The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Housing

  • Mr Major’s “Country with a Heart” Speech – 19 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, “A Country with a Head, a Country with a Heart”, given in Manchester on Thursday 19th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, I’m delighted to be back in the North-West and in Manchester – one of our great cities, with a fabulous international airport that grows day by day.

    You don’t need me to remind you that Manchester has been the home of that great cause, free trade, now becoming a reality in the Single Market. It’s the arts centre of the North. Two football teams riding high in the First Division. And it’s our ambition that, in the year 2000, Manchester should host the Olympics.

    We’re going to back that bid. I want the Olympics here in the year 2000 to start the next millennium in the best possible way. And to provide better – and permanent – facilities in the heart of the North-West.

    LABOUR’S ONSLAUGHT ON MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES

    Mr Chairman, some commentators say that there’s really little difference these days between the Conservative and Labour Parties. How wrong can they be. The divisions between us could not be more fundamental. They could not be more clear.

    I know the Labour Party. I grew up with it. I know the envy – and, yes, the spite – that so often motivates it. I know the way it thinks. The determination to treat people as blocks and groups – as pensioners, trade unionists, or council tenants – never as individuals.

    Labour have no new ideas. They simply want to turn the clock back, Take John Smith’s mockery of a Budget. That takes us right back to the past. Let there be no doubt what Labour are proposing.

    It is the biggest increase in personal tax since the war. Let me repeat, to avoid any doubt or misunderstanding, the biggest increase in personal tax since the War. Worse even than Labour’s notorious promise in the ‘70s to squeeze the taxpayers until the pips squeak. This time it’s not just squeaking pips that John Smith is after. And it’s not just the rich.

    It’s millions and millions and millions of middle income families up and down this land. Just what have Labour got against middle income families? Consider the people who would be hurt. Not the wealthy – but doctors, teachers, engineers, police. What have these middle-income earners done wrong? Why should they be singled out for such punishment?

    Labour’s ‘vision’ for the 1990s is now clear. It goes as follows. If it’s successful – tax it, penalise it, control it, nationalise it. Never offer hope or encouragement. Nothing shows more clearly that Labour don’t trust the people – with their own money, with their own choices, with their own future.

    What Labour says is: “Trust us – we’ll decide for you, we’ll provide for you.” Labour don’t want people to choose for themselves. They might choose something that Labour don’t like.

    THE NEW BRITAIN

    Well, I’ve a message for Labour. It’s something I came into politics to say. They used to call us ‘our people’. It was as if we were – and would always be – their dependents. It was as if we were in bond to the Labour Party. What arrogance that was – what arrogance it is. Like some feudal lord discussing his serfs.

    Today, we don’t live in a forelock society. We are a new generation – we and our children. We don’t live in a country where people are prepared to have their past, present, and future determined by the State. We are fortunate – we have more independence than those before us. And we’re not going to give it up. What a tragedy it would be for Britain if Britain alone were to put a whole generation back in the straitjacket of socialism.

    Let me say this. Never again, never here, never in our time will we turn down that road. The plain fact is that the Labour Party is standing against the tide of history. Well, history has a way with tides. And Labour will be swept away on its flood.

    Mr Chairman, during the 1980s, the Conservatives shaped a new Britain. A Britain, where ambition is encouraged and success rewarded. A Britain where freedom is extended and people have more control over their own lives. A Britain which can afford to spend more than ever on health care and the social services. A Britain with an international reputation, once more a power in the world.

    ENDING THE CLOSED DOOR SOCIETY

    Mr Chairman, what made this possible? We did. The Conservative Party made this new Britain possible. Under Labour, back in the seventies, we had a closed door society. If you could afford it, you had choice. But if you couldn’t afford it, the council, the union, or the State made your choices for you.

    For so many people life was just a series of closed doors. Of hopes turned away. Government offered a hand out, never a hand up. It was a planned progress from the cradle to the grave, with no easy way out of the world where you lived. No way to increase independence. No opportunity to become an owner at all.

    In the eighties Conservative Governments began to throw open the doors that were closed. We began to turn the nation of ‘Have-Nots’ into a nation of ‘Haves’. Opening those doors wasn’t always easy. We faced vested interest. Lack of interest. And always, always blind Labour hostility. Socialist bouncers blocked every doorway.

    I can think of no right that we extended – whether in housing, unions, schools or through low taxation – which the Labour Party didn’t oppose, resist and reject. The Party that likes to boast it is of the people is frightened of the choices of the people.

    But, Mr Chairman, we defeated them. We did. The Conservative Party did. And, because we did, millions of people went through the doors that we opened into new opportunities, greater freedom, independent lives.

    It is this great revolution that in the 1990s we must protect. That great revolution we Conservatives want to take further. We want every individual in Britain to feel a belonger. Not to turn away from the doors we open, but to walk on through.

    A MANIFESTO FOR THE PEOPLE

    Mr Chairman, I’ll tell you how we’re going to do it. It’s in our Manifesto. My Manifesto. If you want to know what I believe in – read the Manifesto. That’s what I believe in. It’s what I care about. Read it. Study the ideas, the arguments, the policies. It offers the best future for Britain. It’s based on four C-O-R-E principles – choice, ownership, responsibility, enhanced opportunity. It gives the right leadership. It captures the mood of the nineties. It’s a Manifesto for the people.

    Mr Chairman, the decision this country has to take on April 9 is as critical as it’s ever been. So let me tell you what I believe in. Where I want to take this country; what I will fight for and what I will fight against.

    THE BEST FOR EVERY CHILD; THE BEST FROM EVERY CHILD

    In education I will fight for a good start in life for every child. I will fight for higher standards, more variety, and a return to basics in our schools. Our children have only one chance for a proper grounding in life. Education can make or mar each child’s future. If things don’t go right at school then getting started in life can be a tough struggle. I don’t need to ask anyone about that. I know.

    That’s why I am so angry when I see some of the things that have been done in the name of education. Too many good children have been let down by bad ideas. by the teachers, most of whom do a difficult job extremely well. I want to see good teachers properly rewarded for the work they do.

    Too many of our children have been victims of a giant left-wing experiment in levelling down. Vital props for life, like spelling, tables and dates written off as so much old hat. Children of different abilities made to learn at the same speed. Tests resisted – in case they showed how little had been learnt. Parents denied information – in case awkward questions were asked.

    Can you believe that any political party would set out deliberately to close down good schools and undermine quality in those that remained? But that’s what the Left did, right here in Britain. We must never let in a Labour Government that would unmuzzle such people again.

    In the schools of Britain this Conservative Government is putting parents and pupils first. We have set out 39 steps to a world in which every school will see every child and every family as separate individuals, with different needs.

    I want to provide the best for every child; and to ask the best from every child. That’s what I’ll fight for in this Election – because that’s what our children deserve.

    CITIZEN’S CHARTER; EXTENDING PEOPLE’S RIGHTS

    Mr Chairman, what else will I fight for? I know how important good public service is to millions of lives. I know how frustrating it is when you are tossed from pillar to post in Government office or council department. I know; because I’ve been there. That’s why I launched the Citizen’s Charter less than a year ago.

    I want Government that is more open, and more accountable. Let us throw open the closed door society. I want services that put customers first and respond to their needs. Our Charter is raising standards of service. It extends people’s rights.

    Of course. That’s why Labour oppose us. It’s inconvenient for some of their union friends. But just consider, Mr Chairman. Yesterday, only yesterday, what did the Socialists in France do? I’ll tell you. They launched a Citizen’s Charter. Mesdames et Messieurs, it’s yet another international success for Tory ideas. One more proof that we’re on the side of the future and Labour the side of the past.

    In the next Parliament the Charter will transform every part of public service for the better. We’ll make them listen in Town Halls – and we’ll make them listen in Whitehall. And who will they listen to? We’ll make them listen to the people.

    NO RETURN TO THE BRITISH DISEASE

    And while we’re about it, let’s talk of another area where the people need support. I see no reason why people should be inconvenienced by illegal industrial action in public services. None at all. So in the next Parliament we will legislate to give every citizen the power to take legal action to restrain unlawful strikes of this kind.

    And, Mr Chairman, we will also act to ensure that all pre-strike ballots are postal and that at least seven days’ notice of a strike is given after a ballot. All done to protect the public. All done to keep our position as one of the nations least affected by strikes. Labour would let the trade unions loose once again. When they were in power, other countries looked to our strike record as the British disease; now they look to the British example. We need the next Conservative Government to keep it that way.

    HOUSING: CREATING NEW OWNERS, NEW RIGHTS FOR TENANTS

    Mr Chairman, now let’s turn to another area where I care passionately. About better housing and the rights of tenants. If there’s one thing for which Labour should never be forgiven, it is their bitter rearguard battle against the Right to Buy. Even now they are fighting against it. With go slows on sales. With small print to stop them. Labour’s concern is for the welfare of housing departments rather than for the tenants they so often neglect.

    Our Manifesto takes our programme in housing still further. Creating even more new owners. Giving new rights for those who rent.

    We will crack down on council departments that patronise their tenants. We’ll give tenants new rights to repair and improve. They shouldn’t need to hang about council offices, where it always seems to be Friday and time to close.

    Mr Chairman, all the good ideas to widen choice in housing are Conservative. They’re our ideas. And all the policies to undermine home ownership. They’re Labour’s. Unfair rates. Uncapped spending. Unstable interest rates. But none of Labour’s policies against the home owner would hit harder than their new tax programme.

    LABOUR’S TAXATION: KICKSTARTING THE PHILOSOPHY OF ENVY

    One of the Conservatives’ greatest achievements has been to bring down rates of income tax – to reward hard work, success and enterprise. So people at every level of income can keep more of the money they earn.

    We’re always being told that Labour are edging their way to this kind of thinking. Well,

    Labour’s Shadow Chancellor has finally killed that notion once and for all.

    Labour’s idea of Santa Claus is John Smith out of season, with a sackful of taxes to kickstart, not the economy – never the economy – but to kickstart the society of class and the philosophy of envy.

    They’ve reverted to type. They always do. They can’t help it. It’s that old tax bug that gets them. The mask slips and the real voice of Labour is heard in the land. So after all, there’s to be no gradual phasing in of National Insurance Contributions. All the increases come in at once. Well, well. It’s tragic really. Neil’s night out at Luigi’s. His grip on his Party, or his grip on the facts, gone for a Burton.

    RIDDLED WITH ERROR, SPICED WITH SPITE

    Mr Chairman, John Smith’s mockery of a statement wasn’t a Budget; it was a fudge it. Riddled with error. Spiced with spite. Its effects on families up and down Britain would be devastating. The combined rates of tax and contributions would be 49 per cent and 59 per cent. They make Healey’s axe look like a feather duster. Labour’s tax increases would hit everyone with ambition who wants to get on. They would hit enterprise – the wealth-creators and job creators, the very people who are so desperately needed today.

    They would hit people who never dreamt that they would be classed as rich – and who are not. People on middle incomes. People working hard to make the best of their lives. Secure in their homes, until Labour’s taxman comes hammering at the door.

    Think of it. Young couples with children. Proud of their first home. Making ends meet. The first thing that happens is that tax goes up and take home pay goes down. It’s not the holiday they’d be worrying about. That would be out of the window. It would be far more serious than that. It would rip the very heart out of the housing market in every part of the UK. Not just in the short-term. Not just in the recessionary phase. But for good.

    Mr Chairman, almost overnight, the value of the largest investment that millions of families have made for their lives would plunge through the floor. No-one at any stage in the history of Britain has launched such an onslaught on the security of hard-working, middle income families. It is an incredible proposal for a modern political party to make – a devil’s cocktail of incompetence and of malice which defies belief.

    WRECKING PROSPECTS, WRECKING HOPE

    But it’s not just the housing market that Labour would hit. Who could believe that any would-be Government would set out to wreck the pension policies of four and a half million young people saving for retirement? But that’s precisely what Labour would do. Wreck them.

    And, Mr Chairman, what would these brutal increases mean for those who depend on work in the home? For the builders? The decorators? The electricians? The DIY shops? The garden centres. The corner shops. Labour would slash the incomes of the very people who give them work. Labour would blight their livelihoods as surely as if they’d targeted them direct. Their tax hike would be a fast-spreading cancer that would seek out independent trades in every part of the economy.

    What incentive do Labour’s policies give to our young people planning for the future? What prospect for those seeking promotion? What hope for the parents and grandparents wanting to see their children and grandchildren making a career, building a better life? None, Mr Chairman. None, none, and less than none. No incentives. No prospects. No hope. No future.

    That’s Labour’s policy.

    LABOUR: THE WARNING

    Mr Chairman, if there were ever to be a Labour Government, I warn you not to be ambitious. I warn you not to be qualified. I warn you not to be successful.

    I warn you not to buy shares. I warn you not to be self-employed. I warn you not to accept promotion.

    I warn you not to save. I warn you not to buy a pension. I warn you not to own a home.

    None of these would be encouraged in a Labour Britain. None of them would be safe in a Labour Britain.

    THE QUESTION OF LEADERSHIP

    Mr Chairman, there’s one other issue at the heart of this Election. It’s the question of leadership.

    As Foreign Secretary, as Chancellor, and now as Prime Minister I have travelled the globe. I know at first hand – from Presidents and Prime Ministers – how high Britain’s standing is in the world.

    We have a reputation for principle, for strength, for loyalty. A reputation we have earned. By the strong lead Britain gave to the countries of Eastern Europe as they moved from dictatorship to democracy. By the unswerving support we gave to President Yeltsin during last August’s coup – the first country to do so.

    By Britain’s total determination to throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

    As a result the world is a far better place than it was ten, five or even two years ago. But it is also a more unstable place. This is no time for an unsure hand at the helm.

    Would you want Britain led by men who, not that long ago, were all for giving up our nuclear defences and caving in to the old dictators of the Soviet Union?

    Would you want Britain’s case in Brussels to be put by men who have conducted somersault after somersault in their attitudes to Europe – who’ve held every principle, but never for long?

    When you go to a summit and it comes to the crunch you’re alone in there. Alone in the conference chamber arguing the case for Britain. With 55 million people depending on your judgment. You need to be cool, clear-headed, have conviction. That’s how it was at Maastricht. That’s how it’ll be from 1 July when Britain holds the Presidency in Europe. And that’s how it’ll be at all seven summits I shall be attending for Britain in the rest of this year.

    Mr Chairman, Britain can’t afford to be led by people who don’t know what their policy on foreign affairs and defence is from one day to the next.

    That must never happen. Never.

    A COUNTRY WITH A HEAD; A COUNTRY WITH A HEART

    Mr Chairman, every society has choices. The question at this Election is – who makes them? That’s what’s at stake.

    Strip away the masks. Strip away the pretence. It’s a choice between going forward, along the road to greater freedom and wider ownership, towards a more responsible society.

    Or to turn backwards into what even the Labour leader admits is still the world of Clause IV. The world of outdated class divisions. The world of high taxes, State regulation and control. This is a world that the remainder of Europe has cast into oblivion.

    That’s not the road for Britain, That’s not the way for Britain.

    What we want is a better Britain. A country which is strong in the world. A country where the individual counts. A country of real opportunity, where everyone of her people is free to choose. A country with a head. And a country with a heart.

    And, on April 9, Mr Chairman, I have no doubt. It is for our Britain that the people will make their choice.

  • PMQT – 6 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Anthony Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Sir Anthony Grant : Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he was eight and I was a little older, Her Majesty the Queen acceded to the throne? Will he join me in expressing our deep respect, our loyal affection and our good wishes to Her Majesty on the 40th anniversary of her accession?

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Queen has set a shining example of steadfast service over four decades of momentous political and social change, and will he wish her many more years of a great and glorious reign?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to accept my hon. Friend’s invitation. The Cabinet discussed the matter this morning, and the whole House may care to listen to the message that the Cabinet agreed to send Her Majesty :

    “At the Cabinet meeting today, Your Majesty’s Ministers agreed that I should convey to Your Majesty our warmest good wishes on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Your Accession to the Throne. This was in recognition of the incomparable contribution Your Majesty has made to the life of our nation throughout your Reign.” I am sure that those are sentiments that the whole House would wish to endorse.

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I join the Prime Minister–and, I am sure, the whole House–in sending good wishes to Her Majesty, and in expressing the admiration that I know is felt throughout our country, the Commonwealth and, indeed, the wider world for the wisdom, strength and dedication that Her Majesty has invariably shown throughout the four decades in which she has been our sovereign?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for all our millions of fellow citizens.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I– [Laughter.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Mr. Kinnock.

    Mr. Kinnock : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    When the Prime Minister told us on Tuesday that, like the British economy, Japan’s economy was, as he put it, in recession, had he overlooked the fact that last year, while our economy shrank by 2.5 per cent., Japan’s economy grew by 4.5 per cent.?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of countries around the world are in recession, are heading towards recession or are coming out of recession. According to the latest figures, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden are at the moment in recession. In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, the worst of the recession is over ; in West Germany and Japan, growth has slowed and is slowing.

    I noted this morning that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) now at last admits that there is a world situation which is on a downturn. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will also have the courage to admit that.

    Mr. Kinnock : There are economies that are slowing ; ours is in reverse because of the Prime Minister’s policies.

    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that Japan was in recession. It is worth reminding him of the fact that Japan’s economy grew by 4.5 per cent., and ours shrank by 2.5 per cent. Japan’s unemployment is at 2 per cent., while ours is at 9 per cent. Is it not now obvious that, because of his policies, the Prime Minister is reduced to imagining recovery at home while inventing recessions abroad?

    The Prime Minister : Every one of the right hon. Gentleman’s policies would lead to a continuing recession, and that is well known. The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that I head a Government who have cut interest rates seven times in the past 12 months, halved inflation in a year and built up the best industrial relations in half a century. The reality, I fear, is that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the economy or how it works. The right conditions for economic growth are low taxes, the right hon. Gentleman wants high taxes ; low inflation, the right hon. Gentleman would engender high inflation ; and good labour relations, the right hon. Gentleman would reintroduce the old, bad trade union practices. Everything that the right hon. Gentleman proposes would lead to the perpetual recession of which I spoke on Tuesday.

    Sir Bernard Braine : May I revert to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant)? I speak as Father of the House. Is it not a matter of great rejoicing, wherever we may sit in the House, that throughout the past 40 years, which have seen such momentous changes as the peaceful transition from empire to Commonwealth, the ending of the cold war and the coming together of former enemies in the European Community, Her Majesty has presided over this nation unfailingly, with a dignity and devotion to duty for which we are all greatly thankful?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend is right and speaks with the authority of many years’ membership of the House. One of the most striking facts of the Commonwealth, as I saw clearly at the Commonwealth conference in Harare, is the immense affection and admiration that exists for Her Majesty the Queen among all Commonwealth leaders and countries.

    Mr. Ashdown : May I associate myself, my right hon. and hon. Friends and our party with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister on the 40th anniversary of Her Majesty’s accession to the throne?

    On the more unhappy subject of Northern Ireland, in the light of the appalling horrors which last night added to the seemingly endless litany of tragedy in that unhappy Province, does the Prime Minister agree that the first condition for defeating terrorism in Northern Ireland is to ensure that the politicians there get together and work together?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the whole House will share the right hon. Gentleman’s view on both the matters that he raised. The recent activities–the shooting of five men and the wounding of others the other evening–were another terrible and unnecessary scar on the history of Northern Ireland. It would greatly assist the activities in Northern Ireland and the search for peace if the clearest possible lead was given by all politicians in this country and Northern Ireland.

    Sir Alan Glyn : I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his message from the Cabinet and Government. Is he aware of early day motion 580, already signed by 165 hon. Members, which expresses the views of Back Benchers and their loyalty and congratulations to Her Majesty? It does not include members of the Cabinet or Government, or of the shadow Cabinet, and, unfortunately, is not even allowed to include Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Will my right hon. Friend please convey that message to Her Majesty?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend expresses sentiments that are shared by the whole House.

    Mr. Molyneaux : May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tribute paid by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen, and may I join in the other congratulations already expressed?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall ensure that Her Majesty is aware of what has been said.

    Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Queen Elizabeth II? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that if politicians in Northern Ireland had been sitting at a table, the awful atrocities that we have witnessed in the past few days would not have taken place? If he and this House believe that, there is no hope for Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s words about Her Majesty the Queen.

    The point that I was seeking to make a moment ago–I reiterate it now–is that I think that it is to the advantage of everyone in Northern Ireland for the politicians of Northern Ireland, of all shades of opinion, to come together, to talk and to express their mutual wish for peace in Northern Ireland.

     

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

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

    Mr. Eastham : The latest year for which figures are available on the number of new houses built in the United Kingdom is 1990. A comparison with 1980 shows that 38,000 fewer houses were built in 1990. Why is it the policy of the Government to build fewer houses?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might more accurately have asked which local authorities had the highest number of vacant dwellings. I shall tell him : numbers of vacant dwellings are highest in Liverpool, then in Manchester, then in Salford, then in Burnley, then in Brent, then in Hackney, then in Tower Hamlets, then in Knowsley, then in Newcastle and then in Wolverhampton. The characteristic of all those areas is that for a long time they have been Labour controlled, although Conservatives have been in control in Brent for the past year and the Liberal Democrats have recently been in control in Tower Hamlets. There is no doubt which party fails people on housing.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the remarks of Sir Brian Corby, the president of the CBI, who said that to sign the social charter would be an act of remarkable lunacy? Does he agree that, if we signed the social chapter, employers’ costs would rise and jobs and foreign investment would disappear, all of which would be bad for this country?

    The Prime Minister : I most certainly agree with that view, which is why I declined to sign the social chapter. I believe that it would cost jobs and cost prosperity in this country. It is noticeable that a number of other politicians abroad have made it perfectly clear that this country becomes a more attractive place for investment–and therefore for jobs and prosperity–because we are not committed to the costs of the social chapter.

     

    Q3. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Why have pensions dropped from 20 per cent. of average earnings to 16 per cent. under the Tories? Does the Prime Minister believe that pensioners were paid too much in 1979, or will he express regret at that meanness and raise pensions in line with Labour’s plans?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should look at history. If he talks about pensioners, he should let the facts speak for themselves : under the previous Labour Government, the real average income of pensioners rose by only 3 per cent. and their income from savings fell by 16 per cent. The Labour party had no place for pensioners in the past and no promises that it can properly meet for the future.

    Sir Ian Lloyd : The Prime Minister will no doubt have noticed the interesting exception that President Bush made in his state of the union message to Congress, when he said that his Government were too big and spent too much. The exception was that he proposed to maintain research expenditure at the record level of $77 billion and to make permanent the fiscal allowances for research and development. If my right hon. Friend should be considering with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor any largesse over the next two or three weeks, will he ensure that a few crumbs from the Treasury table fall in that direction?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will know that there was a real- terms increase in the science and technology budget this year, a point that has been readily acknowledged by scientists up and down the country. As for potential largesse, there is no lack of applications for any that there might be.

     

    Q4. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Banks : May I thank the Prime Minister for allowing his Ministers to vote as they wish on the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill on Friday 14 February, St. Valentine’s day? If the Bill is passed, it will stop the massacre of harmless creatures like deer, hares and foxes.

    No one expects the Prime Minister to be here to vote on Friday 14 February, but will he tell the House and the country whether he supports the abolition of fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing? I hope that his answer is yes.

    The Prime Minister : It is a matter for the individual conscience of every hon. Member, which is precisely why I am allowing a free vote by my Ministers on the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill in question goes a good deal wider than just the matters that he has been addressing. Because it goes a good deal wider, I will not myself be supporting it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Colvin : Will my right hon. Friend send a message today to the leaders of the National Association of Local Government Officers who are spending some £2 million on a shoddy and inaccurate advertising campaign, telling them that their policies of abandoning competitive tendering, abolishing the Audit Commission and introducing a minimum wage would be acceptable only to a party which has already sold its soul to the trade union bosses?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a very sound point. It is clear that the advertisements appearing today show that now, as in the past, the Labour party remains in hock to the trade unions.

  • 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.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Central Council – 23 March 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Central Council meeting, held in Southport on 23rd March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I must begin by telling you how proud I am to be here today. Proud to be your Leader. Very proud to have been chosen to lead your Conservative Party in the 1990s. Proud to follow Margaret Thatcher and proud to build on her policies in the years to come.

    And what I want to do today is to set out our agenda for the decade. A full agenda for a Conservative Government as we plan for the century that lies ahead.

    It’s a good moment for us to be taking stock together. My first weeks at Number 10 were dominated by international tension and the demands placed on this country by a dangerous war. Now – together -we are resolving the great domestic issues facing this country. And it has been a remarkable week.

    Seven days ago, Mr Kinnock accused us of not doing anything. Now he says we are doing too much. Just a week ago, he accused me of refusing to change our policies. Now he says I’m changing them all. He can’t seem to make his mind up. He’s very indecisive. I think the word is dithering.

    But then – poor man – he doesn’t have the experience of the Conservative Party.

    The Conservative Achievement

    Ours is the oldest political party in the world. But in many ways it is also the freshest. We have never rested on success. Never clung to past positions when the time called for fresh ideas. We have always been the first to look ahead to find ways to meet the challenges that face our country.

    That is why our party has lasted and grown. Our duty now is to press on with reform and to carry through the long-term changes this country wants and needs.

    Whenever the British people have looked for a new lead it is to the Conservative Party that they have turned.

    Rallying the country in the dark days of the last world war. Lifting post-war controls and creating wealth for the social improvements of the 1950s and 1960s. Leading Britain into the opportunities of Europe in the 1970s. And rolling back the tide of Socialism and opening up choice and freedom throughout the 1980s. All under Conservative leadership.

    What then is our task for the 1990s? It is to prepare to meet the challenges of the 21st century. And it is to dedicate ourselves to the service of the British people. Of all the people – however they vote, wherever they live, whoever they are. There must be no barriers, no boundaries, no doors bolted in the Britain that we strive to create.

    Guiding Principles for the 1990s

    Governments have three fundamental responsibilities:

    – to defend the security of the realm;

    – to protect the value of the currency;

    – and to raise the living standards of the people.

    We will discharge those duties as no other party would or could.

    And as we pursue them, five great principles will guide us;

    1. That we are a national party.
    2. That we give opportunity and power to the people.
    3. That we need a strong and stable economy in which the wealth that is created is owned more widely.
    4. That we want a citizen’s charter to deliver quality in every part of public service.
    5. And that we work, not for short-term gain, but for the long-term good of the nation as a whole.

    The National Party : uniting and leading the nation

    When I say that we are a national party, I mean two things. Firstly, that we are a party that works for all the people. But secondly, that we will stand four-square for the union. There is something unique about the United Kingdom, a country which draws together in partnership the rich traditions of four great nations.

    We have much to learn from each other and much to give. We must respect the particular needs of each of those nations. We must cherish the diversity that gives each of them its character. But above all we must stand together.

    There is far more that binds us than divides. And the things that bind us are the deepest of all. Common principles. Centuries of partnership. The very interweaving of families. When young men and women from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales stood together in the Gulf, they were rightly proud of their roots. But no-one doubted that all fought together in the name of Britain. This Party must never let that spirit of union be lost.

    I want to take our policies to every corner of our country. Our ambitions should not be limited. In the 1990s I want to see us once more the leading Party in Scotland and in Wales. And I want to see the spread of Conservative values in Northern Ireland as well. There must never be no-go areas for Conservatism and for the hope our policies bring.

    Power to the people

    In the 1990s Britain faces an historic choice. To retreat into Socialism, or to move forward again to spread independence and opportunity to all.

    What is the difference between us and Labour?

    Power over the people is Labour’s dream. Power to the people is ours. Giving power to the people will be our second guiding principle for the 1990s.

    When we came to office, they said the people could not be trusted. We trusted them.

    They said that big industries were best in state hands. We sold them to the people. And their performance was transformed.

    They said public sector homes must not be sold. We sold them to the people. And one and a half million families have a security they only dreamed of before.

    They said lower income tax meant more greed. We cut tax for the people. And what resulted was not greed but opportunity, personal choice, and record charitable giving. The people gave Labour the right answer to that.

    So how right we were. Where Labour lectured the people, we listened. We understood their hopes. And we acted to make them reality.

    Labour’s legacy

    Perhaps some of you remember what used to happen under Socialism. How it used to feel for the ordinary man and woman. I do.

    When if you didn’t join a union you could be shut out of a job.

    When if you were a council tenant you had to beg to paint your own front door – and were lucky if you could.

    When you had to ask permission to take money on holiday abroad. Do you remember? £50. And Britons abroad were the humiliated paupers of Europe.

    When if you were a pensioner and put some savings aside for a rainy day, you saw their value halved in just five years.

    Now Labour talk to us about “quality” and “freedom”. “Quality and Freedom”. The Party that gave us the closed shop, the shoddy estate, and the shattered pound. What right have they to talk of freedom? They don’t understand it. They don’t trust it. And they would never deliver it.

    We are wholly different. Our aim is opportunity for all. And so long as I am privileged to lead this Party our Conservative revolution for the people will continue.

    Extending Choice

    I want no complacency in any quarter.

    I want to see more privatisation. The sale of the rest of British Telecom, and the new plans for British Rail and British Coal. For privatisation means personal ownership and better services. It has been an outstanding success.

    I want to see more competition, more contracting-out, less regulation and less government intervention. All that has been proved to be right. We will not change that winning formula.

    And I want to see more choice. You know, whenever we have extended choice for the people, the Left have fought us all the way. But time and again we have won. And through us, the public have won.

    Choice has improved the standard of services for all. It is a strange but telling truth. But if it’s bad for Labour it is almost certainly good for the people. And it is a safe, safe bet that if it’s good for Labour it is bound to be bad for the people.

    We opened up the market in television. Labour opposed us. But every night millions of people have wider choice – not only Channel 4, but satellite channels as well.

    We deregulated the sale of spectacles. I claim no special interest in that. Labour fought it tooth and nail. But the range of glasses was widened and better value ensued.

    A fortnight ago we opened up air routes to new airlines. Labour criticised us. But within hours of our decision fares across the Atlantic were cut by 15%.

    Last week we announced more competition in telephone services. Labour attacked us again. But as a result domestic and international call charges will be coming down.

    Watching television. Seeing properly. Travelling abroad. Just chatting on the phone. Some of the basic building blocks of a satisfying life. All improved by Conservative policies. All opposed by Labour.

    And, you know, when you look at Neil Kinnock’s so-called new policies, they don’t amount to much, do they? Yesterday’s mashed potatoes. Just contemplate them. Turn them round in your mind. And the more you think, the more he’ll shrink.

    More choice in the 1990s

    In the 1990s we will extend public choice yet wider. And the reason we do it will be to extend opportunity and improve family life for all.

    We are giving parents more say in the running of schools and making more schools independent of council direction.

    We will give those hospitals and those doctors who want it more control over the decisions that affect their patients.

    We will extend bus deregulation, bringing to the cities the long-distance coach revolution that has seen more people travelling more cheaply than ever before.

    And we will reform the market in housing bringing new opportunities to those now remaining under council control. Rents into mortgages. Giving life to empty council property. More use of homesteading. The aim is a new and better deal for those who are not yet home owners. They, too, deserve the opportunities that Conservative housing policies have given to millions. And they must not be locked out of receiving them.

    Personal independence in a strong economy

    This Government’s strongest commitment is to the long-term success of the economy. And to put more of the wealth that is created into the hands of the people. That is our third guiding principle for the 1990s.

    Last Tuesday, Norman Lamont demonstrated our intentions. Circumstances were not easy. Every tax cut had to be paid for. But our guiding principles shone through.

    To cut and simplify the burden of direct taxation on people and business.

    To support families.

    To nourish enterprise.

    To create a tax system which is fair, restrained and free from distortion. A system which leaves as much as possible of your income in your hands.

    That’s why we shifted more of the load of local taxation from people to spending – and why we will keep that local burden down under the new system that will replace the Community Charge.

    That’s why we made the shift in tax in such a way that the money goes to people directly, through lower charges – not to the councils who have driven the Community Charge so high.

    That’s why we used the Budget to strike more distortions out of the tax system.

    And that’s why we cut the rate of tax on businesses and increased child benefit for all families.

    Just compare our principles with Labour’s.

    They believe that all the fruits of economic growth – growth created by your efforts – should be spent by them.

    They believe none of it should be used to cut the burden of your tax.

    They are against a simpler tax system. They want to introduce ever more distortions into the system to confuse and bemuse the taxpayer.

    And they have one answer to every problem: spend more money. Taxpayers’ money. Your money.

    But Labour has one big problem. But apart from him. One or two of its politicians – just one or two – are uneasily aware that people don’t want more taxes and less wealth. So they are shamelessly trying to con the British people.

    Out of one side of their mouths, Labour tell you they would spend more on everything. Out of the other, they try to pretend they would spend almost nothing.

    Which is it? Will they tell us?

    Do they think the British people can’t add up?

    Don’t they know that the British people can? And they will see that Labour doesn’t add up.

    Local Government Reform

    Now Labour have made another miscalculation. They’ve asked for a confidence debate on our policies.

    And do you know what that means?

    They’ll have to tell us what their policies are.

    Take local government, just for a start. First, Norman Lamont dramatically reduced the burden of local taxation in the Budget. Then, on Thursday, Michael Heseltine revealed our plans to find the right role for local government in the future, so that we can work with it, not fight against it.

    By making it more accountable to voters. By simplifying its structure. By clarifying its functions. By testing its efficiency. And by reforming its finance.

    He set out the principles on which local taxation will be based in the future.

    First, on the number of people in each household. For I believe it is right that contributions should reflect the numbers using local services.

    Secondly, in part on the value of the property people live in. We will not allow high property prices in some parts of the country to feed through into excessive local taxes.

    We understand those fears. A fair local tax is one which does not fall too heavily on any single group. Let me be clear.

    We will not permit local authorities to impose penal taxes on the few -as they could and did under the old rating system – while the many bear no share of the costs of local government. And we will not allow the reform of local taxation to trigger a new spiral in local spending.

    We have made these clear pledges. And we have demonstrated our commitment to them by reducing the burden of local tax immediately.

    By contrast, what does Labour offer? A rag-bag of confused ideas dressed up as “fair rates”. How could rates ever be fair?

    Labour will not answer even the most basic question: at what level should local taxation be set? How much should be raised? They can’t say. They won’t say. Because they don’t know. Dithering again. But don’t worry. If they won’t answer these questions, we will. We will do the sums for Labour and publish them.

    Beating inflation

    The key message from this Budget was that the battle against inflation is being won. This year inflation will be down to just 4% and falling still further.

    And as it falls, we will bring interest rates down as well. As we did yesterday – the fourth cut since we entered ERM. I disagree strongly with those who criticise our entry into the ERM. Does anyone seriously imagine that, against the background of the dramatic events of the last few months – a recession at home and abroad, a change of Prime Minister and even the fighting of a war – that interest rates could have been cut and the pound stayed strong outside the ERM? Of course not. And it is sheer folly to say so.

    We took tough action when it was needed to bring inflation under control. Now we are seeing the results. Inflation is coming down in Britain, when others are seeing it rise. Interest rates are falling, when elsewhere they are rising. And when across the world the impact of the recession is being felt, Britain is coming through the worst and will soon be growing again.

    And never forget how this country has progressed since 1979. In the 1980s our economy grew faster than Italy or France, faster even than Germany. The purchasing power of the average family is up by almost a third. Personal wealth has been spread wider than ever before.

    We can beat our competitors. And, yes, we can even beat our competitors in Germany. There is no reason to be defeatist about our prospects. I believe in Britain and in the ability of the British people to win. And win we will.

    Growing personal wealth; widening personal ownership

    Over the decades ahead we shall see the fruits of our free market policies. The widening of ownership isn’t an index of greed, as Labour so shallowly claim.

    Indeed, it is the very foundation of personal security, the keystone of independence, the gateway to opportunity and prosperity for generations to come.

    People who own homes; people who own shares; people who have savings. That security adds to a sense of dignity and pride. And they have an independence of action denied to those without homes or shares or savings. We want more of such people. Our Right-to-Buy policies have achieved a property-owning democracy. We now want to extend and deepen the Right to Own.

    Already – each year – some 10 billion pounds is inherited through home ownership. In a Conservative Britain, inheritance is no longer the privilege of the rich. It is already the prospect of the majority. And we must make it the birthright of all. We wish to see that money held by future generations for their own use.

    How different it is with Labour. Clause Four Socialism they say is dead. I wish it was. It’s still there in the small print. And tax demand Socialism lives on. The single unifying principle of every Labour government is higher personal taxation. They can always agree on that. Not much else. But always that.

    How characteristic that they now see family savings as a target for tax. You inherit, they take. You save, they tax. And this from the Party that says it wants investment. The only thing you can be sure of is that a Labour Chancellor will have his hands in your pockets, even more often than you do.

    Labour’s threat to savings

    Under Labour anyone inheriting a house or flat worth more than £30,000 and investing that money in savings would face a tax surcharge. That is their response to millions of people’s efforts to build their family’s security.

    Labour fought to stop those people buying their homes. While we helped them. But now they are back again. When those hard-earned savings in bricks and mortar come down to children Labour’s plan is to tax them away. A tax surcharge on savings. Nothing could more clearly show the hostility of Labour to personal independence. And the ignorance of Labour of the opportunities the next century will bring.

    And take pensions, too. Under Labour the opportunities to save for retirement independently of the state would be dashed away. Early next century there will be some three million more pensioners than there are today. Those working now want opportunities now to save money for old age in the way they want. Our Government has helped them to do just that. Some 4 1/2 million people now have personal pensions of their own.

    But what is Labour’s response to this social revolution? Again hostile, ignorant, vindictive. Their spokesman boasts he will “turn the pensions market on its head”. Only last week they announced the latest step in their vendetta against personal choice. They warned they would act immediately to grab over £600 million a year from investors in personal pensions and strip them of the help a Conservative government has given them. So, if you’re young today, remember today. Labour are planning to destroy your prosperity tomorrow.

    Safe in Labour’s hands?

    You know, as over the years we debated the National Health Service, one phrase became famous. ‘Safe in our hands’. Margaret Thatcher said it. And how right she was. Under her Government the Health Service had more resources, took on more doctors and nurses, and provided more treatment than ever before.

    Safe in our hands the Health Service was, is, and will be. It has served me and my family well over the years. And I can promise you this. It will be there in the future to serve every family well so long as a Conservative Government continues.

    But can Mr Kinnock say the same to the families working to build their independence?

    41/2 million personal pensions. Safe in your hands, Neil?

    The shares that over 5 million people have in privatised companies. Safe in your hands, Neil?

    The lower taxation that has raised living standards to record levels. Safe in your hands, Neil?

    The right to go to work free from union interference. Safe in your hands, Neil?

    The battle against inflation that means security for all. Safe in your hands, Neil?

    Five questions which Mr Kinnock will never answer. He dare not. But we know the answer. Not safe. Not secure. In fact, doomed – under Labour. The Conservative Party has fought for those rights and given them to the people of this country. We must never allow Labour to steal them away.

    And when we speak of safety there is one area above all that counts -the defence of the realm. Is that safe in Labour’s hands?

    Where would our defence have been if Labour had been in power this last ten years?

    Defence spending cut to ribbons. Our forces slashed.

    Our nuclear capability going or gone. Going or gone. Just as Saddam Hussein was building his own.

    We have seen this last two months how right we were to keep our forces strong and ready. And how superbly we were served.

    It was all possible because Margaret Thatcher’s Government prepared for the unexpected.

    Unlike Labour. Unprepared. Even for the expected.

    Of course, we welcome the changes that have taken place in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. But great uncertainties remain. And secure defence is still our foremost duty.

    For Labour defence is an embarrassment. Some of them hate it. Some resent it. Some just wish the need for it would go away. Those attitudes spell disaster.

    In our Party we know that the unexpected does occur, and that when it comes to defence you err on the side of safety. You don’t take risks with defence.

    The British people will never trust with office a Labour party they do not trust on defence.

    Quality in public service

    Mr Chairman; the fourth great challenge for us in the 1990s will be to take our Conservative revolution into the dustiest and darkest corners of public service. Too many people still have to feel the benefits of the changes we have made.

    Education

    Getting it right in education is crucial.

    Some people seem to think we have no right to insist on higher standards for our children. That it is a matter to be left to the “experts”. Well, people like that have some learning to do themselves. We do have that right. Every child in every classroom has a right to higher standards. And we intend to ensure that they receive them.

    Ken Clarke has insisted that children should be taught to spell. What a revolutionary thought. I agree with him on that. So do parents. So do employers. But it seems not everyone does. There are those who defend something called “real books” – where young children are given books and expected to pick up reading, as the Schools’ Inspectors put it, by a “process of osmosis”. It sounds pretty odd to me.

    It did occur to me that this “real books” method might explain Mr Kinnock’s grasp of economics. Because do you know what the Inspectors say about people taught by the “real books” method? I looked it up.

    “They were able”, the Inspectors said, “to tell stories, but relied heavily on pictures…”

    “They were ill-equipped to move on to unfamiliar material, for example non-fiction…” (They mean facts – unfamiliar indeed to him.)

    “They were weak readers of instructions and questions in subjects such as maths.”

    Adding up was never his strong point.

    Yes, it does sound familiar, doesn’t it? I think it explains a lot.

    But I have to say also that I have a suspicion, which I share with Ken Clarke, and millions of parents in this country today. And that is that there has been too much experimentation, too much theory, too little attention to the basics. Theories come and go. But children have just one opportunity to be taught. And that must not be lost.

    That is why reform in education is top of our list.

    * Pushing through the changes in our schools that give more say to parents and more freedom for schools themselves.

    * Tackling the truanting that if unchecked allows vulnerable children to lose out on opportunity and which is a seedcorn for crime.

    * Setting clear standards of what should be taught.

    * And, yes, I say it to those who still seem to be fighting it, testing to see how children are doing.

    Of course testing is right. How can you find out where teaching is going wrong unless you know whether it is going wrong?

    The key people behind a good education are good teachers. That is why I am determined to see their status properly recognised and quality rewarded. Good schools. Good teachers. Good discipline. And good results. That is what parents demand and pupils deserve. And what this Government will deliver.

    Ensuring quality : a citizen’s charter

    Our changes in education are about raising quality. But quality applies elsewhere as well.

    What we now aim to do is to put in place a comprehensive citizen’s charter. It will work for quality across the whole range of public services. It will give support to those who use the services in seeking better standards.

    People who depend on public services – patients, passengers, parents, pupils, benefit claimants – all must know where they stand and what service they have a right to expect. All too often today the individual is unable to enforce better service from those who provide it. I know how powerless an individual can feel against the stone-walling of a town hall. How hopeless when he is bounced from phone to phone by some impersonal voice. How frustrated to be told yet again: “we regret the inconvenience this may cause”. And I see no reason why the public should have to tolerate that. Not just inconvenience. But often hardship. And all too often personal loss.

    Most of those who work so hard and so well in our public services will agree with me when I say this situation must be brought to an end. And end it we will. By injecting competition, extending privatisation and widening competitive tendering. And alongside this by measures under a citizen’s charter to enforce accountability and achieve quality control. This will look systematically at every part of public service to see how higher standards can be achieved.

    Some mechanisms are already in place. The Audit Commission, for example, does superb work on behalf of the citizen. How typical that it is lined up in Labour’s programme for the axe.

    But we will define clear and appropriate mechanisms for enforcing standards right across the public service. Sometimes an audit function. Sometimes an ombudsman. Sometimes simply the separation of powers between those who provide services and those who check on them. Some other ideas, too.

    We will enforce publication of results by public services, make inspectorates truly independent, and make properly accountable those in control. We will seek to extend the principle of performance-related pay. And, where necessary, look for ways of introducing financial sanctions, involving direct compensation to the public or direct loss to the budgets of those that fall down on the job.

    We will also look to public bodies to publish clear contracts of service -contracts that mean something – against which performance can be judged. Our programme will mean that for the first time all those people who depend on public service will have strong support from within the public sector itself in enforcing quality control.

    Quality in service is our aim for the 1990s. Second-class services cannot be excused by handing out third-class treatment to those who complain.

    Building for the Long-term

    The principles I have set out for the 1990s – building the unity of the nation, giving opportunity and power to the people, sustaining a stable economy and spreading wealth, striving for quality in public services -all these are essential to Britain’s future. Together they flow from our fifth guiding principle – to consider the interests not only of this generation but of those to come.

    And as we build for the long-term, unlike our opponents, we will build on ideals, and on principle. Labour wouldn’t recognise principle if it gripped them by the windpipe. And the Liberal party is riddled with self-interest. We needn’t detain ourselves with Liberal policy. They would sign up to anything, so long as it means a seat at the table. That is Liberal policy. They say they want proportional representation. Note that. Their first and only policy objective. A policy that is in their own self-interest. Not on health. Not on the economy. Not on defence. On Liberal self-interest. And they will give anything for it. Defence cuts. Higher taxes. Even Labour Government. What they really want is not proportional representation but permanent representation for the Liberal Party in Government whatever the policies. Well, there is a simple answer to Mr Ashdown. He can’t have it from us. And he won’t get it.

    It is because we care for lasting principles that I want to place Britain at the heart of Europe.

    But partnership in Europe will never mean passive acceptance of all that is put to us. No-one should fear we will lose our national identity. We will fight for Britain’s interest as hard as any Government that has gone before. I want Britain to inspire and to shape Europe as decisively as we have over the Single Market programme. Then we will fight for Europe’s interests, too. But not from the outside where we would lose. From the inside where we will win.

    We are rightly proud of our national traditions, all of them, English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish. We are proud of Britain, of what it has meant and will mean to the world. I wish that all who wrote and taught and spoke in our country could share that pride. I wish that they could help to open the eyes of the whole nation to what that means. For in the history of our nation and in the towns and villages that form it lies a great part of our identity.

    But that identity comes too from the values we share. And they are values that are shared by our friends abroad – personal freedom, opportunity, respect for one’s fellow citizens and their views, a fundamental belief that power should be with the people and not the state.

    Idealism, yes. But practical idealism. Democracy. Plain common or garden decency. It is those values I believe in. And it is those values that Britain stands for. The world needs those values more than ever before. And it needs us to work with those who share them. They are values that spring from the very fibre of ordinary men and women. Lasting values. Commonsense values. Conservative values. The values which I and all of us in our Party will fight to uphold.

  • 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.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Vacant Dwellings (London) – 28 January 1982

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Vacant Dwellings (London), published on 28th January 1982.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the figure announced by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to the House on 20 January, Official Report, c. 278, in response to a supplementary question from the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire about the number of vacant local authority dwellings in London, referred to the total for all local authorities or only to that for those authorities with more than 3 per cent. of their stock empty.

    Sir George Young The figure of 32,814, to which my hon. Friend refers, relates to the total number of vacant local authority dwellings at 1 April 1981 in those London authorities which have more than 3 per cent. of their stock empty. The number of local authority dwellings empty in the whole of London at 1 April 1981 was 38,439.

  • Mr Major’s Question on Housing Starts – 20 January 1982

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary question on Housing Starts, from 20th January 1982.

    Mr. Thomas Cox Asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many (a) council and (b) private houses are now under construction in the Greater London Council area.

    Sir George Young About 13,000 local authority and 14,300 private dwellings were under construction in London at the end of September 1981.

    Mr. Cox Is the Minister aware that those figures are an appalling indictment of two and a half years of Tory Government? In view of the enormous housing problems in London, why cannot the Government start to put into employment the thousands of building workers whom they forced to go on to the dole and get the local authorities to start to tackle these problems? The hon. Gentleman knows that they have to be tackled. Surely now is the time to start doing it.

    Sir George Young I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get some comfort from the fact that private sector housing starts in London in the third quarter of 1981 were nearly double the number in the comparable period of 1980. The 1982-83 HIP allocation for London is £558 million, compared with £549 million this year. London will receive a HIP allocation equivalent to more than £200 per household compared with less than £100 per household for the rest of the country. We are trying to tackle London’s housing problems.

    Mr. Major To put the matter in context, how many council houses in Greater London are empty and have been empty for many months?

    Sir George Young Our latest figures show that there are 32,814 local authority dwellings empty in London.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Starter Homes – 8 July 1981

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Starter Homes, published on 8th July 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if local authorities are responding to the development of starter homes for first-time buyers.

    Mr. Stanley Yes, the response by local authorities to our low-cost home ownership programme is already very considerable.

    During the present financial year informal inquiries indicate that 82 authorities intend to make land sales for private low-cost house building; 120 authorities are likely to do building for sale schemes on their own land in partnership with private developers; 72 will be doing improvement for sale schemes; 53 homesteading schemes; and 28 shared ownership schemes.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Housing Subsidy – 27 January 1981

    The text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Housing Subsidy, published on 27th January 1981.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue a response on matters still outstanding as a result of consultations to date with the local authority associations on the new housing subsidy system.

    Mr. Stanley My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have today issued such a response. A copy entitled “New Housing Subsidy System: Matters outstanding from Consultations to Date: Response by the Secretary of State” has been placed in the Library of each House of Parliament.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Improvement Grants – 23 April 1980

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Improvement Grants, published on 23rd April 1980.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to make any changes in the present limits for home renovation grants; and whether he is yet able to make any statement about his proposals for wider changes to the home renovation grant system.

    Mr. Stanley My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales will shortly be laying an order to increase the eligible expense limits for intermediate, repairs and special grants to the levels set out below. We are not announcing any general increase in the eligible expense limit for improvement grants whilst the Housing Bill is still before the House, but my right hon. Friends will be prepared to consider applications from local authorities for an increase in this limit in those housing action areas where such an increase would be justified by the high cost of works.

    My right hon. Friends will also be laying an order to increase the amount of local authority expenditure on environmental works on which Exchequer contribution is payable to £400 per dwelling in both housing action areas and general improvement areas.

    These increases are being made under existing powers and reflect cost increases up to the end of last year. They mark the first stage in significant changes in the system of home renovation grants which the Government intends to make using the powers contained in the Housing Bill. Details of these changes are set out in the Department’s paper “The Proposed Framework of the Home Renovation Grant System” and in a similar paper covering Wales, copies of which have been placed in the Library and sent to the local authority associations today.

    NEW ELIGIBLE EXPENSE LIMITS

    GRANT TYPE | £

    Intermediate grant – repairs element | 2,000

    Intermediate grant – standard amenities –

    Bath/shower | 250

    Water to bath | 300

    Basin | 100

    Water to basin | 150

    Sink | 250

    Water to sink | 200

    WC | 350

    Special Grant – limit as for intermediate grant per standard amenity –

    Repairs grant | 2,000