The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Health

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Cancer Research UK Event – 2 September 2004

    The text of John Major’s speech at an event for Cancer Research UK, held at the Paris Restaurant, in Woburn, on Thursday 2nd September 2004.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    When Steven Dixon invited, I was delighted to accept. Steven’s parents – Ian and Valerie – were good friends and Ian fought so bravely against the cancer that overwhelmed him.

    And it was such a waste of a man who could – and did – contribute; who made friends and cherished them; who cared about matters beyond his own interests; and who had a loving family – and left much sadness behind him.

    Ian was a vibrant man and someone you don’t forget. A poet once wrote: “no man is gone while his friends remember him”: on that premise, Ian is with us tonight and always will be.

    Cancer has touched nearly everyone. It took my mother-in-law; my brother-in-law; my son-in-law (a young doctor aged only 30), and a very close friend and my brother are being treated for the disease now but with real hope of recovery.

    And that, of course, is the purpose of research: lives can be saved that otherwise would be lost. It is why I’m pleased to be here amongst donors who have given generously to the charity.

    We are making progress – but no room for complacency. Another close friend, a public figure, was diagnosed with a fatal cancer and given 6 months to live. That was 4 years ago: he received treatment overseas where more funds were available and more research done. We need to match that quality of treatment in the UK and that requires money – money is the root of all progress.

    But, everyone here knows that, acts upon it and I need not labour the point.

    Many years ago, there was a financial journalist, Patrick Hutner, who used to argue that “improvement means deterioration”.

    One can see what he meant. Last week, my wife bought two volumes of the letter Elizabeth Barrett wrote to Robert Browning and his replies. Often they wrote twice a day and the letters were delivered the same day. Today – if we’re lucky – first class post takes two days. Likewise, the NHS often falls far short of our expectations.

    So do politics in a grander scale. The League of Nations and the UN were founded to solve international problems and yet they’re as prevalent today as ever. It is ironic that it was the US who effectively founded the UN and yet these days Congress refuses to pay its subscription and the Administration bypasses it when it can.

    Nor – if I may stick to a health theme – have we made the progress we would have hoped to make.

    Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US $2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US $1 per day. I daresay no-one here this afternoon would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee. It is hard to imagine the disparity between the life of even someone on the lowest levels of social support in the developed nations.

    The rich nations do much to help – but not enough: far more is needed. Collectively they spend US$ 50 billion on overseas aid – an enormous sum: but less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone. A statistic that is even more bizarre when you realise such subsidies cut away the possibility of poor nations selling their agricultural produce – often their only export – into developed markets.

    It seems to me that long-term self-interest combines with common humanity to suggest that – if we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well.

    In helping others, surely we help ourselves as well. For, in removing grievances, we cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”.

    Moreover, if we do nothing, the problem will worsen. In the next 25 years, world population will grow from 6 billion to 8 billion. Of the extra 2 billion, 97% will be in that part of the world that has an income below US $2 per day. This is not sustainable if we wish our children to inherit a world free of conflict. Nor is it moral.

    In the 1940s/50s – after a different sort of War – the US launched a plan to deliver aid and rescue Europe from the devastation of that conflict. It was, Winston Churchill said, “the most un-sordid act in history.”

    Not even the wealth of America could do that these days. But, in a world of growing global security – and wealth at a level undreamed of by earlier generations – the developed nations collectively must soon consider another such “un-sordid act”.

    It will come – for it cannot be ignored. The question is when? Too late – and much unnecessary suffering will have been endured. Too late – and there will be little political gain for grudging and delayed humanity.

    But act early, act out of conscience – and not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come, but we will undercut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, are such a threat to international security and prosperity.

    I am conscious that many may say – but you (that is me) could have done more when you had the chance. I agree. I did a certain amount – especially in reducing third world debt – but not enough.

    There are pleas I can make in mitigation – I inherited a recession, there was no money to spare and it was difficult to make the advance we did, I was distracted by squabbles over Europe and squabbles in my Party – but none of these is a sufficient excuse.

    As I look back, I should have done more. I wish I had. But the chance is gone. Now I am an older and wiser man and I hope to persuade my successors to raise their game. The cause is good, the need is very great, and action is imperative.

    Because poverty is not only an evil in itself: it also fuels despair and can be a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. At minimum, it offers a ready ear for those who wish to foster hatred against richer and more developed nations.

    As we look forward, we should assess the political, social and economic long-term problems which will beset us if the rich developed nations continue to get richer, and the undeveloped nations fall yet further behind.

    In some parts of the world, corruption and poverty condemn untold millions to a life of misery and hardship. Some may say: “Well, that’s their problem. Bad Government, bad economic decisions, bad judgements made this problem.” Well, may be – but is it really their problem alone? Hardly. Half the world’s population is under 24: can they be held responsible for the conditions in which they live? Surely not – and, in any event, the world as a whole is having to live with the resentment, bitterness and political hostility that poverty causes amongst those outside the circle of prosperity.

    Much the same argument applies to AIDS.

    There was a time when untutored opinion thought AIDS was a self-inflicted disease that could never affect them. It was, many thought, a problem for other people. How smug that was – and how wrong.

    We know better now.

    To date, 20 million people have died of AIDS and around 40 million more may now have the disease. Of that 40 million, 6 million may be near-death without treatment, and the harsh reality is that the vast majority of them will never get that treatment. They will die without hope and, too often, without comfort or care.

    No part of the world is untouched but the poorer countries bear the greatest burden and have the least resources to cope with it.

    The catalogue of catastrophe unfolds. In Botswana, life expectancy is below 40. In Uganda, one million live with AIDS, and one million have died because of it. In South Africa, one in eight has the virus.

    Many innocent children are infected in the womb or through breastfeeding and are born only to die young; others are orphans having lost both parents to the disease.

    The horror statistics roll on.

    AIDS has many nightmarish qualities, but one in particular that bodes ill for the future. The virus is cunning: the time-lag between infection and full AIDS can be as long as a decade. As a result, nine out of ten sub-Saharan Africans who carry the disease are unaware of it: many with the virus can therefore – unwittingly – infect others and often those they care for most. The implications of that are horrific: imagine how a man or woman must feel knowing they have imposed a slow death sentence on their partner. It beggars understanding: no-one who understands that could fail to be moved by it.

    We live, therefore, in an imperfect world. We cannot expect our Governments to solve all our problems.

    Individual endeavour is important. Sometimes – as in research – it is the most important thing of all.

    We cannot solve all the ills of the world in our time. But we can ease many of them which brings me back to where I started.

    Cancer is one of the great scourges of our time. It induces private terror in those who fear they may have it.

    We owe it to them to do all we can to find a solution: let me end by thanking you all for what you have done (and are doing) to bring this about.

  • Mr Major’s 1996 Conservative Party Conference Speech – 11 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s 1996 Conservative Party Conference speech made on 11th October 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam Chairman, we’ve had a good week.

    It’s been the week the Tory family came together – to renew the family contract with the British nation.

    And through the week, colleague after colleague has set out fresh, detailed, new policy for the future.

    There’ve been some marvellous speeches.

    It’s been 21 years since Michael Heseltine first got a standing ovation at this conference. And no one has sat down since.

    The well-being of our country is more important than any political party.

    And the well-being of the Conservative Party is more important than any member of it.

    So the lesson is clear. Everyone in the Conservative Party should work – and if I know them, will work – heart and soul, irrespective of personal interests, to secure the re-election of a Conservative Government.

    Over the last two or three years there’s been attempt after attempt – by our opponents – to sully the reputation of our Party.

    Well, I know this party.

    No doubt it’s not perfect – nor is everyone in it.

    But I grew up in it.

    And that campaign won’t succeed.

    Because this Party as a whole is straight and honourable and true and – like you – I’m proud to be a member of it.

    Unlike Labour, we aren’t ashamed of our past.

    Unlike Labour, we haven’t abandoned our principles.

    Unlike Labour, we haven’t had to reinvent ourselves. We’re proud of what we’ve achieved.

    Because, Madam Chairman, we’ve changed Britain – for the better.

    ENTERPRISE CENTRE OF EUROPE

    When I became Prime Minister, I set out to make Britain a low inflation economy.

    I knew what a fight it would be.

    But we went for it. We took the flak.

    No weakening. Heads down. We did what we always do when we’re challenged: we came out fighting.

    And, as a result, we’ve had the longest run of low inflation this country has seen for a generation.

    I want to thank my colleagues – and you – my party – for standing with me through that battle. Between us, we’ve transformed the prospects for our country.

    And we did it with raw political gut.

    We set out to create jobs. And we’re succeeding.

    Unemployment is lower here than in any comparable country in Europe.

    In Britain it’s falling.

    In Europe it’s not.

    Last year, this year, and next year we’re set to have higher growth here, in our country, than any big country in Europe.

    Curiously enough, the Labour leader didn’t mention these successes in his flight of fancy last week.

    Pages missing perhaps?

    He just said the country was falling apart.

    Inflation down.

    Mortgages down.

    Unemployment down.

    Some fall.

    Of course, there was a time when this country was falling apart. It was when we had a Labour Government.

    So I’ve got some friendly advice for Mr Blair. If you knock your country, you’ll never lead it.

    The plain truth is I’m the first Prime Minister for generations who can say “We’re the most competitive economy in Europe”.

    And I intend to be the Prime Minister who builds on that success after we’ve won the next General Election.

    Madam Chairman, at that election there’s a central question. It’s this: who can be trusted with the future?

    Labour try to persuade people it’s them.

    “We’re different” they say. “We’ve changed our name”.

    “Rely on us – you know we’ve always been wrong in the past”.

    Well, that’s candid – if a touch eccentric.

    Trouble is, they’re wrong in the present as well.

    And it simply won’t do for Mr Blair to say, “Look, I’m not a Socialist anymore. Now, can I be Prime Minister please?”.

    Sorry Tony. Job’s taken.

    And anyway, it’s too big a task for your first real job.

    Mr Blair’s handlers are trying to spread the tale that he’s a very fierce dog indeed. Indeed, but also that he’s quite harmless.

    Another eccentric messages, “Fierce dog – no teeth!”.

    By the way, have you noticed how the less a politician has to say, the more over-heated the language in which he says it?

    When every aim becomes – “a crusade”.

    Every hope – “a dream”.

    Every priority – “a passion”.

    Then it’s time to duck from cover.

    And when the whole show is laced with words like “tragedy”, “catastrophe”, “triumph” and “destiny” – terms with real meaning, but which, ransacked for political advantage, degrade the message – then I think of Ralph Waldo Emerson: “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.

    BELIEFS

    Madam Chairman, I came into politics to open doors, not shut them.

    They were opened for me.

    I was born in the war.

    My father was 66. My mother was – how shall I put it? Surprised.

    We were like millions of others. Not well off, but comfortable, until financially the roof fell in.

    Nothing special about that.

    But for us, it changed our life.

    My mother coped – as women do.

    I left school at 16, because 5 pounds a week mattered.

    I learnt something from that experience. In the game of life, we Tories should even up the rules.

    Give people opportunity and choice, to open up an avenue of hope in their lives.

    And by “people”, I don’t mean “some people”. I mean everyone.

    Opportunity for all.

    It’s in the bloodstream of our party.

    It was Shaftesbury who gave an education to thousands of children from poor homes.

    It was Disraeli who gave many working men the freedom to vote.

    It was Salisbury who brought free education within the reach of almost every family in England.

    All Tories.

    And it was Margaret Thatcher – another Tory, as you may know, who sold council houses and public industries, giving people a real stake in this country.

    Giving people opportunity marks the great divide in British politics.

    In its heart, Old Labour, New Labour, any old Labour still believe that Government knows best.

    I don’t.

    But then, I’m a Conservative.

    I believe we should give families opportunity and choice and a wider, warmer view of life.

    Our belief in choice is the driving force of our policy – its not a political ploy; for me it’s the core of what I believe in.

    EDUCATION

    I start with education.

    There are millions of children in our country. All unique. Everyone an original: different skills, different talents, different needs.

    Should each child – with all his or her originality – be made to fit into a regimented education system?

    Or should we design an education system to fit the originality of the child?

    We of course we should.

    So our task is to provide a rich choice of schools and colleges, giving the best to every child and demanding the best of every child.

    And who should choose the right schools for those children?

    The Government?

    The bureaucrat in Whitehall?

    The councillor in the Town Hall?

    Or the parents, who love and care for those children?

    Of course it’s the parents.

    Wherever possible, they should choose.

    We’re improving that choice every year.

    And we intend to widen it further.

    So, I make this promise:

    If parents want more grant-maintained schools – they shall have them.

    More specialist schools – we’ll provide them.

    More selection – they’ll have it. Why should government say “no” if parents think it’s right for their children?

    And if parents want grammar schools in every town – so do I, and they shall have them.

    We grammar school boys – and girls, Gillian – believe in choice for parents.

    That means parents shouldn’t face a choice between one bad school and another.

    What kind of choice is that?

    I’ll tell you.

    It’s the kind of choice you get in Islington – unless you move out of the borough.

    We’re going to change that. That’s why this autumn, as Gill Shepherd told you, we’ll turn today’s promises into tomorrow’s reality with a flagship Education Bill.

    We want high standards in every school.

    It’s why we set up the National Curriculum. It’s why we insist on tests.

    Without tests, how can you know what a child hasn’t learned?

    And how can parents be sure how well their children – of their school – are doing?

    When we insisted on giving that information to parents, John Prescott called it “Political Propaganda”.

    Just pause and think about that for a moment. It tells you a lot.

    Information to parents about their children – and the Deputy Leader of New Labour calls it “Political Propaganda”.

    Well, well. If education’s a passion for Labour, it’s a passion that dare not speak its results.

    SPORT

    While on education, I want to say a word about sport.

    Firstly, well done England on Wednesday. More please.

    And well done Scotland. I hear it was no effort at all. But you’d have won anyway.

    Last year, at this conference, I told you of my determination to restore sport, and particularly team sport, to the heart of school life.

    It’s natural and healthy for young people at school to have their sporting heroes and heroines: sportsmen and women whom they can choose as role models.

    So with the enthusiastic help of the Sports Councils, I’m going to set up a team of Sporting Ambassadors – widely drawn from the best role models in sports, our leading athletes, past and present – who’ll visit schools and talk to pupils, teaching staff, school governors and parents, to enthuse and inspire and encourage.

    To work up the scheme, I have asked that legendary England cricketer – that man for all seasons – Sir Colin Cowdrey – to chair a small committee whose members will be drawn from the elite of the sporting and academic worlds. Colin is here today and I want you to thank him for agreeing to do this.

    His committee will announce their conclusions by Christmas, and I intend that the scheme will be up and running in schools in the coming academic year.

    Colin scored nearly 8,000 runs for England. Now he’s going to inspire nearly 8 million boys and girls who might want to play, compete and represent their country.

    I want them to enjoy sport. And they’ll enjoy it more if they play to win.

    Take it from me – winning is fun.

    THE FAMILY

    There are those who believe in the self-before-everyone, grab-what-you-can school of thought. They may find opportunity for all an odd philosophy.

    But it’s ours.

    And for the last 17 years we’ve followed it.

    We’ve cut direct tax, given more and more people the opportunity to save, to own shares, own pensions, own homes.

    More than ever before, we’ve given families more independence and more freedom to choose.

    As a result, millions have become owners of homes, savings, shares and pensions.

    But not enough yet.

    Madam Chairman, in our next 5 years, we will seek new opportunities: an opportunity owning democracy.

    Helping more people save and build security for retirement.

    Helping people who need care keep more of those savings.

    We’re aiming for the least possible tax to give the greatest possible choice.

    As we can afford it, we’ll move to a 20p basic rate for all. That’s our priority.

    We know that cutting taxes isn’t government giving anything back to people.

    It’s the government taking away less of people’s own money.

    That’s why low taxes are right.

    We don’t want to soak the tax payer.

    Labour often say they want to soak the rich.

    But they’re the only party in history who also regularly manage to soak the poor.

    And sometimes no taxes are right. So, to encourage wealth creation for the future, we’ll reduce and then abolish Capital Gains Tax.

    Many people in our country build up savings long after they’ve enough for their own needs.

    One reason they do that is to pass on the fruits of their life’s work to their children and grandchildren.

    This is a powerful, human emotion.

    So, over time, our next target is to remove the burden of inheritance tax.

    Building wealth for the many, not for the few.

    WELFARE

    People treasure independence. Their own independence. The State is the last option, not the first.

    The more independence, the less reliance. The less reliance, the more we can help those in real need.

    There are many demands we must meet.

    Health – as science provides more treatment.

    Social services – as we improve care.

    We’ve always accepted this responsibility.

    But as we accept responsibility, so must people themselves.

    Dependency must be about needs, not culture.

    I can’t stand the welfare cheats. I’ll tell you why. They deprive those in real need.

    We’re determined that taxpayers’ money goes where it’s needed.

    Our task is to build a welfare system for the 21st century.

    A system for a self-help society – not a help-yourself society.

    And one way of building independence is to get more people back to work.

    We’re now doing that on a scale that’s the envy of Europe – partly because we refuse to make political gestures that cost jobs. That’s why I say “No” to the minimum wage and “No” to the Social Chapter.

    The minimum wage is the wage of the dole queue.

    It’s not a wage at all.

    How can you talk of a Social Chapter that makes it more difficult for people to find work.

    That’s why I say they’re no-go areas for jobs and no-go areas for us.

    It’s business not government that creates jobs.

    But government can help the unemployed.

    Last year I announced our plans to develop a Contract For Work.

    This week we Tories took a big step forward with the start of our new Job Seekers Allowance.

    We don’t want to pay people to stay on the dole. We do want to help them get back into work.

    So first we’re going to help those who’ve been out of work the longest. They’re the people for whom the barriers to opportunity are highest.

    First, we give them help to find a job and if that doesn’t succeed, they’ll be offered work on a community project.

    For many it’s just the motivation they need.

    But it also shows up those who don’t want to work. I think that’s right.

    So over the next year we’ll be extending the scheme to towns and cities across the country.

    This is part of building a welfare system we can afford. One that goes with the grain of the British nation. Fair to those in need. And fair to those who pay the bills.

    HEALTH

    Madam Chairman, every year, someone writes to The Times to say he has heard the first cuckoo of spring.

    And every year at the Labour conference, some cuckoo distorts out commitment to the National Health Service.

    Listen.

    Our NHS is unique.

    In this country, when you’re ill, we take your temperature.

    In other countries, they take your credit card. While I’m in Downing Street, that will never happen here.

    That doesn’t mean that National Health Service shouldn’t change. It must. If it were fossilised, it would decline.

    I saw that clearly the other day when Norma and I visited a doctor’s surgery – in Glossop actually.

    The family doctor is the gateway to the Health Service. More people see their doctor than anyone else.

    This was a fundholding practice – part of our reforms – and, in its own small way, an example of the quiet revolution of the NHS.

    Waiting lists have been slashed.

    People no longer have to trek to the district hospital.

    More services were available. Osteopathy, acupuncture, Alexander technique, counselling, nursing, physiotherapy and occupational-therapy posts created. Community Care improved. More money spend on patients, not paperwork.

    Tory policy working for the patient.

    Now, this practice is one of the very best. But that excellent service could be the future everywhere.

    Our task is to make it so.

    And this autumn, Stephen Dorrell will introduce a Bill to do just that – giving family doctors greater freedom to develop local services in their surgeries – creating a new generation of cottage hospitals all over Britain.

    And that’s only half of it. In the Autumn, Stephen will set out our ambitious plans to build the National Health Service for the 21st Century.

    And Labour’s vision? Stuck in the past and stuck in the mud – as usual. They plan to end fundholding.

    What ideological madness. Do you know what that would mean? I learnt in Glossop. It would mean that those new clinical posts, new nurses, new physiotherapists, the new occupational therapist – all these would go.

    New Labour, no new services.

    But, in the NHS we must always try to improve our services.

    So, before the end of this year, we’ll unveil new plans to help mentally ill people followed by new plans to reform social care for children, disabled people and the elderly.

    More practical Tory measures.

    And looking a little further ahead, I still hear too many stories of politically correct absurdities that prevent children being adopted by loving couples who would give them a good home. If that is happening, we should stop it.

    Madam Chairman, for over 17 years, through thick and thin, we Conservatives have found extra money for the NHS.

    It’s become a habit.

    So today, I give you a Health Service Guarantee.

    Our Manifesto pledge that the NHS will get more, over and above inflation, year … on year … on year … on year … on year … through the next Conservative Government.

    LAW AND ORDER

    Earlier this week, Michael Howard set out our new plans to fight crime. But there’s two things I’d like to add.

    Firstly, in a few weeks, we’ll published new plans to deal with younger offenders.

    They’re a real problem.

    We must spot school age children turning to crime and stop them in their tracks early on.

    One theme of our plans will be to make them repair the hurt they’ve done. And we’ll have some new ideas.

    But today, let me tell you of our plans for young tearaways who are out of control.

    We only want them in institutions if it’s really necessary.

    But if they don’t deserve that punishment – severe for young people – they mustn’t think they can offend and get away with it.

    Over the last year, we’ve been testing an electronic way of tagging offenders so we can confine them to their homes, and know that that curfew is being kept.

    It’s worked. We think it will work on younger offenders as well – so, we’ll try that too.

    If we know a young trouble maker is out there, night after night, disturbing the peace and committing crimes, we’ll make sure the courts have the power to order him to stay put. At home – off the streets.

    And the tag around his ankle – that can’t be removed – will raise the alert the moment he tries to go out.

    If he can’t go out on Friday and Saturday nights with his mates it might cool him down a bit. If he can’t watch his football team on Saturday, let me say it plain. That’s his fault. Not mine, not yours, his. And it’s time the buck stopped where the responsibility lies. No-one will miss the hooligan on the terrace.

    And he might just learn the lesson.

    And that will help him – as well as us.

    NORTHERN IRELAND

    Earlier this week, the IRA once spat their hate at the British nation.

    Many good people tell me I shouldn’t bother with Northern Ireland. “No votes in it” they say. Maybe not. But there are lives in it.

    And that’s why I bother.

    I don’t believe Northern Ireland will leave the United Kingdom, nor do I wish it to.

    But I know that there can only be a peace in Northern Ireland if all its citizens – Catholic and Protestant alike – feel their traditions have a welcome place in the United Kingdom. And there will only be peace of mind if we remove the causes that have given rise to so much conflict.

    This is a political task. Grindingly hard, I know. But that is what the multi-party talks are for.

    Progress has been slow – painfully slow. But progress has been made. And there is no other show in town.

    Bombs will not bring Sinn Fein into the talks.

    All they mean is that Sinn Fein has slammed the door on themselves.

    I applaud the way the Loyalists have maintained their ceasefire in the face of the IRA’s provocation. Their political leaders have gained in influence and standing as a result. I urge them to stand firm and not to throw away what they have achieved.

    The IRA’s latest betrayal of Northern Ireland means the demand for decommissioning of illegal arms is justified even more clearly.

    We must have decommissioning in parallel with the talks.

    And so that there’s no hiding place for those arms, missiles and explosives, Paddy Mayhew will introduce legislation into Parliament this autumn to set out how they can be taken out of circulation.

    I want those weapons off the street.

    And I want to remove the false excuses peddled by the men of violence for keeping their weapons. Let us expose these men to the world for what they are.

    I also want to make government in Northern Ireland more accountable and give MPs more responsibility. We have already given the Scottish and Welsh members greater ability to question Ministers.

    This autumn, I shall do the same for Northern Ireland. MPs from there should be able to question the Ministers and scrutinise Government policies directly in the Grand Committee, meeting sometimes in Northern Ireland. I will consult the parties about how best to achieve that.

    The IRA has always believed that Britain can be deflected by terrorism. They’ve always been wrong. And they’re wrong now.

    No-one will take Sinn Fein seriously ever again until they show a serious commitment to end violence for good.

    I believe in the politics of reason – backed by strong law enforcement. I know in the end it will prevail.

    And I promise the people of Northern Ireland this;

    For as long as there is a political breath in my body, I will fight for a secure way of life in Northern Ireland for a settlement fair to all.

    EUROPE AND THE WIDER WORLD

    Earlier this week, Ian Lang, Malcolm Rifkind and Ken Clarke set out exciting new possibilities for Britain as a global trading nation with interests around the world. Wonderful speeches, all of them.

    We have links and influence on every continent.

    We have given birth to a whole family of nations.

    I never forget that as I contemplate our future role in Europe.

    The sharpest element of the European debate is the possibility of a single European Currency.

    We Conservatives are in grown-up politics. We know that where Britain’s national interest is at stake, Britain’s national voice must be heard.

    Over recent days in articles, interviews and in this conference hall on Wednesday, I spelt out why we must play a full part in that debate.

    Madam Chairman, Europe is changing. The only thing that is certain is that it won’t be the same in the future.

    In a few years, Europe will have 26 or 27 members. They’ll be widely different. Many of them will never match the economic performance of the larger European nations.

    So, how do we cope with this?

    We believe Europe must become more flexible and responsive. That the only realistic future is a partnership of nations, not a United States of Europe.

    But some of our partners do see the future of Europe as ever closer political as well as economic integration.

    We don’t believe this is practical. Nor, to be frank, desirable.

    It’s not the Europe we joined and it’s not a Europe we can accept.

    This debate about the future direction of Europe is one of the most critical we have ever engaged in. We need to argue it fiercely but fairly.

    Europe is at a watershed.

    Britain is a great nation. Of course, we must be in Europe. But we are in Europe to help shape it – not to be shaped by it.

    NATION

    Madam Chairman, a buccaneering spirit, gritty resolve, give and take, a conviction that everyone is entitled to the same dignity, courtesy, and esteem because of what they are, not who they are.

    These are some of the values we all share. That’s what makes us a nation. Down the centuries, they have moulded our democracy.

    It’s not a concept of government copied across the world because it’s the oldest. It’s because it’s the best. We treasure it. That’s why we must hold on to it.

    The Union. Parliament. Our voting system. It’s naive to think that radical change would be easy or risk-free.

    And it’s revealing to look at Labour’s plans.

    Their priority would be to gerrymander the British constitution.

    They’ve avid for more parliaments, more assemblies, more regional assemblies.

    Their policy in in chaos. On Scottish referenda, they change sides more often than a windscreen wiper.

    What a message. “Vote Labour – for more politicians, more bureaucrats, more taxes, more regulations, more tampering, more meddling, more authoritarianism”.

    If this is the New Gospel, give me the old religion.

    In less than 1,000 days, Labour would vandalise nearly 1,000 years of British history.

    Once again, they show their true colours.

    Labour are the Party of the State. We are the Party of the Nation.

  • PMQT – 31 January 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend read the remarks by the chairman of Daimler-Benz in Germany, who has warned that he will move his firm out of Germany if the social chapter continues to pile costs on his business? Does not that show that my right hon. Friend’s stand in safeguarding the British opt-out is absolutely right and beneficial to British business? If Daimler-Benz decided to come to this country, would my right hon. Friend welcome it? May I suggest that there are many suitable sites in north-west England?

    The Prime Minister: I did see the remarks by the chairman of Daimler-Benz. I would, of course, be delighted to welcome Daimler-Benz to the United Kingdom, just as we welcomed Honda, Black and Decker, Samsung, Toyota and many others. My hon. Friend may not yet know that a survey today found that job prospects in Britain are better than in any other country in the European Union. Ironically, on this day of all days, socialist Members of the European Parliament, including Labour MEPs, have called for an end to our opt-out of the social chapter. I suggest that they speedily seek an audience with the chairman of Daimler-Benz.

    Mr. Blair: On rail privatisation, does the Prime Minister accept that it is a necessary consequence of setting a guaranteed level of service below the existing levels of service that private operators will have the right and the power to cut existing services, and that he will be powerless to stop it?

    The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, this afternoon, the operators will make it clear that they do not intend to cut services. However, they do intend to exercise their freedom to increase services. Unless one is to sterilise the British rail system in its entirety, they need that flexibility. They will provide additional services and will say so this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman were serious about improving the service, he would not stand in the way of those reforms for his own ideological reasons but would join us in modernising a railway that can and will provide a better service for people in the future.

    Mr. Blair: First, on the point about additional routes that operators are seeking today, will the Prime Minister confirm that those who are making those bids today are wholly owned British Rail subsidiaries, and that that will not bind the private operators? Secondly, if he is so certain that they will keep or increase existing services, why not specify and guarantee that in their contracts?

    The Prime Minister: I made that point in terms of directing the improved services at the times and on the tracks that people want. The right hon. Gentleman might be reassured by what the chairman of Railtrack will also be saying today. He makes it clear that it is on the cards that the operators may want to increase their services still further and want additional track agreements with Railtrack to enable them to do so. It is becoming clear that those interested in running the service are interested, as are the Government, in improving the service and not leaving it in its present inadequate state.

    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman wants to improve the service, but is not it true that, under privatisation so far, some services have been cut, some are to be removed altogether, through ticketing is to be reduced and, today, he cannot even guarantee the existing level of service? In those circumstances is it any wonder that the public would prefer to keep British Rail as a public service, not break it up and sell it up to satisfy some faction in the Tory party?

    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to continue his political campaign against private ownership of British Rail. But he might make himself a little better informed about the existing situation before he begins to spread such scare stories. Under the present nationalised service arrangements, no service is protected–nor was it under any previous Labour Government–and never has been. The passenger service requirements to be unveiled today will, for the first time, underpin minimum contractual guarantees. The service provided will be in two components: the minimum guarantee to ensure that those services cannot be cut and the additional service that the private sector has already indicated that it will run in addition to the minimum guarantee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now look at the reality and stop spreading scare stories.

    Mr. Sims: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the responsibility for both the manner and pace at which the European Union develops lies with the Governments of the member states, individually and collectively, not with the Commission, which is the Union’s servant, not its master?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. I think that there will be a number of members of the European Union at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference who will wish to ensure that the primacy of the European Council itself is enshrined and improved. I do not believe that the United Kingdom will be alone in seeking those particular changes. We all wish to see the European Union develop in a satisfactory way that is compatible with the interests of the people and the nation states across Europe. We have a number of positive proposals to make to that end, and we shall set them out in the weeks ahead.

     

    Q2. Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

    Mr. Clarke: Given that the American Congress and Senate have accepted that there is evidence to confirm the existence of Gulf war syndrome and given that 421 former British service personnel have been identified as suffering in a similar way, does the Prime Minister agree that there is an urgent need for an inquiry? Does he accept that, as those people were willing to give their lives when he asked them, he has a moral responsibility to ensure that such an inquiry takes place?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Medical Research Council has thus far found no evidence of Gulf war syndrome. We have told people who believe that they are suffering from any ailment as a result of the Gulf war to come forward and be examined so that we may determine the position for ourselves. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in the way that he refers to the American Government. I do not believe that they have made the statement that he attributes to them.

     

    Q3. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hendon school in my constituency was the first school in London to become a grant-maintained school? Since then, it has been transformed and is now heavily oversubscribed. Will my right hon. Friend welcome the increased popularity of grant-maintained schools, particularly among the Opposition? Does he agree that it is disgraceful double standards for those who seek to deny others the freedom of choice to then exercise it themselves?

    The Prime Minister: I think that we all look forward to the day when the Opposition preach what they practise–it is self-evident that that has not been the case with education in the past. Of course, all parents want what is best for their children, and they are right to do so. We wish to ensure that the freedoms which are exercised quite correctly by Opposition Members in the interests of their own children are not denied to other people by Opposition policies.

    Mr. Ashdown: Given that the Prime Minister has already said, quite rightly, that education is the key to the country’s success, how does he justify cutting –[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment, Mr. Ashdown. Order. I call Mr. Ashdown.

    Mr. Ashdown: Given that education is the key to the country’s future, how does the Prime Minister justify cutting the allocation for education to local education authorities by a sum equivalent to £50 less for every primary school pupil and £200 less for every secondary school pupil in the land?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows what the funding increases have been over recent years. I also give the right hon. Gentleman credit for appreciating that, quite apart from the increased resources that have gone into education in recent years, we have improved the quality and standard of education significantly through our reform of the curriculum; the opportunity that we have provided to schools to become grant maintained; the opportunity for testing children and for parents to know what that testing is; and through the publication of the performance tables, which ensures that there is peer pressure on bad schools.

    It would be more gracious for the right hon. Gentleman, who claims to be concerned about education–and I am sure that he is–to acknowledge those reforms which are now accepted in practice even by the official Opposition.

     

    Q4. Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

    Mr. Pawsey: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no plans to abolish grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme or the charitable status of independent schools? Can he further confirm that he has no plans to introduce a graduate tax? All of those ideas are being actively promoted by Opposition Members.

    The Prime Minister: I am certainly pleased to confirm that to my hon. Friend. In recent years we have set out a series of education reforms which have now been accepted by the trade unions and teachers and welcomed by parents and many others. I believe that we can now look forward to a period of improvement and stability in education. The changes proposed by the Labour party will recreate unnecessary chaos. We have stability in education and we must retain it. We do not want the denial of choice that is proposed by the official Opposition.

    Mr. Shore: In view of M. Santer’s speech at Davos last weekend calling for early progress toward a single European currency and for reducing the voting power of the larger member states, does not the Prime Minister agree that, far from being the right man in the right place at the right time, he is in fact the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time?

    The Prime Minister: It would be extremely difficult to find a Commission President candidate who, on those two points, would not take the same position as the present President. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to plough through the rest of the Commission President’s speech perhaps he will welcome the fact that the President said that many people perceive a

    “bureaucratic, byzantine, technocratic Brussels maze.”

    The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree with that. The President also gave top priority to tackling Europe’s declining competitiveness, completing the single market in telecommunications and energy, ensuring the proper performance of single market rules, free trade and a strong common foreign security policy. Each and every one of those are British priorities in the European Union and they have been endorsed by the President of the Commission.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

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

    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time this afternoon to have a word with Department of Social Security Ministers? They will tell him that since last August, 10,500 non-British residents have been refused income support. That is a great saving to the DSS, despite opposition from Labour and the Social Affairs Commissioner. Does not that vindicate Government policy of concentrating benefits on people who need them most, in stark contrast to Labour which, in respect of benefits, is prepared to turn a blind eye to fraud and abuse?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree about the nature of changes introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I do not believe that any British taxpayer is happy subsidising people who have no close ties with the United Kingdom but who have been receiving benefit payments without having made contributions. The changes we made bring the United Kingdom more in line with our European partners, whose safety-net benefits are not normally available to our nationals freshly arrived in their countries.

    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Is the Prime Minister aware that as the result of the botched introduction of reduced junior doctors’ hours, the accident and emergency unit at Broadgreen hospital in my constituency is being forced to close its doors sooner than planned? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that means patients presenting themselves for emergency treatment will suffer greater anxiety and pain, and that doctors and nurses will face greater stress? Will the Prime Minister accept that nothing less than the resignation of the Secretary of State for Health will satisfy the people whom I represent?

    The Prime Minister: I think that even the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends felt that she did not get the last part of her question right. I will not take lectures on health from the hon. Lady. As she is clearly aiming at what is happening in the health service, perhaps she will say whether she agrees with statements by Labour’s official health spokesman and other Labour Members as to the level of health spending. There are substantial differences. The Labour party is utterly split on that issue, as on so many others. One day, the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends will concentrate on the remarkable improvements achieved by people in the national health service, not carp and criticise week after week after week, and seek to undermine the service.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1993 Conservative Central Council – 6 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1993 Conservative Central Council meeting, held in Harrogate on 6th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yesterday this Conference paid its tribute to Nick Ridley.

    He was an original. A one-off. And whatever he did he faced the world square on and never once flinched.

    The Commons was the poorer when he left it. And the Party is the poorer for his loss.

    Mr Chairman, in the last two years events have thrown at this country everything they could.

    Abroad – we’ve had the Gulf War, the Yugoslav war, a world recession that gets worse abroad as it gets better here. There have been plans from Europe that we’ve had to water down or reject. At home we have had our share of world recession, a difficult general election, and conflicts on Europe that strike deep at the instincts of many in our Party.

    Mr Chairman, on these issues it’s right that we should have vigorous debate. When people feel strongly they should express their views. Argue their case. Fight their corner.

    But once we have taken our decisions on how to proceed, then I believe we should all support those decisions. The British people put us back in power to carry on with the full range of our policies. They gave us five years to beat inflation, create growth and jobs, improve choice, fight crime and maintain the unity of the United Kingdom.

    Mr Chairman, that is what I want to see this Party and this Government do. And I want to see us do it now – and I want to see us do it together. It is in difficult times like these that the Conservative Party most needs to be united – and to stay united.

    At the last election we had one of the biggest leads in votes ever recorded. But only a 21 seat majority – now, sadly, for the moment only 20. So these are difficult days. We no longer have a cushion of 100 seats, and those who want us to be successful know what that means. Let me say it bluntly – disunity is a luxury we cannot afford.

    Mr Chairman, none of us should forget the scale of the responsibility placed upon us. On April 9th last year, 14 1/4 million people turned to us – people of all ages, all walks of life, from all corners of Britain. Every one different. Each with their own personal hopes and fears. They all trusted us with the hard job that lay ahead.

    We must live up to that trust. That does not mean responding to every short-term whim. It does not mean avoiding difficult decisions. It does mean holding fast to the long-term course that will bring us prosperity, growth, and jobs, even in the teeth of short-term difficulties.

    Those short-term problems have often caught the headlines. But they have not prevented progress towards our long-term objectives. So let me put it all in perspective. Let me remind you of what we have done in the last eleven months – smack in the middle of a world recession.

    I’ll start with the Health Service. Remember what Labour said about health. They said if we won it would be the end of the Health Service. One year on, we have more National Health Service Trust hospitals and more GP fundholders providing better care to more patients than ever before.

    The end of the Health Service? One year on, it’s not the NHS that’s falling apart; it is Labour’s scares that have fallen apart. Remember that truly disgraceful election broadcast? That was the one in which Robin Cook predicted the end of the NHS. Well today the Health Service is moving on – and Robin Cook has been moved on. Out on his Jennifer’s ear – and deservedly so.

    As hospitals have become self-governing – running their own affairs – so have schools. Over 500 have chosen the new freedom to become Grant Maintained. They have moved out of the hands of local authorities and into the care of governors and parents.

    And we’re promoting subject teaching in primary schools – so much more important than vague topic work and generalised themes. So it’s maths, geography, science and history lessons. And putting emphasis right from the start on standard English and on the 3Rs.

    That, Mr Chairman, is the right Tory agenda – and we have put it in place in the first year. We’re supporting good teachers and putting the spotlight on the bad. Publishing the exam results of every school.

    Mr Chairman, those results should never have been hidden in the first place. Now we’ve brought them into the open. And they will never be hidden again.

    And, one more thing, Mr Chairman. When we talk of publishing the facts, I must say this to those teacher unions that are threatening to boycott tests – you are wrong. Life is a test. You do pupils no good by hiding them from reality.

    To teach children what they need to know, we must find out what they don’t know. Tests are an essential part of good schooling. Tests are here to stay. And I hope the teacher union leaders get that message loud and clear from this Conference. And, before I leave education, here’s something for the history books.

    By 1996 nearly a quarter of a million extra students will be in college – the biggest expansion ever. And when they are there they won’t have to join the activities of the National Union of Students – because we are ending the NUS closed shop.

    That’s the right Tory agenda – and all in the first year. And it is not only the NUS monopoly that is going – remember Neddy, that hangover from the 1960s, that corporatist relic?

    Well, that’s gone, too. Unlamented. We have scrapped it. And not before time. We are giving new freedoms to members of Trades Unions. And new powers for every individual to act in court to stop wildcat strikes. All part of the right Tory agenda – and in hand in the first year.

    And the Tory programme to promote ownership is rolling forward, too. We have introduced a new incentive for personal pensions. One that will help millions enjoy their retirement in comfort and security.

    In housing, we are back on course for the home-owning democracy. We have a new scheme to help tenants become homeowners by treating rents as mortgage payments. We’re giving leaseholders the right to buy their freeholds. And later this spring Michael Howard and his team will launch a new campaign to spread the Right to Buy.

    That’s the right Tory agenda – this Government’s agenda. Never mind the news – that’s the reality.

    All that sounds like a full menu for a full Parliament. Yet all I have done is to give you a selection of starters. Your starters for 5, 10, 20 years, years in which we will indeed – build a stronger and better Britain.

    Fine words, you say. But fine words butter no parsnips. What about jobs? I know that the main thing so many people seek above all is a worthwhile job. That is why, from April, we will have in place the most comprehensive package to help people back to work that we have ever seen in Britain: youth training, Training for Work, Restart, Job interview guarantees, business start up schemes. Schemes that will help up to 1 1/2 million of our fellow citizens keep in touch with the world of work.

    And those schemes all have one thing in common. Every one was opposed by the Labour Party. How can they defend that? They call for help for unemployed people and then vote against it.

    We want our training schemes to lead to full-time jobs. It’s permanent jobs that people want. The only way to get people permanently back to work is to help the economy grow. To improve our skills. To promote our exports. To widen our manufacturing base. And to make it worthwhile to start new companies.

    That’s the road back to jobs. Permanent jobs. Jobs with prospects. And that’s the road we are travelling. The outlook for our economy is good. Interest rates down. Inflation down. Strikes down. Manufacturing productivity up. Retail sales up. Exports up. That’s what’s happening. And that’s the way back to work for Britain. The only way.

    The prospects for the Nineties are good. It’s been slow, frustratingly slow. But we are on our way. And don’t just take it from me. Over the next two years Britain is forecast to have the highest rate of growth in Western Europe.

    If we have confidence in ourselves others will have confidence in us. And when confidence grows jobs must follow. Some people still haven’t quite grasped the progress we’ve made.

    So let me put this way. 1954 – that’s 39 years ago, the year Roger Bannister ran the 4 minute mile – that was the last time the January inflation rate fell to 1.7%.

    And 1956 – 37 years ago, the year Jim Laker took 10 Australian wickets for 88 at the Oval and, no, drat it, I wasn’t there! – that was the last time mortgage rates for first time buyers were as low as they are, now.

    So, for goodness sake, let’s not belittle what we’ve done. Let’s not run our prospects down. Let’s leave that to the Labour Party. Day after day they attack us for ‘talking the economy up’. What a crime. What a dreadful thing to do. Trying to instill confidence.

    Well, it’s about time we got after them for talking the economy down. When did you last hear John Smith say a good word about Britain?

    And another thing, is there anyone here who’s ever seen Gordon Brown smile? No one. I thought not. Is there anyone anywhere who’s ever seen Gordon Brown smile? Is there anyone who wants to see Gordon Brown smile? And by the way, has anyone yet seen Gerald?

    Mr Chairman, there’s something else that is absolutely crucial to business confidence – the certainty that Britain will help determine policy in Europe, and not be dragged along behind a policy made by others. We should remember what we have achieved for Britain in Europe this year. We have every right to be proud of it.

    We have completed the biggest free trade area the world has ever seen. We have reformed the Common Agricultural Policy after years of squabbling. We have put a ceiling on EC spending right until the end of the century. We have opened up the Community to new members. And we are changing the course of Europe – away from centralism and returning powers to member states.

    That is the classic British agenda for Europe. It is not the federalist agenda. On crucial issues we are making sure the final say sits where it should be – right here in Britain. So let’s not fear the future in Europe. Let’s go out and shape the future of Europe. Shape a market of 340 million, where businesses can compete, export and invest wherever they like – where future generations will have opportunities we never dreamed of to work and to travel.

    And we must shape a wider Europe. That’s what we decided at Edinburgh – to bring in new member nations, first from Scandinavia and later from central Europe. And we won agreement – against all expectations – that our old friends, the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Czechs would eventually join us.

    Do you remember how as the Iron Curtain fell we welcomed them to our Party Conference two years ago? Well, we are still working on their side. And now – in time – we look forward to them joining the European Community, too – as a result of our influence.

    The present Community is but a fragment of Europe. Our long- term vision is a Europe without trade barriers, a vast continent of free democracies, from the Urals to the Atlantic and from the Baltic to the Mediterranean.

    A Europe full of trade and free of war. We won’t achieve that speedily – but isn’t that what we should work for for future generations? So let me tell you what’s at stake. I know the concerns and passions aroused by arguments over our future in Europe. I see them in the House of Commons whenever we debate the Treaty of Maastricht.

    I understand the instincts and the patriotic feelings that motivate many in our Party who have doubts about the Treaty. I understand, and share, their pride in Britain’s great past. But we have to build a great future. So let me tell you, clearly and frankly, that I believe the fears of those who resist our European policy are mistaken.

    Mistaken because they underestimate what we have achieved in our negotiations in Europe.

    Mistaken because they have failed to focus on our wider vision of Europe.

    Mistaken because if we step aside from what we have agreed there would be an enormous economic price to pay.

    There would be an immediate blow to economic recovery. International investors, who have poured money into Britain, £100,000 million in the last five years, would turn their backs on us.

    Those investors want access to the European market. And if we sidelined ourselves they would no longer be certain that that would be the case. That is why the price of standing aside from the agreement we freely made would be heavy. As Douglas Hurd told you yesterday, it would be £50 billion off our national production over the next five years. I wonder how many jobs that would cost?

    And then there is that Social Chapter – another threat to jobs. Surely no-one in this Party – for any reason – would give houseroom to that. Where we want to be is on the inside track to prosperity, and outside the grasp of bureaucracy and socialism. Inside Europe and outside the Social Chapter.

    I know our Party. I cannot believe that anyone, when they have considered all the facts, could want to let slip those opportunities before us.

    Let me tell you what I believe. To do so would be to take a conscious decision to become irrelevant in Europe. That would be a decision not only for our time, but for our children’s also. It would be the surest possible way to impoverish our country and damage our standing in the world – almost beyond repair.

    So let us put aside the fears and hesitations that hold our Party back. We may have our differences. But they are as nothing to the things that unite us.

    So let us take the chance we have today – to mould Europe in our own image. Don’t let us shirk that challenge. In a thousand years of history we never have. And we must not now.

    Mr Chairman, I want British industry to win not just in Europe, but around the world. I want a different attitude to industry at every level in this country. I want people to see that making things matters. I want more that matters to be made in Britain.

    Our exporters need to know that the Government supports them. And where we can help to open doors and free up markets we will always do so. That’s why in the Autumn Statement we committed £700 million extra to help British companies win new orders. And when our businessmen travel abroad I expect all our embassies to work with them. Cultural exchanges are fine – but I want export deals as well.

    Mr Chairman, exports are booming. Leaving the factories faster than journalists leaving the Daily Mirror. Mirror, mirror, on the wall – are there any journalists left there at all? In the battle for exports I want Government out there in the field foursquare behind our businesses.

    A few weeks ago, I spent the morning in India, lunched in the desert in Oman, and had dinner in a palace in Saudi Arabia. And that day, as a result of months of effort by business and Government working together, we won orders for British goods worth billions and safeguarded thousands of jobs. These days there are no easy exports. The world is too competitive for that. More competitive than ever before.

    Those countries that once were captive markets are now manufacturing themselves or challenging us as rivals. The countries on the Pacific Rim have developed massive industries of their own. China is set to become a huge manufacturing power in the century to come. Against that background, we need to help British companies carve out a bigger place for Britain. But before we export, we have to manufacture. And we have to manufacture quality.

    That’s why we need to build up craft skills and practical training in every part of Britain. End once and for all that senseless prejudice against the best of our brains going into commerce and industry. That prejudice is damaging – and we can no longer accept it.

    Mr Chairman, by helping business I don’t mean artificial subsidies to industries. I mean setting the right economic structure for business. I mean pursuing the right policies for business. I mean having the right curriculum in our schools. I mean reforming vocational training. I mean lifting burdens from the back of businesses.

    Of course, we need some regulations. But there are people in Brussels, in local councils and, yes, in Whitehall who seem to have a mania to hold back the future in a mesh of pettifogging detail.

    So I have told every Department of State: scrap unnecessary regulation. It’s a simple message. Red tape means lost jobs. And that doesn’t only apply to large companies like ICI. It applies to the smallest businesses and local services too.

    You know what I mean. Health and safety enthusiasts bent on eliminating every conceivable – and inconceivable – risk. Local councils badgering good nursery schools when they’d be better employed helping them.

    The food safety people who tell us that what we’ve been eating for generations will certainly kill us if we don’t stop instantly. Well we’ll certainly die a good deal sooner if we do stop eating instantly. Mr Chairman, it’s all gone way over the top. Well, I’d rather it went in the bin.

    Isn’t it barmy? Would Drake have been in time to meet the Armada, and would Nelson have made Trafalgar, if an inspector had been on hand to say ‘Hold everything – we haven’t checked the ship’s biscuits!”

    Mr Chairman, I said earlier that one of the reasons we were elected was to keep up the fight against crime. Vandalism; burglary; car theft. Crimes against property; crimes of violence; crimes involving drugs.

    The fear of crime lies deep in the instincts of law-abiding people. They find it hard to understand how others move outside the law, careless of the interests of their neighbours, preying on the property of others, even threatening their lives. I said last week that we need to understand less and to condemn a little more. That was not a simple cry for retribution.

    My point was this. Unless society sets rules and standards and enforces them, we cannot be surprised if others flout them. It’s true we mustn’t exaggerate the problem. Compared to many others in the world, Britain is still a safe country.

    But those who point to that and say ‘do nothing’ are wrong. I say to those people: even if the problem here is smaller, it’s still far too big. And every single victim of crime in this country will agree with that.

    That’s why this Government has done so much to step up crime prevention and crack down on crime. There are too many violent offences – that’s why we have increased penalties against them, especially for those thugs who go out carrying firearms.

    There is too much drug dealing – that’s why we’ve taken powers to confiscate the assets of those who sell drugs and wreck the lives of young people. There have been too many lenient sentences – that’s why we’ve given the Attorney General power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal. And one final example – it is intolerable that some offenders charged with a crime go out and commit another while they’re on bail. I want to see those further offences reflected in the sentences they receive.

    Mr Chairman, there can be no doubt about where this Party stands in the fight against crime. And no doubt about the support we have given to those who fight it. We have given our police forces better pay and more resources than any Government in history. Now we must help them get even better results in everything they do. That is why we are now reviewing the effectiveness and the organisation of British police. I want our police to the most modern and the most efficient crime-fighting force in the world.

    Mr Chairman, the issue of crime runs deep. To catch and to punish is to deter. But we want to prevent crime too. So we must go to the roots of why some young people do what they do. Too many children have been denied the proper guidance they need in their own homes and schools. Of course, the authority of the family comes in here.

    And, yes, the churches – they may have a legitimate role to criticise, but they certainly have a role to play. And there’s another factor that goes right home in every sense. And that’s too much violence in videos and on television. What we watch is the single biggest influence on many people’s thinking.

    We’re an open society. We can’t censor television. But we can say to parents – control what your children watch. And we can say to those who make and distribute films and videos – think whether a relentless diet of violence won’t have a serious effect on the young. And we can say to television programmers – don’t just be careful when you show it, be careful what you show.

    Mr Chairman, Government alone cannot change behaviour. Concepts of right and wrong are something for all of us. But there are some things Government can do – and we will.

    First, truancy. It is stark staring obvious to me that if children are staying out of school, they are not learning what they should be and they are probably learning what they shouldn’t. For too long the facts on truancy have been hidden by a conspiracy of silence. So from this autumn in our new league tables we will make all schools publish openly their levels of attendance.

    We will find out where the problem is worst. We’ll target it and tackle it. I want our children in class. Not in trouble. And, Mr Chairman, we are taking another step. This morning Ken Clarke told you about his new proposals to set up secure centres for that hard core of youngsters who go on offending and reoffending, devoid, it seems, of any sense of fear or guilt about what they do.

    Some say we shouldn’t respond. They say it’s a relatively minor concern. I don’t agree. I say that not to respond would be a double dereliction of duty. A dereliction of duty to the public at large. And, worse, a dereliction to those children. Because we let children down if we don’t set boundaries and enforce them. For their own good and for the good of their communities we must take those persistent young offenders off the streets.

    It is a clear-cut idea, carefully worked up over these last few months, targeted directly at an obvious gap in the law. How strange – but how very revealing – that in a matter of minutes it was condemned out of hand by the new model Labour Party. When I heard that, it sounded just like the old unreconstructed Labour Party to me.

    When the test came they failed it – so let’s give them another chance. We’ll set them another test. Eleven times in all Labour have voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I find that unbelievable.

    And so, I suspect, do the people in the battle against terrorism who are putting their lives on the line to protect the lives of others. Terrorism is the biggest crime of all. So for Labour let it be the biggest test of all. So no hedging, no weaving, no messing about. Let them vote with us next week – or pipe down about crime.

    Mr Chairman, I’ve reminded you of some of the things we have done in these last few months – and set out some of our plans for the future. As always this Party is a reforming Party. And as a nation we need to reform. Because we live in a rapidly changing world. Change can be frightening. We must manage it carefully. Nurture it to our national advantage. Our watchword is – to hold on to the best of the past and to create the best for the future.

    Mr Chairman, last March it was at this Central Council that we launched the General Election campaign – the election that no-one thought we could win. We took our message to every part of our country. It was the roughest, toughest campaign for years. But we won it.

    And how did we win? By sticking to our principles. By keeping our nerve. By standing together. And, above all, by staying together. United. That’s how we won – and that’s a lesson we must never forget.

  • PMQT – 11 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Heppell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Heppell : Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the impartiality of Independent Television News is threatened by the appointment as its next chairman of Mr. Michael Green, a known Conservative supporter and Conservative donor? Or does the Prime Minister share the views of his predecessor and ask himself, as she did, “Is he one of us?”

    The Prime Minister : No, I do not think that the impartiality of ITN is at all threatened by the appointment of Mr. Green, any more than I would question the impartiality of many programmes whose presenters may have one or other political opinion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of one single militant teacher trade union which proposes to ballot its membership to boycott all tests [Interruption.] –Yes, all tests associated with the national curriculum? Will he also join me in saying just how damaging that would be to the education of the nation’s children?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that point, and I thoroughly condemn the union concerned. I believe that it will be seen by parents as a concerted attack on the rights of pupils and their parents to know what progress the pupils are making in their education at their individual schools. I very much hope that the teachers of that union will reject the proposition put before them.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not a deplorable indictment of Conservative government that during the Conservative years crime has more than doubled? What action does the Prime Minister propose to take to protect our citizens from the crime wave that is sweeping the nation?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to want to put the blame for everything on the shoulders of the Government– quite apart from the view expressed by his shadow home affairs spokesman this morning. Let me illustrate for the right hon. and learned Gentleman some of the things that we have done. There has been the passage of the Public Order Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, both Criminal Justice Acts, the Prison Security Act and the Act to ban joy riding, every one of which was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party.

    Mr. Smith : Has the Prime Minister noticed that, whatever he claims to do or to have done, the crime rate rises consistently year after year? Does he think it remotely tolerable that, according to the Government’s crime survey, there are about 25,000 break-ins in this country every week? When will he do something about protecting our citizens from that?

    The Prime Minister : I note that there was no pledge from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to support legislation that we brought forward in previous years or to support us in the future in dealing with crime. Crime has increased ever since the second world war, under all Governments. Our record in combating crime is comparable with that of other countries in western Europe. This trend has been seen year after year, but it is not a matter which can be dealt with just by legislation. I doubt whether any other Government would have provided for the police the resources that the present Government have provided. Certainly, no other Government would have sided with the victim against the villain in the way that the present Government have.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night Gloucestershire county council set a budget £10 million over its standard spending assessment? Does he know that Gloucestershire county council has debts of £25 million but has no plans substantially to reduce that figure? Does my right hon. Friend agree that plans should be made immediately to see that Gloucestershire county council seeks to reduce its debts so that money can be spent on education rather than on debt servicing?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is regrettable that any authority should set an excessive budget. We have made it clear that we shall not hesitate in any way to cap such budgets. It is open to local authorities to set new, lower budgets, and I very much hope that Gloucestershire county council will do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Barnes : I was interested in the Prime Minister’s initial reply about his engagements for today, but what about his engagements for tomorrow? My Representation of the People (Amendment ) Bill seeks to put the missing millions back on the electoral register and to secure access to polling stations for disabled people. Will the Prime Minister be around tomorrow to vote in support of that measure, and will he bring his friends with him? I know that he needs all the friends that he can get nowadays?

    The Prime Minister : I shall, in fact, be in my constituency meeting those friends.

    Mr. Elletson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conviction of the IRA terrorist Jimmy Canning represents a real success for the security services? Will he join me in congratulating those services in putting that murderous thug behind bars?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that that will be the wish of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. I am happy to congratulate both the Crown prosecution service and the Metropolitan police.

    Mr. Ashdown : While the Vance-Owen plan extracts the very best out of the terrible opportunities left open to us in Bosnia, does the Prime Minister realise that this is not a peace of which either he or other western leaders can be proud? It is their failure which has resulted in a price being paid in the dismemberment of the Muslim community, the disintegration of a state which was recognised by the United Nations, and reward for the aggressors. Does the Prime Minister understand that while we must all hope for peace in Bosnia, our hopes for peace in Europe will depend on our learning the lessons of this miserable affair?

    The Prime Minister : I regret that the right hon. Gentleman continues to take a wholly negative view of the enormous amount that has been done to seek a satisfactory peace in Yugoslavia. What is significant is the remarkable co-operation between the United States, the European Community and the United Nations in seeking to bring that conflict to an end. The best way forward, and the only credible way forward that has yet been found, is the Vance-Owen plan, which we strongly support. I very much welcome the policy statement from the United States Government earlier this week.

    Mr. Moss : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three councils in Cambridgeshire–East Cambridgeshire, South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire–which recently announced a zero component for the district council portion of the new council tax? How is it that some councils can deliver a highly effective service to their taxpayers while others, such as Harlow, are gross overspenders? Could it be because the Cambridgeshire councils are not controlled by Labour?

    The Prime Minister : I think that there are two answers. First, the councils are efficient ; secondly, they are not run by the Socialist party.

     

    Q4. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley : Does the Prime Minister not think it scandalous that at a time when the Health Department budget has been put into the public sector spending review and when prescription charges are about to be increased by 10 per cent., the West Midlands and Wessex health authorities have been allowed to squander £67 million on renting luxury homes in London, on air travel, on entertainment and on corrupt computer deals involving former Cabinet Ministers?

    The Prime Minister : I have no intention of commenting on the detailed points made by the hon. Gentleman. There are adequate ways of making sure that they are examined. As to the health budget and all other budgets, one reason for undertaking a fundamental review is to make sure that taxpayers’ money is well spent and that it is spent first on those areas that most require the expenditure.

    Mr. Allason : When my right hon. Friend undertakes his review of European regulations that are handicapping British industry, will he turn his attention to the tourist industry and consult the Torbay environmental health officer who requires every hotelier in Torbay to check, monitor and register the temperature of every deep freeze in every premises three times a day on penalty of prosecution? Is that not exactly the kind of daft regulation that we should get rid of?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that regulation to my attention. I will ensure that it is examined. There are many regulations that we could usefully manage without. The intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to identify them so that we can remove them.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hutton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Hutton : Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities and national health service trusts are currently being forced to cancel operations and close wards because of the inadequacies, and in some cases the mismanagement, of NHS resources? Is he aware, in particular, that in my constituency Roose hospital, which provides excellent geriatric care for elderly people, is being forced to close? Will he tell the House what measures will be taken to ensure that such hospitals stay open? How does he believe it helps health care for hospitals such as Roose to close?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the increased resources for health authorities–spending of £36 billion this year and planned spending of more than £37 billion next year ; an increase in national health service expenditure by up to 57 per cent. ; and an increase in the number of people treated. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the health authorities and the health service on that remarkable record.

     

    Q6. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Robertson : Does my right hon. Friend agreed that it is the job of Government to attack cartels, cliques and vested interests–cartels in trade unions, cliques in Labour-controlled local authorities and vested interests that support the vast majority of Labour Members?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly suspect that my hon. Friend has struck a sore spot. Every member of the shadow Cabinet is sponsored by a trade union, two thirds of the votes at the Labour conference are still wielded by trade unions; they will not support our tests in the schools because that is what the National Union of Teachers wants, they oppose our reforms on health because that is what the Council of Health Services Employees wants, and they fight competitive tendering because that is what the National Union of Public Employees wants. There is no doubt whose pockets they are in.

    Mr. Faulds : Has no one– [Interruption.] Cheeky little pup.

    Madam Speaker : Order. I recollect that “Erskine May” does not allow that sort of language.

    Mr. Faulds : “Cheeky little pup” is a term of endearment, Madam Speaker. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Cyprus– [Interruption.] –rather, the Vance-Owen plan– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down.

    Mr. Faulds : Bosnia is not a laughing matter– [Interruption.] Those idiots on the Government Benches. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Vance-Owen plan as now drawn up is unacceptable because it rewards Serbian ethnic cleansing and is in danger of creating a Palestinian-type situation within a quarter of a century? Will the Prime Minister for once listen to reasonable advice from America, and will he understand that that plan can become acceptable only if the Serbian aggression is held, if the danger to the Bosnian Muslims and their territory is removed, and if war criminals in Yugoslavia are brought to proper trial?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has set out many of the matters which have been our policy for some time and were reiterated earlier this week by the American Administration–in particular, the point about war crimes. We have also supported–and others are now joining us in doing so–increased and hardened sanctions, particularly along the Danube, to put further pressure on the Serbs. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the map is not yet a settled matter. Nevertheless, there have been very dramatic improvements towards peace as a result of the Owen-Vance proposals. We need to continue to pursue those, and to continue to put pressure on each of the combatants until they reach a conclusion which will be satisfactory, which can be policed properly and which can bring the dreadful conflict to an end.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on the Conservative Vision – 1 April 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on the Conservative Vision, made in Shepton Mallet on Wednesday 1st April 1992. The speech was entitled “Building a New Britain”.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and gentlemen, on Friday 10 April 1992 the work of the next government will begin. It will be a Conservative government or it will be a Labour government. There is no other choice. If you vote Conservative you will get a Conservative government. If you vote Labour you will get a Labour government. If you vote Liberal you will get a Labour Government. That is a message that every elector must understand.

    Over sixteen months ago I started work on building the type of Britain in which I believe. You will decide whether I continue in that work – or whether to allow Labour to pull down all that British people have built since 1979.

    Let me tell you about the Conservative government I want to lead. It is not the intention of the next Conservative government simply to safeguard the achievements of the eighties – astonishing though those achievements have been.

    The aims of the new generation in the Conservative Party – the youngest cabinet this century – are set much, much higher. By the end of this decade, all that Britain has accomplished in the first thirteen years of Conservative rule will be seen in their true perspective – a magnificent beginning, but only that, a beginning, of a great nation’s historic and continuing revival. That is the pledge I give to you this evening. That is the challenge that the next Conservative government will meet and fulfil.

    The ideas we stand for – we fight for – are being adopted right across the world. Think of the political map of Europe – how it looked until quite recently. Great blocks of red interspersed with blue. Look at it now. Where have all the red blocks gone? Gone from Government almost every one. Going. Going. Gone.

    All over the world Socialism is discredited. It is fading in every part of Europe. And in Britain on 9 April we will see the red flag dying here. Let’s get out there and help it on its way.

    The New Britain

    Many people are yet to make up their minds in this Election – the ‘don’t knows’. On Election day you can’t afford to be a “don’t know”. So my message to them is ‘come and join us’. Help us build a better Britain.

    My job as Prime Minister in the 1990s will be to give millions more people a helping hand up the ladder in life – to a home of their own, more savings, more secure and well-paid jobs, a better future. I see clearly the new Britain I want to build: a classless Britain in which everyone has their full share.

    I have spoken of the Open Door Society – a nation in which more and more people can go through the doors of opportunity into a better life. To build up and to keep a piece of Britain for themselves. A Britain where what were once the privileges of the few can be enjoyed by all.

    That’s the kind of country I want to see.

    I see a Britain freed from the scourge of inflation. Where rising prices no longer eat into savings and bring misery to those on fixed incomes. My target is stable prices. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us. Where there is no levelling down, only levelling up. My aim is for parents to have the power to choose what is right for their child. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain in which there is true equality of opportunity for all. Where every boy or girl, whatever their background, can expect an education that brings out their talents to the full. Where there is no levelling down, only levelling up. My aim is for parents to have the power to choose what is right for their child. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where every family has the opportunity to own and to improve their home. Where there is no threat of credit controls, no need to depend on the council. My aim is ownership for every family – ownership for the security it brings. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where every citizen has the freedom to keep the wealth they have built from a lifetime’s work. Where there is no threat of penal taxation and no confiscation of a lifetime’s savings. My aim is for everyone to have the chance to pass on what they have built up in life to their children. That’s what people work for. That’s what people care about. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where our government plays a confident role in the world, standing for what is right. Where we don’t neglect our defences, and never give way on what is right for Britain. My aim is for Britain to be a byword – the byword – for decency, principle and freedom. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where government continues to show a true responsibility for others. Where it plays its proper role in supporting those who cannot help themselves. Where we have a modern, expanding Health Service free at the point of use for all. Where we bring more help to our poorest pensioners. Where every citizen is free to walk the streets without fear of crime.

    I see a Britain where the cost of living falls and the standard of living rises. Where we don’t look to the State for answers, but to each other.

    I believe that every person wants to have more say, have more choice, be the master in their own private corner of life. That is what in these last thirteen years we have given the people. I want a Britain in which people have the incentive to work harder and produce more. That is the way – the only way – to create resources for better public services for all.

    Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us. This is no time to be a ‘don’t know’. This is a time to fight for a positive future for our country.

    Taxation: the great divide

    Ladies and gentlemen, people ask why we contrast Labour’s tax policies so often with our own. It is because here in this single issue is the great divide between the parties. We believe that people express themselves by their choices – and must be allowed to do so. When they decide how much to spend on housing, how much on holidays, or how much on a car, on pensions or insurance, they are living according to their own priorities. They are their own masters. In a free society they must remain their own masters. But Socialism always takes that freedom away.

    And when Governments or councils make those decisions for them, they are preventing people from living by their own values. Every pound left in the pay packet is a token of freedom. It offers choice. Every pound taken out of the pay packet takes away choice. In raising taxes by the record amount that they plan, Labour are not just taking away your income. They are taking away, more than ever before, the chance for ordinary people to live their life as they please. That’s why Socialist policies are so wrong, ultimately so destructive. We must never, never, never let them come back to this country.

    Labour: The Opposition

    I warn you. Look beneath the surface of Labour’s policies. You will see the cold hard truth staring at you. They haven’t changed. They have not changed. They have not changed. Let no-one think for a moment that Socialism has lost its ambition to change people’s lives. They still want people to pay up for the privilege of being told what to do. That is the badge of Socialism.

    Socialism operates like a reverse philosopher’s stone. It can change gold to base metal at a touch. Opportunity and enterprise into regulation and control. That would affect everyone. In a Labour Britain it wouldn’t just be the gold bullion that they were shipping out the country, it would be the golden tapestry of British talent – business, scientific, sporting, cultural. Going. Going. Gone. And we would all be the losers.

    It’s not just their policies for the future that give Labour’s game away. It is what they have done, what they have said. As we struggled to change Britain for the better, they struggled to stop us changing Britain for the better. You can see why they call Labour the Opposition.

    We have lowered income tax for everyone by eight pence in the pound; they opposed it. They voted against every tax cut we have introduced – the one thing on which they’ve always been consistent. And one of the many things on which they have always had the support of the Liberals.

    We gave people the right to buy council houses; they opposed it.

    We sold loss-making State industries to the public and the staff in them. We made them profitable and made millions of people new shareholders; they opposed it.

    We brought trade unions within the law, banned flying pickets and ended the closed shop; they opposed it.

    We helped millions of young people to take out personal pensions of their own; they opposed it.

    We wanted the people to be free, to have choice, to have power. To have the space to live their own lives as they wished – not as the council, the union, or the State wished. And Labour opposed us. They opposed the people’s rights. Not just once. Not by accident. But deliberately. By design. And day after day after day.

    Whatever we proposed, they opposed. It is their only political programme – to tear down all the things that the people of Britain have built. Labour are the masters of opposition. What a pity it would be now to waste all that experience.

    To every owner a warning

    “Ladies and gentlemen, as this Election approaches one point is central to the decision that everyone should take. It is this. We believe in personal ownership in a way that no other party does. We believe that people have the right to own – to enjoy the security and peace of mind it provides for them and their families. No other party shares that philosophy. Do you remember? Labour did everything in their power to stop the people having the right to own. And still do, whenever and wherever they can.

    Let no-one out there who gained in the ’80s ever forget it. Four million new homeowners; four and a half million young people with personal pensions; six million shareholders in the State companies we sold to the people. Many of those must be in this audience tonight.

    I warn each of you. Just stop, listen, and think. Look at your children and ask yourself this. Dare you trust your home, your pension, your savings, your shares – your future – to the very Labour people who fought to stop you having them at all?

    Going. Going. Gone. Is that the future you want? For the freest country in the world? Never.

    Liberals

    Ladies and gentlemen, I hear Paddy’s still round about. Sounds comfortable, doesn’t it? But don’t forget what he stands for. Policies that are close cousins to Labour’s. A special tax on petrol. What would that do to large rural areas of our country? Swingeing cuts in defence – cuts twice as big as Labour propose. What would that do to the defence of this country and our great defence industries? I’ll tell you – no defence. And no industries. And they stand for big tax increases for all – rises in income tax nationally and rises in income tax locally, too. What would that do to recovery and prosperity and jobs? It would destroy them.

    Liberal policy would crucify rural areas. Cut back our defence industries. Impose new taxes. Whatever happened to real Liberal policies. These are Labour policies – left wing policies. And anyone who is thinking of supporting the Liberals should be clear about that. Don’t let the Liberal Party be the Trojan Horse to a Labour Britain.

    Beware Mr Ashdown. He is the doorkeeper to a Labour Britain. I warn you. Don’t look at the man; look through the door. The most famous door in the world is Number 10 Downing Street. Don’t let Mr Ashdown open it for Mr Kinnock.

    Economic Recovery

    A Labour Government would stop in its tracks the one thing for which the people of Britain are waiting – economic recovery. I know that many businesses and families have been feeling the impact of the world recession. There are families in America and in Germany who feel just the same. Your concerns will never be brushed aside by me, they will always be heard.

    But they should not blind us to the underlying changes which have taken place in the British economy over the last decade. There’s a new spirit of enterprise – with management and workforce working as one to take on the competition and win. Quality, design, service are once more at the forefront. British companies are pushing forward the boundaries of innovation. Productivity has risen by leaps and bounds.

    We’ve been keeping strike records for a hundred years. Last year, the number of days lost was the lowest ever. Why? Because we’ve changed industrial relations law and we’ve changed industrial relations attitudes.

    Britain has become a magnet for overseas investment. We have as much investment from Japan as the rest of the Community put together. It’s low tax that did that. Low inflation. They’re what brought investors here. Do you think they would all have come here under a Labour Government? Do you think the confidence the Conservative Government has built up would continue under Labour?

    On top of all this, interest rates have come down. Britain’s rate of inflation is now below Germany’s – the first time that has happened since before men walked on the moon.

    But, after a generation of striving to reach that very goal, within two days, just two days, of our getting there, Labour’s John Smith said he’d be happy to see inflation rise again. He dismisses our target for Britain – stable prices – as an ‘unnecessary virtue’. Those are the words of a shallow ‘chancellor’ – shallow and blind to what matters to every housewife and pensioner in the country.

    Labour talk of recovery. But what Mr Smith is ready to add to inflation would add £2500 million to the costs of industry. And he dares to talk of a billion pound recovery package. Labour’s inflation would destroy profits, destroy companies, destroy jobs.

    What is more it now seems that Labour plan special payoffs to their big union friends. Public sector unions would be given pay increases one per cent above the going rate in private business. Whatever that rate may be? That is a recipe for higher public spending with no improvement in service. For wage spirals and for rising inflation. For the return of trade union muscle to the heart of public policy. In other words the same old Labour policies. It would be a disaster for Britain.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the foundations for recovery are in place. Let business speak for itself. Fifteen times more businessmen would increase investment under the Conservatives than they would under Labour. In fact, under Labour one in four businessmen would cut investment.

    I believe that under a Conservative Government the 1990s will usher in a new era for prosperity and for jobs. The once impossible are within reach:

    – stable prices

    – sustained industrial peace

    – free enterprise given free rein.

    Only one thing could stop it. The Labour Party – pledged to tax; to nationalise; and to give power back to the unions. That would knock recovery on the head – for this year, next year and through the nineties.

    Labour would turn recovery into slump.

    I am not prepared to see that happen – it’s not going to happen. Britain is on the brink of a breakthrough to a great future. Is the dull, dead hand of Socialism to be allowed to strangle that future? Not if I can help it. And I can. I will. With your help, I will.

    Health

    Ladies and gentlemen, we need a strong economy to sustain our spending on the National Health Service. Earlier this week I said I was taking the gloves off about the National Health Service. And I meant it. It is the national Health Service. It is not Labour’s Health Service. Well, the gloves are staying off. Because I’m not prepared to see our Labour opponents run down the work that this great service performs.

    The National Health Service has been in existence for 44 years. For 30 of those years we have had Conservative Governments. The Health Service has flourished and grown. We have cherished the National Health Service, built it, modernised it. We care for it and for those who it serves. And now we’re reforming it – not privatising it, never privatising it – to make it even more successful. To help it treat even more patients than ever before.

    They’re working, our reforms, really working. We are now treating over a million more inpatient cases and two million outpatient cases a year than we did under Labour. And why? Because we have provided more money than ever before.

    Hip replacements are up by a half. Heart, liver and heart and lung transplants have become a daily occurrence. And why? Because we have provided more money than ever before. More year after year after year than even the rashest Labour opposition ever dared promise.

    I want you all to shout from the rooftops the miracles that our doctors, nurses, and hospitals have achieved.

    And remember. The last Labour Government really did cut the Health Service. Really did cut hospital building. Really did cut nurses’ pay. And pushed the waiting lists up to an all-time high – the most shameful record even in their sorry history. The Conservative Party will take no lectures from them.

    I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, their exploitation of the Health Service shows up the real face of Labour. Cynical. Desperate for power. The ‘anything for office’ syndrome. These are people ready even to exploit and distort the case of one sick child in order to blacken the image of one great service and all who work in it. Nothing matters to Labour except that it should ‘serve their purpose’.

    I give the people of Britain this promise. Any government I lead will make the National Health Service, ever better, ever stronger, ever more able to tackle the huge challenges of modern health care. It’s not our Health Service. It’s your Health Service, yours – the people’s. And we will protect it – and we will build it up.

    Defence

    Ladies and gentlemen, there are three momentous issues which lie at the heart of this election – defence, Europe, and the future of our Kingdom.

    Ten years ago this very day a dictator gave the order for the invasion of the Falklands. That act of aggression was triumphantly reversed by our armed forces. I do not think there is anyone alive who will not recall the emotions they felt as they watched those ships of the Royal Navy set sail for the South Atlantic. It was one of the boldest and most skilful expeditions ever to leave these shores. The victory they won came at heavy cost. We will never forget the courage and the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for their country, there in the South Atlantic. We will never forget. But we can give thanks for what they did. For they fought the fight that it seems must be fought by each generation – the fight for justice, for democracy, for the rights of every individual to think and breathe free.

    But ten years on what do we hear from the Labour Party – a threat from their defence spokesman to review and cut the strength of our Royal Navy. What message does that send to our armed forces?

    And what message did Labour send to those who went out nine years later to join the United Nations action against another dictator’s unprovoked aggression. They wanted to leave those troops sitting there in the desert, waiting for sanctions to drive out Saddam Hussein. Either they would still have been in the desert today or Saddam Hussein would have been sitting in Saudi Arabia.

    That is not how we see our armed forces. They deserve a better and a stronger lead. They were not easy times – for them or for any of us. I had only just become Prime Minister. And emotions stirred in all of us as we thought of the skill and daring of our pilots, and the cool professional resolve of the young men and women of the ground forces, waiting in the desert night for the order to advance.

    It is a great responsibility to lead a nation in time of war. It reinforced my passionate determination to preserve the peace in this dangerous world. But I never doubted that, whatever the challenge, our armed forces would be ready for it. And so they were. They did the job. They sent that barbarous dictator, licking his wounds, back to his lair, humiliated.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the first duty of any Government is to safeguard the defence of the realm. You can be sure that a Conservative Government, this one, the next one, every one will discharge that duty. You can take our word for that. And if you take the word of the Liberals and Labour you will know that they will cut defence, that they will risk our country. Such a course would never be for us.

    We will never take risks with our defence. One thing I learnt from the war with Iraq was the crucial importance of having the right equipment for our troops. We will make sure they get it. That’s why we have ordered the new Challenger tank for the Army; the Merlin helicopter for the Navy; the new air defence missile for the RAF. Our armed forces must remain the best armed the best supported in the world. And I promise they will be.

    The Liberals say that now the cold war is won we can hack back our armed forces to the bone – perhaps they have become too fond of one man armies. They want to cut our defence spending by a half. I tell you that would be utter folly. The story of the Falklands and Kuwait is the story of the sudden dangers that can arise in the modern world. We must stay on our guard, be prepared for the unexpected – and under this Conservative Government our armed forces will do so.

    And one other thing, ladies and gentlemen, for so long as dictators like the wicked man who rules Iraq are plotting to build a nuclear bomb, we will keep our independent nuclear deterrent. I say – and say again – we will order, build, deploy and arm that fourth Trident submarine that our armed forces tell me they need. We will not take any risk with that crucial shield.

    But I tell you who would. Labour would. They don’t say, can’t say, won’t say what their attitude on Trident would be. Because they don’t know.

    First Labour say they will build it. Then they say they won’t build it. They even say they might build it and send it floating round the world devoid of arms. What would they call it? HMS Spineless? HMS Witless? HMS Clueless?

    Ladies and gentlemen, you simply can’t trust Labour when it comes to defence. And since defence is about the most serious issue that any country has to face, you just can’t trust Labour with power.

    Europe

    Ladies and gentlemen, this Party took Britain into Europe. It is where our future lies. I said I wanted us to be at the heart of Europe. And I meant it.

    We need to complete that single market that is so vital for our industry – and we will, when we hold the Presidency of the Community later this year.

    We need to strengthen co-operation between the nation states of Europe where our common interests point us. And we will, when we hold the Presidency of the Community later this year.

    And I believe we need to extend Europe – to create a wider Europe. For the greatest benefit of the Community is not economic. It has made it inconceivable that war in Western Europe could ever again take the world to the edge of ruin. That is why I believe so passionately in widening Europe – until the Community comes to embrace Russia itself. Then we can take to the countries of the East that gift of peace that today we in the West take so much for granted. It may not happen in our political lifetime – but it will happen. And I will do everything I can to help it on its way. And when that new Europe has been built from Britain to the Urals, then we will have built a secure life for the next generation that will be greater than we have ever seen before.

    That’s what I want to see happen in Europe. That is my vision for Europe. But that vision doesn’t mean we have to be uncritical about how Europe now is. When you’re dealing with Europe you need to pitch in there fighting – fighting for Britain as well as for Europe. With a Conservative government Britain will always come before Brussels.

    That’s what Douglas Hurd and I did at Maastricht – fight for Britain in Europe. They were tough negotiations – but we got the right result for Britain. Just imagine what would have happened if we had a Labour Government. They wouldn’t have spoken for Britain; they would have broken Britain.

    There are just three words in Labour’s vocabulary for Europe – oui, si, and jawohl. Well, let me offer you a fourth absolutely vital word to defend Britain’s interests – no. Can anyone imagine Mr Kinnock saying anything so short?

    Labour has been wrong on all the critical issues of defence and foreign policy in our time. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I warn the people of Britain. Men who have been so wrong so often on so much would find it hard to break the habit of a lifetime.

    Ladies and gentlemen, these great issues of our time call for a clear head and a steady hand. You need consistency. Conviction. Coherence. You need experience. You need judgement. The one thing you don’t need is Labour.

    The Union

    Ladies and gentlemen, I want to turn to one of the greatest threats the United Kingdom has faced for generations. I don’t think the British people have yet woken up to the danger that Labour and Liberal policies present. To create a new tax-raising Parliament in Scotland would cause the very foundations of our constitution to quake. I warn the people; it could lead to the break-up of Britain itself.

    Nothing shows more clearly the irresponsibility of Labour and Liberals alike – and how alike they are. They don’t seem concerned; they don’t seem to care. They would diminish our Westminster Parliament. The end result of their policies would be a disunited Kingdom in a United States of Europe. A United States of Europe? That means a federal Europe. The people of Britain don’t want a disunited Kingdom; and they won’t accept a federal Europe. But I warn the people. If they vote Labour or Liberal that is what they will get.

    They will get a federal Europe taking powers away from Westminster. They will get a tax raising parliament in Scotland taking powers away from Westminster. And they will get federal assemblies throughout England and Wales taking powers away from Westminster. Is that what people want for the Westminster Parliament? To strip it of authority and influence. But that’s what they will get if they vote Liberal or Labour. I warn the people.

    Ladies and gentlemen, thirteen years ago the Labour Leader fought against devolution. If I had to use any label, he said, I would call myself a Unionist. Not the label I would use for him. Now he tells us – and I quote: ‘I think that people can trust my word and attitude, because I’ve always been in favour of devolution.’ Was that a temporary lapse in a record of consistency? I rather think not. This is the European who ‘wanted out’ of Europe just a few years ago. This is the man who talks of defence but campaigned for years to disarm our country in the face of the Soviet threat.

    Ladies and gentlemen, do words mean anything to this man? He’s the chameleon of politics. Consistent only in his inconsistency. Wouldn’t it make a nice change to find an issue on which he hadn’t changed, for a change?

    Conclusion

    Never forget. In spite of a world recession we’re on course for a better life, a more secure life. We’ve learnt what to avoid and what to strive for. We’ve learnt to protect the weak, to encourage the young, to care for the old, and to keep our cities clean and our country safe, safe from attack on our values and our principles from without and within.

    Ladies and gentlemen, there are three great issues at the heart of this Election. Little debated, so far. But fundamental to the very fabric of our lives, about which I warn the people, warn them before it is too late. I speak the defence of our country, our place in Europe, the very survival of the United Kingdom. None of these would be safe in the hands of a Labour Government.

    Labour and Liberals in office would give Scotland and Wales devolution without even a referendum. They have said so. And in Europe whatever Brussels asked for Brussels would get. That, too, is abundantly clear.

    The breaking up of our United Kingdom and abject surrender to the most extreme demands of the European Commission, along with the defence of the realm, these things go to the very heart of our constitution. The future of our country takes precedence over every other consideration, even Party allegiance. On these things Labour is not to be trusted. I warn the people.

    The Conservative case is not nourished by dogma. The Conservative case does not assert theories discarded by most of the civilised world. To be a modern Conservative is not to be against some of the people; it is to be for all the people.

    Our standards and values are Britain’s heritage. It is we who are the traditional builders of national recovery and renewal.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is a critical, vital Election. None of us can afford to stay on the sidelines. To be a ‘don’t know’ may well be enough at certain elections. Not this one. What is at stake is the future of Britain. From such a contest no-one can stand aside.

    I urge all Conservatives and those who are broadly in sympathy with us to talk to any who are still uncertain. Remind them what we Conservatives stand for and what we believe in. A country of real opportunity. A country with a head. And a country with a heart. Open their eyes to the threat that our opponents present to their lives. Warn the people. And turn the ‘don’t knows’ into ‘now I know.’

    Tell them to vote for the team with experience. Vote for the team that will help recovery, not kill it. Vote for the team that will unite the country, not divide it. Vote for the team that will keep your family safe, not sorry. Vote for the team you can trust. Tell them those things – and on April 9th they will vote for a Conservative future.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Conservative Values – 30 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on Conservative values, held in Birmingham on Monday 30th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, let me come straight to the point. What is this Election about? It is about the future of our country. It is about the prospects we build for the next generation. Our security. Our place in the world. About the sort of society and the sort of values we want. About the unity of our United Kingdom. It is not about distorting the problems of one sick child for party political propaganda. It is about building the future of one healthy country – and who builds that future.

    Thirteen years ago, under Margaret Thatcher’s leadership, the British people dragged this country up from the floor. Why was it on the floor? Because that’s where the Labour Party and their trade union friends had left it. We don’t want to see that again. So we’re not going to let socialism slither in through the back door, when it’s being thrown out the front door all over the world. When they’re kicking out big brother everywhere else, we’re not going to let little brother come creeping back here.

    I know Socialism. Britain does not want it. Does not need it. Cannot afford it. It spreads envy; it creates division; it nourishes spite. It makes people feel uneasy about the things they’ve achieved for themselves. Are you successful? Then feel guilty. But you shouldn’t be guilty about being successful. You should be proud.

    Don’t fall for the Socialist con-trick. Don’t be bullied. Don’t be brainwashed. Socialism’s strictly for the dustbin. So go out and put it there.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud of what our country has achieved under a Conservative Government. And you, the British people, can be proud of it, too. You have every right to be. It’s your achievement. You did it. You put pride back into our country – created more wealth, higher living standards and better public services than we’ve ever known in our long history. And under the next Conservative government I say to everyone – you will keep and increase the wealth your hard work has earned. Choice for the people. Ownership by the people. Power to the people – that’s our aim. Opening the doors that socialism holds shut. I want every man and woman in Britain to enjoy the Right to Own and the Power to Choose.

    The Conservative Future

    Why does this Election matter so much? Let me paint the sort of life I want for every family.

    Inflation heading towards zero; and prices steady. Taxes coming down again. More money in the pockets of the people. People with spare cash so they can sign with confidence the purchase of a new car. Growth well under way, so overtime and extra earnings are back in business. A strong pound that holds its value. The right to a postal ballot whenever and wherever union bosses try to call a strike. And never, ever, any threat from flying pickets at the factory gate.

    There will be good State schools, that get the basics right, testing and reporting on progress, bringing the best out of each and every child. Schools no longer controlled by the council, but run by the headteacher, governors and parents. For some it could be a place on the assisted places scheme. For others a place at the local grammar school. Either way, it will be up to parents to choose.

    Whenever illness strikes, there will be a modern expanding Health Service there behind you, with free care for all. More say for the GP in how the best care should be given. And more successful Trust Hospitals that are cutting waiting times and performing more operations than ever before.

    Many a family will have bought the house they live in from the council. If it’s a Labour Council, it will probably have tried to hinder them – but thanks to the Conservatives all who want it have the Right to Buy. Though there are difficulties and sacrifices, it will in the end be worth it. And we have new policies to make it easier still. If it is prudent to do so interest rates will be cut, and the monthly mortgage brought down. Strong recovery will mean a pick-up in the housing market. And there will once again be a strong demand for property on sale.

    Privatisation shares should grow in value once the threat of a Labour government is gone – and we will give more opportunities to invest in shares. More people will have cash in hand to spend on the house. And once the world recession is over, and business is prosperous again, companies large and small should be working flat out.

    We will help millions more people to personal pensions, so they know they will have that extra security when they retire. And what’s more, I want every family to be able to pass on what they have built up in a lifetime of work. Pass it onto their children without the taxman taking another swipe.

    Ladies and gentlemen, these policies touch the lives of everyone. They are what Conservative policies began to open up for millions in the 80s. They are our ambitions for every family in the 1990s.

    The Labour Alternative

    Now look at the alternative. What would the country be like under Labour? I’ll tell you.

    No control of inflation. No stable prices – indeed a target to raise inflation to the European average. For the first time ever a political party goes into an Election promising to put inflation up. But not only inflation would go up.

    There would be big tax increases instead of tax cuts. A Labour government would mean £38 billion of extra spending. That’s the equivalent of £1250 a year on average for everyone who pays income tax, on top of Mr Smith’s mock budget tax attack. What price then the new car, the holiday, the mortgage?

    Overtime no longer worth it because of Labour’s National Insurance increases. The economic recovery clobbered by huge tax hikes. Inward investment chased away and jobs destroyed. More strikes and flying pickets back on our streets. Mr Kinnock’s credit controls making it harder to buy a new car and harder to buy a new home. The pound right down and devaluation back on the agenda.

    No self-managed schools. They’re gone. Fewer rights for parents. They’re not on offer. No assisted places scheme. That’s scrapped. Grammar schools closed. They give what too many parents want. Trust hospitals gone, along with all the reforms that had cut waiting lists and boosted operations.

    No cut in mortgage rates. Up they would go. And, far from house prices picking up, down they would plunge. No work for small trades – and with their policies few small traders at all, because the families that employ them would be paying their savings in tax.

    Personal pensions deliberately wrecked. Shares in privatised companies renationalised or their value driven down. And, at the end of their lives, inheritance tax waiting to grab the fruits of a lifetime’s work. No big legacy for the children. Just one last cheque for the State.

    In other words – a Nightmare on Kinnock Street. Every detail of everyone’s lives and everyone’s future will be affected by the decision you take on April 9th 1992. Don’t believe for a second that it doesn’t matter who wins. It matters desperately. It matters to Britain. And it matters to you.

    Don’t be fooled

    So don’t be fooled. Here’s the Labour Leader, nodding and winking and grinning, a foot-in-the-door salesman, trying to sell you a gentle, harmless semi-demi-socialism. Don’t buy that line. There’s no such thing. As a Polish politician who came to see us once said – and heaven knows the Poles should know from bitter experience – “socialism can’t be improved. It has to removed.” So remember: everything seemingly safe and secure can be reversed almost overnight. And with Labour in power it would be back to yesterday with a vengeance.

    Right Voice in the World

    Ladies and gentlemen, the world is moving fast. Shifting under our feet. We have won the Cold War. Just think about that. The Cold War has been won – by the West.

    Socialism in its most extreme form has been defeated. There are opportunities for freedom to grow, for partnership between nations, for the rebirth of a new Europe, for a new generation.

    But we have to take the right decisions, give the right leadership. So – under whose leadership do we go from here? Let us remind people:

    – Who won back for Britain the respect in which we are now held abroad? We did.

    – Who came to the defence of freedom in the Falklands and again in Kuwait? We did.

    – Who stood firm beside the United States in leading the NATO alliance? We did.

    – Who safeguards Britain’s security by keeping our nuclear deterrent up to date? We do.

    – Who first held out a hand to the new Russia and to Eastern Europe’s new democracies? We did.

    – Who reached an agreement at Maastricht which pointed the way to a wider, stronger Europe, whilst protecting Britain’s basic national interests? Yes. You’re right. We did.

    In short, whom can you trust to defend Britain and keep her safe? Whom can you trust to speak for Britain in Europe, the Commonwealth, and the United Nations as we build a new world? You can trust a Conservative Government – this one, the next one, and every one.

    But what of Mr Kinnock, with Mr Kaufman walking half a step behind? What of him?

    – Who campaigned for CND when the Cold War was at its height, and then let his membership ‘lapse’ when others had won it? He did.

    – Who fought NATO’s policy of standing up to the Soviet Union and opposed putting in Cruise Missiles when they had nuclear weapons targeted on us? He did. Yet it was because we stationed cruise missiles pointing to the East that today we have far fewer missiles pointing at us.

    – Who called our closest ally – the United States, the bastion of the free world – a threat equal to the Soviet Union? He did.

    – Who stood for office on a policy of giving away our nuclear deterrent and taking to the hills? He did.

    – Who refuses to give a commitment to build the fourth Trident that our armed forces say is essential for Britain? He does.

    – Who would have kept our troops sitting in the desert waiting for sanctions to dislodge Saddam Hussein? He would.

    – Who has changed policy on Europe six times – so far – ‘wanted out’ at one Election and wants surrender to Brussels at another? He has.

    – Who at Maastricht would have signed up to anything, any deal – at any price? He would.

    That’s the Kinnock and Kaufman line. Of course it may change. If we can’t make out what the two Ks believe in – and we speak English – what on earth would the rest of the world make of it all?

    Ladies and gentlemen, to safeguard the interests of Britain you need a clear head and a cool hand. Consistency. Coherence. Conviction.

    These serious issues need experience, judgement, a firm line, and a sure stand. The stakes are too high in this dangerous world for Britain to put its trust in Labour at home or overseas. They don’t know what they are doing on foreign policy or defence. They don’t know. We don’t know. Nobody knows.

    The challenge and the opportunities in Europe

    Ladies and gentlemen, what kind of world are we to build for our children?

    When you come to cast your vote, that is in every sense the heart of the matter.

    Before everything Britain must be secure. We must take no risks with defence. And no Conservative Government ever will. But we don’t want a negative Britain, a tentative Britain. We want a country with the courage to stand up for what it believes.

    That ‘s what we did at Maastricht. We are right to be at the heart of Europe, but let’s not be starry-eyed about it. Of course, we believe in it. We are part of Europe. It’s our community, our continent, too.

    But we must ask ourselves what kind of Europe we want.

    I want to complete that single market in Europe on which this Party has taken the lead. We need those open spaces for free enterprise to breathe and grow.

    But the greatest virtue of the European Community is not economic. Twice in this century a European war has brought the whole world to the brink of ruin. The bonds we have formed in Western Europe make it inconceivable that such a disaster could ever again begin here. That’s why I want to extend the Community wider until it reaches the far borders of Russia itself. Then we can bring to the countries of the East that gift of peace that we in the West enjoy. It may not happen in our political lifetime – but it will happen. And a secure life for our children will be the certain result.

    Ladies and gentlemen, that’s the positive side of Europe. That’s what we aim to develop. But there’s another side, too. And we’re not planning to jump in blindly as Labour would. There’s the scandal of countries that sign up for European directives and then do nothing about them. There is unnecessary interference by bureaucracy and red tape. And there’s the fatuous pursuit of conformity for the sake of conformity. Seeking to scrap the rules on quarantine that defend us against rabies. Pushing us to make illegal use of pounds and ounces. We’ve made it clear that we will have nothing to do with nonsense like that.

    And we’re not going to change our stand either on the Social Chapter we rejected at Maastricht. It would increase trade union power, push up industrial costs, destroy jobs and deter foreign investment. Hand over to Brussels decisions that are best made in Britain. All things bad for Britain – no wonder our opponents just can’t wait to sign up.

    Most important of all, if anyone but us had been there at Maastricht, Britain would now be signed up to full European Monetary Union; irrespective of whether it was right.

    That was the demand that was put to me at Maastricht. It was a demand that I wasn’t prepared to accept. We worked to negotiate a better deal for Britain. Labour called it a betrayal. But I believe you can be a good European and still say ‘No’. Indeed, to be a good European, you sometimes have to say ‘no’.

    Ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to a crunch at a summit, you’re alone in there. Alone with other countries’ leaders arguing the case for Britain. There’s nobody else to help you. Nobody to protect you. No minders. You’re on your own. That’s when experience counts. You’ve got to know your case. Got to master the details. One slip – one careless word – one stroke of temper – one gaffe – and you’ve sold Britain short. You can’t go back into the conference chamber and say: “Sorry, boyo, I got it wrong.”

    Safeguarding the Union

    But there is another crucial constitutional issue at the very heart of this Election. The unity of the United Kingdom. It is, quite literally, the national issue. I do not believe that many people understand what is at stake in this Election. Our political opponents now advocate a course which could lead to the break-up of Britain itself.

    The Labour and Liberal parties are proposing a separate tax-raising parliament for Scotland. It is a policy that would cause the very bedrock of our constitution to quake. It would have profound consequences for Parliament at Westminster. You cannot deny English, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs the right to vote on health or education or industry in Scotland and then keep full rights for Scottish Members at Westminster to vote on these matters for the West Midlands.

    It simply cannot be done. It wouldn’t wash with the people of the other parts of Britain. They wouldn’t see it as reasonable or fair. And it wouldn’t be reasonable or fair. But once diminish the voting rights of Scotland’s MPs at Westminster, and you would cause new bitterness. Once create a new Parliament in Scotland, and you would create a focus for every grievance – imagined or real – that one part of this Kingdom had against another.

    It is with these dangers that our opponents are now playing. Devolution is at the top of a slope that leads down into the disaster of separation. Once start on that slide – and it would be perilously difficult to stop. The demon of division would be abroad in the land.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the future of the United Kingdom is not something to be toyed and trifled with for short-term Party advantage. But that is what our opponents are doing.

    Labour and Liberal policy would weaken us all. It could lead to a Disunited Kingdom in a United States of Europe. No issue at this election is more far-reaching, more fundamental. A little Scotland and a lesser Union. It would be an unimaginable disaster. Are we, in our generation, perhaps without even realising, to toss away the Union, the rock on which Britain’s greatness rests?

    Ladies and gentlemen, I say ‘No’. The Conservative Party says ‘No’. We must rouse the people to this danger. Warn them. So that they rise and reject with scorn the policies of those foolish men who would have our country surrender in Europe and separate at home. Never, never, never, must the people of Britain go down that road.

    Changing Britain: the reforms of the 1980s

    Ladies and gentlemen, I want a country for our children that is proud and confident, dynamic and prosperous.

    During the 1980s we Conservatives introduced the fundamental reforms needed to create a successful and thriving economy.

    We reduced tax and restored incentives.

    We reformed trade union law and changed industrial attitudes.

    We returned to the people two thirds of the companies owned by the State.

    And we created a culture in which risk-taking and enterprise became attractive again.

    As a result we transformed the British economy. Strikes fell to the lowest levels ever recorded. Investment and productivity soared. And living standards were raised to record levels. And for the first time in a generation our share in world trade began to grow.

    Over the 1980s manufacturing output and manufacturing productivity grew by leaps and bounds. I am sick and tired of hearing British manufacturing industry run down by our Labour opponents. In the West Midlands you know – as I do – how crucial manufacturing is for our children’s future. Manufacturing success is vital for Britain. I will do all in my power to make it secure. But I will tell you what would wreck it. Higher taxes would wreck it. Higher inflation would wreck it. Higher costs would wreck it. Bad industrial relations would wreck it. A Labour government would wreck it.

    Only Labour can stop recovery

    Our economic reforms of the 1980s are still in place. We’ve got the fundamentals right. Inflation is falling. Interest rates have come down. And the exchange rate is stable. It all means Britain is poised for a strong recovery. All it needs is the confidence a Conservative victory will bring. Then we’ll see the Midlands hum again.

    Success for our opponents would stop that recovery dead in its tracks. That’s not just our view; it’s the view of business. One quarter of all businessmen say they would cut investment if Labour won. And why? Because Labour would reverse every one of the Conservative measures on which recovery depends.

    Where we have lowered income tax, Labour would raise it.

    Where we have privatised, Labour would nationalise.

    Where we have taken Government off industry’s back, Labour would put industry on its back.

    And where we have curbed the power of the militants, Labour would unleash them again. It’s one thing seeing them at Bolton and Luton. But I am not going to let them back in Downing Street again.

    Ladies and gentlemen, under Labour, the recovery that lies ahead would be turned into slump.

    When will they ever learn? You can’t tax people into a national recovery. You can’t build national recovery on a philosophy that has emptied the shelves in every supermarket of the Eastern block. The selfsame socialism that, last time they were in office, reduced Britain to the indignity of Mr Roy Hattersley – he of the ‘dream ticket’, remember, administering a third-world subsidy on the price of bread? Not, I imagine, that Mr Hattersley dines principally on bread.

    Homeowners under Labour

    Ladies and gentlemen, there’s one thing about Britain in the 1980s that you won’t hear about from Labour. It is what Conservative policies of the Right to Buy and the Right to Own have given to families who never dreamed they would have anything to leave to their children. 6 million households have bought their homes since 1979. Four and a half million people have personal pensions. 10 million people now own shares – 6 million in the State companies we sold to the people.

    On all these issues Labour fought us all the way. They wanted to stop the British people becoming owners. No-one out there who gained in the 1980s should ever forget it. Dare you trust your home, your shares, your pension to the very people who battled to stop you having them? Who in this hall would ever do that?

    The return of a Labour government would undermine all that you have worked to build. Not by accident. Not by oversight. But by policy, deliberately. For socialism is the doctrine of common ownership, State ownership, not personal ownership. When it comes to ownership they don’t begin to understand – and they don’t begin to care.

    Health

    Ladies and gentlemen, a word about our National Health Service. It is our National Health Service. It doesn’t belong to the Labour Party. We have cherished it, built it, modernised it. And now we’re reforming it to make it even more successful, treating even more patients than ever before.

    They’re working, those reforms, really working. Strengthening the Health Service. Extending wider, ever wider, the frontiers of free, modern patient care. It’s time somebody took the gloves off about the Health Service. Well, mine are coming off now – and staying off. I want you all to shout from the rooftops the miracles that our doctors, nurses, and hospitals have achieved.

    We have given the Health Service the strongest support it has ever had from any Government. Over 13 years, year after year after year, we’ve put more money into the Health Service than even the rashest Labour opposition ever dared promise. And why? Because we know how to run a free market economy, how to create the resources that, through thick and thin, help our Health Service grow.

    Labour couldn’t do that with their now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t promises. The last Labour government really did cut the Health Service. Really did cut hospital building. Really did cut nurses’ pay. And pushed the waiting lists up to an all-time high – the most shameful record even in their barren history. And these are the people who dare to lecture us.

    I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, their exploitation of the Health Service shows up the real face of Labour. Shallow. Cynical. Negative. Desperate for power. These are people ready to fabricate every imaginable fiction about our great national institution if it ‘serves their purpose’.

    I give the people of Britain this promise. Any government I lead will make the National Health Service, ever better, ever stronger, ever more able to tackle the huge challenges of modern health care. It’s not our Health Service. It’s your Health Service, yours – the people’s. And we will protect it – and we will build it up.

    Education

    Ladies and gentlemen, there’s another great service about which I feel passionately – the education service. So here’s another pair of gloves coming off. I will fight for a good start in life for every child. I will fight for the rights of parents, for variety in education, and for a return to basics in the classroom. Our children have only one chance for a proper grounding in life. And I am simply not prepared to see their future blighted by destructive theories. I want them to concentrate on the basics in education. To read. To write. To add up. That’s where they must start. And it’s on that we must build.

    Too many of our children have been victims of Labour’s fetish for levelling-down. Vital props for life, like spelling, tables and dates banished from the classroom. Children of different abilities made to learn at the same speed. Tests resisted – in case they showed how little had been learned. Parents denied information, results, reports – in case awkward questions were asked.

    Where’s the logic in setting out deliberately to close down good schools and undermine quality in those that remain? But that’s what the Left did, right here in Britain. And that’s what Labour still plan, right here in the West Midlands. Nine people out of ten in Birmingham support its grammar schools. But Labour would shut them – and every other grammar school in Britain. What a pointless, negative policy it is. And what a degrading spectacle. Grammar school men and women picking on grammar school girls and boys.

    I make no distinction between any school, any parent, any child. In our Manifesto we have set out 39 steps to a better education for all. So be in no doubt. After April 9 we will press on with our reforms in education, extend parents’ rights, and let more schools go free of council control, wherever the parents so wish. My belief is easily expressed. The best for every child – the best from every child. That’s what I will fight for in this Election and after it. That’s what our children deserve. Nothing but the best. And they shall have it. For they are our tomorrow.

    Conclusion

    Ladies and gentlemen, the day of decision is coming nearer. It’s the day when Britain will decide whether to go on leading the world towards a future based on choice, personal ownership and private enterprise. Or to slide back almost alone into the mire of socialism.

    Go out and tell the people what’s at stake. Go out and open their eyes to the threat that Labour and Liberals present to their lives. Go out and tell them what the Nightmare on Kinnock Street would mean for us all.

    And go out and tell them of the new wealth, the new opportunities a Conservative Government will bring. For our pledge to Britain is a better future for all. A future where every individual counts. Power to the people. And pride in the world. That’s our battlecry.

    What I want is a country of real opportunity, where everyone of our people is free to choose. A country with a head. And a country with a heart. Wealth and welfare hand in hand.

    If that’s what you care for, if that’s what you fight for. Then go out with me on April 9 – and win for Britain, win for our children, win for freedom, and win for all our futures.

  • PMQT – 30th January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th January 1992. John MacGregor deputised for John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been having important discussions today with President Yeltsin, who is on his first visit abroad as President of an independent Russia. My right hon. Friend will be meeting President Bush this evening after my right hon. Friend’s arrival in New York to chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

    Mr. Jones : I am sorry that I so rattled the Prime Minister with my question at the previous Prime Minister’s Question Time that he has not come to the House today. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies spring budget report shows that Government borrowing is likely to reach £20 billion next year, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have reneged on their promises to balance the books?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman will have to await the Budget statement on matters relating to his question. As is absolutely clear, we have made our spending plans public. They are set out in detail and we have indicated how they are paid for. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear on Tuesday. I note that the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers says :

    “Labour, if elected, would have little scope for increased spending in the early years unless it were willing to increase taxes by more than it has indicated.”

    The country now says, “And how!”

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that too often we lose sight of the fact that the national health service was born as a result of co-operation between three parties? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the founders of the health service would be horrified at the resistance to the reforms so ably carried out by the Government for the benefit of patients throughout the country?

    Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree. It is clear that we have not only substantially increased expenditure on the national health service but that we are the only party proposing credible reforms, the results of which are already showing. I assume that that is why a consultant, who is the nephew of a distinguished former socialist in the House, said yesterday :

    “I do not believe the health service would be safe in Labour’s hands.”

    Mr. Hattersley : When the Prime Minister said on Tuesday that if the Conservatives were re-elected they would not increase VAT, was he giving the House and the country a categorical assurance?

    Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear on Tuesday.

    Mr. Hattersley : Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister also made the position categorically clear on 6 April, when he said :

    “No honest Government could give a categorical assurance that they would not increase VAT. No Government ever has, and no Government ever will.”

    Was the Prime Minister telling the truth last Tuesday or last April?

    Mr. MacGregor : What my right hon. Friend said on Tuesday is : “There will be no VAT increase we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them.”–[ Official Report, 28 January 1992 ; Vol. 202, c. 808.]

    That is absolutely clear, and it is in clear contrast to the position of the Labour party, which maintains its high spending policies and is all over the place in deciding how to finance them.

    Mr. Hattersley : It is absolutely clear that the Leader of the House has either no authority or insufficient courage to say whether that promise was categorical or whether it was what the country believes it to have been– evidence of a Prime Minister panicked into making a promise that he has no intention of keeping. Is not the truth about Tory policy on VAT revealed in the party’s latest campaign document–that the way to raise taxes is “Wait until they spend the money as that is the right moment to tax them”?

    Mr. MacGregor : I repeat that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear, as we have done on many occasions. It is also clear that in the last two weeks the whole country, as it heard different voices and different noises, has wondered who is speaking for the Labour party. Indeed, on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman was proposing that Labour’s recession package should be introduced after the recession had ended.

    Mr. Dykes : Has my hon. Friend noticed that in recent weeks, as the public have been able to assess our present policies and our future policy offerings, there has been a very sharp and noticeable increase in our opinion poll ratings? That is not just a coincidence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opinion poll improvement in the past few weeks reflects not only our excellent policy range but the fact that the election is getting closer and the best is yet to come?

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree that as we unfold our positive policies over the next few weeks, and as the electorate sees more and more of what Labour is offering–or not offering–what my hon. Friend has suggested will come about.

     

    Q2. Mr. McAvoy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. McAvoy : The Cabinet is split from top to bottom over the Prime Minister’s policy of using Common Market grants for tax cuts instead of for the provision of help to deprived areas. Will the Leader of the House confirm the report in yesterday’s Financial Times that the rules for allocating this money were changed in 1988 with the approval of the Government, and will he give an immediate assurance that the new rules will be obeyed? Why should Britain’s areas of highest unemployment suffer because of Tory party internal divisions?

    Mr. MacGregor : There are no internal Tory party divisions. The position on the particular issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is that for some years now we have pursued the same policy that the money has been, in the formula applied, additional and is reflected in higher public spending plans, and that it is for the Commissioner to honour the pledge that we have had for years past.

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes : Has my right hon. Friend noticed in the past few days the widespread support for our plans to seek better-quality services from councils? Has he noticed that much advice has been given to us on how that should be done? Some of the advice is bizarre. Will he confirm that he will reject advice to use as a role model councils such as Lambeth, Liverpool, Hackney and Southwark–in other words, councils which have high borrowing, rotten services and high community charges and which have lost control of their housing stock, and all of which are run by the Labour party?

    Mr. MacGregor : It is clear that nearly all of the 10 worst councils in terms of rent collection and houses left empty are Labour controlled. It is also clear that many of the high-spending authorities are Labour. The country will draw its own conclusion that under a Labour Administration there are great inefficiencies, high spending and high taxation.

     

    Q3. Mr. Kilfoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Kilfoyle : Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and given the obvious confusion among Ministers about the implications of their electoral promises for the future level of value added tax, can the Leader of the House conjure up the actual figure for value added tax when his Government came to office in June 1979, and the level now as they go out of office?

    Mr. MacGregor : We have, of course, in addition undertaken a considerable change– [Hon. Members :– “Answer.”] I intend to answer. We have undertaken a considerable change from direct to indirect taxes, which is absolutely right because it enables many more people to spend their money as they wish. That is the policy which we have pursued consistently, with the result that direct taxation has come down substantially. However, we did not have the very high rates on many goods such as television sets, which are described as luxury goods but are essentials for many people–rates which we inherited and which I understand that the Labour party would consider again.

     

    May Day

    Q4. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for the future of the May day bank holiday.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The Government have no plans to change the present public holiday arrangements, although we shall continue to keep the situation under review.

    Mr. Field : Why do we not throw off this hangover of socialism and instead celebrate a free enterprise day, a British export day or, better still, a low taxation day? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who think that high taxation is the answer to recession are about to try to convince the electorate that suffocation is a form of first aid?

    Mr. MacGregor : On the question about May day being a bank holiday, I can give my hon. Friend some comfort. Although I know that my hon. Friend is interested in switching it to the autumn, we have no plans to do that because there are different views about it. I think that he will agree nevertheless that on May day, instead of celebrating socialism, we now celebrate the end of socialism.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing : Will the Lord President of the Council, as a fellow Scot, tell me whether he has had the opportunity to study in depth the implications of the ICM opinion poll?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Sadly, the question is about May day.

     

    Engagements

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Bellingham : Will the Leader of the House find time today to plan a journey from south Norfolk to north-west Norfolk to look at the local health services? He is welcome to bring with him Sir Roy Griffiths. He will see that a number of general practitioner practices have become fundholders, that a local NHS trust has already reduced waiting lists by 1,200 in the last year, and that a district authority is about to merge with a neighbour to give itself more clout. Are not those the results of Tory policies working for the benefit of patients?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. The same is happening in west Norfolk, as well as throughout the country. As a result of the reforms, already in a very short period we see improved services, shortened waiting lists, and so on. Interestingly, we are also seeing increasing support for the reforms from the medical profession itself and increasing take-up of them.

    Mr. Redmond : Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the request that he restore to Back Benchers–

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not know what the hilarity is about, but please carry on.

    Mr. Redmond : –the right to examine Government legislation and that he stop the appalling use of the guillotine which stifles it?

    Mr. MacGregor : We shall be discussing that matter in a short while. I shall make plain our position on today’s business.

     

    Q6. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is evidence of the growing success of the Government’s education reforms that this year 28,800 people have enrolled for teacher training courses–20 per cent. more than last year and the best figure for 15 years? Is that not in stark contrast with the cynical disregard for educational standards shown by those Labour Members who filibustered on the parents charter Bill last night?

    Mr. MacGregor : Later today we shall be able to debate further the great improvement in standards that we are achieving as a result of our reforms. My hon. Friend draws attention to one of them. I am delighted with the considerable increase in the number coming forward for teacher training. It reflects the fact that we have considerably improved the salary prospects and career prospects of teachers as a result of all the steps that we have taken in recent years.

     

    Q7. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Will the Leader of the House confirm that although few people in Britain would expect the Prime Minister to match President Yeltsin bottle for bottle, they will find it odd that the Government insist on increasing or doubling Britain’s nuclear fire power when both the Russians and the Americans see good reasons for cutting theirs?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and I want to make the position clear. We welcome the proposals to reduce the super-power arsenals. They are wonderful news for all of us. We must hope that the current plans are implemented. But let us be perfectly clear about the scale of what is involved. The present arsenal of the former Soviet republics is 27,000 warheads, and it will take them many years to implement the current proposals. Even at the end of that process, they will have thousands of nuclear weapons. Our deterrent involves one boat on patrol at all times with no more than 128 warheads. So the scale is very different. I believe that the whole country thinks that with the uncertainties in the world–in the middle east and elsewhere, as well as in the Soviet Union– and looking ahead to the next 10 years, it is essential that we maintain our minimum credible nuclear deterrent.

  • PMQT – 17 December 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th December 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

    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. Garrett : Last week the head teachers association of Cambridgeshire wrote to the county council to say that because of critical shortages of books, equipment and facilities and because of oversized classes, it would have serious difficulty providing the national curriculum. Under those circumstances, what advice does the Prime Minister give to his constituents–to buy private education, as he does?

    The Prime Minister : In Cambridgeshire the education standard spending assessment for the current year is £225 million, 16.4 per cent. higher than last year. There has been another substantial increase for 1992-93, an increase which safeguards the position of all children in Cambridgeshire.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

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

    Mr. Bruce : Does my right hon. Friend welcome the British Medical Association’s somewhat belated conversion to the concept of fund-holding GPs? Does he agree with the BMA that that should now be extended to every GP who wants to hold a fund?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that GP fund-holding has been proving successful and has been extending quite dramatically. I welcome the fact that that is the case. We are currently considering how the benefits of fund holding can be extended and will make an announcement in the new year.

    Mr. Kinnock : In the interests of establishing the causes of the present mortgage crisis, could the Prime Minister confirm that, as Minister of State for Social Security, he halved mortgage support for newly unemployed people and that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he put the mortgage rate up to its highest in history?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had done his homework–rather unusually–better than he has, he would know, first, that the change in the 16-week rule was introduced after lengthy consultations with building societies and, secondly, that at the time, they said that there was no reason for people to lose their homes because of that reduction; nor have they.

    Mr. Kinnock : I think the answer that the Prime Minister was groping for was yes. Since he and his policies are uniquely responsible for the difficulties being experienced and the record repossessions and arrears, will he accept the obligation for introducing a proper mortgage rescue scheme, like the one recommended by the Labour party, instead of trying to shift the blame on to everyone else?

    The Prime Minister : The alleged mortgage rescue scheme proposed by the Labour party is a farce and has been denounced as such and the right hon. Gentleman should know it. As for the real problem, we are in the midst of discussions with the Building Societies Association and others and in due course we shall make an announcement that will build on the assistance that we have already provided. We have been considering the problem for some time– [Interruption.] –unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who has only just discovered it.

    Mr. Kinnock : What is a farce, a tragic farce, is the Government’s record–a Government who came to power to provide a property-owning democracy and ended with a debt-ridden recession. Since, because of the right hon. Gentleman’s policies, the building societies stand to lose £1 billion because of mortgage repossessions and since local authorities are having to spend £500 million on bed-and- breakfast and temporary accommodation, does not the Prime Minister think that the rescue mortgage scheme that we have promoted would be the effective way to ensure not only the relief of misery for scores of thousands of families, but that at least he did the honourable thing by his victims?

    The Prime Minister : The alleged mortgage rescue scheme about which the hon. Gentleman boasts was described this morning by an independent commentator as

    “a policy made in an Enid Blyton story book”

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman’s policy is ludicrous. As for the levels of owner occupation, there are 3.5 million more owner- occupiers today than there were in 1979 and no doubt 3.5 million more than there would have been had the right hon. Gentleman been in government.

    Sir Hugh Rossi : If one were looking for the reasons for the present situation, does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been the departure of the building societies and other lenders from the traditional concept of not lending more than 75 per cent. of actual valuation, nor, from the point of view of personal status– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to make his point.

    Sir Hugh Rossi : –more than one quarter of monthly salary? If those criteria had been adhered to, many people would not be in their present position. Does my right hon. Friend agree–

    Hon. Members : Too long.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is being rather long-winded.

    Sir Hugh Rossi : Will my right hon. Friend consider legislation to ensure that those traditional criteria are adhered to in future to stop this cyclical problem arising every so many years?

    The Prime Minister : It is a sad fact that many people over-extended their mortgage commitments and now face difficulties. The Government are playing their part to alleviate those difficulties and we expect the mortgage lenders–all the responsible ones–to play their part in that. The sensible ones know that it is in their interests to do so.

    Mr. Ashdown : If the Prime Minister is really keen to assist families who now stand in danger of having their homes repossessed, will he recognise the anomaly that exists between those on low incomes who pay rent and receive housing benefit and those on low incomes who pay mortgages and do not?

    The Prime Minister : I recognise that point very well. But the right hon. Gentleman should not pose, as he frequently does, as the friend of the home-owner– [Interruption.] –Oh, no. His policies are to put up taxes and abolish mortgage income tax relief. He should stop coming to the House pretending to support home-owners when his policies would discriminate against them.

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Does my right hon. Friend accept that only the very wealthy or the very foolish can afford to go to the libel courts for justice? If ordinary people are to have justice, perhaps a jury should find whether somebody is guilty of libel, but these £250,000 and £500,000 judgments are not justice but folly. Should not judges be able to decide what award is justified?

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter on which I should be wise to seek the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor. Even in the heat and battle of Prime Minister’s questions, it is best to go away and reflect on some matters.

     

    Leith

    Q3. Mr. Ron Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the port of Leith.

    The Prime Minister : I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country and very much hope to visit the Edinburgh area again before too long.

    Mr. Brown : That is welcome news. Leithers will give the Prime Minister a warm welcome, but they will put him in the hot seat because of mass unemployment, homelessness and general misery, which have been experienced not just in my constituency, but throughout Britain. Nevertheless, being constructive, members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians have published a report entitled “Kick- start”, which makes various proposals on how to get people back to work and revive the economy. Will the Prime Minister read that report and, more importantly, act on it? If not, the lessons are clear–there will not be a kick-start come the next election, but the Tories will be kicked out. That message is clear in my constituency and I am sure that it is clear in others.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that during the course of this Parliament, unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 32 per cent. The Scottish Office has taken a number of initiatives on homelessness, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In the four Scottish cities, £3.5 million in extra capital allocations have been made available for homelessness and a further £4 million extra capital for additional homelessness projects was made available last November. From April 1991, deficits on all local authority hostels met by Government subsidies will be worth an extra £1 billion a year. So a great deal has been done by the Scottish Office. In future, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge the dramatic reduction in unemployment in his constituency during this Parliament.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Gwilym Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December 1991.

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

    Mr. Jones : Does my right hon. Friend agree that inward investment from America and Japan has brought highly paid, highly skilled and highly trained new jobs to areas like south Wales? Does he also agree that to brand such investment as “sweatshops” is a grave affront to the employees of those companies? The Labour party is telling those investors that they are not welcome here and encouraging them to go elsewhere.

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. It is within the recollection of the House that, some Question Times ago, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was boasting about the Japanese investment in his constituency. Perhaps he will tell us whether that is “sweatshop” investment. If it is not, will he denounce his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who made the comment?

     

    Q5. Mr. Battle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

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

    Mr. Battle : Does the Prime Minister recall when, as Minister for Social Security, he cut mortgage support in half and said that there would be no reason to suppose that repossessions would increase? He said, “It will not happen”. In view of that, does not he owe many thousands of families in Britain a personal apology?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should check his facts more carefully. The Building Societies Association assured the Government at the time that, when the rule was introduced, there would be no reason to expect people to lose their homes as a result and they have not done so. The simplest inquiry by the hon. Gentleman would have ascertained that fact.

    Mr. Watts : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Councillor Mrs. Lydia Simmons, the Labour chairman of the housing committee in Slough, on her appointment as a member of the board of the NHS trust for Wexham Park hospital in my constituency? Does he agree that there is room for sensible people of all political persuasions to serve the community through NHS hospital trusts?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We need people of talent, whatever their political persuasions, in such public positions and I look forward to people of talent taking them up regularly.

     

    Q7. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

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

    Mr. Dunnachie : Will the Prime Minister promise the House that no senior citizen, sick or disabled person need die from hypothermia or any illnesses resulting from it because they do not have the money to heat their homes? Does the Prime Minister agree that the elderly, sick and disabled should automatically receive a heating allowance every winter instead of having to go cap in hand to the Government? Does not he understand that it is action, not words, that the elderly, sick and disabled of Britain require of him?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know that the House was advised in the summer of a new scheme to assist people during periods of very cold weather–well over 1 million payments are expected to be made for the recent cold spell. Those payments were not available under previous Governments.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 December 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th December 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Government Achievements

    Mr. Nicholls : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the achievements of Her Majesty’s Government over the past year.

    The Prime Minister : Over the past year the Government have continued to pursue policies designed to remove barriers to choice and provide opportunities for all the people of this country, to lay a sound basis for future prosperity, to play a full part in Europe and to contribute to international peace and stability.

    Our firm financial policies, reaffirmed by our commitment to the exchange rate mechanism, have reduced inflation sharply and permitted interest rates to be substantially reduced. The conditions necessary for resumed growth have now been established.

    We have brought forward a Bill to provide for a new council tax, to replace the community charge in financing local government spending. The Budget helped businesses, large and small. We have taken initiatives to encourage innovation in industry and improve export performance. We have initiated joint action with industry to help identify and pursue export opportunities. Its first use in Kuwait in March 1991 has already led to orders worth £480 million for the United Kingdom. We have opened up telephone services to allow consumers to benefit from more competition.

    We have continued to promote wider share ownership. National Power, PowerGen and the non-nuclear electricity companies in England, Wales and Scotland, have been privatised, and a second tranche of shares in British Telecom sold to the public. One in four members of the adult population now owns shares.

    We have provided more effective training opportunities and are now offering a wider range of help than ever before to assist unemployed people in obtaining new jobs.

    We attach the highest priority to ensuring that everyone, whoever and wherever they are, will have access to high quality public services. The citizen’s charter White Paper announced a programme of radical initiatives to improve efficiency and standards in the public services and the privatised utilities. Measures to implement the charter feature strongly in our legislative programme for 1991-92, and we have published a number of charters relating to individual public services.

    In education we have taken action to raise standards and improve parental choice. The new School Teachers’ Review Body for England and Wales provides the means of improving teachers’ status. The development of the national curriculum will encourage concentration on basic skills. Our legislation to provide parents with more information about the performance of schools and to improve school inspection will give parents the basis on which to exercise the choices they are now able to make.

    We have also introduced legislation to widen access to an expanded higher education system, to abolish the distinction between universities and other higher education institutions, and to raise the status of vocational education and of further education colleges. Spending on science by the Department of Education and Science will top £1 billion for the first time next year and will rise in real terms for the remainder of the planning period.

    The Government’s health policies have led to an increase in the number of patients treated, a reduction in waiting times and lists, better quality of care and greater awareness of health promotion. The consultative document “The Health of the Nation”, setting out a comprehensive strategy for better health, has been warmly welcomed. Record levels of resources have been made available : spending on the NHS in 1992-93 will be nearly £36 billion, a 55 per cent. increase in real terms since 1978-79.

    The NHS reforms are already yielding tangible benefits for patients. Fifty seven NHS trusts have already been established and 99 more approved for start-up in 1992. The growing enthusiasm for trust status within the NHS means that many more will follow. GP fundholding is also proving a success. The patients charter has set out patients’ rights for the first time and the standards which will be set nationally and locally by the health service, including the first waiting time guarantees.

    We have maintained our determined efforts in the fight against crime. We have established a royal commission on criminal justice to examine the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in securing the convictions of those guilty of criminal offences and the acquittal of the innocent.

    In September we published “This Common Inheritance–The First Year Report” reporting progress on the whole range of environmental policies and concerns, and listing 400 separate measures taken during the year.

    We have continued to raise standards of food safety, ensure consumers are better informed, make environmental considerations central to agricultural policy, with significant extension of environmentally sensitive areas, as well as raising standards of animal welfare in Britain and taking the lead in setting higher standards throughout Europe.

    We have continued to invest record sums in the improvement of the United Kingdom’s transport infrastructure, and to encourage greater private sector involvement in the provision of transport facilities. We have introduced legislation to enable the structure of English local government to be reviewed so as better to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.

    We have continued to work for the regeneration of our cities. The city challenge initiative encourages local authorities to work with their private, voluntary sector and local community partners, to regenerate key areas of their cities.

    In the housing field, the new emphasis on quality of performance will further improve the renovation and management of council housing in England and Wales. We have introduced pilot rent-to-mortgage schemes, to extend tenants’ opportunities to buy their homes, and brought in new arrangements to ensure that tenants are actively consulted in local authorities housing plans. A special programme of hostels and permanent housing is reducing the numbers of people sleeping rough in central London.

    We have improved the position of children. We have increased child benefit, and pledged to increase it in line with inflation in the future. The Children Act, which came into effect this year, is a far reaching reform of children’s rights. The new Child Support Agency, for which legislation was passed earlier this year, will improve the assessment, collection and enforcement of child maintenance. We are continuing to enhance the opportunities for disabled people to play an independent part in society. In 1991 we enacted legislation providing for two new social security benefits for disabled people. Nineteen-ninety-one has seen momentous events internationally. The United Kingdom’s contribution to the liberation of Kuwait enhanced our standing in the world, strengthened the power of the United Nations and proved again the outstanding abilities of our armed forces. We responded rapidly to the Iraqi Government’s persecution of their own people, proposing the safe-haven initiative to provide an effective response to the plight of ordinary Iraqis. Building on the experience of this we launched the United Kingdom’s disaster relief initiative in August to provide the capacity for an immediate informed response to disasters round the world.

    The United Kingdom contributed significantly to the successful outcome of the Maastricht European Council. We have fully protected the United Kingdom’s right to take its own decision at the appropriate time on a move to the final stage of economic and monetary union. On political union, we have agreed a series of pragmatic reforms, many as a result of our proposals, which will make the Community more efficient, accountable and effective internationally. The new treaty on European union will also strengthen inter-governmental co-operation outside the framework of the Community in important areas like the fight against crime. We have continued to make steady progress towards completing the single market by the end of 1992 and to the conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round. The Government welcomed the determination confirmed at the Maastricht European Council to keep the Community open to our European neighbours who are eager for closer links and eventual membership. It was agreed that in 1992 negotiations would take place on applications from countries of the European Free Trade Area to join the Community, and, in due course, consideration would be given to the further possibility of expansion towards eastern Europe. I chaired the successful G7 economic summit in July and the historic meeting between summit leaders and President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. The Government vigorously denounced the attempted coup in the Soviet Union and supported President Yeltsin’s courageous stand against it. I have co-ordinated the G7 programme of aid for the republics of the Soviet Union.

    The Government played an important part in concluding the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe. We have continued to make a substantial contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, participating fully in adapting the alliance, and developing a stronger European defence identity in the Western European Union. We have taken steps to restructure the armed forces to reflect the changed international situation.

    We have made a determined effort to promote democracy and good government in the developing countries, as a means to improving the prospects for development and the reduction of poverty. My announcement at the Commonwealth conference in Harare in October that the United Kingdom would implement the Trinidad terms debt reduction initiative for the poorest and most indebted countries was widely and warmly welcomed. If all official creditors followed this lead, the total debt of the countries concerned would be reduced by some $17 billion. At our instigation, the European Community and the Commonwealth have taken a more positive attitude to the welcome developments in South Africa, and sporting links have now been re- established with that country.

    These policies will ensure that the United Kingdom is well placed and fully prepared to meet the challenges of the 1990s.

     

    World Memorial Day

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what contribution Her Majesty’s Government intends to make to World Memorial Day on 1 January 1992.

    The Prime Minister : The Government note the inauguration of World Memorial Day on 1 January 1992 by the Memorial Fund for Disaster Relief. Her Majesty’s Government will continue to do all they can to promote a safer and better world which is the stated object of the fund.

     

    Packaging

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to require Her Majesty’s Stationery Office to use biodegradeable rice paper chips in place of styrofoam chips in packaging of parcels.

    The Prime Minister : This question falls within the scope of the policy announced in Cm 1263; arrangements have therefore been made for the controller and chief executive of HMSO to respond direct. Copies of the letter will be placed in the House Library and with the Public Information Office.

     

    Nuclear Weapons

    Mr. Michael Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister what evaluation has been made of which countries have the know-how for safely dismantling nuclear weapons.

    The Prime Minister : The five declared nuclear weapon states have to dismantle and reassemble their own nuclear weapons in order to maintain their stockpiles. The break-up of the Soviet Union may pose a range of problems, including the safe disposal of nuclear warheads. We are addressing these problems, in consultation with our allies and Soviet and Republic authorities.

     

    Junior Doctors

    Mr. Norris : To ask the Prime Minister if he has yet received the supplementary report from the Doctors and Dentists Review Body on pay for out-of-hours work for junior doctors.

    The Prime Minister : This report has been published today and copies are in the Vote Office. I am grateful to the review body for the work they have put into preparing it.

    The report recommends new rates of pay for out of hours working by hospital doctors and dentists in training, following the agreement reached earlier this year which introduced new working arrangements and set limits on contracted hours of duty for such staff. The recommended rates of pay are : —

    100 per cent. of the basic rate for full shift working

    70 per cent. of the basic rate for partial shift working 50 per cent. of the basic rate for on call rota working The recommendations, which arise from a major restructuring of working arrangements, are estimated to increase the paybill for hospital doctors and dentists in training by 5.8 per cent., given certain assumptions about the proportion of staff who will be contracted under each working pattern.

    The Government have decided to accept these recommendations and we shall seek to implement them as soon as possible in order to help to deliver our objective of reducing the hours of work of hospital doctors and dentists in training. The costs of the award will be met by health authorities and boards from the resources which we have made available to them this year and which we shall be making available to them in future years.