The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Higher Education

  • Sir John Major’s Royal Anniversary Trust Speech at Mansion House – 10 September 2025

    The speech made by Sir John Major at Mansion House, London, on 10 September 2025.

    Sir Damon, Ladies and Gentlemen ….

    Congratulations in getting here on a day when the tube system is on strike:  perhaps, one day, AI will replace London transport altogether.  I live in hope.

    Thirty years ago, I had the pleasure of congratulating the first winners of The Queen’s Anniversary Prizes – as they were then known – and addressing the first of many Prizewinners’ Dinners at Guildhall.  

     So, when the Royal Anniversary Trust invited me to speak to you, their Prizewinning alumni, supporters, and friends I was delighted to accept.

    Much has changed in those thirty years.  The world has moved on – and so has education ‒ in ways that are welcome, and some that are not.

    Today, far more British students have the opportunity to attend university, together with growing numbers from overseas.  The choice of subjects to study has widened, and reflects our modern world.  

    There is a greater demand for Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths;  the search for places for the latter two courses is at an all-time high.

    This interest in STEM subjects is excellent news for our future economy, but comes with the downside of a comparable decline in study of the Arts, Languages and History.  

    As Artificial Intelligence looms, the drop in Humanities Studies is likely to continue.  Personally, I regret that ‒ although I cannot deny the necessity of school and University studies mirroring the national need.

    Even so, my instinct is that our troubled world needs Humanities Studies as much – if not more – than in many past years.

    To lose History is a shame.  I have always believed that to prepare for the future one must understand the past, or previous mistakes will be repeated.  Certainly, that is true of politics and public life.  Too true, sadly, as we see today – both at home and overseas.  

    Although we are born with a unique DNA, it is our education and environment that shape us as adults.  In particular, it teaches us how to think and make judgements.  And, as adults, we need to see our country as it is ‒ and not as once it was.

    Our United Kingdom is 70 million people in a world of 9 thousand million, and the reality of that is unmistakable:  if we are to flourish in an ever more competitive world, we need the highest intellectual and vocational skills to safeguard our future.  Our wellbeing will be rooted in our education.

    I have a particular respect for education – perhaps because I had so little of it:  my fault, I should add, not that of my school.  But, post school, I had no choice but to study – for many years – to make up for what I had casually thrown away.

    This experience had one great advantage.  It taught me at a young age that learning is lifelong:  it does not end upon leaving formal education.  In many ways, that is where it begins.  [Certainly, that has been my experience].

    Experience of life tells me, too, that a rounded education must reach beyond the formal curriculum.  Culture ‒ in all its aspects, Sport, inter-personal skills, and inquisitiveness must be stimulated and nourished if the young are to make the best they can of their lives.  [Life must include leisure and pleasure as well as duty].

    We cannot be content with things as they are:  certainly not in education.

    Although great improvements have been made – and continue to be so – not all children have the same good fortune, the same opportunities, in every part of our country:  there are wide disparities.  

    It is beyond time that the promise of “Levelling Up” ‒ in education, in investment in the regions, in jobs, in social mobility ‒ is given political priority.  The circumstances of birth should not determine the quality of life.

    In saying this, I am talking of improving opportunities for those with little or none – not cutting back on the best to produce a false benchmark.  That is not only self-defeating, it is wrong.  

    Our national interest is to nurture merit, not waste it – as, sadly, we often do.  Destroying the best is short-sighted and foolish:  improving the worst is a national obligation.  

    When I was leaving Primary School in the early 1950s, only 16 Universities in England offered Higher Education courses – to a total of 100,000 students.  In those days, twice as many people laboured on farms as worked in financial services.  The past truly was another country.

    We are changing still ‒ only faster.  Last year, over 2 million students were enrolled.

    I talked once of what I called “a classless society”.  One of my aims – within that much misunderstood ambition – was to seek parity of esteem between white and blue collar employment – between intellectual and vocational skills ‒ both of which are vital if our nation is to prosper and thrive.

    Over the past thirty years, the numbers entering skills-based, vocational training have risen dramatically, and opened barriers to education that many felt were closed to them.  

    The learning of a Skill meets a national need, and offers personal independence, professional pride and – mostly – a better quality of life.  It is, as they say, a “Win, Win”.

    The demand for Skills will both change and grow in the years ahead.

    I am delighted that The Queen Elizabeth Prizes evaluate and acknowledge those twin strands of intellectual and vocational skills.  

    I believe that the Royal Anniversary Trust is unique in bringing these two communities together, and recognising them to be of equal value.  I warmly congratulate them on that.

    Over recent years, in a testing environment, our economy has performed below our expectations.  As we look ahead, our Universities and Colleges will educate the talent that can re-ignite growth – with all that means for our future.  

    Estimates tell us that Higher and Further Education contributes over half a trillion Pounds to our economy each year and – as the demand for STEM courses shows – it has the capacity to greatly increase that figure.  As it does, it will contribute to a higher quality of life for everyone.  To pervert an old saying, “Education is the root … of all progress”.  

    I don’t use those words idly.  Our best Universities and Colleges are among world leaders in finding solutions to global problems.  

    • Was it not an Oxford team behind the Covid-19 vaccine?  
    • Was it not Scotland’s Rural College whose genetic selection trials are transforming milk yields for subsistence farmers in Africa?  
    • Was it not the University of Surrey which developed cutting edge satellite technology to aid the UK’s first space exploration?  

    The answer is “Yes”, “Yes” and “Yes” again.  

    And these are but three examples of many more.  

    Earlier, I referenced overseas students.  Why do they come here ‒ these days at considerable financial cost?  It is because these young people – from far away – see our country as a global leader in Higher and Further Education.  People equate excellence in education with the United Kingdom, and it is our job to ensure they continue to do so.

    Yet we must be watchful as innovation changes our world.

    A mere thirty years ago, only a very few of our global population had access to the internet.  Today it is nearly universal, and almost impossible to imagine life without it.  

    We had high hopes of the internet, and many of them have been met.  

    But … the internet has its dark side, too, and – at its worst – it is very dark indeed.  

    As policymakers grapple with this, they must police Artificial Intelligence to inhibit ‒ and, if possible, prevent ‒ its misuse.  Education must navigate it, too ‒ and that challenge will be very great.

    I hope educators will not be too daunted.  Their role is crucial.  Scientific advance will ensure that education is a life-long journey, not merely a youthful rite of passage.  It is one of the principal sources of happiness, and success, and compassion – without which no conscience can be at ease.  We are all in debt to those who teach us.  

    To have such a responsibility is a unique vocation ‒ to my mind, among the first in any land ‒ 

    The legacy of education is our future, which is why this afternoon – on behalf of our country’s past, present and future pupils – it is my privilege to thank you all. 

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Queen’s Anniversary Prizes Dinner – 9 February 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech at the Queen’s Anniversary Prizes Dinner on 9th February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Four years ago – as a matter of principle and for the sake of our national interest – I said I would put education – standards of education – at the top of my agenda.

    I did so because our future prosperity – and our own very civility – depends on a population that is well-educated and highly skilled.

    But there were other reasons, too. Good education is the key that unlocks the door to a better future for every child. It is the route by which people – throughout history – have risen from the bottom of the heap to the top.

    And literally millions of people have had their lives enriched by the sheer joy of learning; by the love of literature, the arts and the sciences.

    Yet, in the past, too many children – bright eyed curious, normal children – university might have been another planet, an impossibly remote place whose arcane activities never seemed to touch their lives. University, many felt, was not “for the likes of us”. So much talent and potential went to waste.

    I knew children like that; in some senses I was one myself. So when I became Prime Minister I wanted to see that change.

    The target I set for the ’90s was to make a move forward in further and higher education greater than anything we had seen for a generation.

    Everyone should have a chance to succeed on merit. Not because of who they are, but of what they are, and what they have proved themselves to be. That is what I mean by a classless society – and high-class education is at the very core of it.

    Tonight we are here to honour today’s prizewinners. And can I add my own – and warmest – congratulations to all those the winners have rightly received?

    The awards are given by the Queen’s Anniversary Trust. So it is reasonable today to look back 40 plus years to the time of the Coronation.

    Then – though it’s hard to believe – there were only 16 universities in England – and just over 100,000 students. Less than one in 20 of all young people went into higher education.

    Ten years later the Robbins report set out wider objectives for higher education beyond the purely academic. Those principles are still valid today.

    In particular, Robbins proposed significant expansion of higher education. So, in the 1960s, the 10 colleges of advanced technology became universities. New universities were created. And 30 polytechnics were set up to offer education with a vocational emphasis.

    Finally, the pioneering institution of the Open University was established to provide opportunities for those who wanted to study from home.

    By 1979, one person in 8 was entering higher education. Excellent – but still not alpha plus. For today’s world throws up constant new challenges. Patterns of work that had seemed settled since the Industrial Revolution have gone for ever.

    That was why, in 1991, I launched White Papers on education beyond 16 that set out a vision for the rest of this century.

    We promised to enable more young people to go on to Higher Education. To scrap the out-dated distinction between universities and polytechnics. And to provide the funding that made renewed expansion possible.

    As a result today more young people are going on to university than ever before. It took 25 years to double participation levels up to the 1980s. It took only five to double them again between 1989 and 1994. We now have the highest graduation rate in the EC.

    Nearly one in three young people now enjoy higher education. There are now over 1 million students following full-time courses and a further 500,000 studying part-time.

    We have abolished the binary line to enable our universities to offer wider choice and diversity. Today there are degree courses in universities in subjects such as art and design, and business studies, as well as in more traditional academic subjects.

    We need those new skills. At the start of The Queen’s reign twice as many people worked on farms as in financial services. Now seven times as many work in financial services as on farms.

    Look at some of our other great competitive strengths – pharmaceuticals, health care, telecoms, IT software, biotechnology, food processing, engineering, design, fashion, the media. The list is almost infinitely extendable.

    Britain is less than a quarter of one per cent of the world’s land mass; one per cent of the world’s population. But in the growth industries of the 21st century we are in the world’s top three.

    This is due not just to our native genius – but to one of the best education systems in the world.

    Look at what Britain’s higher education system has produced in the last 40 years:

    – Watson and Crick unfolding the beautiful symmetry of life in the DNA double helix;

    – Cesar Milstein and others at the MRC Cambridge who have created a whole new industry, biotechnology, on the back of their work;

    – Hawking and the physicists who plumb the secrets of our universe from the smallest particle to the infinity of space.

    Our universities continue to lead the world in research. No less than 30 Nobel Prize winners from the UK between 1957 and 1992 in physics, chemistry or physiology – nearly one in seven of the total.

    And let no-one say that pure research is not commercial. Faraday’s pure research led to our harnessing electricity. A discovery whose value is greater than the total capitalisation of London’s Stock Exchange.

    We must exploit the resource of intellect to improve the prosperity and the quality of life for all. I want to see our universities as world-leaders in forging links between the academic world and industry and commerce.

    Look at the growth of science parks in places like Cambridge, the close ties with industry of a Warwick or Salford, and the development of university companies to exploit new ideas. Approaching one-third of university income comes from private sources. All these things are good for the country and a boon to all those bright young people who will make our future.

    Young people are not the only gainers in today’s universities. Yes, lifelong learning does matter. The number of mature entrants has risen by 140% since 1979. They now account for over a half of all enrolments.

    People who thought the doors of academe were for ever locked against them are finding them open.

    But I am not complacent. I do not pretend all has – or will be – easy. Expansion inevitably brings problems in its wake. And change is ever the mother and father of insecurity.

    So we now need to pause and think how higher education should develop in the future. That is why we have launched a national consultation – and I hope that all of you here in higher education will have your say.

    We have to look at the competitive challenge that lies ahead. At the needs of society in the twenty-first century. We must ask ourselves. How best can higher education preserve and enhance all that is good from our past, while meeting the needs of the future? Can we, in today’s world, any longer equip people with all the skills and knowledge they will need in life in one initial dose of higher education?

    Above all, how best can we accommodate change without compromising standards?

    So an important debate lies ahead. But have no doubt. I see higher education as one of Britain’s great success stories. And, whatever unfolds, I am determined to keep it that way.

    It is now just under two years since we launched our reformed Further Education sector. Since then over 500 colleges have been given the freedom to run their own affairs.

    Visit an FE college today and you’ll experience the bustle and hum of learning.

    All human life is there – from eager young school leavers to retired people taking exams for the first time in 50 years. From full-timers with their eyes on university or top flight jobs, to part-timers brushing up their skills to get on at work or to start a business themselves. From apprentice hair dressers to apprentice historians.

    The last two years have seen dramatic changes. More students are staying on. They are getting better results. And they’ve been given more choice.

    Back in 1979 only 40% of young people were staying on in education after the age of 16. Now over 70% stay on in full-time education after 16 – most of the rest are in part-time training either in colleges or based at work.

    As a result, one awful British stereotype has virtually bitten the dust – the 16 year old with no qualifications, no ambitions and no intention of learning anything ever again.

    But still we need to do more.

    First, we want more people to benefit. Our target is to expand by 28% over five years. We are providing the funding for that.

    Second, colleges must work even more closely with employers to meet the needs of their own local labour market. Our new employer-led modern apprenticeships will help here too. By the year 2000 our target is for some 70,000 of these each year.

    Third, we have to do more to raise standards of vocational qualifications – so they truly earn the parity of esteem in which I profoundly believe.

    One of the curses of education in the ’50s and ’60s was that vocational education was often disparaged, and rarely admired.

    In seeking to address that, serious errors were made. We still live with some of the consequences. There is no place in education for tackling low standards by levelling down the high.

    I know it is not a fashionable view. But, for my own part, I believe that a high quality GCE A Level must remain at the core of further education in England. It has underpinned a 3 year university degree that is a benchmark for academic excellence. We remain committed to it.

    Our strategy is to level up, not down. That is our aim through the General National Vocational Qualification. GNVQs were launched a mere 2 years ago. But already this year over 150,000 students are beginning a GNVQ course in England – equivalent to a quarter of all 16 years olds. From a standing start to 150,000 in 2 years.

    That is astonishing.

    So there’s no doubt about their popularity with students. Nor about the enthusiasm and commitment of the teaching staff who deliver them. Good. But we can do better still.

    The Chief Inspector of Schools and the Further Education Inspector have done us a signal service in showing what more we must do to make GNVQs the equal to the best in Europe.

    Parity of esteem is vital. That means more hard edged, practical material. It means raising teachers’ expectations of their students. It means clarity for teachers on what they should cover and to what standard. But it also means less prescription about how they should do it.

    More external inspection to ensure rigorous standards. But a simple assessment system that does not leave teachers knee deep in paper at 3 o’clock in the morning.

    We are working on that. We’ve put in 25 million pounds extra to help course support, best practice and training. Ron Dearing’s work to extend GNVQ courses for 14-16 year olds in schools will feed through into existing courses. The prize, if we get it absolutely right, is huge.

    People ask why I care so much about standards in education. Well, picture, if you will, the small child setting out with shining morning face for the first day at school – her life before her – fearful yes, but full of all the limitless potential that is breathed at birth into every child. Then ask yourself how could you not care?

    That has been my child – and, no doubt, yours. And that child is being born today and tomorrow and the next day – in Brixton and in Borrowdale alike. A child whose chance in life will be decided by what they learn in school and in college and in university. For the sake of every one of those children, the best chances must be open to all.

    Parents lay the foundation of every young life. But it is you in our colleges and universities who finally top out the edifice of learning. Yours is a high and honourable vocation – among the first in this or any land – and it is my privilege to salute you, and above all, the prizewinners tonight.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

     

    Catering

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on catering at 10 Downing Street and Chequers in 1991-92 and 1992-93 to date.

    The Prime Minister : The information is not available in the form requested. The cost of official hospitality met by my office was £40,976 in 1991-92 and is £25,835 in 1992-93 to date.

     

    Higher and Further Education

    Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Prime Minister what has been the effect on the estimates for (a) the Department for Education and (b) the Welsh Office as a result of functional changes in higher and further education.

    The Prime Minister : The supply estimates for 1993-94, due to be published on 9 March, for the Department for Education’s higher and further education vote, class X, vote 2, will show provision totalling £2,806,458,000 for grant-in-aid to the Higher Education Funding Council (England) which, from 1 April 1993, will be responsible for the distribution of grants to all publicly funded higher education institutions in England. This will replace provision formerly shown separately in the estimates for expenditure on universities in Great Britain distributed by the Universities Funding Council; for the former polytechnics and colleges of higher education in England distributed by Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council; for the Open university; for the Royal College of Art; and for Cranfield institute of technology. The 1993-94 estimates, class X, votes 2 and 3, will show provision totalling £2,705,411,000 for grant- in-aid to the Further Education Funding Council in England which from 1 April will be responsible for distributing grant to further education establishments and sixth form colleges in England currently under local authority control. Similarly, the relevant supply estimate for the Welsh Office, class XV, vote 5, will show grant-in-aid provision for further and higher education institutions in Wales to be distributed by the Further Education Council in Wales–£143,846,000–and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales–£178,975,000–including in the latter case provision for universities in Wales which in 1992-93 are supported by the Universities Funding Council. The supply estimates for 1993-94 are subject to parliamentary approval in due course.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Principals and Chairs of Governing Bodies – 1 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Principals and Chairs of Governing Bodies, made on 1st March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nearly two years ago I launched the White Paper “Education and Training for the 21st Century”. I launched it myself because I passionately believe we must open up wider and better opportunities for young people and adults.

    A key part of that reform has been the establishment of the new further education sector. It comes into effect next month. From that time, FE colleges will be cut loose from control by local authorities, and you will gain a new freedom. Freedom to plan courses with much more certainty that the necessary funds will be available. Freedom to expand to meet student demand. Freedom to respond to the needs of local employers. Freedom to manage your own finances and your own buildings.

    We didn’t make this change for ideological reasons. We made it for the strictly practical reason that we want more and better further education.

    We want all young people to develop to the best of their ability. We want to give adults the option of a “second chance”. We want to ensure that British business and industry has people with the right skills. In the global market place, we need a world class workforce. That must start with education.

    The priority we give to further education is reflected in our public expenditure plans. They provide for an unprecedented 25 % increase in student numbers over the next three years. That increased number of students will be taking an improved range of qualifications: the new General National Vocational Qualifications will stand alongside equally esteemed A levels and National Vocational Qualifications.

    The Government’s commitment is reflected in the National Education and Training Targets. And in John Patten’s proposal for a Charter for the further education sector.

    But, of course, none of this happens without people. In particular, without you. I would like to welcome everyone here tonight, especially you, nearly 500 college principals; the chairmen of governors – representing the wealth of local expertise freely brought to bear in each college governing body; and of course Bob Gunn, Bill Stubbs and all the other members and officers of the Further Education Funding Council.

    Over two million students – full and part time – are educated in your colleges. You have a key role to play. You face new responsibilities as well as new freedoms. I give you my very best wishes for the future.

  • PMQT – 23 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

    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. Barnes : The Prime Minister has cut 110,000 training places in the past year. Furthermore, training schemes do not produce the skills or the qualifications for the jobs that are needed in Britain at this time. Is that because, as the Prime Minister said in another interview with Sue Lawley, from his point of view qualifications “are wholly useless”?

    The Prime Minister : Despite the unfavourable economic climate, both youth training and employment training continue to help young and unemployed people on a very substantial scale to go into further training and further education. Very large numbers of young people are being helped. We are investing enormous sums in training, in enterprise and in vocational education–two and a half times as much, after taking account of inflation, as was invested by the Labour party when it was last in government.

     

    Romford (Visit)

    Q2. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to make an official visit to Romford.

    The Prime Minister : I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country, and very much hope to include Essex among them.

    Sir Michael Neubert : Will my right hon. Friend be assured that any time that he cares to come to Romford, Essex men and Essex women will throng the streets in their thousands? In the meantime, will he give my constituents an assurance that he welcomes the report of the three wise men on primary education, and that the Government fully subscribe to the importance of the three Rs? Will he confirm that it is our top priority to get back to the basics in education and to sweep away the leftist progressive teaching methods that, having been put to the test, have failed?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend couches his invitation to visit Essex in irresistible terms.

    The report that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published yesterday is extremely important. It challenges some of the teaching methods that have been used in recent years and it suggests that schools should concentrate on commonsense, practical teaching. I believe that that is what parents want and that it is the best way to ensure that children are taught the essentials. We certainly hope that both schools and teachers will adopt the proposals in the report.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Taylor : The Prime Minister will be well aware of the appalling environmental problems in the Fal estuary arising from the water pollution after the closure of the Wheal Jane mine. I do not think that people in Cornwall want to allocate blame at the moment, but they do want to ensure that the environmental clean-up is carried out both in the short term and the long term without hold-ups. Will the Prime Minister ensure that there are no financial problems at any stage in ensuring that the long-term and short-term clean-ups take place?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we set up the National Rivers Authority specifically to respond in the first instance to the sort of pollution incidents to which he refers–this one is a very serious incident. The NRA has been closely monitoring the situation since the mine closed. It had developed contingency plans before the incident and put them into effect when water in the mine began to overflow. I am sure that the NRA considers that it will be able to deal with the problem with the resources that it has.

     

    Q4. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports from the German chambers of commerce which show that German industry has invested £7.8 billion in this country in recent years? Does not that demonstrate that low taxation, low inflation and good industrial relations are the basis for strong investment, including inward investment; and does it not also show that the future of this country is excellent under this Government?

    The Prime Minister : I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I have also seen the important comments of the CBI, which set out the fact that Britain now attracts nearly half of all the inward investment from Japan that comes to the European Community. I believe that, by investing here, German and Japanese companies and those of other countries have shown their confidence in the British economy. It is a shame that some of the gloom and doom-mongers in this country do not share that confidence.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister confirm that under his Government the British economy is in its longest recession since the second world war?

    The Prime Minister : I will confirm to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure that he will be pleased to hear what the European Community has to say, that the United Kingdom is the only country where signals of a sustained economic recovery are discernible, by contrast with a tendency towards gradual slackening of growth continuing in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal.

    Mr. Kinnock : Slightly closer to home, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British chambers of commerce today report that this is the seventh consecutive quarter in which the United Kingdom economy has suffered from recession, with levels of economic activity continuing to decline? Is not it clear that the recession caused by the Prime Minister’s policies is continuing because of the Prime Minister’s paralysis?

    The Prime Minister : The British chambers of commerce are clearly wrong about the seventh consecutive quarter. That would imply that the recession started in the second quarter of 1990, which it clearly did not, because output rose between the first and second quarters of 1990.

    I notice also that the president of the chambers of commerce said that British industry and commerce were on

    “an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession”.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will not the Prime Minister refer to the report and listen to the voices of business and commerce from all over the country when they say :

    “A worsening position on employment expectations,”–

    higher job losses–

    “and a major down-grading of business confidence, however, give no cause for comfort in this survey”?

    How can the Prime Minister be so complacent and so indolent when he is receiving advice that something now needs to be done?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening. I quoted from the president of that particular group of chambers of commerce. The report itself says :

    “an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession.”

    The right hon. Gentleman should look at other surveys and forecasters. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund both forecast recovery. What is equally clear among business men is that they have no enthusiasm whatever for a Labour Government. A survey of the top hundred British companies showed that 63 per cent. of them believed that recession would get worse under a Labour Government, and not one of them believed that it would get better.

    Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to tell the House of the decision made yesterday to restore to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the gold deposited for safe keeping in the Bank of England but misappropriated by the then Labour Government with the support in the Division Lobby of the leader and Chief Whip of the Liberal party at that time?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that when I met President Landsbergis yesterday I was able to indicate that we would be returning the gold. As the House well knows, the Labour Government in 1967 ordered the gold to be sold. The then Conservative Opposition roundly opposed that, and I am delighted that this Conservative Government have been able to correct that smear of dishonour.

     

    United Nations

    Q5. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : I shall chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on 31 January.

    Mr. Cryer : Will the Prime Minister confirm that 140 nations have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, including Tory Canada? Why cannot this Tory Government honour their pledge under the treaty to get rid of nuclear weapons, which will mean the withdrawal of Polaris–which is literally cracking up–and the saving of £10 billion on Trident, to be spent on the national health service to care for lives instead of threatening them with mass murder? If nuclear non-proliferation- –

    Hon. Members : More, more.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. That is very unseemly.

    Mr. Cryer : Quite so, Mr. Speaker.

    If nuclear non-proliferation is good enough for the rest of the world, why is not it good enough for us?

    The Prime Minister : We seek to promote non-proliferation and disarmament, and that will be one of the matters to be discussed at the United Nations Security Council meeting that I shall chair next week. But I must say to the hon. Gentleman who suggests that it would be appropriate at present for this country to scrap its nuclear weapons and Trident that to do so would leave the country wholly defenceless. That may be the view of the hon. Gentleman. It may even be the view of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their secret hearts. It is not the right policy for this country, it is not the policy of the Government and I hope that the Opposition will make clear how many of their members support that policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament rather than a policy of secure defences for this country.

    Mr. Bellingham : When my right hon. Friend visits the United Nations, will he raise the issue of the RAF aircrew who were shot down over the Gulf, some of whom came from west Norfolk? They were tortured, humiliated and abused in gross contravention of the Geneva convention. Is it time that the perpetrators of the crime were brought to justice?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. I do not think that it is a matter for discussion at the special Security Council meeting next week ; it is certainly a matter which remains on our agenda.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Douglas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Douglas : The Prime Minister’s view of an expanded European Community, composed of many states in eastern Europe, together with existing members, is extremely attractive, but will he contrast that with the instability within the United Kingdom because the aspirations of a nationwide Scotland are frustrated by its being unable to secure its independence and membership of the Community? Will he take steps to have that issue ventilated in a multi-question referendum of the people, which could perhaps be held in harmony with the general election?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say about the European Community. That is the right way forward for this country, the European Community and the wider Europe which I hope in due course will join the Community. The hon. Gentleman spoke about devolution. The Union has served Scotland and England well. In terms of a debate, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has called for debates in the Scottish Grand Committee and I hope that everyone will contribute to them.

     

    Q7. Mr. Mans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Mans : Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to increase the top limit on national insurance contributions because of the plight in which that would place many of my constituents and people in neighbouring Blackpool who earn under £15,000 a year but during the holiday season earn more than £400 a week?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will need no such encouragement. The policy suggested by my hon. Friend would hit many people on modest incomes who have bonus or overtime earnings and who occasionally earn above £390 a week. Such an impost would be quite contrary to the policies of the Government and the Conservative party and we shall not introduce any such policy.

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    White Papers (Costs)

    Mr. Straw : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of the design, preparation, printing and distribution of the White Papers “Education and Training”, Cm. 1536, volumes I and II and “Higher Education”, Cm. 1541.

    The Prime Minister : The total cost of the design and preparation of the White Papers “Education and Training”, Cm 1536, volumes I and II, and “Higher Education”, Cm 1541, was £51,000. This does not include the costs of printing, publishing and distribution, which are borne by HMSO, and which aims to recover its costs from sales revenue.

    Mr. Straw : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of the launch at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre of the White Papers, “Education and Training” and “Higher Education”, on 20 May, including the cost of the hire of the centre and other charges.

    The Prime Minister : The total estimated cost of the launch at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre for the White Papers “Education and Training” and “Higher Education”, including the hire of the venue, will not exceed £48,000.

  • Mr Major’s Remarks on the Education and Training White Paper – 20 May 1991

    Below are Mr Major’s introductory remarks at the launch of the Education and Training White Paper on 20th May 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You will all have a copy of my formal statement in your press packs – so I do not intend to read it all out.

    But what I would like to do before we take your questions is to say a few words about why I believe these reforms are so important and why I wanted to be here myself to help launch them.

    I remember very well what it was like to be 16 and to believe that school had nothing to offer. To think that exams didn’t matter that much. To convince yourself that school was a bit of a waste of time. I left at the first opportunity. Of course, it wasn’t long before I realised that qualifications did matter. But to get them, I had to start again. I had to do correspondence courses. It was a slog, and I only did it because I had to retrieve what I had lost.

    What still happens all too often is that young people bale out of school at 16. If they aren’t lucky enough or determined enough, they don’t have another go. That means two things: first of all, they don’t have the sense of achievement – or the better paid job – that they could have. And second, the country as a whole does not have the skilled and motivated workforce it needs.

    So what we have to do is break down the artificial barrier which has for too long divided an academic education from a vocational one, the blue collar worker from the white collar one. We are going to streamline our system of vocational qualifications and raise the esteem in which they are held. At the higher education level, our theme is the same. The polytechnics have come of age, and the dividing line which still exists between them and universities will be ended.

    The reason I welcome these reforms is that they offer young people the opportunities and choices that I did not have. We have already succeeded in attracting more young people into further and higher education and more into good quality training than ever before. But now we are moving a stage further. We are pressing ahead with a package of far-reaching reforms which will help many more young people and adults to make the most of the talents they were born with, and will equip them with the skills which they and employers need.

    People develop at different speeds and in different ways, and our system of education and training has to reflect that. I don’t want to see young people being forced to fit in with the system. I want the system to fit in with them. What’s more I don’t want to see them being forced out to a particular training programme, and I don’t want to see employers being forced to provide training. The right way is to work with the grain, giving people the chance to choose for themselves. That’s why we are introducing a new system of training credits so that young school leavers will be able to buy the training they want from the provider they want.

    These White Papers bring more opportunities. They bring better opportunities too. I believe in levelling up, not levelling down. I want higher standards across the board. I want vocational qualifications to mean something, and I want academic qualifications to mean something. A Levels are – and will remain – the benchmark of excellence. I want young people to be stretched – because it is when they are stretched that they give of their best. That is what these reforms will do.

    This is a very good day for young people. It is a good day for their parents. And it is a good day for employers. I believe that these White Papers will come to be seen as a turning point in the history of education and training in Britain. They will extend choice and provide new opportunities to many more people than ever before. They will encourage excellence. They will help build up the skilled and motivated workforce that employers need. They will bring the schoolroom and the world of work closer together. They will improve the quality of the careers advice that young people receive. They will give each and every young person the chance to develop to the best of his or her ability. They will, in short, give us the key to success.

  • PMQT – 14 February 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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