I know criminals are a problem in a cell but they’re much more of a problem on the street. And policy must be dictated by the needs of justice, not by the number of prison places we happen to have available on any given day. If someone belongs in prison, when that is where they should be and that’s why we’re building more prisons. Better the guilty behind bars than the innocent penned in at home.

    Let me tell you how I see things. We need tougher rules on bail and no bail for the worst offenders. An end to the right to silence, as Michael Howard announced earlier this week. And more information for the police from DNA testing. We’re going to use science to help catch the criminal and not let silence protect the criminal.

    Here too it’s back to basics. For some, punishment seems to be a dirty word. Well, you’ll find it in my dictionary and I strongly suspect that it’s in yours.

    Some time ago, I said we should condemn a little more and understand a little less. And I meant that for this reason; if we let young people at an early age think crime is a normal part of growing up, if we let them off with a caution, a caution and a caution, it is small wonder if they feel there is no peer pressure turning them to law and order, and they turn to bigger crime later.

    And if we extend those parameters of leniency so far, we betray our children, for we do not give them the values that we expect them to live up to when they become an adult part of our society.

    There’s one other issue in the range of measures that Michael announced in his remarkable speech the other day that didn’t find room for it, for there was, even for the Home Secretary, a limited amount of time at this conference. But it’s an issue upon which I feel very strongly and I can tell you today that we plan a big crackdown on the loathsome trade in pornography that offends so many people in this country.

    There will be new powers of arrest and search, new powers to seize videos and other material, and – something I personally particularly support – a new offence to make the possession of child pornography a crime that can lead to imprisonment.

    Yes, Madam President, it’s tough. And so it should be. There’s no place in a civilised society for that sort of exploitation of our children.

    But don’t let us delude ourselves. Fighting crime is not just a matter for the police or for the Government. We can legislate, we can provide the resources. We can do all that and the police can perform miracles on the resources they have. But Governments can’t make people good. That is for parents, for churches, for schools, for every single citizen.

    Like many people in this hall today, as a boy I knew people who had nothing, who expected nothing. They didn’t commit crime because they did have something. They had values, dignity, pride, respect for their neighbours, and, above all, respect of the old.

    And in the long-term battle against crime, that respect needs building every bit as much as Michael Howard’s new prisons. Madam President, let me make it clear beyond a doubt. I simply do not accept that crime can be excused and under this Government, I give you my word, it never will be.

    Madam President, from the serious to the less serious: our opponents. Our opponents can’t string two policies together but they can cook up a scare. And of course there’s a ready market for scares. Every day I’m told what I think that I don’t think, what I’ve done that I haven’t done, what I’m planning that I’m not planning. Hearing the news day after day is a voyage of discovery for me.

    Voyage of discovery for me, but very unsettling for many others, many of them elderly, more of them, not very rich, and most of them very worried. So let me offer some reassurance, not rumour, fact. Next time Labour and the Liberals say we’re going to charge for visits to the doctor, you can tell them confidently, “No, we won’t”.

    Next time they say we’re going to charge for stays in hospitals, tell them, “No, we’re not”.

    And when they say we’re going to introduce prescription charges for pensioners, you can get right out on the doorsteps and tell them, “No, we’re not”.

    They say we’re going to force older people to go to the bank, not the post office, to collect their pensions. Well, really. I have 500 square miles of Huntingdonshire in my constituency and heaven knows how many rural post offices. I know their value to local village life. I know their value to the community. I know how much pensioners rely on them and that’s why I promise you they’ll be able to go on picking up their pensions at the post office.

    So go out and knock all that nonsense on the head. And yes, I know the concerns – nobody could possibly have missed them – the concerns that people have about their fuel bills. They believe they’re going to face massive rises. They aren’t. And the most vulnerable fear they’re going to be left without compensation. They aren’t. Kenneth Clarke made that clear yesterday and I’m happy to repeat it today.

    This nation owes a huge debt to its pensioners. it’s something this Conservative Party will never forget. So, it’s our duty to keep our country a place in which they feel both safe and secure.

    So when you hear people saying this, that or the other, don’t always swallow it wholesale. Remember, in the immortal words of Sporting Life in Porgy and Bess, “It ain’t necessarily so”.

    Madam President, scares take me naturally to the Labour Party. I’m not going to be savage about Labour, I think the people of this country would welcome an end to the bad-mouthing between politicians.

    So, as a man damned every Sunday for his moderation, I think I shall stick to my own civil instincts. But that doesn’t mean I can’t have a bit of fun. Did you hear John Smith’s speech last week? He’s a good man, is John, but Lord doesn’t he go on about it?

    He rather reminds me of a Scottish Buddha, the very essence of immobility with a faint smile of perfect self-contentment upon his face. And the Buddha has watched his Shadow Chancellor, Gordon Brown, Labour’s gift to melancholia, he’s watched him run from not sure about taxes, to no more taxes, to lots and lots more taxes in just six weeks, and there’s a long time before the next election. And the Buddha said nothing. The Buddha has left his Northern Ireland spokesman say, “Stop tests, cover up school results and scrap A Levels”, and what did he say? The Buddha said nothing. One hears that the only sign the Buddha ever gives is a slight shake of the head… if anyone proposes a new idea.

    Madam President, we saw something rather remarkable in Brighton last week. They called it a “famous victory”. Famous victory? I would call it John Smith’s political Munich. Here it is, composite – I beg his pardon, composite 55 and 56. Let me read you the victory roll – the trade unions will now only make 70% of policy and choose on third of the leader.

    Which one third is unclear. Perhaps they don’t think it matters. After all, they’ve long had the bit above the neck.

    What we have out of last week is a minor reduction in union influence in the Labour Party and the promises of a huge increase in union power in Britain, if there was a Labour Government. One small step for the Buddha, one giant step leap for the brudders.

    Whatever the trade unions ask for, they got. And they asked for was unconditional surrender. Remember what Mr Smith said, “The country needs strong unions today, as never before”. Madam President, after all we fought for over the last 14 years, I think this conference would beg to differ with that judgment.

    Madam President, there’s another strange party in British politics. It gives a different answer to the same question in Cornwall or London, in Ryedale or Eastbourne, on Monday or Tuesday. They’re against VAT on fuel in the morning, and for a carbon tax in the afternoon. But they are consistent about two things, the first of them is tax. They are the other high tax party – income tax, local income tax, carbon tax, regional tax, Scottish tax, Welsh tax, and given half a chance, Euro tax as well. If they thought it would raise money, they’re produce revenue from syntax and tin tacks.

    And the second thing they’re consistent about is federalism. Centralism in Europe. The Liberal Party is a federal party. Don’t take my word for it, this is their conference agenda – “The autumn”, it says, “the autumn conference of the federal party” – that is the Liberals in their own words. And look what they called for in this conference for a federal Europe – turn to page 99, though I would not recommend to you pages 1 to 98….

    This is what they called for on page 99. They called for sensible application of the social protocol and they had an amendment – “delete sensible” was the amendment.

    I agree. Sensible stands out like a sore thumb in every Liberal conference. But their leaders are fanatics for federalism. They have been out of government for so long, they have forgotten how to take decisions. The only decision they can take is that they want someone else to take the decisions for us in this country.

    Next June, we will have European elections in Britain. Let me say to all our candidates who are present, and everyone here who will work in that campaign, that will be a national campaign. We are going to fight those elections on a clear and distinct British Conservative manifesto for the future of Europe.

    Madam President, I have risked and sacrificed more than most for what I passionately believe in, a strong Britain playing a leading role in a strong and growing Europe, a wider Europe, a free trade Europe, a less intrusive Europe, our vision of an independent confident Britain, giving leadership with our partners in the European Community. And in our elections, in this country, next year, we will be the only mainstream party that is not prepared to move towards a centralised Europe and take that message to every doorstep in the country.

    And tell them this too, tell them that any vote against us, for whatever party – Labour, Liberal, makes no difference – any vote against us for whatever party would be seen in every capital in the Community as a signal that the British people want a centralised Europe. We know they don’t. You know they don’t. They know they don’t. We must make sure the people of Britain vote to show the rest of Europe that we don’t.

    The Liberal leader says, rather nervously I thought, that the guns are turning on him. Too right they are, and not before time. Let the Liberals loose and the prospect of a federal Europe could be a reality again. In this country, they are federalism’s fifth column. Away with them next June in the elections.

    Madam President, before I leave the Liberal leader, I want to say a word about his posturing on Bosnia. I find it distasteful. No, no words suffice for the sheer dreadfulness of Bosnia.

    The violence that has torn apart what used to be Yugoslavia has deep and bloody roots. They go back to the Middle Ages and beyond. People there have suffered great wrongs and unimaginable cruelties. We have given, as we always will, help, food, medicine, technical aid. We have sent British troops with humanitarian aid; the first country to do so. And those troops have saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives, men, women, children who would be dead from cold and starvation, are still alive, thanks to the activities, the skill and the bravery of those troops we sent to Bosnia.

    Madam President, right at the start of this war, I said that I was not prepared to put British troops into combat to hold the various sides apart. It’s my responsibility, my responsibility as the Queen’s first minister, to advise when soldiers should be sent to fight and to risk being killed. It’s all very well to call from the sidelines for a huge military commitment to Bosnia but I listen with respect to the views of the senior professional soldiers and airmen. They know the depth of the problem. They know what we would be asking their men to do. They know that while the threat of air strikes is a good deterrent, you cannot finally settle a guerilla war by bombing. They know that. We saw it in Iraq after the biggest Armada of bombing for week after week after week. it was not until we sent in ground troops that Saddam Hussein finally lost. And those senior servicemen warn me against trying to separate three sides, three sides that hate each other, in a cruel civil war, in some of the wildest hill and forest country in Europe.

    There is another form of intervention, which we may have to contemplate. Intervention, not to impose a settlement on parties at war, but to implement a negotiated peace. Right now, alas, the peace prospects are thin and speculative. Too speculative to risk the life of a private in the Cheshires or the Prince of Wales’ Own. The negotiators will go on trying. I earnestly hope they will succeed, but I shall not ask a British private to risk leaving his mother without a son his wife without a husband unless there is a real settlement.

    Unless there is a real will by the people of Bosnia to stop fighting, not some ploy to suck outsiders in and then start the war again. I have never been in doubt about Bosnia. Though one cannot always speak one’s mind plainly, I have understood that to intervene is to risk an intolerable number of British dead. A war is easily started. The boys are always going to be back for Christmas, but wars, particularly wars in the Balkans, have other ideas.

    So, let me make clear. I leave the talk of a quick away-day outing for the commandoes with everything sorted out in a couple of weeks to the commentators, and to the royal corps of columnists. Yugoslavia is tragic. I consider all the options but I must think first of the lives of British soldiers.

    And I will not put them at risk for the sake of talking big and striking attitudes. I will not rush into war.

    Emotion says yes, logic says no. I say no.

    Madam President, an unstable Yugoslavia is one thing. An unstable Russia would be quite another. So, let me say a few words about the events of the past week. We should be under no illusions about the real motives of the rebels in the Russian Parliament. They were out for blood, the blood of democrats and reformers and, had they won, the consequences for Russian and for the rest of the world would not have borne thinking about. Yesterday morning, Boris Yeltsin told me that the courts would now deal with his opponents. Madam President, that is not how they wanted to deal with him.

    The Russian people have twice voted for President Yeltsin and for reform. Now he plans further election, free elections, not rigged Communist elections. He invited me, yesterday, to send British observers to ensure those elections were fair. I agreed and promised that we would certainly do so. Those elections in December will be the surest test that democratic reform remains on track. We backed Boris Yeltsin against the 1991 coup. We were the first to do so. We backed him last weekend and I promise you this, we shall go on backing reform in Russia in the months ahead.

    When we speak of the threat of violence, there is one other place that is never far from our minds. Each day, every day this week, whilst we’ve been gathered here in Blackpool, thousands of young men and women risk their lives in the Army and in the security services in Northern Ireland. They stand in the defence of democracy and of the rule of law. Under a Conservative Government, they will continue to have all the support that they need.

    Northern Ireland is part of our democracy. We are not going to bargain away the people’s democratic rights, or any part of them, in order to appease those who seek to rule by bullet or by bomb.

    Do to do, to do so, would betray the people, and, in particular, those of every party, many of them brave, who take a part in constitutional politics in Northern Ireland. So, no Government that I lead will negotiate with those who perpetrate or those who support the use of violence.

    There is only one message for them to send. We have finished with violence for good. Madam President, we are and we will remain the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    At the heart of our philosophy is an abiding belief in the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future. Unlike the Labour Party, we are not in the business of securing the break-up of the United Kingdom.

    For us, the union and all it means is immensely important. In all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, the union has the decisive support of those who live there. So, I give this assurance to the brave and resilient people of Northern Ireland, for our part, we will always back your democratic wishes.

    Madam President, before I sit down, I want to congratulate all of you in the hall, all of you who are the backbone and the strength of our party, for your cool, your warmth and yes, your resilience during a remarkable and, how shall I put it, most diverting week in Blackpool.

    Throughout the 1980s, the political energy of this country came from the Conservatives. That energy must go on through the 90s and not only go on, but grow and develop, driven not just by those in Government but by you who work on our behalf for our philosophy, for our party, in each and every part of the United Kingdom. And if you feel, as I do, refreshed and recharged by our work in Blackpool this week, then go home and help us restore the fortunes of our party, through hard work and a passionate belief that what we Conservatives stand for is more true, more deep, more enduring, more in touch with the basic instincts of the nation we love, than all the words of all the other political parties rolled together. We stand for self-reliance, for decency and for respect for others, for wages that stay in the pay packet and don’t drain away in tax. We stand for money that keeps its value, for a country united around those old, commonsense British values that should never have been pushed aside.

    The message from this conference is clear and simple, we must go back to basics. We want our children to be taught the best, our public services to give the best, our British industry to be the best and the Conservative Party will lead the country back to those basic rights across the board. Sound money, free trade, traditional teaching, respect for the family and respect for the law. And above all, we will lead a new campaign to defeat the cancer that is crime.

    Carry out that message. Reach out, not only to those who already think as we do but to all those with no special party allegiance who care for what we care for and who love this country as we do, for the same reasons we do. Do that. The fight goes on, the waverers will return and yes, a fifth victory will be ours.

    And one final word. Thank you, thank for for something that has been quite fantastic, your loyalty to this party and your loyalty to me.

  • Mr Major’s Article on State of the Country – 9 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s article on the state of the country, issued on 9th September 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t pretend the past year has been easy. But the difficult decisions we took were necessary. Our difficulties have been well chronicled. But our steady progress in so many policies – less dramatic perhaps but vital – has often been overlooked.

    So it is worth setting out what has also been happening away from all the fuss and palaver of Westminster.

    Who would have predicted that we’d be able to bring down inflation to below 1 1/2 per cent for the first time in over 30 years?

    Who would have predicted we could bring interest rates down to 6 per cent?

    Who expected that exports would rise to record levels and that unemployment would have fallen in the first five months of this year?

    Who forecast that it would be Britain – not Germany or France which would lead the way out of recession in Europe?

    Who imagined that growth this year and next year in Britain is likely to be higher than anywhere else in Europe?

    No one did. Yet these are the facts.

    And that is not all. Away from economic matters much else has been happening. Quietly but surely we have carried forward reforms in our major public services -shifting their focus to the consumer – to you, the public – not the vested interests which deliver them.

    A few examples will suffice: more patients treated in NHS hospitals last year compared with the year before – itself a record year. New guarantees for patients on waiting times and fixed appointment times.

    In education we’ve seen a steady increase in parent power. Nearly a thousand more schools voting to run their own affairs. All schools now having their own budgets. And parents getting annual reports on their childrens’ progress and more information on schools GCSE and A levels results. And judging by this year’s results there are already signs of some improvement in standards.

    Under the Citizen’s Charter we are seeking – and are beginning to get – improved standards across a whole range of public services. The Council Tax has been introduced successfully, despite all the dire predictions; trades union reform taken a step further with new rights for workers to ballot before strike action and join the union for their choice.

    The sort of country I want to see

    Yet people say “okay, these are details, but where are we going? What are you trying to achieve?”

    My hopes for our future are built around the four simple principles we set out at the election: choice, opportunity, responsibility, and ownership.

    People want more control over their lives. That means they want more choice, more opportunities, more people owning their own homes and shares and building up wealth. It also means taking more responsibility for the consequences of their choices. And more responsibility for their own actions and those of their children. In other words, not forever looking first to the State or the social worker to solve their problems.

    I want to develop these policies because I believe they reflect people’s aspirations.

    Everywhere people want jobs for themselves and for their children. They want to be independent. They want to choose schools, holidays, where they live, how they live. They don’t want others telling them what to do. They want better prospects for their children: good schools, good hospitals. They want security in their old age, and they want a more courteous and a safer society; one in which the law is respected and crime is punished.

    People have always had ambitions like these. But, too often, I have seen people whose ambitions were frustrated, not through any fault of their own, but because they were denied opportunities. They were denied opportunities by a new form of snobbery, all the worse because it cloaked itself in the language of “progressive” social conscience: “We know best, so you’ll do as we say, not as you choose”.

    I want to change that attitude. I want opportunity for all based on a free market. And I want a country which feels a sense of continuity with its past and a sense of responsibility for its future. Without that we will never have a country at ease with itself. And I intend to fight for it whatever the difficulties and whatever the opposition.

    Sustaining the recovery

    These are “social” goals. But all social policy begins with economic policy. We can’t spend what we haven’t earned. There are three touchstones: low inflation; sound public finances and sustained recovery based on competitiveness at home and abroad.

    First inflation. We have brought it down and we intend to keep it down. It does immense damage: to businesses, to jobs, to people on fixed incomes and people with savings. Pensioners especially. It is public enemy number one. So don’t expect me to listen to those who say a little bit of inflation can do you good. It can’t.

    Second public finances: the fact is we are living beyond our means and consuming at the expense of our children. We will stick to our manifesto pledges on pensions and other benefits.

    But we need to look at the long term difficulties in funding social expenditure – now outstripping inflation by some 3 per cent per year. That can’t go on. We need to decide now how to create the resources to care for the vulnerable, the sick and the elderly in the future. We need to reduce Government borrowing and control government spending across the board.

    We are not alone in facing this challenge. Countries like Germany, France, Holland, Belgium and Italy have similar problems. Difficult decisions are being made everywhere. Britain cannot be the exception. For the sake of jobs and prosperity in the future, we must make the right choices now.

    The need for competitiveness

    That is vital if we are to achieve the third goal: sustained recovery based on competitiveness.

    There are no easy markets any more. We have no Empire that will automatically buy British. We have to compete fair and square, not just with Europe and America, but with the emerging economies of the Far East and the Pacific Rim – Eastern Europe too. We can’t shut them out.

    That means we have got to be competitive in manufacturing. Two-thirds of all we earn abroad comes from things we make and sell.

    The 1980s saw a turn around in British manufacturing. No one talks of “the British disease” any more. Manufacturing output is growing faster than for 5 years. Productivity is growing faster than for 7 years. Unit wage costs are falling faster than at any time since records began. Yet even so we still lag behind some of our main competitors.

    The vital need to improve education and training

    Above all it is vital that we produce enough people with the necessary education and skills. Too many managers tell me that far too many young people come out of British schools unable to read or write properly, lacking self discipline and commitment.

    The cost to British industry of poor basic skills is estimated to be £5 billion a year.

    For far too long a small minority of so-called progressive educationalists have made the running in education. They mock the importance of getting children to learn the basics: spelling, grammar, tables, self-discipline. This attitude is damaging to our children and to our country.

    So while we are working to simplify the curriculum and cut out unnecessary paperwork for teachers, we are not going back on the basic principles of our education reforms. Attention to basics in the curriculum. More emphasis on vocational training and experience as well as academic training. Regular testing and information for parents. And improvement in teacher training.

    Helping industry win new markets

    But that is not all we are doing to make Britain more competitive.

    We are giving more help to our exporters. They now have better terms of credit so that they can sell more easily abroad. We’ve stepped up our export promotion efforts both at home, on trade missions, and in our embassies abroad.

    We are giving greater emphasis to innovation. As early as the last century people were complaining that we did not use British scientific expertise to good effect in British industry. Our new science policy aims to ensure we exploit the practical application of British science in Britain.

    We are providing more opportunities for private industry to work with the public sector. Who built the roads and railways hospitals and schools in the first place? Answer: the private sector with private finance. What they did once, they can do again in partnership with Government.

    And in the coming year we will be cutting through the red tape jungle to help businesses concentrate on the job they are there to do. Regulation is sometimes a necessary evil. It’s those unnecessary twiddles, petty rules, forms and fussy details we need to cut out.

    Tackling crime

    Right at the top of our agenda for the coming year is the need to tackle the growing problem of crime.

    I start with three propositions. First there should be no excuses for crime. Crime is the responsibility of the individual who commits it.

    Second, crime needs to be punished. It is criminals who should be afraid, not the public.

    Third, all of us need to be involved in the war against crime. We need to be involved as parents, teachers and ordinary citizens; teaching our children the difference between right and wrong. Helping to prevent crime in the area in which we live. Helping the police and courts to catch and punish the guilty. They cannot do their job without the help of the public.

    This year we have introduced tougher sentences for drunk driving, joy riders and for people who offend while on bail. The courts can now take previous convictions into account. And we have reformed unit fines.

    Next year we will be taking action to deal with squatters and new age travellers – two new scourges of the modern age. And we’ll be giving the courts new powers to place persistent young offenders in secure accommodation.

    And we will be examining further ways of making our police and courts more effective as we review two of the most fundamental reports into our police and criminal justice system for years: the Sheehy report into the police and the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

    Priorities for the ’90s

    Basic to our approach in the 1990s will be the need to shift priorities away from short term consumption to long term wealth creation. Ours is a proud country. The oldest democracy. The most stable and still one of the most peaceful societies in the world.

    But we cannot rest on our laurels. If we want to preserve all those things we cherish, we have got to put the need for enterprise and the prime importance of manufacturing success right at the centre of our thinking. Industry should be the first choice not the last choice of our best people. We need to encourage and reward success and talent, not hold it back. We need to take responsibilities ourselves, not wait for others to come to the rescue.

    If we can do all these things, then we will enter the 21st century an increasingly confident and prosperous nation, keeping our place as an influential voice in world affairs.

    If we do not make these changes then the fault is our own. It is our choice. Our future in our hands.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Welsh Conservative Party Conference – 11 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1993 Welsh Conservative Party Conference, held on 11th June 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had hoped to be here a little earlier to join you for lunch and to have the opportunity of meeting a number of you, but I was a little delayed by the weather as well. I’m very sorry about that, but I’m much more concerned about the people who’ve suffered as a result of the weather. They’ve suffered a great deal more than inconvenience, the need for evacuation, many people whose homes have been damaged in the floods on the North coast. I’m delighted that Wyn has already been there and delighted that John and Wyn will be returning later on today. I’ve asked them to give me the fullest possible report of the damage that has been caused. But I would like to express my sympathy to everyone who has faced these particular difficulties over the last few hours and also my congratulations to the emergency services. They’ve acted swiftly, they’ve acted efficiently and I believe they deserve our thanks for everything that they’ve done.

    Before I turn to domestic matters, I just want to say a word or two about something happening in the last few hours in Bosnia. Many of you will know, all of you will know, for many months now British troops have been in Bosnia helping and protecting convoys in a most remarkable way. As a result of the work of those troops in Bosnia, many thousands of people are alive who otherwise would not have survived the last winter. It has been a superb performance by the British troops who’ve been there.

    Yesterday, as you know, they were involved in some incidents when a convoy they were supporting was attacked. The British troops, rightly in my view, responded in self-defence and, let me make it absolutely clear, our commander on the spot has complete authority to take any decisions he considers necessary to protect the safety of our troops. They’re there in Bosnia for humanitarian reasons and there are two criteria governing their presence there – can they carry out their mandate and can they carry out their mandate without unacceptable risk?

    The recent incidents we’ve seen may, may be relatively isolated, but I have to say to you that there is now increasing evidence of widespread deterioration on the ground. We have contingency measures in hand to protect our troops in Bosnia and to ensure their reinforcement if that should prove to be necessary. Yesterday, we announced further measures to supplement them. There have been long-standing measures, of course, the Ark Royal lying offshore and with cranes on that particular ship. There will be more reinforcements as necessary. And I wish just to give you this assurance today we will not take any unacceptable risks with the lives of our troops in Bosnia.

    Madam Chairman, it’s always fun to be back in Wales. I dare say that sounds to you like an all-purpose politician’s general issue compliment. I dare say it does, but it isn’t. I just think that Wales is wall-to-wall knock-down beautiful and every time I come here I find that opinion reconfirmed. From the southern approaches to the dark mountains, wherever you go there’s something very special and very beautiful to see and I’m delighted to be back here again today.

    And let me just say a quick word about Welsh secretaries of state. David Hunt succeeded by John Redwood. Superlative performance succeeded by superlative promise. Achievements for Wales to be followed by further achievement for Wales. John Redwood is here to fight the corner for the principality and I can tell you from my experience of him in Government he will fight it very hard, very often and very fiercely. You will have a very good champion.

    It’s possible, communications being what they are, that you may not have heard that the Cabinet changes involved the odd scratch. This move in Wales was oil-sweet and brilliant and, when people see how successful it is, I shall be happy to take all the credit for it. Change of Secretary of State. But Wales is used to change, not just changes of secretaries of state, but change on a much wider canvas than that. If you look down the last decade or so of the history of Wales, it is a story of change, the story of a modern country, a growing country, a winning Wales steadily building itself up and today leading the United Kingdom out of recession.

    There was a time when you could have pushed Wales to one side, as though it was just there on the side of England, but you certainly can’t do that any longer and no one would wish it. Since 1979, on average, every year there’s been 1,500 new businesses a year, 1,000 new inward investment projects – and not tiny ones, great companies like Toyota, Bosch, Sony, all coming here to establish themselves in Wales not just temporarily, but permanently. Over 800 new manufacturing plants and, the most latest example of course, Amcor’s 26 million pounds.

    They could have gone anywhere, they could have gone anywhere in the European Community and established themselves to do future business. But they came here. They choose of their volition to come here and establish themselves in Wales and they did so I believe for two overwhelming reasons. Firstly, because of the skills that are available in Wales and the attractive quality of life that they can find here. And, secondly, because of those Conservatives that made it attractive for overseas investment to come to the United Kingdom rather than other countries in the European Community. That combination – Welsh skills, Welsh quality of life and Conservative polices – has been a formidable combination for the prosperity of Wales in the last decade.

    And Wales has benefited, as well as the rest of the United Kingdom, from that. Of course it hasn’t always been apparent to everyone. Not everyone has always taken the long-term view of what needed to be done. I wonder, I wonder if you remember, just about 10 years ago, the great Tory crime of closing down the steelworks of Shotten. Mighty steelworks. Steelworks with a great history for which there was great affection, understandably. But a steelworks with no more work. A steelworks that it was said, what was the phrase that was used – “a steelworks and jobs cynically thrown on to the scrapheap” – that was the expression that was used. That’s what Labour said. They felt we should have burned money at its altars, as the world market for steel went down, that we should have carried it through the streets in procession like the embalmed corpse of a Mediterranean saint. They have a lot of primitive religion at the heart of the Labour Party.

    But, what has happened? What has happened to those people they said would never work again after the Shotten steelworks closed down? What actually happened has been dramatic and it shows the qualities and the opportunities that exist in Wales. What has happened is that a realistic Shotten has come through, it’s come alive, it competes and it lives on its own energies – a living competitor, not a tax-eating shrine. That is what has happened over the past decade. And it means the people who worked there had jobs with a future, not jobs that only had a past and were dependent day to day upon subsidy and the hope that something would turn up in the future.

    The fact is that Labour just took the short-term option. Here was an opportunity to kick the Government with a difficult decision and of course they were not prepared to take the long-term view. Then as now, short-term opportunism dominated their attitudes. But if we had listened to them then, what today would be the position of those working in the steelworks at Shotten? They would still be living in daily fear of their jobs. They would still be on yearly subsidies. They would have no security and no future. And if that attitude had been spread right the way across Wales, we would not have seen the quantum leap in opportunity and living standards that has stretched right across the principality over the last decade.

    Have they changed? Our opponents? Have they, hell. Cardiff Bay barrage. Now you’ve had the Labour resistance to the Cardiff Bay barrage. Here is a great development, a development that will do immense good for the future and so it must, by some Labour MPs, it must be stopped. A remarkable development opposed by unremarkable, bone-headed socialism. A small festival of negativity. What an attitude that is! What is it they actually say to the people of Cardiff? What is they’re saying, the opponents of this great project? They’re saying, we can’t have these jobs and these buildings mucking up Cardiff just when the council’s got everything right. That’s what they’re saying. If they’d been around on the day of creation they’d have demanded an adjournment.

    And it’s no good the leadership walking on the other side of the road and washing their hands of it. They have done nothing, nothing to restrain these Labour MPs holding back this moment and I think I can understand why. Up there in Scotland where the Labour leadership lives, they can’t see the importance of investment here in Wales; but we can. Here, here in the principality and may it always be a principality, people are proud of being Welsh and they’re right to be proud of it. Few political ideas have been worse served by politicians in this century than the idea of nationalism. I’m unapologetic about it. I am a nationalist, a British nationalist. Any leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party could be no other.

    Disraeli used to say that our party was a national party or it was nothing and, to understand what it means to be a Conservative, you must first understand what it means to be a nationalist. A true nationalist doesn’t need to prove himself by exaggerated histrionics, doesn’t need to promote himself by wrapping himself in a flag and offering a cheap imitation of what nationalism really means. Those people are offering symbols, they’re not substance. Put them aside and ignore them. Nations are made up of people; the true nationalist, the true nationalist wants those people to live at ease with themselves, confident, secure, able to reach out themselves, to reach and touch and achieve their own individual ambitions. His isn’t a sectional interest. He wants to build a society where every single citizen, wherever they may have started from, rejoices in their own common birthright, in their own country that they love.

    And to do that, we must understand what it is that people actually want, what their ambitions are, what their hopes are for themselves and their families. They have their place, no doubt, but go out into the housing estates of Cardiff or Peterborough, or Birmingham, or Leeds and Glasgow. Go into the living room of the three-bedroom semi-detached house and ask them, what do you want? What sort of country do you want to live in and see built up? It is the answer to those questions that determines where the heartbeat of Britain lies and what it is that people want.

    I will tell you what the answer is I believe you will consistently get, whether in Wales or Scotland or any of the regions of England. First and foremost, they want jobs that allow men and women to provide for themselves and their families. Jobs that give them independence and self-respect. Secondly, they want a decent home and the opportunity to own that decent home as 7% of people do in the principality. Thirdly, they want to be confident that their children have access to a good school, that the whole family will have access to good medical care if and when they need it and that a structure exists to provide them with financial security in old age, in hardship or in the advent of ill health. And it’s when those fundamental securities that are rooted deep in the marrow of the instincts of the British, it is when those fundamental securities seem uprooted that most people feel most threatened. And that, right the way across Europe, from one and to the other, has what has happened in recent years.

    And yet we Conservatives, we Conservatives care for those fundamental securities above all else, so we have a task on hand. We must convey that message that we understand and care about those fundamental matters right back to the British people in every part of the United Kingdom. Nothing’s more important, nothing is more pressing, so let me just pass this message to everyone who wishes the Conservative Party well. No diversions, no squabbles, let’s get on with that job of passing back that message and then we will have the self-confident expanding country that we all want to see.

    But our people are ambitious. They want a good deal more than what I’ve just set out in the last few minutes and they’re right to do that. They want with every justification, in my view, to feel safe at home and safe on the street. And they want to feel that the nation to which they belong can hold up its head in the world, play its part in the world and be a force in the world. I believe those are the instincts and the ambitions of the people who elected us and of millions of others who did not vote for us at the last occasion but share those same basic, patriotic instincts. We have no particular control over patriotism. It stretches across all parties, and I freely, I freely acknowledge that.

    But those are the ambitions of the people who did elect us. And they are also the ambitions that we have as a Party for the people of this country of all parties. And it is our task in Government to find ways of enabling those ambitions to be met. So how do we do it? If the 1980s taught us nothing else, and in fact it taught us a great deal, it was a very remarkable decade. But if it had taught us nothing else, it did teach us one vital lesson. You cannot spend what you haven’t earned. There’s not the slightest point in arguing about spending priorities until you have first addressed the question of how you pay for whatever it is that you want. And so all social policy must begin with economic policy. And all economic policy must begin with sound money. Our commitment as a Party instinctively, an instinctive commitment, our commitment to sound money, to keeping inflation down isn’t for us an abstraction, a by-way on the political high road. It is the absolutely essential bedrock upon which our economic policy and therefore everything else must depend.

    The last two years have been cruelly difficult, I know, for many people. We came from a boom in the late 1980s and into a recession. The boom spiralled above anything we had imagined and the recession lasted longer and was deeper than we anticipated. So it’s been a long period, a painful period, but as we emerge from that recession and as we lift our eyes and look beyond our own shore, we see that our problems are not just in this country. As we emerge from recession, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal. Japan, even the United States all have to one degree or another, and in some cases very seriously, economic difficulties. And I have to say, Madam Chairman, some of their leaders – shock, horror! – are even said to be unpopular.

    There’s a novelty for a politician. We here are out of recession. Inflation is now at under one and a half per cent. Interest rates are at 6%. The exchange rate is extremely competitive. Our exports are growing and our business opportunities are ahead. Now is the time to lift our prospects, lift our hearts and take the opportunities that lie immediately in front of us. And if we’re to take them, we have to do so in partnership with business, for it is private enterprise that we Conservatives look to generate the growth we want to see. It cannot be done in Whitehall by politicians and it cannot be done in Whitehall by bureaucrats. So let’s be quite clear about that. It’s not we politicians who create jobs. It is successful businesses providing what people are prepared to purchase that actually provide jobs in this country.

    Key decisions aren’t taken by a few politicians in Whitehall, They’re taken every single day by millions of individual people, deciding firstly that they’ll spend their money and secondly in deciding on which goods and which services they’re prepared to buy. Now, our relationship as a Government is changing with business. And it is right in my view that it should change. If we look back with that 20/20 vision that we can all have with hindsight and we’ve seen a bit of that from time to time, if we look back with 20/20 vision at the ‘60s and ‘70s, I think it is clear in retrospect that governments were too keen to tell business what to do, to make their decisions for them, to decide where they should invest and how. To pick the right winners in Whitehall rather than let them win in the marketplace. We learnt it didn’t work.

    And then in the 1980s, I think as we look back in the 1980s, it is clear in retrospect that perhaps we were just a touch too laissez-faire on some occasions. Too keen to tell businesses to go out entirely on their own, it was cold bath time with a vengeance. And sometimes that may have left some of our businesses at a competitive disadvantage. We have learned, too, from that, particularly building on the remarkable growth that business achieved n that bracing climate. And so in the 1990s we’re embarking on an evolution of our partnership with business. Business, as in the ‘80s, must make its own decisions and exercise its own skills. Only they can do that.

    But we in Government, perhaps should take every opportunity to smooth the way for our businesses to build the success and the prosperity we wish them to achieve. And there’s much we can do to achieve this, to set on course the right economic environment, a consistent low level of inflation and all the economic things that follow that. To make the supply-side changes and to push the jargon aside. To make sure we have the right education system producing the right youngsters with the right skills and I’ll turn back to that a little later. To make sure that our training systems are the right training systems to produce the right skills for the 1990s and the new century. To complete those elements of trade union reform still left undone but now almost wholly completed, finally – to put them in place.

    For the Government to use its political muscle for British contracts abroad. When our ministers go abroad, I want them, whenever they can, to take trade missions with them. Trade missions to fight to sell British goods abroad and to attract investment from abroad into this haven of European investment as M Delors so kindly put it for us. Not all his comments are always so helpful. Ministers in the Welsh Office have led the way in taking trade missions abroad and you have seen the results here. And I know the plans that John and Wyn and William have for the future. They will be in Wales most of the time, indeed most of the time and may occasionally visit the House of Commons in between.

    They will be taking the Welsh case abroad and bringing foreign investment to Wales. And then we must use our political muscle to lobby politically for our great British companies and we must make sure that the changing attitude in our foreign representation at embassies and elsewhere continues. I want our embassies to be as concerned about trade as they are about cocktail parties and diplomacy.

    And we must make sure that we don’t put our British firms at a competitive disadvantage. That is why there have been the very remarkable changes in export credit cover, both the breadth of it and also the cost of it, over recent months so British firms can compete fairly with their European and other competitors. The growth in export promotion services and other ideas that are coming through at present. And then of course there’s the Government’s role to provide the right infrastructure for business. This isn’t just a question of huge taxation and huge Government expenditure. That has its part but we are unlikely to deliver the infrastructure that business would truly like simply through taxation on companies and on individuals.

    And so we’re going back to our basic instincts. Who built the great canals and many of the railways in the first place? It was the private sector. There’s nothing novel about that, it’s just a post-war phenomenon that believes it can only be built by money compulsorily extracted from your pocket and recycled in Whitehall and then spent as the men in Whitehall think best. And what we’re doing is throwing away the old rules so that private finance and joint finance can go out and help the Government build the infrastructure that this country and British business needs. But where old rules, old Treasury rules – they were, you will I know be shocked to hear restrictive rules. I spoke to a very distinguished civil servant who had drawn up these rules that prevented so much private finance. And I said to him, probing delicately, “Do you think these rules are quite right?” “Well,” he said, “I think they’re barmy.” Well, he was right, they were barmy and they’re now defunct.

    And then in the interest of this growing business and jobs and prosperity, we need to oppose unnecessary social costs upon our great and small companies in this country. Whenever anyone mentions the Social Charter, you can see a socialist quiver. “Social Charter sounds good, we better have a slice of that.” But they don’t read what it is. Sounds very amiable The Social Charter is a job destruction programme for the European Community, European employers get extra costs, their goods become less competitive and the United States, the Pacific Basin and Japan get the orders and get the jobs. The only right that workers get out of it is the right to be out of work while Brussels politicians decide that they will provide extra socialist systems.

    That’s not a bargain – that’s a slow acting poison for prosperity in this country and right the way across Europe. And I have to say to you I’ve always been a strong supporter of our place in Europe because that is where 60% of our trade goes. No point in wrapping ourselves in [indistinct] and pretending it isn’t all there. But we need influence there and if ever there was an indication of why we needed influence, it is their wish to impose these extra costs right the way across the community. Because they look inward only; they do not realise that the whole of Europe must compete with the United States, with Japan and with the Pacific Basin. And until that time they recognise that, acknowledge that and act upon that, we will export our prosperity and we will give them the jobs that ought to be here in Europe. And for those of them who say, “Well, you’re not whole-hearted,” whenever you bump into a liberal, “Well, you’re not whole-hearted about Europe.” That’s what they say. “You don’t want to swallow everything the Commission propose.” Too true, I don’t. It’s a pity that they do. I would just suggest one thing you say to our liberal friends when they say that to you. “The good European fights for the right Europe” and that is what we’re doing.

    Of course I don’t expect the Labour Party to understand that. Mr Smith in auto reflex action regards it as demeaning for Britain to proclaim our lower costs. What a fatuous comment! Can you imagine selling your house – “I’m not going to project this nice low cost, it’s very expensive” you tell the purchaser. Of course we project our lower costs. We want people to come here. I want them to be in work. That’s why we project our lower costs. That’s why we have a low tax structure. That’s why we’ve been deregulating. That’s why we’ve had so much inward investment over the last decade that we wouldn’t have had if John Smith’s philosophy had been in charge.

    But if pronouncing that lower costs is what we’re after is a bad thing, it does raise an interesting question. What would he like? Higher costs? Higher costs – less jobs? Less opposition? What a brainless policy for this country, No wonder he thought that higher taxes would win them the last General Election. And in order to emphasise his non-point, he talks about a sweatshop economy and then he goes on, he goes on to demand a high-tech, high investment economy. What insight. Why did I never think of that? We all want that. The question is not whether we want a high-tech, high investment economy. Every sensible person wants that. The question is how we get that economy and keep it in the future, and we won’t get it if we pile on taxes and we pile on social costs and that is the message you must take to every doorstep in the land.

    Success for us these days – we don’t have a great empire, a market waiting there automatically willing to snap up anything we produce. It’s a different world now. Our businessmen have to go out there and they have to fight like hell in a difficult environment for their sales. It isn’t as once it was. Success doesn’t come at the imperial clicking of a British finger. We’re not beggars in the world but we’re not altogether choosers either. We have to go out there and fight for our prosperity and fight for our future. And if you look at what’s happening on your own back door, solid jobs, good jobs, permanent jobs, they’re coming to Wales and thank God for it. And the things that I’ve described as happening in Wales are happening elsewhere. The investment, the incoming companies, the new competitiveness: these are the steady-built walls of recovery and security for this decade and for the new millennium. That is the long term policy that is right for this country and from which this Party will never deviate.

    And let me say this to you, Madam Chairman. If in the decade of Conservative governments still to come, if we build everywhere as we have built in Wales, with jobs, with productivity and with exports in mind, we shall build to last. And all the questions that need addressing about this country are long term questions and so the answers need to be long term answers. And one of those answers, I believe, is that new arm-in-arm partnership, Government and business using their own skills together, working together for the prosperity of Britain.

    Madam Chairman, one thing business knows is that we have no choice but to control public spending and restrain taxes. And when I say that I know what will happen when I say that, know that the Labour Party will immediately jump around. Mr Gordon Brown will issue a press release. He’ll tell us that this proves that all his scare stories were right. He’ll undoubtedly demand a parliamentary statement. He will tell us things are terrible and they’re getting worse. You know, I can’t think why, but it reminds me of a toy that my son had when he was very small, many years ago; it was a small, a small Action Man toy that was on a little string. And when you pulled the string, this little Action Man uttered a few predictable sentences. I don’t actually recall whether he asked for a parliamentary statement or not but, thankfully, I do recall that when the string broke he went silent, so all is not lost.

    So, we must control public spending and restrain taxes. That’s not just a populist cry for lower taxes. We know we must restrain public expenditure, not because we’re opposed to public expenditure per se, but because we’re bound by the laws of arithmetic. You can’t spend what you’re not prepared to finance from either taxes or borrowing. And I hope there is no doubt in anyone’s mind we’re not prepared to see an ever-increasing tax burden. And nor are we prepared to mortgage our future by unrestrained borrowing. So, we have to ensure that expenditure is properly disciplined.

    At present, we have a very large deficit, much larger than we would wish it to be at around 50 billion. And people say, “how”? Tory deficit, the opponents of our party call it. How has it happened, we had a surplus three or four years ago? Yes, we did. We had a surplus on the back of an unsustainable boom with all the tax revenues that helped put our finances into surplus. But the flip side of boom is recession and the flip side of surplus is deficit and we must now rid ourselves of the deficit. Seventy per cent, or thereabouts, one can never be entirely precise about the figures, but as close as we can get, around 70% of the deficit is cyclical. By that I mean, stripping away the jargon, it is the effect of recession the fact that we have a tower tax revenue – fewer people in work, less taxes, fewer spending, less VAT, fewer house sales, less stamp duty. And of course higher public expenditure to protect people in difficulty. And therefore a gap opens up between income and expenditure that we have to borrow in the short term during the recession. That is the effect of recession – lower tax revenue, higher social expenditure and a gap between income and expenditure.

    That will, over time, reverse itself, but there are other more fundamental reasons for the deficit as well. There are demographic changes, more thankfully as a result of the work done by the Health Service, not least by Norman Fowler who was Secretary of State for many years in that crucially difficult job. Our Health Service is better than ever it has been before.

    And I may say, those people who said otherwise at the Monmouth by-election learned different at the General Election. But there are demographic changes. Because of the changing diet and the changing healthcare that’s available, more people live much longer. More of our elderly can expect to live longer and more fruitful lives in retirement and that is very expensive. It adds to costs, costs willingly met, but costs that must be met. There are more students. We want more of our young people to go on into further education and, at an astonishing rate, that is what they’re now doing. There are more demands we wish to meet – the healthcare that was never there a few years ago is perhaps the most obvious example of that. And all that’s expensive, but these are matters we wish to meet.

    [small section of speech missing]

    Madam Chairman, over the last few months, there has been something of a rumpus about education. We have been very heavily abused from many sides on the subject of testing, cardboard images have been set up. On one side there are the professionals, dedicated teachers serving the nation and, on the other side in this cardboard image, an intruding old Government interfering, bossy and setting irrelevant tests to interfere with the peaceful life our children have at schools. And our critics, including the Labour leader, are devoted to that cardboard image. I can’t think why he had such an affinity for cardboard images. But what he doesn’t have and what our critics don’t have, is a criticism of the performance of much of our education system. And let me be blunt, we should have a criticism of the performance of much of our education system because the reality is, I am sad to tell you, that one in four of our children leave secondary education and can’t read properly, can’t write properly and are not competent in grammar. And what are they going to do? They can’t all be Prime Minister. I’d better tell the press, that was a joke. But I bet it turns up in more columns than you’ve had hot dinners this year.

    But that education outcome, that fails our children. Many of our teachers are excellent and I have a great admiration for them, but they aren’t all excellent. There’s a choking [indistinct] of educationalists, a theory that despises grammar, looks down on vocabulary and derides the well-stocked mind. And it’s not new: perhaps we should have faced up to it years ago. But there is in modern teaching, and in my view there has been for nearly 30 years, a trade unionism of the mind, a willingness to accept low performance far too readily. And that thinking’s decreed learning – learning’s reactionary! What you go in the classroom for is to have some haphazard discovery. Well, I don’t mind my children having some haphazard discovery, but I really send them to school to learn so that when they leave school they’re equipped for a tough competitive world that will lie ahead of them. And far too much well-meaning, theorising nonsense is poked at our children in school. And I will not mince my words – I think that is a betrayal of our children’s prospects in schools and no government could or should stand aside from it.

    I’ll never forget, I’ll never forget a male teacher in a TV documentary and he was holding up a page of paper and it had blots and words and every fifth letter was spelt the wrong way round. “That’s pretty good,” he said. “That boy’s trying to tell us something.” Too true, he was. He was trying to tell us, poor lad, that he hadn’t been well taught, that he’d been let down by his school, that he was another victim of theorising educationalists in a mission for search and destroy, he was trying to tell us that his future would be less adequate than it would have been if he’d really been taught to read and write and add up and emerge from school with good qualities and with good manners.

    So whatever our problems in promoting John Patten’s brave policies – and they are the Government’s policies – whatever the problems in promoting John’s brave policies. When you’re criticised for it, remember that teacher, monstrously complacent, proud and happy with self evident failure. What I want for our children in our schools is self-evident success, for that is what is in their interest and in this nation’s interest. We may get the worst of the propaganda war in education, but the Government’s right about education. We are right to have tests to find out what our children learn and what they do not learn. And we are right to expect schools to let parents know how well their children are doing at school, for they have the primary responsibility for them.

    So, let us hope we soon get out of this impasse and back to a sensible approach, working as we wish to with the very best of the education profession. That is our aim and I think that is our responsibility and their responsibility in the interest of the children who are our joint charges as they go through school. And I hope the unions will give up their opposition, that they apparently at the moment want the Government to congratulate inadequacy and garland mediocrity. Well, we can’t do it and we won’t. All John Patten and I want to know – and it is not to ask a great deal – all we want to know, quite dispassionately, is what works and what doesn’t and, when we have that information, we can out it right in the interests of our children, in our schools. We may get things wrong and move on, but those children have only one chance of education at school. And between us, the Government, the trade unions and the teachers, must not let them down.

    I know we’ve been pushing against a great settled glacier of trade unionist conformist mind, an attitude that despises evidence about educational problems, the way it despises most evidence and most knowledge. Knowledge, they seem to think, is bourgeois. Well, Madam Chairman, I define the task and I tell you, big and menacing as it is, we will not give up on this issue. As they used to say on the Left, the struggle continues and for us it will in the interests of our children.

    Madam Chairman, our party’s policies address directly the problems that matter to everyday lives. Always have done. That’s why our party has won and won and won again, because our instincts flow from the innermost instincts of the majority of the British people. We are there in Government to help people meet their ambitions. It has been a difficult year. But that’s yesterday; it’s gone. We’ve learned from that and we’ve moved on. We’re working for what we believe in – free market and private enterprise. Low income tax and private choice. Control of inflation so that never again do we go in supermarkets to peel off the sticker and find the price that was there yesterday before a new price was put on top of it. Modern trades unions. Legislation almost completed, a revolution in trade unionism over the last decade. Good public services. Good public services are not the prerogative of the Left. We say that where services need to be provided by the public, they should be, that they should be efficient in precisely the same way that we would demand efficiency as if they were in the private sector. We want to ensure we maintain a modern, growing Health Service, available irrespective of need to people, irrespective of resources to people whenever they may need it. We want ever higher standards in schools. We want wider personal ownership. We want the private sector to expand, through privatisation where necessary, as far as it credibly can. We want security at home and we want security abroad. And we want to say “no” to something. No to tampering with our constitution. No to breaking up the United Kingdom. And no to proportional representation. PR, that sly deception that delivers governments into the hands of tiny and sometimes extreme political parties, is not a servant of democracy but its very enemy. Madam Chairman, those are the Tory truths, they’re truths that last, they’re truths we care about, they’re truths we’ll fight for and they’re truths that we’ll win with.

  • PMQT – 10 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th June 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Leighton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

    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. Leighton : Is the Prime Minister aware that those of us with his best interests at heart fear that he has made a major blunder by sacking the previous Chancellor who had taken all the flack on the exchange rate mechanism and the collapse of the economy? Now that the Government begin to resemble the hotel that collapsed and crumbled down the cliff face, bookmakers are offering odds against the Prime Minister leading his party into the next election– [Hon. Members :– “Shame.”] Now that the right hon. Gentleman has not a friend but a rival in No. 11, is he beginning to feel a little exposed and beleaguered?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that I had not thought of the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member most solicitous for my future. I am grateful to him for what he said about that. The owners of the hotel have my deepest sympathy.

     

    Q2. Mr. Brazier : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

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

    Mr. Brazier : In view of the latest IRA outrage, will my right hon. Friend consider modifying the right to silence and the law on disclosure of sources so that known bombers can be brought to justice? Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing sadness at the fact that on Tuesday, when a very important Government measure to combat terrorism came before the House, the Labour party voted against it.

    Mr. Enright : I was proud to do so.

    The Prime Minister : I share my hon. Friend’s regret at that. I am sorry to hear the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) say that he is proud to have voted against it. The Labour party had the chance to demonstrate that it is resolute against terrorism and it did not take it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, all the options open to a civilised state need to be available for use against terrorism.

    Mr. John Smith : Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that his ex- Chancellor felt compelled to say yesterday that the way in which he conducts his Administration is so harmful to the national interest that it does not deserve to succeed?

    The Prime Minister : That is an unexpectedly selective quotation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is because we are in office and have followed our policies that we have inflation at 1.3 per cent. and interest rates at 6 per cent. and that our economy is recovering and no other economy in Europe is likely to do as well this year or next year.

    Mr. Smith : I am not surprised that the Prime Minister did not choose to answer the question. Does he not understand that the significance of the ex-Chancellor’s revelations is that they come from a close political colleague, an ally who sat beside the Prime Minister at the very heart of his Government? Who is better placed than the ex-Chancellor to know the weaknesses of this Administration and the weaknesses of this Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend said what he wished to say yesterday, and I have no intention of adding to what he said yesterday or providing the right hon. and learned Gentleman with an opportunity to extend it. As one of my predecessors might have said, we have a little local difficulty. We shall get over it, and I am going on with the work in hand.

    Mr. Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that when he announced business as usual this morning he caused apprehension throughout the land? Do not his responses show that he is incapable of learning from anything or anyone? As his authority and that of the Government is now in tatters, will he for once put the national interest first and let the people decide in a general election– [Interruption.].

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is a total waste of precious time.

    Mr. Smith : Why will the Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must now come to order. Hilarity is one thing, but we have business to do here.

    Mr. Smith : Why will the Prime Minister not let the people decide whether they want him and his wretched Government?

    The Prime Minister : I have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman–he may have overlooked it–that we had an election last year. We won it, and he lost it. I say that he lost it, advisedly. The score is 4 : 0 in elections recently ; in due course, it will be 5 : 0.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hawkins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

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

    Mr. Hawkins : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the independent Policy Studies Institute reported this week that two thirds of Britain’s workers have increased their skills in the past five years? Is not that, as it rightly said, a training revolution, and will not it further assist Britain’s competitiveness in world markets?

    The Prime Minister : I did see that report, although I noticed, alas, that it had escaped the Opposition in yesterday’s debate. The world is becoming more competitive than ever before, and it is undeniably true that we need constantly to improve the skills of the work force. That is true now, and it will be equally true in the future. It is good to know that so many employees and employers are seeking to do that. The Opposition make a great deal of the importance of skills and training. What I cannot understand in the light of that is why they oppose school testing, which is so vital to it.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister recall listening yesterday to the very interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who said that it would require a change in policy and the building of a wider consensus if we were to take the very tough decisions on tax and public spending that were necessary to put the country right? Does he realise that there is a crisis not only in the Conservative party but in the nation? If he would put the plight of the nation before his, he would discover that he could probably solve both by taking that advice.

    The Prime Minister : I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, with all kindliness, that he is developing pomposity into an art form. I always listen with very great care to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), and I heard what he had to say. I have just heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about difficult decisions. If he really meant that, why, having previously supported VAT on fuel, did he vote against it in the Budget?

    Mr. Ashby : Now that we have had an opportunity to see the 14-year- old test papers– [Interruption.] I am referring, of course, to the test papers for 14-year-olds. Now that we have had an opportunity to see them, does my right hon. Friend share my view in wondering what on earth the teachers were on about?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. I believe that many people who have studied the test papers will be wondering about that. The English test earlier this week was a straightforward test of reading and writing skills, precisely the sort of test that children enjoy and need and that teachers have traditionally carried out for many years. We need tests such as those regularly to raise standards and help people to do better. Equally important, not only do we need such tests, but I believe that parents have a right to know what the results of the tests are. I deeply regret that many schools that carried out the tests earlier this week are apparently refusing to release the results to parents and others.

     

    Q5. Mr. Chisholm : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

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

    Mr. Chisholm : In view of the rising and sickening tide of racist attacks, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will join the Labour party– [Interruption.] –in responding positively to the invitation of the Anti-Racist Alliance for a member of the Government to attend next Saturday’s major demonstration in Croydon against racist violence? Failing that, will he send a message of support? Will he also implement, as a matter of urgency, the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality to strengthen the law on incitement to racial hatred and introduce the specific offences of racial harassment and racial violence?

    The Prime Minister : Regarding the hon. Gentleman’s inadvertent slip, no, I have no intention of joining the Labour party– [Interruption.] I may have my difficulties, but they are not remotely that bad. I deplore racialism as much as the hon. Gentleman does and as much as it is deplored by other hon. Members, but I do not think that demonstrations are necessarily the right way to deal with it. Action and tolerance in society, and the legislation that we have passed, are necessary to deal with the problem.

     

    Q6. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

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

    Mr. Robertson : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that British Aerospace has just landed a large contract to supply Hawk aircraft to Indonesia? Following my right hon. Friend’s successful negotiation of a huge contract for Tornado aircraft for Saudi Arabia, does he agree that this is excellent news not just for British Aerospace but for the many supply companies in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I am delighted to confirm that British Aerospace has won a Hawk contract in Indonesia, worth £500 million. Together with the Tornado order in Saudi Arabia in January and Oman’s decision to purchase Vickers’ Challenger 2 tanks, those exports will bring business securing many thousands of jobs in the British defence industry.

    Those orders testify to the excellence of the British defence industry, to the strength of its export performance and to the value of a close partnership between the Government and industry. That partnership produced record defence orders of over £5 billion last year– [Interruption.] –and that record has already been exceeded this year, with half the year still to come. I regret to note that some Opposition Members, who often talk to me about unemployment, seem to oppose those orders won by British exporters.

     

    Q7. Mr. Loyden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

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

    Mr. Loyden : Will the Prime Minister, in the wake of the activities that took place on Merseyside in regard to the western approaches and the Battle of the Atlantic, acknowledge the fact that it is time to repay the debt that we owe to the Merchant Navy, which lost 30, 000-plus seamen during the war years? Will he take action to reactivate our shipyards so that the nation may once again fund the sort of merchant fleet that should be the priority of a maritime nation, and put the seamen back to work?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to congratulate Liverpool on the remarkable way in which it arranged and organised the celebrations concerning the Battle of the Atlantic. I was privileged to be there for a day and the whole thing was handled magnificently.

    I should be delighted to see a stronger and more successful Merchant Navy, but that depends on the capacity of the British Merchant Navy to obtain the orders that are there throughout the world.

    Mr. Gill : Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if we are to be successful in the battle against regulatory overkill, it will be necessary for all Ministers to be ruthless and arbitrary in the prosecution of that battle?

    The Prime Minister : It is not the first occasion in recent weeks that I have been invited to be ruthless and arbitrary.

  • PMQT – 8 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th June 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McKelvey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

    Mr. McKelvey : Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity in the course of his very busy day yesterday to have a look at Scotland’s national newspaper, the Daily Record, which carried an article stating that the former Chancellor claims that the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, was responsible for imposing VAT on fuel? Did he impose it on his own ; and will he answer without waffle?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is that in the course of my busy day I certainly did not read the Daily Record. The answer to his second point is that the House of Commons imposed the VAT by its vote.

    Mr. John Carlisle : Is my right hon. Friend aware that a head teacher of a school near my constituency, having received a salary increase that had been denied to several thousand other citizens, wrote to the Secretary of State for Education telling him that he could stuff his pay rise? If head teachers take that attitude and use that sort of language, is it any surprise that they are denying 14-year olds school tests which they themselves would probably fail?

    The Prime Minister : That is an unusual position to adopt on pay rises and not one generally taken by head teachers or by anyone else. I very much regret that there is difficulty carrying these tests forward. They are very much in the interests of the children and it is in the interests of the testing system, which the head teachers support, that the tests should go ahead this year so that Sir Ron Dearing can deal with the difficulties with them.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell the House why Ministers in his Administration have seen it as part of their duty as Ministers of the Crown to intervene on behalf of Mr. Asil Nadir, a person charged with serious offences and now a fugitive from justice?

    The Prime Minister : I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given me the opportunity to correct a misassumption in his mind. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has explained that he raised certain matters with the Attorney-General following an approach from a constituent of his who was then an adviser to Mr. Nadir. My hon. Friend was originally approached 18 months ago, before he became a Minister, and it is perfectly proper within the “Questions of Procedures for Ministers” that Ministers are free to make their views about constituency matters known to the responsible Minister, either by interview or in correspondence. As I understand it, that is what my hon. Friend did.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister confirm that Mr. Nadir is not and was not a constituent of either the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) or the President of the Board of Trade? Is not it strange that a man charged with serious offences should be considered so important that Ministers make personal approaches on his behalf to the Attorney-General, who is responsible for his prosecution?

    The Prime Minister : No doubt in the hubbub, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear what I said to him. I made it clear that my hon. Friend approached the Attorney-General–following an approach from a constituent who was then an adviser to Mr. Nadir–18 months ago. That was entirely proper. Let me equally make it clear– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear both questions and answers.

    The Prime Minister : Let me equally make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so that there is no misunderstanding, that I am assured by my hon. Friend that he has had no financial involvement with Mr. Nadir, his companies or his advisers, either before he became a Minister or since. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks it was appropriate behaviour for a Minister to give a watch to Mr. Nadir inscribed with a very supportive inscription, to put it mildly? Does the Prime Minister think that that is the way that he wants Ministers in his Administration to behave? Was not it bound to undermine the work of the Serious Fraud Office in pursuing financial crime? Is not it the case, as the country clearly understands, that this is a shoddy, unseemly affair that does no credit to this Administration?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was unwise. I think that that is the view taken by my hon. Friend and he has said so in public. I know my hon. Friend recognises that, with hindsight, it would have been better if he had not done it. It was a misjudgment, but it is not a hanging offence.

    Sir Dudley Smith : In view of the experiences of many Warwickshire residents over recent months, particularly in my constituency area, is my right hon. Friend aware that they are looking to him to introduce good and effective legislation to curb the so-called new age travellers? Will he tell us what urgency he is applying to that particular problem?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises a problem which has been faced in many parts of the country. It is one that I hope and believe we will be able to deal with in the next Session of Parliament.

     

    Q2. Mr. Khabra : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

    Mr. Khabra : Will the Prime Minister personally condemn the speech made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill)? It has done a great deal of damage to good race relations in this country and it has also encouraged the fascists and racists to indulge in destructive activities. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to give a positive answer to the community.

    The Prime Minister : Neither of the epithets used by the hon. Gentleman applies to my hon. Friend and I hope that he will recognise that. I have not read all the speech to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have read some of the reports of it, which I understand were not accurate. On the day that it was published it did not represent my views or those of the Government. My commitment and that of the Government to good race relations is well known. I welcome without reservation the positive contributions which all communities make to life in this country and, as long as we maintain firm but fair immigration controls and refuse to tolerate racial discrimination, we shall keep the race relations which have been steadily improving over recent years, much to my pleasure. I hope and expect them to continue to improve.

     

    Economy

    Q3. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received about the state of the economy; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations on the economy. There is growing evidence that recovery is under way across a broad front.

    Mr. Thurnham : Will my right hon. Friend praise north-west exporters such as Rotocold in my constituency, which has gained record export sales and cut local unemployment to below the national average? Is not that in stark contrast to the failed union-dominated policies of the Labour party, which saw unemployment in the north-west double between 1974 and 1979?

    The Prime Minister : That is true. Unemployment is always a tragedy when it occurs and it has occurred under every Labour Government we have seen in this country. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the company in his constituency. It is good news. I understand that it has had more export orders recently and that will add to jobs in the region. There is no doubt that British manufacturing industry is now exporting at record levels and I welcome that. It is not unrelated to the fact that we now have policies of low inflation, low business taxation and trade union reform which have removed many of the difficulties in management that so bedevilled firms in the 1960s and 1970s.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

    Mr. Byers : Will the Prime Minister say whether he wishes to see shipbuilding continue on Tyneside? If he does, will he confirm that the Royal Navy work presently at Swan Hunter will be completed there and that full Government backing will be given in order to secure vital export orders? Is the Prime Minister aware that if his Government stand to one side and do nothing, we shall witness the death of shipbuilding on Tyneside and the loss of thousands of jobs as a result?

    The Prime Minister : I know of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about Swan Hunter, which are shared by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), all of whom have made representations to me about it in recent weeks. I cannot confirm the details that the hon. Gentleman seeks today, but I hope that the firm will be able to put itself in a position in which it will be able to continue. That depends on its being able to obtain and produce orders at a price that the market will pay.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : As one of the most helpful means of helping the growing army of unemployed in Europe would be to conclude the GATT discussions and as the Prime Minister has played such a positive and helpful role in that, will he explain to the country why the EC is being so difficult about concluding those discussions? It could bring down unemployment and put people throughout Europe back to work.

    The Prime Minister : I think that I have some news that my hon. Friend will undoubtedly welcome. I understand that the French Minister for European Affairs has announced at today’s meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council that France will be accepting the agreement on oil seeds, signed between the European Community and the United States last November. It is an issue which I discussed at my two meetings with the French Prime Minister last month. I am delighted at the decision that has been made. I hope that it will enable the Community to go forward to other agreements relating to the Uruguay round. Although that is a separate issue from the oil seeds agreement, such an agreement was a necessary preliminary. It now removes one of the road blocks to a comprehensive GATT agreement.

     

    Q5. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

    Mr. Beith : Is the Prime Minister beginning to regret that his reshuffle a couple of weeks ago was not more extensive and did not see the departure of Ministers responsible for education, shipbuilding and undue and extensive assistance to those who give large donations to the Conservative party? Does he realise that it is likely that the next reshuffle will involve himself?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the substantive part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is no.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Lait : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

    Mrs. Lait : Will my right hon. Friend remind trade unionists that the hard-won democracy that they have achieved over the past 14 years is thanks to Conservative legislation? Will he tell them that only the Conservative party not only believes in but has legislated for one member, one vote?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly the case that we have more luck with trade union reform than the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) does.

    Throughout the 1980s the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against each and every one of our reforms to strengthen the rights of individual trade union members and the Labour party still wants to oppose rights for individual trade union members. While Labour Members continue to hold those views we will continue to sit on this side of the House.

    Mr. Hume : Given that this generation is going through the greatest economic revolution in the history of the world–the technological, telecommunications and transport revolutions–and that the wealth of society is being created by fewer people, does the Prime Minister agree that, logically, the state should be taking a greater role in the welfare of people instead of moving in the opposite direction towards the survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle? Given that they have already privatised heat and light, is there any truth in the rumour that the Government are about to privatise fresh air?

    The Prime Minister : I have news for the hon. Gentleman. It is not owned by the Government and does not need privatisation.

    Mr. Hume : What about water?

    The Prime Minister : On his earlier point, the hon. Gentleman clearly overlooked the 67 per cent. real terms increase in social security, the additional uprating next year of £2.5 billion, the extra expenditure on benefits of 40 per cent., the exemption for people who cannot pay council tax, the fact that the Government, unlike our Labour predecessors, continue to pay the pensioners’ bonus and the increase in consumer goods for the bottom 10 per cent. of the income scale. Those changes were made under this Government because of our economic success and social concerns.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Party Women’s Conference – 4 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Party Women’s Conference, held in London on 4th June 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam Chairman, it is over 30 years since I joined the Conservative Party.

    I still recall why. Because it was the Party of the individual.

    The Party of the family. It offered choice. It spoke about how people could better what they had.

    How each of us could have more control over our own lives. Build up something more – then leave it to our children. They are simple enough objectives. They are what I believe in. What we all believe in.

    We stand for them as strongly today as we ever did. Individual liberty in everyday matters. That is fundamental to a free society. But that is not the only appeal of our Party.

    We help each generation lay the groundwork for the next. We keep our roots in the past, but we plan far into the future.

    And we have persistence. What we start out we complete – however tough the prospects may look.

    But, Madam Chairman, I don’t need to tell you that. Just remember the last Election. Win it? Many people were telling you that we hadn’t a cat in hell’s chance.

    It would have been easy to give up then – but we didn’t. We didn’t do it then. We haven’t done it since. And, Madam Chairman, we’re not going to do it now. I know it’s not been easy for Conservative supporters. It’s easy to wear the blue rosette the day after an Election win. But it’s not so easy to lift hopes and hearts when things have been difficult.

    But that’s what you all do. That’s what you did last March and April. That’s what you’ve been doing these last few months. And I know how much I owe you.

    Madam Chairman, these have been difficult times for Britain, but things are looking up here now. And don’t let’s forget – as some people too often do. Look around Europe.

    In France, in Germany, in Spain, in Italy – wherever you look – things are worse than they are in Britain. Higher interest rates. Higher inflation. And economies that are shrinking. In Britain the position is changing. We are now out of recession and returning to growth.

    Inflation has fallen: down from around 11 per cent to under 2 per cent.

    Interest rates: down from 15 per cent to 6 per cent.

    Exports: soaring.

    Manufacturing: beginning to re-employ again.

    Over 1000 new businesses are started every day.

    Unemployment has fallen over the last three months and job vacancies have risen.

    Britain is now back into growth. And that is the way to get Britons back into work. Of course we still face problems ahead. As a Nation we are borrowing too much. That is almost inevitable in a recession. The Government’s income falls – fewer people in work means less income tax. Less spending means less VAT and excise duties. Fewer home sales means less Stamp Duty.

    But it is not only that income falls in a recession expenditure increases. Social costs increase to protect the unemployed and others facing difficulty.This too, worsens the public finances. But I know of no Conservative Government that would abandon the vulnerable in a recession.

    Quite simply, that is not our way. So, income down, expenditure up. That is one of the main reasons we are borrowing too much.

    A good deal of our deficit will automatically disappear as we return to growth – the mirror image of what has happened over the last three years.

    In the Budget we set out a clear strategy for raising revenue over the next 3 years. The main task now is to keep a firm grip on public spending to help bring the books back towards balance.

    We must look across Government to see where savings can be made. As we do so we will not forget our Manifesto promises. We will not forget our commitment to the vulnerable – and especially the elderly. Nor will we forget our instincts and priorities as Conservatives.

    Over the next few months you can expect a whole crop of scare stories. Our opponents will be unscrupulous in their willingness to frighten anyone and everyone if they believe it will frighten them into their political camp.

    We have seen it all over the last two years.

    ‘The Government will privatise the Health Service.’ Remember that scare? Untrue.

    ‘The rural Post Office network will close.’ Untrue.

    ‘Pensioners won’t be able to collect their pensions from the Post Office.’ Untrue.

    Three wrongs that were not right. And there’ll be more.

    Be warned. Our opponents will scare and scare and scare again.

    What they will not do is address the reality that – in the interests of the country – we must put the finances in order.

    We have to take a good hard look at public spending – quite apart from the financial pressures of recession.

    Let me tell you why.

    More of our young people are going into further education. We want to encourage that – but it’s very expensive.

    More people are living longer. We want to provide them with the care they deserve – but it’s very expensive.

    Britain needs a modern industrial economy. So our young people need more and better training – but it’s very expensive.

    All are important. But we can’t pile cost upon cost. We have to pick our priorities. More spending somewhere means more savings somewhere else. I know it will be unpopular in the area where savings are found. But – if we are to do what is right for the country – we must do it.

    I believe the British public will understand this.

    They know you can’t spend what you don’t have.

    And all of us have to take that message – uncomfortable as it is – to every constituency in the land.

    Some areas of public expenditure will continue to grow – year by year. We must answer the question – how are we going to meet rising needs without ever higher taxation? I believe the answer lies in policies that will sustain the recovery – low taxes on larger profits and more incomes.

    Madam Chairman, I want our country to be economically powerful again. To build up its industrial and commercial strength. The economic conditions are in place. Now we need to shape policy so that it supports business and allows it to grow.

    Only growth will provide jobs, yield taxes, invade foreign markets, replace foreign imports and boost our prosperity.

    Madam Chairman, I believe the Government does have a role to help industry. It has a responsibility to shape the economy; to keep taxes as low as possible and to produce economic conditions that favour investment. But it can do more than that.

    It can curb unnecessary regulation. And we will do that.

    It can stop costs being loaded on British companies by unnecessary action in Brussels. And we will do that.

    It can help exporters to win in overseas markets with strong support and the full use of British political influence abroad. And we will do that.

    It can produce the reforms that help industry.

    The trade union reforms. The education reforms. The training reforms. And we will do that.

    The economic conditions are in place for growth. Slowly, but certainly, confidence is coming back.

    Confidence to encourage investment.

    Confidence to expand.

    Confidence in our economic prospects.

    That confidence will ripple through the economy – from the greatest companies to the village shop.

    And the sooner it does that, the better it will be for everyone.

    We are now at a turning point. The recession is slipping behind us. Steady growth lies in front of us. And if the OECD and European forecasters are correct, next year Britain will grow faster than any of the leading EC countries.

    They are saying it abroad. So let’s hear it at home. It is time to stop knocking Britain. It is time to talk Britain up – and talk Britons back into work. And it is also time to protect Britain from well-meaning but damaging legislation.

    At Maastricht I refused to accept the Social Chapter. Not because I want to damage workers’ rights. But because I don’t think that being priced out of a job and being made unemployed is much of a right. The Social Chapter loads costs on employers and will cost jobs for employees.

    Throughout Europe over 17 million people are unemployed.

    All Europe competes with the US, Japan, and the Pacific Basin. But if Europe piles costs on itself, it will not be able to compete – and unemployment will rise across the Community.

    Earlier this week, under the provisions of the Single European Act, our European partners were able to agree a directive by a qualified majority vote that tries to change British working practices. I believe their proposals are folly.

    In any event that should be a decision for this country. It should not be a decision made in Europe. So we will fight it politically. And we will take our case to court. Our partners have also proposed the establishment of works’ councils. Let me tell them now. They are wasting their time.

    They need unanimous agreement for that – and Britain will not give it. We have a veto on this issue. And we will use it. But let us not forget that Europe is changing.

    Today’s European agenda is not about federalism, still less about some fanciful “superstate”.

    It is about making Europe competitive; securing a GATT agreement; stimulating growth and jobs building up the single market.

    About decreasing regulation and increasing national decision- making.

    About bringing new members into the Community, and building up links with Eastern Europe.

    These are the realities of life in the Community today. They reflect our ideas. They are good for Europe. And, Madam Chairman, they are good for Britain.

    Madam Chairman, over the last few days I have had the opportunity of reading your paper on crime. It comes at a good moment. Three weeks ago – at the Scottish Conference at Edinburgh – we heard from a very brave woman who spoke about being the victim of a violent crime.

    It was a harrowing account delivered with great dignity. The chances of being a victim may – statistically – be remote. But fear of crime is not remote. It is all too real to too many people. People living on their own. Women. Pensioners. And people living isolated lives in our big city estates.

    That fear limits freedom blights lives and corrodes society.

    How many people here, when they get into the car, press the central locking with their elbow before they drive off?

    Quite a lot, I bet. Across the country millions do. I’ve seen my own family do it.

    How many women think twice before venturing out into their own town or city in the evening?

    We really shouldn’t have to give that a second thought. It cannot be right that people feel so insecure.

    Madam Chairman, we intend to respond to those fears. Of course, we will give the police and courts the powers and support they need to fight crime on our behalf. We are doing that. But that’s only half the equation. The police and the courts can’t do the job on their own.

    The fight against crime – if it is to be successful – must involve us all.

    Parliament can’t solve crime with legislation. Governments can’t solve it just with expenditure.

    Both have a part to play – but it is only a part.

    If we are to have a successful long-term crusade against crime we have to change the general attitude to crime.

    We must end the all too easy tolerance of petty crime – because it breeds an appetite for more serious crime.

    We need to encourage self-discipline. And we need the help of the public.

    Some months ago I said of crime: ‘We must understand a little less, condemn a little more.’

    Some people were outraged. But I wouldn’t change a word of that view.

    If we understand too much we condone.

    If we condone we encourage.

    If we encourage we will not bring down crime.

    In understanding crime you can, literally, kill with kindness.

    Our long-term battle against crime must start in the home.

    We need to teach our children the difference between right and wrong while they’re young. Children need rules. To be shown that life on the right side of the law offers so much more than life on the wrong side. Violence is not a routine part of life. And it should never be portrayed on our videos or television screens as if it were.

    We don’t want our children saturated by violence. We want them to grow up appalled by it.

    Madam Chairman, we will not shrink from taking any necessary steps to combat crime.

    In this session of Parliament we will be taking the action you asked for.

    We will be giving the courts the powers they need.

    Cracking down on arrogant criminals who ask for bail, get it and then commit crime all over again.

    We will be extending the maximum penalties for drunk and dangerous driving.

    And we will let courts take previous convictions into account when passing sentence.

    Madam Chairman, that is just the beginning of the changes to come.

    Next year Michael Howard will make the battle against crime the centre-piece of our legislation.

    We’ll be acting on criminal justice.

    And we’ll be acting to strengthen and to modernise the police.

    We will be developing new institutions for young offenders – so that they’re where they belong – off the streets.

    We will be tackling those so-called ravers, squatters and new age travellers, who treat other people’s property as if it were the municipal rubbish dump.

    And, yes, we will be clamping down more comprehensively than ever before on fraud in the social security system.

    If there are to be cuts in expenditure, let the first cut be fraud.

    We will also reform the police. We have the men and women we need – but all too often they are having to spend time sitting in offices filling in forms.

    We want them out of offices, catching those who have form. That’s what our new plans are about. That’s what we want.

    And isn’t that what the people of this country want too?

    Madam Chairman, the whole country will agree we need to tackle crime. But they won’t all agree about tackling some of the other problems in front of us.

    I know what many of our supporters are saying. ‘Why can’t they leave well alone? Why are they always changing things?’ I understand that. No one likes change for its own sake.

    That’s normal; that’s Conservative. It’s an everyday instinct.

    And it’s my instinct, too.

    But when I see something wrong then, yes, I do want to change it. To change it for the better – and change it for good.

    Continuity and change weave together into the living tradition of modern Conservatism.

    Continuity of institutions is the bedrock upon which we can make changes elsewhere.

    Above all, there is the continuity of the Monarchy.

    Forty years ago this week, the nation celebrated the coronation of our Queen. Millions lined the streets and millions watched on flickering black and white televisions. I know that I did.

    Britain is a constitutional monarchy. And I for one hope and believe it always will be.

    The Church, the State, Parliament – all help provide solid anchors for our way of life.

    So does our language – the richest in the world. So does our evolving way of life in town and village that provides a comforting mixture of the old, the familiar, and the new.

    These are lasting things, living things that evolve and do not change dramatically. And nor would we want them to. Yet, at the same time, we enforce change elsewhere.

    We promote it. We deliver it. But only where necessary.

    Not change for change’s sake.

    Madam Chairman, one area we do need change is education.

    I’ll tell you why. A third of those going on to training courses needed remedial help with English. Two in every five need basic help with numbers to get through their courses. One adult in six has problems with skills which can be tackled by a well-taught 9-year old.

    Yet, Madam Chairman, how can this be?

    How can this be when we are spending more public money per pupil than ever. Half as much again as we spent in 1979?

    Something is clearly wrong.

    Yet that is the reality in some classrooms.

    I don’t regard these bad results just as statistics. They tell us about children who don’t reach their potential.

    About opportunities lost.

    They tell us something too about the effect of lack of discipline.

    About the blind eye turned to truancy.

    Madam Chairman, that does mean change.

    To opt for the quiet life in education would be to accept the second-rate. Frankly, we’re not prepared to do that. For the worm is in the apple. And it’s time to face this problem square on.

    That does not mean we want a battle with teachers. We do not. We want to work with teachers.

    Few jobs carry greater responsibility than that of the teacher.

    The future of our country is shaped in our schools.

    The prospects for millions of lives are determined there.

    The overwhelming majority of teachers are dedicated and able – and we must help them.

    I am determined to see the high professional standing of teachers restored.

    That is why two years ago I gave teachers a Review Body on pay – to emphasise their professionalism and importance.

    I want teachers who are working day after day to help their pupils to know that the Government will support them.

    And I want them to know something else.

    Some of the tests are too bureaucratic. And I want them slimmed down.

    We are going to take some of the burden off their backs. It crept in – and we must remove it.

    There is strong support for a national curriculum in schools. We want to see greater emphasis on the basics. So, I believe, do parents.

    That’s why we must monitor every stage of a child’s progress at school. And that means tests. And that is why we are insisting on the publication, school by school, of exam results, testing scores, and truancy rates.

    Those who want to hide this information are quite wrong. Parents and public have the right to informed choice. They need to be able to judge how their schools are performing. Those performance tables are crucial – and they are here to stay. And in case there be any doubt, let me be crystal clear about some of the things I want to see.

    More attention to the basics of reading, writing and maths for our 5-7 year aids.

    Experienced people who are good with children coming into the profession.

    Children introduced to subject teaching and timetables at an earlier stage.

    And simple pencil and paper tests to find out what each pupil has learned – and what he has not.

    I want to see schools developing pride in the traditions and achievements of Britain – it is nonsense to have a history curriculum that is strong on the Aztecs but doesn’t mention Nelson or Wellington.

    I want to see truancy and absences cut back.

    Homework set and marked.

    Gifted children and those with learning difficulties stretched to their limits. And I want to see teacher training courses concentrating on subject knowledge, with experience of how to teach learnt where it can be learned best – in the schools. And, Madam Chairman, that will be the objective of teacher training reforms which we shall bring forward for next year’s programme for Parliament.

    People say there is too much jargon in education – so let me give you some of my own.

    Knowledge. Discipline. Tables.

    Sums. Dates. Shakespeare.

    British history.

    Standard English. Grammar.

    Spelling. Marks. Tests.

    And, Madam Chairman, good manners – good manners are important for children.

    But children learn by example.

    So good manners are important for headteachers as well.

    Madam Chairman, it won’t be easy.

    Our education reforms were never going to be plain sailing all the way.

    Our goals are clear.

    To put in place a high quality education system.

    To bring the best out of the skills of our teachers.

    To meet the needs of all children, whatever their abilities and wherever they live.

    To be on the side of pupils and parents.

    Nothing – and no-one – will deflect us from that task.

    Madam Chairman, I’ve spoken about the prospects for the economy. The need to control public expenditure. Tackle crime. Continue with our reforms on education.

    All of this falls within a classic Conservative agenda. Whatever we do we need to remember always that at the other end of our policies – are people.

    People with their own ambitions and their own hopes.

    They are not always grand ambitions.

    But we should always remember that a private triumph for a private man is as important to him as a public triumph for a public man.

    Our job is – wherever we can – to help everyone meet their ambitions – not stand in their way.

    But, Madam Chairman, one of the glories of our country is that people’s ambitions are not always for themselves. Often they are for others.

    At the beginning of the year I issued a call for more recognition of voluntary effort. We in government are looking actively at how we can promote and add value to the work that is done. And we have announced already that those who give of themselves for others will gain a more prominent place in our system of honours.

    We are a caring country. That is true of individuals – and it’s also true of industry. We should not forget the great part that British industry plays in voluntary support. There are those who talk glibly of the selfishness of capitalism.

    Frankly they don’t understand it.

    It is high time we heard more about the huge contribution of private enterprise to our national well-being.

    Not just in the goods it produces – or the jobs it creates.

    But in sponsorship, gifts, secondments, administrative help, and joint ventures with private voluntary groups.

    This private sector contribution grows year on year. Capital and charity hand in hand.

    Help worth over £200 million last year from just 216 companies in one survey.

    Giant contributions to health, education, sport and the arts.

    There are some who say news must reflect reality.

    Well, there’s some good news about Britain. Caring people. And caring capitalism.

    That is the reality – it would be nice to hear it in the news.

    Madam Chairman, Britain’s prospects for the future are looking up.

    Our economy is strengthening, our place in Europe secure.

    And as prosperity grows, so too will confidence and trust return.

    A country fashioned by the craft and skills of its people.

    One in which every person feels – heart and soul – that they belong.

    In whose prosperity all have their own personal share.

    People ask what we stand for. That, Madam Chairman – that is what we stand for.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 14 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1993 Scottish Conservative Party Conference, held on 14th May 1993 in Edinburgh.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, I’ve not come to this conference to talk just about Scotland. I’ve come to the Conservative and Unionist Party to talk about the whole of the United Kingdom. I hear you had some singing as well as some talking this week: the Secretary of State sang to you; Lord Sanderson sang to you, and this evening there’s a band in this hall – but you’re spared, I promise you. The last time we met was before the General Election. Do you remember? The Conservative Party? No chance, they said. Scotland? You’ll be wiped out, they said. The Union? A lost cause, they said. How wrong they were. Mr President, we stuck to our guns; we stood by our principles; we saw it through, and against all the wise men’s odds we won when the votes were counted. Aberdeen South from Labour. Kincardine from the Liberals. We won seats in Scotland and we won power right across Britain, thanks to you, the work that you did, the leadership that you gave here in Scotland. We proved faint hearts wrong. I’d like to say tonight how much we owe to Russell Sanderson, for on one worked harder than him to bring about victory. He’s been a tower of strength in Scottish politics for almost as long as any of us can remember. A very trusted friend, and a very wise owl, indeed. Russell, we owe you a very great deal and we’ll miss you. But bless you for all you’ve done. But we’re fortunate in Scotland: in Micky Hurst we have a worthy successor. A tough campaigner, a fighter, an old friend: just the man we need in 1993. A very welcome appointment. I offer my best wishes for the future.

    At the Election our opponents got quite a lot of things disastrously wrong. One of them of course was Galloway and Upper Nidsdale. How confident they were! It was all in the bag: they were measuring the office for curtains for a new Nationalist Member of Parliament. But they don’t need that office, and it was curtains of a different sort for the SNP. And, today, you can fit all the SNP Members of Parliament into a telephone box. Appropriate, really. The number they required was unobtainable and they had trouble getting through. They should have asked: I would have told them. Ian Lang’s a good operator and he reversed their charges. lan, you’re leading a renaissance of Conservatism in Scotland. It started with the General Election. It went on at the District Council elections. It’ll continue right the way through this Parliament. And I will tell you the next target for lan’s winning team: more Conservative gains in next year’s European elections.

    So, Mr President, we Conservatives know all about fight-backs, and today, once more, we’re coming out fighting: fighting for what we believe in. Mr President, we are not going to change our objectives. We are going to do what the Conservative Party has always done: the right thing at the right time for our country. That is the way to carry the British people with us. This is a five-year Parliament. Last week, at the end of the first year we had a serious setback. There’s no point in fudging the issues. The local election results across England and Wales were bad: worse than we thought they’d be; and, so, too, was the by-election at Newbury. We shouldn’t ignore that, but neither should we over-react to that. We’ve been here, before, you and I. And this time there are four years to the next Election. Four years to take through our programme of modernising Britain and building up its strengths. We don’t have a large majority, at present, so we cannot always grandly sail ahead oblivious to all. We may have to tack a little here, manoeuvre a little there. That’s politics. We can’t ignore the Parliamentary arithmetic. That would be plain stupid. But we cannot, and will not hold back from our objectives. So don’t expect a bland, Parliamentary programme: there’ll be red meat aplenty, and don’t expect us to shrink from controversial decisions because we won’t do that in the year ahead.

    We won’t be Nationalists, Liberal, Labour by imitating them – pale pink and poisonous as they are. I mean, of course, the policies. We are Conservatives. We must think like Conservatives. We must act like Conservatives. And we’ll win by carrying out policies that are distinctively Conservative. Conservatives are rooted deep in every part of the country. Draw on that strength.

    Let’s tackle first the problems people fear most: inflation, unemployment, crime, but there are other reasons why people look to the Conservative Party: for strong and modern industry; for better public services; for lower income tax; getting the state off people’s backs; wider ownership of homes, of shares, of pensions. A solid, sound schooling for the young, and yes, devolution, Conservative devolution: devolution of choice to every family throughout the United Kingdom. Mr President, that’s the modern Tory agenda. My agenda, your agenda, the agenda we will win on right the way through this Parliament. And I’ll you how we’ll do it: by remembering who we serve and what we stand for. By seeing the right policies through. Mr President, we’re at a turning point after a time of great difficulty for our country. We have had a war; a recession; a tough General Election; and international events have crowded and during this time there have been three matters that have dominated my concern. The first was to get inflation down and keep it down. That is the only way to bring down unemployment and create jobs. We forget too easily the fear and uncertainty of rising prices. The second was to put our country where it can play a leading role in shaping European policy. We must shape it and not be shaped by it. I don’t want to see Britain sidelined and dragged along behind the ambitions of others.

    And the third concerns the very future of the United Kingdom: a threat too little recognised before the last General Election. We had to waken our fellow countrymen to the scale of the danger and then face it down. Mr President, cutting inflation has meant hardship for many people. They want to know why and they deserve to know why, so let me explain. For many, the 1980s was a time of prosperity: Conservative governments brought home ownership within reach of millions who’d never expected to enjoy it. We all became too confident. We took our eye off the ball. We allowed inflation to creep back. People who’d worked hard, who’d borrowed money to start businesses or buy houses were caught up in it. Inflation had to be brought back under control. We had to do it. Left unchecked, it would have threatened everything that we had worked so hard to create. Doing that meant higher interest rates, higher unemployment, it lead to bankruptcies and home repossessions. I would have given all I had to avoid it, but if we hadn’t done it, people would have suffered all those things and we would still have had the inflation. That is the heart of the matter. All our hopes for the future depended upon the conquest of inflation. It was a huge responsibility and a huge challenge. It took determination. It took skill. It took guts, and Norman Lamont has shown he has all three in the difficult months through which he has come.

    But curbing inflation is only the first, the first, but indispensable step to recovery and growth. Since the General Election the fight for recovery has gone on, but people’s patience, even British patience is not unlimited. They have been hurt out there, they are reacting, and although we can see that recovery is underway, it isn’t obvious in the pay packet, it isn’t obvious in the Job Centre – not yet, but it will be. Mr President, the recovery has started. It is soundly based. Inflation is under control and we are going to keep it that way. No more boom and no more bust. We’re going for steady, non-inflationary growth. The British people have earned it and this Government are going to deliver it.

    Mr President, the second issue I faced when I became Prime Minister was a troubled relationship with our partners in Europe. Let’s be frank: we have an ambivalent attitude to the European Community: as a nation we don’t love Europe. We’re too British: too Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish for that. But we know its importance to us. We know our prosperity depends upon it. We, in this Party, want more cooperation in Europe between freely trading sovereign states. That’s what we’ve been fighting for these last two years. The kind that has led to hundreds of millions of pounds of inward investment pouring into Scotland: nearly one hundred thousand jobs depend upon that. And Britain’s hard, economic self-interest depends on having influence in Europe; on winning arguments in Europe; on building alliances in a Europe we can live with and be comfortable with. Mr President, you cannot build such a Europe if you denounce it daily; mis-represent it hourly; and poke suspiciously at it by the minute.

    It’s easy to play ‘John Bull’ in a china shop: attractive even. There is popularity to be gained by it, but it is not in our long-term interests as a nation to do that. If we cut ourselves adrift from the mainstream arguments about Europe, we would soon be sidelined, and five years from now the bitter, hardest of that short-term policy would be found in collapsing exports; in collapsing prospects; in collapsing companies, and in growing unemployment queues from one end of the United Kingdom to the other. There are great issues at stake: open Europe markets are vital for Britain; inward investment is vital for Britain. I am out to win both. I will do nothing that will put them at risk; I will do everything I can that will help to make Britain grow. Some of you may feel that we’ve heard rather a lot about principled opposition to Europe. I want to hear more in the future about principled support for Europe. Those, like me, who want Britain in the centre of European debate are not crying out for a federal state; not seeking to end a thousand years of British history; not seeking to undermine the essential individuality of our island. We are seeking a wider Europe, a Europe with less bureaucracy and without federalism. I know of no Conservative Member of Parliament who cannot support that sort of Europe, and I believe that vision is shared by almost everyone in this country and in this party. So let us put the arguments behind us – better to battle together, better for Britain, better for our Party and better for our future.

    The final great issue that faced us when I took office was the very maintenance of a United Kingdom. No other Party but the Conservative Party was going to fight for it, and I was determined, come what may, that we should. Some said the strategy was crazy, but you in the Party in Scotland, you never had any doubts. The Union was our great cause, and I spoke about the Union in every meeting I went to from the Tamar to the Tay. England needs Scotland, every bit as much as Scotland needs England. The United Kingdom is united, today, for one reason above all because the Conservative and Unionist Party won the last General Election. Mr President, we chose to put the Union right at the heart of our Election campaign. We spoke of the historic choice that faced our nation between a united and prosperous Britain, a force for good in the world, or the path to separatism, the path to disintegration and insularity. And we spoke about the Union, about our long history and achievements together, we spoke from the heart. We said the right thing at the right time for our country. It was instinctive and it was heartfelt, and the people responded. Mr President, for me, that was perhaps the sweetest victory of all in April of last year.

    But, now, now we must build on that victory. The separatist tide was turned but it’s not yet beaten. And that’s why Ian Lang’s proposals to bring the Union alive are so important: the will improve Government in Scotland; they will give Scottish people a stronger say. They mean change, yes, but we are changing to preserve the Union, and let me make this prediction: some time in the future we will look back at the last Election and say this: that was the moment of greatest danger to the Union, and that was the moment the Scottish people spoke up for it and saved it.

    Mr President, on these great issues we’re now winning through. It would have been easy to give up but we didn’t. And we won’t give up on our reforms in health, education, railways and public services; despite difficulties and setbacks, we intend to carry them forward. We had no intention of giving up – give over, I would say to those who think we might give up. Mr President, I know that some people say from time to time we’ve spent the whole year talking about Maastricht. Sometimes it feels like that to me, as well, but the truth is, we haven’t. During this last twelve months we put a series of radical, reforming Bills to Parliament: the Housing Bill, an Asylum Bill, a Lotteries Bill, an Education Bill, an Employment Bill – all key Conservative measures, all solid Tory objectives, and all in the first session of Parliament.

    That’s what Conservative governments are for: to extend choice to parents, to extend freedoms to trade union members, to give new rights to tenants, more opportunities to people to own their own homes, more chance for parents to know how their children are doing at school, and that is what we have been doing in the past year. And not a lot of people know that, but it is a massive programme of reform that we have carried through Parliament in the last twelve months. Mr President, these policies are building choice in every city, in every town and every village. Choice is power. We are taking choice away from Government and giving power back to the people. That is where power belongs. I want to see minimum control by Whitehall and maximum choice for every family. All this has been rolling forward: radical changes, far-reaching changes, stretching out and reaching forward to the year 2000. Mr President, there are ancient echoes in all of us that whisper: we’ve done enough. We should now opt for the quiet life. It sounds tempting. But if you start down that road, you soon bump up against a hard fact, and it’s this: unless we face up to change, change will overwhelm us. Year by year, all around the world, the pace of discovery quickens. We cannot just stop the world and get off. Mr President, it’s when the Conservative Party is on the side of reform that we win. That’s when we prosper. We Conservatives must have the confidence to go forward; confidence to test the market; confidence to trust the people: that is our duty, that is our strength, and that is our programme.

    So, let us keep our eyes on the bigger picture; on the key challenges of the next four years. And let me share with you some of my own priorities and the direction in which we must go. I’ve spoken already about some of the key themes, but there are other fundamental issues that demand to be heard. We must build a stronger, manufacturing base. We must take regulation off industry’s back – large industry and small industry. We must make public services truly serve the people’s needs. And we must provide the best possible education in all our schools. And, Mr President, critical to millions of people in this country, we must win the war against crime.

    It is upon these issues that we will take our stand. They will dominate our thinking and our law-making, so expect action on deregulation, expect action on education, and expect action on law and order right at the very heart of what we do. Ken Clarke’s package, yesterday, was just an instalment, so we will have a full programme and a busy autumn. Mr President, unless British industry is competitive abroad, Britain will be weak at home. We have to get the basics right for business: inflation, interest rates, tax, they’re all uniquely favourable to British industry today. Exporters haven’t seen a combination like that for very nearly forty years. The signs are right. Manufacturing output is up; investment is up; productivity is up: excellent signs, every one. Retail sales; construction orders; car sales – all of them are up – all very good signs. And Scotland – Scotland is leading the way: another very good sign, not least with whisky exports – Scotland’s liquid gold: rivers and rivers of scotch pouring down foreign throats. And not only foreign throats! I cannot tell you how much I’ve been looking forward to this part of the speech. That’s the way to get overseas businessmen to sign. And look at that – Ian Lang smiling, as well! That’s another sign: a Scottish sign, a marvellous sign, an Auld Lang sign! I know, Mr President, the joke was awful, but the whisky was great.

    And the future looks good: we’ve turned the corner. But for British industry the challenge is still enormous. For them to succeed they need a workforce with skills and with imagination. It’s they who’ll carve out success for Britain. So our children must be taught the skills they need. That’s why we need the basics at the very beginning of schooling. It’s why we need good, vocational education. Why we need proper information on how children are doing. And, yes, Mr President, that’s why we need tests in schools, as well. Mr President, we might as well face the truth, only quality will win in today’s world. As a small boy, I grew up like many of you, I suspect, looking at a map covered in pink with a huge British Empire spanning the world. Like many people I’m nostalgic about that. I wish the world was still a captive market for British exports, but it isn’t. And it’s no good our dreaming that it is and pretending that things haven’t changed. Our businessmen have to operate in the most competitive world we’ve ever seen, and so we must give those businessmen every bit of help that we can. And that’s why this Government must be, and I promise you it will be, right out there in the thick of the fight, right out there alongside British industry – manufacturing matters. And, Mr President, wherever I travel around the world I’ll tell you what I want to find. I want to find goods with that magic label, ‘Made in Britain’, all around the world. We’re going to win in the export markets of the world, and to those who said that Scotland can’t play its part in that, I say: this is James Watt country, Baird country, McLaren country, Bell country – doers. Doers who took destiny by the scruff of the neck and changed it. And it’s the country of Adam Smith, the arch priest of enterprise and choice. So, I make you this promise, here in Scotland, and where better, we’re not going to let tin-pot regulators who can’t see beyond their office door tie down the genius of a nation.

    Mr President, choice: choice is central to Conservatism, It is its very heart. Without choice there is no freedom. Without choice there is no achievement. It is a basic fact of human nature. When people choose of their own free-will, they become committed. They don’t just stick to the contract. They give that little bit extra. They become inventive. They make things happen. That’s the spirit we want, and not least in our public services. And, so, since the Election, look what has happened in some public services. In Scotland’s health service: not just the seventeen new trusts, but much more besides. Look what Scotland’s hospitals are achieving: better patient care; shorter waiting times; tough targets exceeded. That is the power of choice at work, today, in Scotland. And when others abroad were beginning to write about re-inventing government, we, in Britain, were putting it into practice. That is what the Citizen’s Charter is all about. The most far-reaching programme for raising standards in public service ever seen. Some said it was irrelevant. The cocktails grenadiers sniped and sneered, but then they don’t rely on public services. But millions and millions of British people do. And what has happened in these last two years? Real changes – real changes enhancing real lives, the time taken to deal with pension claims cut by a third; every hospital eliminating waiting lists of two years or more; ninety-five percent of Scotland’s parents now getting their children into their first-choice primary school, and every parent in Britain receiving an annual report on their child’s progress in schools. Some people always took such things for granted, but not everyone. And now the Charter’s opening out old narrow privilege. It’s making first-rate service a natural expectation of everyone. So here’s a slogan for Whitehall: competition reaches the parts of the civil service that memoranda cannot reach! We are changing the age-old practices of the public sector: making pay relate to how good they are, not how long they’ve been doing the job; giving the private sector the chance to compete. Mr President, we are still only at the beginning. Over time, there will be no part of the public service that will not be touched by these changes: from the dustman at your door, right up to the office of the Cabinet Secretary himself. And, I daresay, he’ll soon be asking my Private Secretary precisely what I mean by that. I’ll be very surprised if he doesn’t!

    Mr President, I want now to turn to another matter of huge concern. And let me say this right at the outset: I refuse to accept there is nothing to do about crime, and I’m not going to turn my back on what I know is a growing worry for millions of people. The great majority of decent British people know it’s the duty of everyone to uphold the law: no ‘ifs’, no ‘buts’. But I’m afraid there are a far too many who do ‘if’ and ‘but’. Who do criticise the police. Who do devote their energies to explaining crime and justifying it. And there are those who boost the self-esteem of young criminals by giving them the chance to swagger on television and radio. To them I would say: just think. Just think, then stop, That way you can play a part in this country’s fight against crime. Mr President, I don’t underestimate the challenge. There is a huge battle ahead, and it involves all of us. If we fail to teach children the difference between right and wrong, we are fostering crime. If we turn away or close the curtains, we are helping crime. If know what others have done and don’t say ‘no’ but say nothing, we are aiding crime. The police and Government, we will do all we can, but we cannot do it all. We are on the side of the public, but we need the help of the public. Society may not be to blame for crime, but it can certainly play its part in clearing it off our streets. I’ve been encouraged by the recent figures in Scotland showing a downturn in many types of crime. But Peter Fraser made it clear to you this afternoon, that we are far from complacent. We are putting more police on the beat. We are clamping down on late-night drinking, and we are reviewing Scotland’s criminal justice system to see how it can be improved further. Many of you will have been here at this conference all day, so let me say this, to ‘Judy of Edinburgh’ who spoke so eloquently and so bravely in this debate this afternoon, I heard what you said in that remarkable speech. Not only did I hear what you said, I got the message, and so have the whole Cabinet. Judy, you didn’t just speak for yourself. I believe you spoke for the whole country in what you said this afternoon.

    South of the border, we’ve been busy, too. There are too many young criminals offending and re-offending, and laughing while they do it. So, we’re giving the police and courts the powers they need to deal with them. There are too many people who’ve been committing new crimes while out on bail, so we’re going to crack down on them, as well. They will face stiffer sentences and, in my judgment, quite right too. And on too many occasions we’ve seen pedestrians killed by drunken or dangerous drivers, so we’ll be doubling the maximum sentence for them. And we’re removing artificial restrictions on the English and Welsh courts. They’ve resulted in some absurd sentences recently, and they’ve prevented magistrates from giving people with long criminal records the punishment that fits their crime. Mr President, that is wrong. I am not having policy driven by the size of the prison population. I am having policy driven by the safety of the population at large. And another thing, Mr President, we want our police to use their time as efficiently as they can. We want to help them do the job they want to do: beating crime. We don’t train, and equip and pay our police filling out forms. I don’t want policemen fighting paper on their desks: I want them fighting crime on the streets.

    Mr President, we are in the midst of a decade that will see greater change than any decade, even the most venerable person in this hall will have lived through. Change is accelerating, not just in this country, but in countries all around the world: inventions we’ve never dreamed of; social and other problems we’ve never yet faced lie not very far ahead of us. If ever there was a time when governments had to take a long view rather than a short view, you and I, today, are living through that time. We cannot afford just to cast our eyes on the problems of tomorrow, next week, or even next year. We have to stop and think and plan; and often take decisions that may seem strange, today, but are geared at the problems or the opportunities that we can see five or ten years ahead. It seems a long way away, the next millennium. It isn’t. It’s eighty months away. We need to start preparing for it now; thinking for it now; planning for it now; putting our industry and our nation in a position to compete for it in the most competitive world we’ve ever seen, Those are the matters that crowd on in governments, on Ministers, quite apart from the day-to-day problems that one reads about day-to-day in the morning newspapers and watches day-to-day on television.

    We need to stand back sometimes and re-assess where we are, where we’ve come from and where we need to be. I joined the Conservative Party, above all, for one reason: because I believed it had the clearest philosophy and the clearest instinctive ‘feel’ for the ambitions and hopes and dreams of individual people of any political party in this country; and it had a history that was unique. No other political party in any part of Europe, in any part of the world, has served so long, so well, so often in government for its nation.

    We are a remarkable political party: the most formidable fighting force when roused that western politics has ever seen. We have had our good days and our bad days; our highs and our lows; our opportunities and our difficulties, but it is in that unity, that philosophical unity of belief, that instinctive feel for what our nation is and what it wants that Conservatives draw their greatest strengths. It is at times of difficulties that they go back to those ancient instincts, draw out that strength again, and prepare for the years ahead. We’re a party that thinks beyond one generation. We can afford to do so. We were governing this nation long before the Labour party was ever a nightmare in anyone’s mind. And we’ll be governing it long after they’re dead and gone as a political party, provided – provided we maintain that instinctive connection with the cares, the concerns, the hopes and the aspirations of the British nation. That is the genius of our party. That is the genius, I suspect, that drew all of those, however we may have thought of it, in this great party, and kept us here through the years,

    So, let us put aside temporary problems and temporary difficulties. Let us keep our eye on the far distance as well as the near future. Let us plan not just for what we’ll be doing tomorrow or next year, but for the sort of society we want our children and our grandchildren to grow up in. That is what I ask this party of ours to do, both today and in the future. So, at the moment, after recent difficulties, we are fighting back at this conference. Fighting back for our ideals, fighting for what we believe in. Fighting for what brought us in to the party and what will keep us bound in this party, even in the most difficult of days. We have been through tough times, tough for this party, more important, perhaps, tough for millions of people across the land. But at the last General Election those millions of people supported us: fourteen and a half million more votes than any political party had ever received at any Election in this country, and they did so because we set out simply and clearly what we stood for and what we were doing. We set out where we were going and why we wanted to go. And from one end of the country to another they listened. We touched a chord in their instincts. They trusted us to do what was right for Britain and to see it through.

    Mr President, that is what Conservatism is about – your Conservatism, my Conservatism – to offer a fuller life; to stand up for Britain; to keep our United Kingdom whole and strong. Today, I sought to spell out where we stand and what our policies are. Our ambitions are, as they ever were, the ambitions of millions: to build a prosperous Britain. A Britain which sends its goods to every part of the world; a Britain where people feel safe on our streets, and secure in their homes. A United Kingdom, where effort is rewarded, where choice is ‘king’ and where everyone has the chance to succeed. Mr President, that’s the Britain that I want, and that is the Britain that we are fighting to build, and I invite you all to join me in that fight.

  • PMQT – 13 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Congdon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

    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. Congdon : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the levels of compensation paid out under the citizen’s charter demonstrate its effectiveness? Does he further agree that the moves to agency status and contracting out are the best way of achieving value for money? Does he also agree that it is not surprising that all those measures have been resisted by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : As to the last part of my hon. Friend’s question, I am unsurprised.

    Paying compensation is popular with those who use public services. I also believe that it is right that compensation should be paid when service is bad. It provides a satisfactory discipline on the public services. As regards contracting out, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It has brought great benefits both to those who use public services and, critically, to those who pay for public services.

    Mr. John Smith : Since the opposition of the whole teaching profession to the imposition of tests this year has been reinforced by the overwhelming vote by members of the National Union of Teachers in favour of a boycott, will the Prime Minister now do the sensible thing and suspend compulsory tests this year?

    The Prime Minister : I was very sad this morning to see the result of the vote by the National Union of Teachers, which was the only teacher association not to welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on Tuesday. A lot of people will be asking whether that union really supports the principle of regular testing in our schools or whether another agenda concerns it. I very much trust that the NUT will reflect on what my right hon. Friend said.

    Mr. Smith : As the Secretary of State for Education was forced to concede that there were flaws in the tests, which is why he climbed down about next year, why on earth is the Prime Minister forcing children to take the tests this year?

    The Prime Minister : What should be called off are the unprofessional and utterly futile boycott threats. Teachers should do what the majority of parents want–co-operate in helping to make the tests work this year and in future years.

    On the second point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, he will recall that he has asked me that before. Ron Dearing has made it absolutely clear that he needs the experience of this year’s tests to redesign them satisfactorily for the future.

    Mr. Smith : As there is overwhelming opposition to compulsory tests this year, from parents as well as teachers and governors, why does the Prime Minister not show a glimmer of common sense and end the farce now? If he is not listening to parents and teachers, whom is he listening to? Does he not understand that to be so foolishly stubborn is a sign of weakness and not of strength?

    The Prime Minister : It is common sense to proceed with tests so that we can correct them and get them right in the future. Testing in schools is vital to measure the progress of the pupils concerned. The Opposition may wriggle, but that happens to be the reality. I hope that even, at this late stage, teachers will realise the importance to pupils of having these tests, the importance to the reform of testing of having those tests and the importance to the dignity of the profession of teaching in not proceeding with industrial action at the expense of schools.

    Mr. Gorst : Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Conservative Government came to office in 1979 membership of trade unions has fallen by 28 per cent? Will my right hon. Friend say whether he believes this is due to their being a growing anachronism, badly led, or merely because of their limpet-like, hand-in-glove connection with the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly not inclined to disagree with any of my hon. Friend’s points. Trade union membership does continue to decline and is substantially lower than it was a decade or so ago. I notice that many of the unions still sponsor right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench and resist suggestions that they should abandon the out- dated block vote in favour of one member, one vote. It is a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune, and on this, too, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is wriggling.

     

    Q2. Mr. Burden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Burden : The Prime Minister will probably have heard that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that he regrets “that inflation got out of control at the end of the 1980s.” Would the Prime Minister care to enlighten the House as to what jobs he was doing at the end of the 1980s?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had cared to research very carefully, he would have known that we have made it clear on a number of occasions that after the 1987 stock exchange crash we reduced interest rates faster than, with hindsight, we thought was correct, and that contributed to inflation. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, at that time, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) both invited us to cut interest rates further and faster and that that would have put inflation up even more. The hon. Gentleman should do his research more accurately.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jessel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Jessel : As the economy and business confidence have, under the Conservative Government, begun to improve–especially since Britain left the exchange rate mechanism–will my right hon. Friend give further support to business confidence by making it clear that the United Kingdom will not return to fixed exchange rates?

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, and as I made clear earlier this year, we will not consider rejoining the ERM before important conditions have been met, in particular the requirement that German and United Kingdom monetary policies must be much more closely aligned before we can begin to consider whether it would be appropriate for Britain to rejoin. Clearly those conditions are unlikely to be satisfied soon.

     

    Q4. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Barnes : Some people still believe in the ultimate objective of a multi-ethnic democratic society, with full minority rights, for the former Yugoslavia. Included among them are many of the people of Yugoslavia who bravely stand out against violence and intimidation. Why do we not listen to some of their ideas for the extension of safe havens and United Nations border controls? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not everyone in Yugoslavia is a supporter of paramilitarism and war lords?

    The Prime Minister : We have indicated on a number of occasions in the House the way in which we think it is right for us to proceed at the moment. We have made that clear and we have said that we believe that it is right to continue to pursue a political settlement, without which no settlement can stick in the long term even though perhaps for a short while it might be held. We have made it clear that we believe that it is right to proceed with sanctions, and we have not ruled out the use of force, should that prove necessary, in selected circumstances.

     

    Q5. Mr. Alan Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that as economic growth strengthens and as our improved competitiveness, particularly in manufacturing, makes its impact, that will increasingly be appreciated by the voters, who will also note the nature of the Opposition parties–one inextricably tied to the big unions and big bureaucracy and the other without roots and no more than the scavengers of British politics?

    The Prime Minister : Things have certainly been difficult for many companies and people throughout the recession. I understand that and have acknowledged it on a number of occasions. I believe that as recovery comes through, many of those people will see that it would not have come through unless we had taken the right decisions to get inflation down and keep it down for the future.

    We can now see that manufacturing output is turning up, that manufacturing productivity is at record levels, that exports of manufactures are at record levels and that, according to the Confederation of British Industry, optimism in manufacturing industry has reached a 10-year high. They are very welcome signs. We are clearly coming out of recession in the right circumstances for sustained growth over a long period.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown : When the right hon. Gentleman took the decision to withhold the helicopter carrier order from Swan Hunter Shipbuilders, he will have known that he was bringing shipbuilding on Tyneside to an end, so he will not be surprised to learn that at 1 o’clock today Swan Hunter called in the receivers and 6,000 people are now to lose their jobs on Tyneside. Will the Prime Minister help my constituents by telling them where they will find alternative work?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Gentleman knows that, of the two tenders submitted, that submitted by VSEL at Barrow was many tens of millions of pounds below the tender submitted by Swan Hunter. I understand the difficulties faced by Swan Hunter and, because I know of those difficulties, I agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to bring forward that tender earlier than we would otherwise have done to see whether Swan Hunter could satisfactorily win the tender in open competition. I regret that it did not, but I am not in a position to reject a tender many tens of millions of pounds below that of the alternative tender. The answer to the substantive second part of the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary question is that it is precisely because we are concerned about the employment prospects on Tyneside that we yesterday announced a range of measures to help, including a new enterprise zone, a new English Estates development in conjunction with the city council and the development corporation, more services from the Tyneside training and enterprise council and employment services, confirmation that Newcastle and South Tyneside will remain a development area, and extra resources for the Tyne and Wear development corporation for industrial sites.

    I invite Opposition Members who scoffed when I mentioned the enterprise zone to look at other parts of the country that have faced similar difficulties in the past to see how effective that has been. They might, for example, recall the great difficulties at Shotton 10 years ago. If they go back to Shotton today, they will find a modern estate with high-paid, permanent, high-tech, secure jobs for just as many people as once worked in the steel industry there.

     

    Q6. Mr. Ancram : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Ancram : Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as the optimism to which he referred in yesterday’s CBI survey, there are also real indications of growth and increased investment in most of the regions of the United Kingdom, including the south-west? Given that after three hard years of recession most people in my constituency, and elsewhere, want to see real, tangible proof of recovery, as well as promises of recovery, does my right hon. Friend welcome the report as a true indication of recovery which even Opposition Members cannot deny?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I do welcome the report and I hope that that encouraging trend will continue in the months ahead. It is encouraging that businesses right across the country themselves expect to grow strongly in the months immediately ahead of us–in the south-west, certainly, but also in the south-east, the midlands and right across the land. What we in the House all want, I think, without exception, is to see that growth translated into jobs and into money in the family pay packet.

     

    Q7. Mr. Malcolm Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Bruce : Does the Prime Minister accept that the campaign by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to transfer payments from post offices to banks is totally inimical to the interests of those who live in rural communities? Will he ask the Secretary of State to call off that campaign? Does he further recognise that the privatisation of the Post Office will damage rural post offices and delivery services? Rather than postpone privatisation, will he now abandon it?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) last week, I believe, we have made no such proposals. Our policy is to encourage people to receive benefits via their accounts while maintaining a viable network of post office outlets.

  • PMQT – 4 May 1993

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Smith : Will the Prime Minister comment on the views of the European Commission’s chief legal adviser that the so-called Danish opt- outs from the Maastricht treaty were worthless? Does not that coincide with the views of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who said that

    “it does not alter, either the text on European union, or the obligations taken on by those who ratify the treaty.”–[ Official Report, 30 March 1993 ; Vol. 222, c. 126.]

    Does not the constitutional question now being put to the Danish people remain unchanged?

    The Prime Minister : All that was set out carefully at the time, but I shall reiterate it for the hon. Gentleman. It was made perfectly clear from the start that what was agreed was an interpretation of the treaty, an intergovernmental agreement binding in international law. That was the case, is the case, and has never been in doubt.

     

    Q2. Mr. Booth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Booth : Does my right hon. Friend share the feeling of many Conservative Members that unit fines are not working well? Does he also share the feeling of many of us that the fact that previous convictions cannot adequately be taken into account by the courts is a great shame and will he therefore change the rules so that persistent offenders can be identified by the courts and punished severely?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he shares the concern expressed about some, although not all, aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. He has made it clear that he wants to see amendments and to introduce them as soon as is appropriate. As my hon. Friend may know, my right hon. and learned Friend met the Magistrates Association this morning to decide how best to proceed.

    Mr. John Smith : As there is now overwhelming opposition from parents, teachers, governors and experts to the Government’s insistence on imposing tests on schools this year, why does not the Prime Minister for once admit that he is wrong, do the sensible thing and withdraw the tests for this year?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have exchanged views on that subject before. We believe that it is important to proceed with the tests, not least so that Sir Ron Dearing can draw on that experience, as he has said that he wishes to do, in order to improve the tests. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall frequently calling for this country’s work force to be better trained. Why does he consistently oppose measures designed to bring that about?

    Mr. John Smith : If the tests are so important that the Government are prepared to go well beyond the limits of reason and common sense to impose them, why are private schools, to which many Conservative Members send their children, exempt completely from them?

    The Prime Minister : It is reason and common sense to test pupils. It is reason and common sense to know how well they are doing. It is reason and common sense to have that information so that we can put right the matters that are not being dealt with adequately in those schools at the moment. That is our responsibility in the state sector and that is what my right hon. Friend is seeking to do.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister now answer the question that I put to him? What reason and common sense is there to impose them on the public sector, but to leave the private sector untouched?

    The Prime Minister : We have a direct responsibility for making sure in the public sector that pupils are taught adequately and well. In the private sector the results of the schools have been very good– [Interruption.] –and many of them have their own tests. We have a direct responsibility in the public sector and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the tests, for example, of seven-year-olds, have been successful. They have been good for pupils, good for teachers and good for schools. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would join forces with those who want industrial militancy to end the tests, irrespective of what he has said in the past about having a well-trained work force. Words only from the right hon. and learned Gentleman which he will not back up with action when necessary.

    Sir James Kilfedder : Will the Prime Minister, on behalf of this country, express our deepest sympathy to the people of Sri Lanka following the horrific and callous murder of President Premadasa and many others? Will he express the hope that that and other atrocities will not undermine the stability of that beautiful country, which is an essential member of the Commonwealth?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend sets out views that will be shared widely across the House and the country. It was a particularly brutal and pointless assassination which will have done immense damage to Sri Lanka around the world. I wish the very best of good fortune to the new president in due course and to the Government in restoring stability after that dreadful event.

    Mr. Ashdown : If the House votes to end the opt-out of the social chapter, will the Prime Minister refuse to ratify the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to respond to a hypothetical question– [Interruption.] –to which I have responded on previous occasions. I refer him to my previous answers.

    Mr. Spring : Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that housing repossessions are down 24 per cent. on last year? Does he agree that that is excellent news which bodes well not only for the housing sector but for consumer confidence and for continuing revival in the economy?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, it is excellent news. It is also excellent news that, in the view of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the action by the Government and lenders last year prevented over 50,000 repossessions that would otherwise have taken place. There are now clear signs of recovery in the housing market. That can only be helped by interest rates of 6 per cent. and mortgage rates at their lowest for over 30 years. I believe that that, together with other economic indicators in the last few weeks, point firmly to real recovery.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mike O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : Will the Prime Minister accept the congratulations of many on these Benches that his Government are now in full retreat on his citizens charter for criminals, the Criminal Justice Act 1991? Does he now admit that he got it wrong to pass that law, which restricts the ability of the courts to send to prison people who have committed serious offences– that at a time when crime has doubled and when he has been imposing a freeze on future spending on the police? Will he now accept that his credibility as the leader of the party of law and order is in tatters?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully a few moments ago he would know that I said that I shared the concern about some, but not all, of the aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and we have made it clear that we are prepared to change those. The hon. Gentleman may recall that a great deal of cross-party advice on the 1991 Act was given, not least by many Opposition Members.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly recognised the importance of our manufacturing and construction industries in this country’s economic recovery. Competition is essential, but does my right hon. Friend accept that a level playing field is equally important? Will he state what further steps he and his Government will take to improve the ability of manufacturing and construction to contribute to the recovery of our economy?

    The Prime Minister : I share the view, which has for a long time been expressed by my hon. Friend, about the importance of manufacturing industry. He will know of the remarkable improvement in manufacturing exports over recent months and the remarkable improvement in productivity of manufacturing industry. They are now biting deep with exports into the European market and beyond. My hon. Friend is right about the need to have a level playing field in Europe and beyond. As my hon. Friend will know, that will be improved by the Maastricht treaty.

     

    Q4. Mr. Roy Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the report issued over the weekend that the much-trumpeted decrease in the unemployment figures is little more than a piece of spring cleaning of the figures by officials at the semi-privatised employment and benefit offices? It has been said that falsehood has a perennial spring –would not it be wiser to recognise that Britain’s true unemployment rate is now in the region of 4 million? Is not that a national disgrace? When will the Government take some effective action to put people back to work?

    The Prime Minister : The requirement to put people back to work is felt at least as keenly by Conservative Members as in any other part of the House, which is precisely why we have taken the difficult measures to make it possible to get people back to work in secure jobs. That is why we fail to understand why Opposition Members consistently support matters like the social charter, which would keep people unemployed for a long time.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this weekend the citizens of Gloucestershire were again subjected to an invasion of new age travellers? Is he further aware that the Gloucestershire police have done a first-class job in breaking up the convoys and keeping them on the move? Is there any chance of introducing any legislation or further measures to restrain those unwelcome visitors between now and the summer? They call themselves new age travellers, but in Gloucestershire they are known as new age vermin.

    The Prime Minister : I sympathise strongly with the citizens of Gloucestershire over the trouble that they have faced with new age travellers. I warmly congratulate the police on the action that they have taken. We are examining what further legislative measures can be taken to give the police more powers, but I cannot promise that they will necessarily be introduced before the summer.

     

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

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

    Mr. McWilliam : Is the Prime Minister aware of any group of teachers who have said that they will not either teach or assess their pupils?

    The Prime Minister : That is a question better directed to my right hon. Friend, but I am aware of teachers’ leaders who seem to be encouraging their members to take industrial action against the interests of the pupils of those schools, which I regret.

     

    Aberdeen

    Q6. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Aberdeen in the near future.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Scotland among them.

    Mr. Robertson : If my right hon. Friend is able to visit Aberdeen at the end of the year, will he consider allowing his visit to coincide with the first wave of civil service relocations from the Department of Trade and Industry’s London-based oil and gas division to Aberdeen? Will he consider opening the DTI’s new Aberdeen office, which so vividly demonstrates the Government’s commitment to Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland and the North sea oil and gas industry?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly consider that invitation if it comes to me through the appropriate sources and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating it. The fact that we are opening that office shows that we are committed to expand as and when companies move key functions to Aberdeen. It certainly shows our faith in the future of the North sea industry and the north-east of Scotland. The division will begin moving there in the autumn. I know how welcome that news is to my hon. Friend and how hard he worked to bring it about.

    Mr. Robert Hughes : If the Prime Minister visits Aberdeen, will he recall that the petroleum revenue tax changes he proposes will give large windfall profits to very large companies, but will savagely attack small companies, especially those in the drilling and exploration sector? If he wishes to express his confidence in the North sea, would not it be better to change that to allow people to develop fields and exploration as and when they come?

    The Prime Minister : As it happens, the reform improves the incentives for further development of existing fields and new development of important fields that would have paid tax at 83 per cent. That is good for investment, jobs, Aberdeen, the north-east, Scotland and the United Kingdom.

    Madam Speaker : Order. Time is up. Ten-minute rule Bill, Mr. Anthony Steen. It would be helpful if hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quietly so that we may get on with our business here. I am sure that Mr. Steen is in good voice this afternoon.