The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Immigration

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Maurice Fraser Lecture – 18 November 2025

    The speech made by Sir John Major on 18 November at the Maurice Fraser Lecture held at the LSE European Institute on 18 November 2025.

    BRITAIN IN A CHANGING WORLD

    Thank you for that very kind introduction ‒ and for the invitation to deliver the Maurice Fraser Lecture.  

    Maurice was a Special Adviser at the Foreign Office during my brief tenure as Foreign Secretary in 1989 – between the much longer tenures of two great public servants ‒ my predecessor, Geoffrey Howe, and my successor, Douglas Hurd.  

    He was to work with all three of us – for a total of six years from 1989 to 1995 ‒ making him, or so I was told, the longest-serving Special Adviser in the recent history of the Foreign Office.  He was that near-mythical creature:  a round peg in a round hole.   Few – if any – Special Advisers have been awarded the Legion of Honour by France.

    He had a formidable knowledge of world affairs, a tireless enthusiasm, a wicked sense of humour – and a total commitment to his country.

    It was for that – and so many other reasons – that I asked him to join me at No10.  But Maurice’s allegiance to the Foreign Office was too great to tempt him away from it.

    Maurice studied at this university, and it was where he chose to return to share his experience after he left Whitehall ‒ first as a Lecturer, then as a Fellow and finally as a Professor.  In many ways, the LSE was his spiritual home. 

    So it is a great pleasure to be here at the European Institute with his family, friends and former colleagues, to celebrate his remarkable – but too short – life through this Annual Lecture.

    * * * * *

    This evening, I wish to look at Britain’s future role in our changing world.

    That world has undergone many changes over the last fifty years and – whilst a large number of those changes are welcome – others are not.

    Globalisation has retreated.  Free trade has given ground to Protection.  Tariff barriers have risen.  Theft of intellectual property has become more blatant.  

    The stability of the rules-based post-war system is crumbling.  No country, no organisation, no Leader has stepped forward to seek a new consensus – to repair what is damaged, and replace what is lost.    

    Adherence to the written and unwritten rules of international conduct has fallen away.  The moral principles of politics are losing out to transactional arrangements.    

    As power shifts, and alliances are re-arranged, much that we once took for granted is no longer certain.  Current American policy has even upset calculations once believed to be settled about our future security and economic wellbeing.

    Our world today is unsettled, grumpy, fractious, changing in character as economic hardship bites, populism increases, and America and her allies grow apart.  For nearly two decades, democracy has been retreating as autocracy rises.  

    Basic expectations have been broken.  

    In the post-war years, it was the experience of most that improvements in our lifestyle had either been delivered – or were on the horizon.

    Downturns came, of course, but these were overcome and better years followed.  

    Slowly, if irregularly, democracy offered hope – even to those at the back of every queue.  Nations in the democratic West came to believe this improvement was an unbreakable trend:  it wasn’t.

    Since the financial crisis of 2007, too many people have seen little or no improvement in their living standards.  Taxes have risen, Pay packets buy less.  National and personal debt has soared – and hope has become anxiety.  All this has added to the disillusion with democracy.

    There is now a significant war in Europe, for which the outcome is uncertain – and the aftermath even more so.  

    The language of politics has changed.  It is harsher, more aggressive, more focused on the battles of politics than the welfare of nations.  

    A form of populism has taken root that builds its support by condemning others:  its target could be migrants, or minority religions, or people of another race – or any vulnerable group.

    It seems that if anyone is “different” and can be scapegoated – then they are fair game.  The late Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, noted that “Antisemitism is the best warning sign of a wider threat to a free and tolerant society”.  

    I agree with that:  venom directed at one source will be directed at others too.

    This mode of attack is not restricted to individuals or groups.  Populists use it against all authority and so-called “elites”.  

    “Elites” are treated as if they were “the enemy within”, and Governments as if their shortcomings were the root of all ills.

    Even the Judiciary is attacked, as if it were a subversive body, seeking to undermine the State.  No-one should be complacent about this.  If the Law loses its authority, the bully walks tall – and the lawless walk free.  

    The objective of the populist is as old as time:  if someone else is in the dock of public opinion, those who denounce them must surely be on the side of the majority.  The outcome of all this is to set citizen against citizen.

    Such behaviour debases all who practice it.  It is ugly, divisive, and racist – and daily on display.  

    RUSSIA

    In the midst of our unsettled world, President Putin has turned Nation against Nation.  The invasion of Ukraine had no credible or justifiable cause.

    Across Europe – and within his own country – Putin’s “3 Day War” is now over 3 years’ old.  So far, 400,000 Russians and Ukrainians have been killed – and many more are suffering from life-changing injuries.

    Only one man is responsible for this slaughter.

    The innocent civilians, who have died under bombs and drones, are considered by Putin apologists to be simply “collateral damage”.  They are not.  They are victims of mass murder and, when the fighting is done, this should not be forgotten.  

    There is a price to pay for mass murder and, if justice has any meaning, Putin will be brought face to face with it.  

    It is vital for future peace in Europe that Putin does not gain from his War Crimes – either on the battlefield or in an enforced deal.  

    Putin claims all of Donetsk, knowing Ukraine cannot cede it to him.  And President Zelensky must not be pressured to do so in return for promises that Putin is unlikely to keep.

    Western support for Ukraine has suffered from not being full-hearted.  The allies, generally, have provided enough for Ukraine to fight on and keep Russia at bay – but not enough for Ukraine to drive Russia back and end the conflict.  

    There are three ways in which this war can develop.

    It can continue indefinitely – in more or less a stalemate – if the democratic West holds back on increased support for Ukraine.

    But – if Russia gains the upper hand because Western support has dropped – then a compromise deal may be forced upon Ukraine.  

    That would be a shameful outcome, and one all of Europe – and beyond – would come to regret.  

    Putin would claim a victory, and be likely to re-group and test Western resolve again:  a bad outcome could be the preliminary to another war on a future date and a wider terrain.

    The third option is that Western support increases, Ukraine advances, and Russia retreats.

    If Putin loses, or is forced to withdraw, he loses face.  Conceivably, he may even fall from power.  If so, we cannot know if a successor will be more tractable – but it would be surprising if he were not more cautious.  

    America and Europe must weigh these alternatives.  Only one is likely to ensure peace.  They should take it.  

    One final point:  this conflict is not against the Russian people:  it is against Putin and his regime.  

    Putin has no scruples about creating chaos in other countries.  We should have none in telling his people how he deceives them ‒ and loots their assets.

    The prize of his departure would be the much safer and more stable Europe that Western democracy longs to have.

    CHINA

    Russia and China are allies against democracy, and friends only when it is mutually convenient.  There is no doubt that China has usurped the influence of the former Soviet Union and is the dominant state.

    Today, there seems to be no limit to Xi Jinping’s power or tenure of office.  He is supreme, and building up a more assertive China both economically and militarily ‒ especially in and around the South China Sea.  He is very much aware that China is America’s only Superpower rival.

    China now boasts the world’s largest Navy, with more warships and submarines than America ‒ and she continues to build them.  

    In the late 16th Century, China was the pre-eminent global power.  China has not forgotten this ‒ and nor should the world.

    President Xi is consolidating Chinese influence with diplomacy.  China offers development finance through loans and grants to nations across the globe.  

    Xi is presenting China as a champion of multilateralism ‒ in sharp contrast to President Trump’s arbitrary increase in tariffs on imports from friends and allies that has caused a great deal of anguish.

    It seems an upside-down world, in which America offends her allies, while China embraces them.  

    This “embracing” was very much the visual from the recent Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, hosted by China, and attended by India, Turkey and Egypt ‒ all of whom have been more generally considered as allies of the United States.  

    A wise America would gather them close, not push them away.  A friendship broken can be hard to regain.

    China is a strong opponent of liberal democracy, believing it to be inefficient and a potential risk to her authoritarian ways.

    Nonetheless, we must work with China, but set parameters to what we will accept.  We should not overlook her shortcomings:  her treatment of the Uighur Muslims;  her failure to honour promises over Hong Kong;  her threats to Taiwan;  her theft of Western technology.

    China will resent criticism, but may respect it.  She will scorn weakness – and we should remember it is weakness that encourages over-reach.  

    Nor should we be gullible.  China is a great power, but can be chillingly repressive.  Her philosophy is not inhibited by democratic instincts, or individual human rights.  If China believes actions are set against the interests of the State – she will crush them.

    As China says ‒ “We believe no comments challenging national sovereignty and social stability fall within the scope of freedom of expression.”.  That restriction is the very antithesis of democracy.

    It is a sentiment we should not ignore.

    BREXIT

    In an act of collective folly, the UK voted to leave the EU.  Across the world, our enemies celebrated.  Our friends despaired.  

    We left Europe on a minority vote of 37% of the electorate, after a Referendum Campaign that was packed with misinformation and misjudgement.  It left our country poorer, weaker and divorced from the richest free trade market in history.  

    The national interest was brushed aside by false hopes and promises, that even a Cabinet dominated by frontline Brexit enthusiasts was unable to deliver.    

    The gains – from Brexit – that were promised so confidently can now be seen to be illusory, while the forecast damage of leaving the EU has become only too apparent.  

    The nation soon saw “project fear” become “project reality”.  It is no consolation that a majority of the public now – overwhelmingly – recognises that it was misled.

    In their moment of triumph, Brexiteers predicted other countries would follow their lead and leave the EU.  None has ‒ all saw only too clearly that Brexit was packed with disadvantages.

    As we meet, nine further nations now wish to join the EU which is an apt comment on the world view of Britain’s decision to leave.

    The UK once revelled in being a leading member of a EU, with half a billion citizens and the undoubted first ally of the United States – the world’s most eminent super-power.  Today, we know we are neither ‒ and so does the world.

    As we plan for the future, we must see ourselves as we now are:  and what we are is 

    70 million people in a world of 9000 million.

    The UK has a proud history, a wealth of talents and a role in the world that continues to be significant.  

    So, we have much to offer our partners.  Our national assets would make the European Union stronger and better equipped to face an uncertain future. 

    Our collective future demands a Europe that conducts itself as an economic super-power alongside America and China:  the alternative is to be ever subordinate to their political and economic whims.  

    As I look to the future, I have no appetite for that.

    I know the shortcomings of the EU ‒ I lived with them for many painful years.  But, in a dangerous and uncertain world – with two unpredictable super-powers – I believe Britain’s future is safer and more economically secure inside a powerful bloc of neighbour nations than outside.

    But we cannot simply knock on the door and rejoin the European Union.  Too much political and diplomatic blood was spilt for that to be an easy option.  There are many barriers to a return to full membership that will be difficult to overcome – perhaps for many years.

    That said, there are areas where we can make a start and – looking forward – the plain truth is that the EU is too important for the UK not to be part of its decision-making process.  

    My immediate ambitions are limited, but a necessary beginning.  The changing public mood will help.

    The Polls tell us that well over half the electorate believes it was a mistake to leave the EU, and less than one-third now supports having done so.  Among the young, support for Brexit falls as low as 13%.  The trend is inexorable.  

    That is why it is disappointing that both Government and Opposition are so wretchedly timid in their ambition.  Both Labour and the Tories are terrified of the residual Brexit vote.  

    Our economic and political interests could not be clearer, but short-term Party political calculation is given priority over the national interest.

    Brexit is a flop.  It will not leap up from its death bed.  It is losing our country £100 billion of trade every year – as well as the tax revenue that trade would deliver.     

    Just think about that.  Every year – every year – the loss of billions of European trade is damaging our finances.  The loss is made far greater by decisions the present Government has taken.  That is one reason why we are facing a difficult Budget later this month.

    Serious economists forecast a cumulative loss to the economy of £311 billion by 2035, together with 3 million fewer jobs and a fall in trade levels with the EU.  

    As of now, many small and medium-sized firms have been defeated by post-Brexit bureaucracy, and simply stopped trading with Europe.  It is baffling that – at a minimum – we are not looking at how to negotiate away such frustrations.

    New trade deals – supposedly to cover lost European trade – have not done so.  Most are simply roll-overs of past deals.  Some are positively damaging.  

    The much-promised “mega” trade deal ‒ swapping additional American trade for lost European trade ‒ has never happened – and shows no sign of doing so.    

    Much though I wish otherwise, I do not foresee an early return to full membership of the European Union.  We have lost the unique and advantageous deals we gained in negotiations in the 1980s and 1990s – and I do not believe they can be regained.  

    Without them, a full return to Europe is almost certainly unobtainable in any likely Parliament until a younger generation of pro-European politicians come to power and the Brexiteer voice retreats again to the fringes of debate.

    In the post-Brexit years, it has become glaringly obvious that it is in our self-interest to rebuild a better relationship with the EU as an institution and bilaterally with individual Member States.

    The Government has made some modest steps that are welcome:  none is dramatic – but all will play a small part in building trust.

    More collaboration is under discussion ‒ such as youth mobility schemes, and integration into the Electricity Market.  Hopefully, they can be agreed.

    I hope ambitions can be raised to examine rejoining the Customs Union and, thereafter, the Single Market.  Neither will be easy or painless ‒ and both will face political opposition and negotiating hurdles.  

    But ‒ if a fair deal can be struck – it will be welcomed by trade and commerce, by a majority in Parliament, and by pragmatists everywhere.  And it can be achieved.  

    We may even be helped achieve an improved relationship by the evident wish of our European neighbours to build an expanded military presence across Europe, but within NATO.  British military capability is important to Europe.  

    If we try – and are rebuffed, we must try again.  The prize is worth the effort.  And, although those within the EU are tough negotiators, they must know that their long-term interests – and ours – are coming into alignment.  A deal can be done – and it must be done.

    UK

    Politics is a tough trade ‒ perhaps more so today than at any time outside of war.

    The commentariat, media, and social media give politicians little or no slack, even when dealing with novel and complex challenges.

    Let me turn to some of these challenges relevant to British politics ‒ though not necessarily unique to us.

    The cost of servicing our public debt is now over £100 billion a year, and the Chancellor’s second Budget in a few days’ time promises to be a painful lesson in what happens when nations spend too much and earn too little.  

    We are told constantly that “the broadest shoulders must bear the greatest burden” – 

    as, of course, a progressive tax system should ensure they do.  But it cheats the nation to pretend “the rich” can bear all the burden – or have not been bearing an increasing portion for a long time.

    In the late 1970s, the top 1% of UK taxpayers paid 11% of the total income tax take:  

    last year, they paid not 11% ‒ but 29%.  The Chancellor should beware:  to force the rich away will place a far greater burden on “the average tax payer”.

    We are not alone in our problem.  The scale of national debt is reaching crisis levels in rich countries as well as poor.

    Already, 60% of the world faces debt-to-GDP levels of over 100% ‒ including most of the world’s largest economies.

    This is an indictment of governments offering “Jam today” and “a bitter pill” tomorrow.  It’s now “bitter pill” time.

    No-one can be sure when the crisis will be triggered ‒ or what the catalyst will be ‒ but the world cannot continue to overspend and expect economic security.  And nor can we.

    IMMIGRATION

    A word about immigration.  

    No-one should blithely assume this is a short-term problem that will easily go away:  it won’t.  Last year, 950,000 migrants arrived ‒ 50,000 illegally by boat.  

    This is obviously socially unsustainable.  But the lure of our country will not disappear.  The long-term demand to come here will continue.

    The scale of this demand – although unwelcome – is a back-handed compliment.  No-one clamours to enter Russia, China or Iran.  Even so, there is a practical limit to how many the UK can absorb.  

    Yesterday, the Home Secretary presented new plans to Parliament that are controversial – but also more comprehensive than anything we have previously seen.  

    They deserve careful study – not instantaneous acceptance or rejection.  

    But – however the Home Secretary’s plans proceed – a long-term solution is likely to include a pan-European effort.  All of Europe faces this problem.  

    One aspect of reducing migration would be to make it more palatable for migrants to remain in their own countries.    

    The policy of cutting aid and investment to poor countries is very shortsighted:  it will accelerate demand to migrate as hardship increases.  This is a policy that acts completely against our own interests.    

    It is morally wrong, politically wrong – and heartless.  

    There have been hints that the Government will now re-think this policy:  it should do so as soon as it can.  

    POPULISM

    Let me return briefly to populism.

    Populism is no longer a fringe problem of a few outlandish politicians:  it is now mainstream and professional, and we should recognise the threat it poses to democracy.  If we do not – and it gains power – it will not tolerate its opponents.

    It is not easy to defeat populist groups offering disaffected people simple solutions to complex problems.  After all, if the established politicians have seemingly “failed” in finding solutions, it is human nature to look elsewhere.  

    But populism is a dead end.  I offer two antidotes to its appeal.

    The most effective – is policies to remove deeply felt grievances and regain political support.  

    Contented nations rarely support populism.  A return to stable growth would end much of the public dissatisfaction that gives life to it.  Such a recovery would also ease the minds of many people worried about their future.

    The second defence against populism is to expose the dangers of its policies and the unworkability of its solutions.  

    I do have a warning though:  over-the-top attacks on populist Leaders – as opposed to their policies – can be counter-productive.  Unworthy attacks can offer them the oxygen of public support:  a dissection of harmful and undeliverable policy can take that support away altogether.  

    The truth is that the only side populism is on is its own.  It cares for no-one else. And if it flourishes, democracy declines.

    Democracy has a lot to lose.  The established political Parties need to defeat populism – not copy it.  The sooner they raise their game the better.

    SUMMATION

    I would like to end on a personal note.

    I talk about the risks we face, because we dare not ignore them.  

    I talk of the future, because the present must prepare for it.  

    In modern politics, multiple challenges and day-to-day crises crowd in so fast, that it sometimes seems the future is crowded out by the immediacy of now.

    We must stop that, or we will simply drift, and events – rather than our national interest – will forge our future.  If that were to happen, it would be a profound failure of Government.    

    My worry, to put it bluntly, is this:  the future seems to be secondary to the frustrations of today.  But it shouldn’t be.  Future problems can become today’s problems very quickly.

    If we don’t face up to the risks of war;  of national debt;  of climate change;  of long-term migration;  of the health – even survival – of our political system;  then we fail in the duty we owe to our history, our present, and our future.  

    I believe in our nation:  in its history, its values, its natural sense of fairness and justice, its essential kindness and tolerance – and I admire the way in which it has always risen to existential challenge.  

    We must look to the future without fear of change, or timidity of action, but with the conviction that we can build the welfare of our nation, and sustain our place in the world.

    We have faced far more difficult times than now, and come through them.  The choices and challenges of today may be more complex, but they are less stark than we have faced before.  They can be overcome – and must be.

    But, to do so, we must abandon the cacophony of spin, soundbite, and empty noise – that so often substitutes for political debate about the well-being of our nation.

    It is time to turn our back on complacency, on pessimism, on short-termism, on the second rate, on the fear of failure, on artificial divisions – and raise our ambitions to bring substance to the fore in politics, pride back in to our nation, and hope back into our lives. 

    This is the principle by which Maurice lived, worked and taught.  

    And the principle which – I believe – runs deep within us all.

    We owe such an approach to the future. 

    It is my fervent hope that, together, we can work towards that outcome.

  • Sir John Major’s Article in the Sunday Mail on the EU – 29 May 2016

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on the UK’s membership of the EU which was published in the Sunday Mail on 29 May 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    We have less than one month to go before casting possibly the most important vote of our lifetime. The arguments upon whether to remain in or leave the EU are complex. The very least the British public should expect from our politicians is that they be accurate and truthful and focus on our long-term wellbeing.

    The Remain campaign has doggedly tried to do this. Vote Leave consistently fails to do so: instead they offer a mixture of confused or distorted facts that mislead rather than inform.

    Those who challenge statements that are flimsy or demonstrably untrue are either personally disparaged, or accused of being part of a mythical ‘Establishment plot’.

    International bodies, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, are told they are ‘wrong’, or stooges of the Prime Minister. The highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies is told that it is a ‘paid-up propaganda arm’ of the EU. Friendly overseas governments are criticised for ‘interfering’.

    Overseas investors in the UK receive the same crass response – even though they provide jobs for our people and taxes that pay for our public services.

    The Governor of the Bank of England is castigated for warning of risks to the UK economy even though – if he failed to do so and the risks materialised – he would be accused of gross negligence.

    So, too, would the Prime Minister and Chancellor, who are continually in the line of fire for presenting Government reports that warn of the risks of leaving Europe.

    They have a responsibility to the British people to ensure all facts are before them, yet their statements are denounced with boorish monotony by Vote Leave, and with sneering asides from their acolytes, who taunt that those occupying No 10 ‘won’t be there for long’.

    When Michael Heseltine voiced dismay over foolish and inflammatory references to Hitler, he was dismissed as being ‘from another era’, the clear implication being that, because of his age, his views don’t matter. On that basis, one can only assume that Vote Leave believes the arguments put forward by Michael’s contemporary, Nigel Lawson, don’t matter either.

    Such playground name-calling is not only irrelevant but is offensive to millions of elderly voters who – although born in ‘another era’ – still have opinions, hopes and ambitions that matter very much indeed.

    The tactics of Vote Leave are clear: to ignore the arguments and abuse their critics. But the British people deserve better than that as they search for the facts required to reach a balanced judgment before June 23.

    I suspect the silent majority is irritated by, even contemptuous of, such evasion and political trickery. A couple of weeks ago, in a speech in Oxford, I sought to bring clarity to a number of issues where I believed the British people were being misled: notably, the cost of the EU, immigration and sovereignty. True to form, instead of addressing the argument, Vote Leave’s only response was that I have ‘always been wrong about Europe’.

    This was an odd reply – especially since I kept the UK out of the euro and refused to sign up to the Schengen Agreement on open borders.

    Nonetheless, their evasion met its purpose and, once again, diverted the debate from their own misinformation.

    So now, as the referendum vote comes nearer, I again ask the senior figures of Vote Leave to correct the inaccuracies and falsehoods they are peddling to the British people.

    First, we do not – I repeat not – pay £350 million a week (the equivalent of £18 billion a year) to the EU. Vote Leave knows this. Yet, despite being urged to stop repeating such an obvious untruth – not least by the UK Statistics Authority – they continue to do so.

    The facts are simple and clear: during the past five years – after taking account of our rebate and money returned to the UK – our average net payment to the EU was £7.1 billion.

    Last year, the figure fell to just over £6 billion after payments to our farmers, businesses, scientific research and for regional aid such as flood defences.

    But there is a much bigger point: the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that even if we stopped paying anything into the EU, the economic damage caused by leaving it would blow a £40 billion black hole in the nation’s budget.

    So, far from saving money if we left Europe, it would, in fact, cost us a very great deal more.

    Even at this late stage, I hope Vote Leave will end their shameless distortion of the truth and admit, publicly and clearly, that the figures they use – on every piece of literature and every lick of paint on their battle bus – are wholly false. Their refusal to do so is simply breathtaking.

    On the issue of immigration from Europe, again Vote Leave seems more focused on raising fears than setting out facts.

    Their cavalier exaggeration of likely immigration flows has been the most distasteful aspect of this referendum campaign.

    I understand very well the concern felt by many people about the current scale of immigration. This is an important issue. So let me turn again to it, in the hope of flushing out what Vote Leave’s plans for border control may mean for present and future migrants.

    First, a statement of fact: we are not, as they warn, facing the risk of 88 million migrants from Turkey and the western Balkans: this fear-mongering is the worst sort of ‘dog whistle’ politics.

    It is highly unlikely that Turkey will join the EU for many, many years (if ever). And Vote Leave knows this. As Boris Johnson himself said: ‘It is not remotely on the cards.’ Quite so. Yet Vote Leave persist in raising more scare stories. Even if – at some far distant date – Turkey did join, are we really to believe that every one of her citizens would up sticks and head for the United Kingdom? Of course not.

    Vote Leave’s irresponsible and provocative oratory is intended purely to plant an entirely false image in people’s minds. It is fear over fact. Responsible politicians should know better.

    The entry of any country to the EU is in our hands. We can say No. We – the British – have an absolute veto on the entry of any country to the EU if we wish to use it. Vote Leave knows this, so what were they thinking of last weekend when they stated the opposite?

    As one migrant scare story falls apart, Vote Leave raises another. And, to add emotion to their mischief, they warn that European migrants will have a negative impact on the NHS. This is spectacular misdirection, for without the skills of European migrants, the NHS would be heavily understaffed.

    There are 54,000 EU citizens working in our Health Service as doctors, nurses and ancillaries, and a further 80,000 caring for the sick in Social Welfare. How many of us have been cared for in hospital by European doctors and nurses?

    Who keeps our public transport running? Who keeps our hotel industry staffed? Who greets us each morning across the counter in coffee shops up and down the country? Collectively, these and other workers contribute far more in taxes than they take in benefit or care costs. Of course, there is a temporary problem of numbers of migrants. I totally accept this. But please note the word ‘temporary’.

    The growth of the eurozone economy – now clearly under way – will create more jobs across Europe which, in turn, should cut demand to come to the UK. But, in any event, a short-term migrancy flow from Europe should not be the issue that drives the UK out of an economic union that benefits our country immensely, and will continue to do so in the much longer term.

    ‘Let’s keep people out’ is an easy slogan with a murky history – but Vote Leave needs to explain who their policy would affect, and how they will implement it.

    Specifically, I would welcome their responses to the following points:

    – Have they considered how their plans to cut EU migrancy would affect the immigration status of EU citizens now working in the UK – more than 110,000 of them in the NHS and social care system?

    – What would be the effect of their policy on our caring services, transport, commerce and industry?

    – How would their policy on leaving the EU affect British citizens living or working in Europe?

    When Vote Leave turns its attention to the Single Market, their disregard for truth turns into utter confusion. Not only have they failed to dent the economic case for remaining in the EU, they can’t even agree on their own case if we were to leave. Their heads are all over the place on this issue, and yet it is central to the quality of life for every individual and family in the UK.

    Some in Vote Leave say the UK should leave the Single Market, lose all preferential access to it, and rely on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules in future trade with Europe. It is hard to imagine any single event that would do more harm to our country’s well-being.

    Outside the EU, we would have to renegotiate more than 50 free trade agreements, which could take many years to complete and, as the Director-General of the WTO has said, ‘leaving the EU would cost the UK many billions in trade tariffs’. The damage to our economic interests would be self-inflicted – and severe. Other Brexiteers disagree about leaving the Single Market. They say they would negotiate a different arrangement with the EU. Some want a Swiss arrangement; others a Norwegian arrangement; yet others an Albanian arrangement.
    In the first two circumstances we would have to continue to pay into the EU budget and accept free movement of people. Not only that, but such a proposal would mean we would have to accept European rules and regulations, while having no say whatsoever in making them. In the third, we would have no access to the Single Market, which would do profound and long-lasting damage to our economy.

    It’s an absolute mess. No wonder the British people are left baffled, bewildered and confused. They need to know what all this would mean for their future, but Vote Leave are in such a muddle themselves that none of them seems willing or able to explain it to others.

    Moreover, for the UK to have to obey rules and regulations without any influence over them would be an absurd and undignified position for a nation like Britain. It would be an absolute negation of sovereignty on trade rules. Instead of sharing sovereignty (as we do now), we would be surrendering it. Far from ‘taking back control’ as the Brexiteers trumpet they wish to do, we would be throwing it away.

    Vote Leave has consistently failed to tell us how they see the UK outside Europe. They have glib slogans, but no solid detail. They know what they are against, but have no agreed position on what they are for. Some of the leaders of Vote Leave are my fellow Conservatives. Others are experienced parliamentarians. I don’t doubt their patriotism, nor their commitment to their cause. But I am dismayed by the way in which they have conducted this campaign, which I believe to have been a fraud on the British people.

    They have, knowingly, told untruths about the cost of Europe. They have promised negotiating gains that cannot – and will not – be delivered. They have hailed alleged advantages of leaving Europe, while ignoring even the most obvious obstacles and drawbacks. They have raised phantom fears that cannot be justified, puffing up their case with false statistics, unlikely scenarios and downright untruths. To mislead the British nation in this fashion – when its very future is at stake – is unforgivable.

    We British are an open-hearted, open-minded, generous-spirited, compassionate people. The majority of us are decent and hard-working, wishing to do the right thing for our families, friends and communities. We have been an outward-looking, internationalist nation for centuries: Great Britons, not Little Englanders. We need to embrace Europe and the wider world, not exclude ourselves from it.
    There will not be another referendum on Europe. This is it. The decision we take on June 23 will shape our country, our people and our livelihoods for generations to come. I have no doubt that the long-term positives of our country’s membership of the EU far outweigh the short-term frustrations of it.

    That is why each and every vote is crucial, for our children and grandchildren will not easily forgive us if we get it wrong.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Oxford Union on the UK’s EU Membership – 13 May 2016

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Oxford Union made on Friday 13 May 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    This is my first formal speech in the Referendum campaign, and it is appropriate that it is here – because it is your generation’s future that will be enhanced or diminished by whether we “remain” in or “leave” the EU.

    I’ve no particular reason to be a supporter of the EU. It is far from perfect. A quarter of a century ago it bitterly divided my Party, and European disagreements wrecked many of the ambitions I had as Prime Minister. It opened disputes that linger yet. Nor am I an unquestioning European: I did, after all, say “No” to the Euro, and “No” to joining the Schengen Agreement on open borders.

    Even so, I passionately believe we must remain in Europe and help shape its future: geography, trade and logic mean our futures are linked whether we wish it or not.

    Tonight I want to explain why I believe that is so, and then cast a critical eye over the flawed – and misleading –arguments for Brexit.

    What sort of country are we? For hundreds of years we’ve been a positive force in the world – a nation that looked outwards, and spread our ideas, our principles, our laws, our democracy, across the world.

    But that world has changed. Today, we are 65 million people: less than 1% of a world of 7,000 million, forecast to become 9,000 million by the time your own children are at University.

    And the global market is inexorably drawing that world together on a scale we could not have imagined even a few years ago. It is counter-intuitive to try to go it alone and, as our friends around the world tell us, a disastrously bad decision to do so.

    Within the EU, we are a large and influential nation and – while we remain a part of a Union of 500 million people – we have serious political and diplomatic clout, as well as economic advantages. Some examples make this clear.

    In Europe, we were able to impose sanctions on Russia to keep her in check, and deter further misbehaviour in Ukraine. We persuaded the EU to join America and impose sanctions on Iran, to bring about a deal that halts development of a nuclear weapon. We could not do this alone. If we were to leave, the world would consider us diminished. Departure would be a gratuitous act of self-harm.

    The economic argument for Europe is overwhelming: it is nearly half our export market, and nearly five times bigger than all the 52 Commonwealth countries added together, or indeed, six times more than the sum total of trade with Brazil, Russia, India and China.

    In the EU, we have unimpeded access to the richest trade market in the world – right here on our doorstep. Access to that market of 500 million people encourages a wealth of investment into our country. That’s not an abstract statistic –it’s people’s jobs, taxes, profits and overall quality of life.

    Outside Europe, we would still have to comply with EU rules and regulations, unless we surrendered all access to the Single Market – which all reputable authorities, not least the IMF, OECD, NIESR and the Bank of England, regard as economically foolish.

    And, once out – or “liberated” in the more emotive language of the “Leave” campaign – we could no longer protect ourselves against the impact of EU laws on the City of London, nor on our industry and service sectors.

    Nominally, we would indeed be “free”, but – in practice – we would only be “free” to accept whatever the EU determined, with no power to argue against it. Is that “taking back control” – as the “Leave” campaign describes it? No it isn’t. And it’s not glorious sovereignty either. It is nothing other than reckless, imprudent folly. And the price for that would be paid by every British family.

    It is not the only price. The NIESR warns of a collapse in the value of Sterling. The LSE warns of higher prices. The Bank of England fears higher interest rates and mortgages. All this and more – from independent bodies – is ignored and brushed aside by the “Leave” campaign.

    Yet many people – not least in my own Party – wish to leave.  

    Their motives are many and variable: pride in our country, concern over sovereignty and immigration, and fear that we have no influence in Europe and are heading towards a federal structure.

    We must address these instincts, these emotions, and debunk myths that are wrong, but sunk in our national consciousness. If we fail to do so, we may end up leaving Europe because absurd falsehoods are widely believed to be true.

    One absurdity is that, subsumed in Europe, we would lose our traditions, our heritage, our individuality. We won’t: after sixty years of Europe are the French less French or the Germans less German? Of course not: and nor will we be less British.

    In the search for voter support the “Leave” campaign repeatedly overstate their case: if they were to win, they risk a backlash from those who reasonably might say they were misled.

    There is no shortage of such exaggerations. One clear example is the cost of Europe. Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan-Smith and Boris Johnson all put it at £20 billion a year; Michael Gove is more modest at £18 billion (£350 million a week), all of which, they tell us – if only we could be free of Europe – would be spent on the Health Service and our hospitals.

    If only … if only…. but the truth is their figures are wrong by a factor of over three! During the last five years the average gross payment was £12.7 billion of which £5.6 billion was paid back to us. Last year, our gross payment was just over £11 billion, of which over £5 billion was paid back to our farmers, businesses, science, research and regional aid. This is not my calculation – it is the calculation of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    So, to put £20 billion more into hospitals the “Leave” campaign would have to claw back all the money paid to some of our fellow countrymen and, on top of that, tax us all by an additional £10 billion. Those who make such false claims – and knowingly do so – need to apologise that they’ve got their figures badly wrong – and stop peddling a demonstrable untruth – as they have been repeatedly asked to do by the Chairman of the UK Statistics Authority.

    The “Leave” campaign fret that we have surrendered our “sovereignty” to Europe. That is a very rum claim: and – if it were true – how could we offer our nation a Referendum? It is certainly true that we have shared sovereignty: we share ours and, in return, we gain a share of the sovereignty of 27 other nations.

    But this is our choice – because it is in our own national interest. And, if it ever ceased to be, our Government can always commence withdrawal with Parliament support. So let me make the position on sovereignty absolutely clear: we share it within the EU only for as long as our British Parliament wishes us to do so.

    And even that sharing is partial.

    What say does the EU have over our economic policy? None.

    Our education system? None.

    Our NHS? None.

    Our welfare system? None.

    Our Armed Forces? None.

    Our police? None

    I could go on: 98% of government spending is entirely in the control of the British Parliament.

    Like much we hear from the “Leave” campaign, the sovereignty argument is emotive but specious. In a global economy, no country truly has sovereignty – not even our mighty friend the US. And in our most crucial area – security – we have happily shared sovereignty within NATO for over 60 years.

    Of course, we don’t always get our own way. Who does in any relationship of two – let alone one that numbers 27 other Member States? But we should not forget that – in well over 90% of the votes cast in Brussels – the UK wins. The caricature that we are repeatedly voted down in Europe is ill-informed nonsense.

    Another cherished “Leave” mantra is that we will all be “dragged” into a “federal” Europe. It is their favourite horror story. But, yet again, it is fantasy.

    Were we dragged into the Euro? No

    Were we dragged into Schengen and open borders? No

    Are we now exempt from “ever-closer union”? Yes, we are.

    And if any new Treaty seeks more power, that Treaty would have to be put to the British nation in a Referendum and if – and only if – it were approved by us would it become law.

    A final point on sovereignty: we have sovereignty in its purest and most potent form: we – the UK – can leave the EU at any time; nothing legally binds us to the EU forever. That is the fact and we should disregard the fiction.

    As the “Leave” arguments implode one by one, some of the Brexit leaders morph into UKIP, and turn to their default position: immigration. This is their trump card. I urge them to take care: this is dangerous territory that – if handled carelessly – can open up long-term divisions in our society.

    I grew up in Brixton in the 1950s – a time of massive West Indian immigration. As a boy, I played in local parks with the children of migrants.  Some of these newcomers rented rooms in the same house as my family.

    So, I can tell you, as a matter of fact, not fantasy, that those I knew then – and later – didn’t come here for our benefits: they came half-way across the world to give themselves and their families a better life.

    But, at the time, fears were fanned by careless statements from political figures. That was a mistake then, and would be a mistake now.

    Do not misunderstand me. Of course, it is legitimate to raise the issue of the sheer number of those wishing to enter our country. I wholly accept that. Nor do I wish to silence debate. We mustn’t overlook genuine concerns: but these should be expressed with care, honesty and balance. Not in a manner that can raise fears or fuel prejudice. The “Leave” campaign are crossing that boundary, and I caution them not to do so.

    They attribute motives to new arrivals that are speculative and, frankly, offensive. They highlight – with grotesque exaggeration – the risk of mass migration from Turkey – which is unlikely to be joining the EU any time soon and indeed may never do so. And – even if she did – the terms of her accession would need to be agreed by every Member State.

    So, when the “Leave” campaign warn of “opening our borders to 88 million” (meaning Turkey and the Western Balkans) they cross the boundaries of responsible comment. It is unlikely in the extreme that – I quote – “another 88 million people will soon be eligible for NHS care and school places for their children”.

    I assume this distortion of reality was intended to lead the British people into believing that almost the entire population of possible new entrants will wish to relocate to the UK. If so, this is pure demagoguery. I hope that – when the heat of the Referendum is behind us – the proponents of such mischief making will be embarrassed and ashamed at how they have mis-used this issue.

    They advance a second migration red herring – that the recent modest rise in our National Living Wage will be “irresistible” to would-be migrants.

    This is very dubious. First of all, 40% of all migrants are under 25 and therefore ineligible.

    Second, are people really motivated to cross an entire Continent to receive a few pence a week extra? I very much doubt it.

    But even if they were – why would they choose the UK, when the minimum wage is higher, for example, in France; and wage levels higher in other countries that have no statutory minimum.

    And what of the “numbers” argument?

    There are various categories of immigrants. Commonwealth immigration is entirely unaffected by our membership of the EU.   

     Would-be migrants from around the world need skilled worker visas to enter: and these are under our control.

    Refugees are dealt with on a case by case basis. Many of those applying for citizenship have lost everything, and we have always been a compassionate nation.  But these decisions are under our control.

    But there are clearly undesirables, who we can – and already do – exclude. This includes anyone where there is concern over national security, criminal activity or adverse immigration history. This, too, is already under our control.

    But yes, if we were to leave Europe, we could exclude more EU citizens – such as the 54,000 EU migrants now working as Doctors, or Nurses or Ancilliaries in our Health Service, or the nearly 80,000 working in Social Care. We could exclude skilled workers like builders and plumbers – or unskilled labour that takes jobs that are unappealing to the British. In short, the people we could most easily keep out are the very people we most need.

    A balanced approach would acknowledge the contribution of migrants to our national wellbeing. Without their contribution, the Health Service would not be able to cope – nor would our public transport system; and our hotels, restaurants and shops would be without staff to serve their customers. We would have a shortage of many skills for industry. This is the reality of what lies beneath the emotive language of those who seek to raise the drawbridge on our country.  

    This problem of numbers will not be forever. The growth of the Eurozone economy – now clearly underway – should cut demand to come here, as jobs grow elsewhere across Europe. And, in any event, a short term migrancy flow should not be the issue that drives the UK out of an economic union that already benefits our country immensely –and will continue to do so in the future.

    I asked earlier: what sort of country are we? And what sort of people are we?

    Under our undemonstrative exterior we are an essentially kind and benevolent nation, and more inclined to emotion than the age old caricature of stiff upper lip.

    Show us charitable need and we dig deep.

    Show us children in need, and we pay up happily.

    Show us people starving in Africa, and we text our contributions by the million.

    Show us a far away nation suffering from natural disaster, and we rush to help.

    We do so because our emotions are touched. But we should not let those emotions be stirred by false fear: nor allow false fear to impair our judgement on the future of our country.

    Over the next few weeks we – the British people – will decide the future direction of our country.

    This is not a General Election which rolls around every five years: we can’t “suck it and see”. There will not be another Referendum on Europe. This is it.

    So – whatever your view – register and vote. Because the decision you take on the 23rd of June will shape our country, our people, and our livelihoods for generations to come.

  • PMQT – 4 March 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Soley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

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

    Mr. Soley: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if the negotiations in Northern Ireland result in a devolved assembly, Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland should continue to be able to speak and vote in this House on matters affecting England, Scotland and Wales? If he does agree with that, why would it not be a threat to the Union?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the powers that are likely to go to a Northern Ireland Assembly with those proposed for a Scottish Assembly. As he knows, they are not remotely comparable.

    Mr. Soley indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but they are not comparable. That is why his corollary is the wrong one.

    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great successes of the past 18 years has been the strict control of immigration, which has much reduced racial tension in this country? Will he condemn the proposals, even by new Labour, to abolish the primary purpose rule and to grant immigration rights to the extended family? Does he agree that that will increase racial tension and create resentment even among sections of the Asian community?

    The Prime Minister: In the past 18 years, we have seen the most extraordinary changes and improvements in race relations in this country. I think that is immensely important. I am certainly not going to lend my voice or my policy to anything that would damage that improvement.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister deserves credit for that answer. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must come to order. Mr. Jamieson.

    Mr. Blair: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree, following the past 48 hours, that it would be better for the Secretary of State for Health to concentrate on dealing with the crisis in the national health service, rather than adding to the crisis in the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has done a great deal to improve services in the NHS, and he has also tackled many social service matters that required examination and improvement. I think that he has been an outstanding Secretary of State for Health, and I believe that many people who are treated in the health service these days appreciate the improvements that have occurred.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister at least accept the evidence contained in a report due to be published on Thursday? A survey of 300 accident and emergency departments across the country shows that many are in acute and chronic crisis and that many simply cannot make do. The survey says that the problem has been made worse by the Conservatives’ internal market reforms.

    If the Prime Minister is to stumble on in office until 1 May, would it not be better for Ministers to use that time not playing games about who the next Tory leader will be but showing real leadership and tackling the problems facing the country?

    The Prime Minister: Over the past five years, as we have tackled the problems facing the country, we have had nothing but opposition from the Labour party. Whatever fresh proposition was put forward–whether for health, education or controlling public spending–we could be certain that the Labour party would oppose it, and it did.

    The fact is that we are creating a modern health service fit for the 21st century. Instead of carping about the health service, it would make a change if the Opposition offered some constructive proposals because, as yet, we have seen none. They say that they oppose bureaucracy, but they opposed us when we abolished the entire regional health tier. They say that hospitals are underfunded, but they will not match our pledge to increase funds. They say that they would increase efficiency, but they would abolish our reforms and set up a new tier of bureaucracy. The very last thing that the national health service needs is an ideological Labour Government causing chaos and disruption.

    Mr. Blair: The very problem that the health service has had is an ideological Tory Government causing difficulties. That is why we have 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses. If the Prime Minister believes his case on the health service, education and other issues, let him have the courage of his convictions and put the matter to the country now.

    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly be taking our case on the health service and other matters to the country. I look forward to discussing the reality of what has been done in the health service.

    It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that he seeks to improve the health service. The Opposition opposed national health service trusts, which are delivering better hospitals; they opposed fundholders, which are transforming primary care; and they attacked managers despite the fact that, before the reforms, no one could tell anyone where the money was going in the national health service.

    The Opposition also attacked compulsory competitive tendering, despite the fact that it is saving millions of pounds that can go to patient care; and they are committed to a minimum wage, without saying how much it would cost the health service and whether they would fund it.

    The Opposition will not match our pledge to increase funds in real terms for the health service in each successive year of the next Conservative Government.

    Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that accidents involving NHS employees are costing £154 million a year, according to evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee only a few days ago? Will he therefore ask the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that the guidance given by the national health service executive to hospitals is put into practice? That would lead to great savings from fewer accidents; that money could be redeployed to acquire more nurses, more doctors and more services.

    The Prime Minister: We are certainly keen to ensure that the money goes to patient services. That is happening increasingly now that we know how the money is being spent in the health service–before our reforms, we did not have that information. Of course I shall ask my right hon. Friend to consider my hon. Friend’s suggestion.

    Mr. Ashdown: When last week the Prime Minister instructed members of the Conservative party to start the fight back immediately, did he expect them to take him quite so literally? Lord Tebbit attacks the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord McAlpine seeks to duff up the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary seems to want to take on the whole Cabinet. In deciding how to deal with these delinquents, has the Prime Minister ever considered making use of secure accommodation and electronic tagging?

    The Prime Minister: If that is an indication from the right hon. Gentleman that he does support measures such as electronic tagging, I am pleased that in some areas he is moving towards the Government’s policy.

    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the proposition propounded by the post-war Labour Government that constitutional measures should always be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do. That has been the constitutional position in this House. It is the way in which matters have normally been handled. I cannot conceive that anyone would wish to change that long-established tradition.

     

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

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

    Mr. Winnick: Is Lord McAlpine correct to say that the Prime Minister asked him to collect a very large sum of money and that the person concerned turned out to be a Greek shipping tycoon, a very dubious character who had supported the Greek military dictatorship? Do the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General feel any responsibility for the fact that stolen money–and it is stolen money–from Asil Nadir is being used by the Conservative party for its election campaign? Should not all those matters be referred to the Nolan committee?

    The Prime Minister: The Labour party has just been canvassing for resources in the United States, presumably from overseas donors. It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman, of all Members of the House, propounding the idea that it is acceptable to take money from Americans but not from people of other nationalities, were it to be offered. If he is concerned about funding, he should concern himself with the funding of his leader’s office and his deputy leader’s office, and with the trade unions buying votes in the Labour party.

    Mr. Luff: Is it not all really rather simple, when properly understood? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this country has the most successful economy of any major country in Europe? Are not the Government determined to protect the interests of the United Kingdom in Europe and to protect the unity of the United Kingdom and its interests and influence throughout the world, and would not all that be put at risk by the Labour party’s policies?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The most important element of the economy’s success is the fact that success and growth yield the resources to fund the services, such as education and health, that we wish to improve but which could not be improved without an improving economy.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

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

    Mrs. Jackson: Following the very decisive statement by the voters of Wirral last week, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity today to redeem his long-established reputation for indecisiveness and tell us whether the election will be on 1 May?

    The Prime Minister: I warmly congratulate the new hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on his success, but I would advise him not to unpack his bags.

    Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rate of unemployment in every constituency in Wales is lower than that in Germany and France? Does he agree that if the United Kingdom were to copy the European social model, as the Dollies opposite would have us do, unemployment in Wales would double?

    The Prime Minister: The levels of unemployment have fallen dramatically across the United Kingdom over recent years, as a result of the policies that we have followed. For example, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), they have fallen by 25 per cent., and by 36 per cent. in the constituency of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Unemployment has fallen by 31 per cent. in Sheffield, and by 40 per cent. in Sedgefield. On the back of that, one would expect the Opposition to agree that the policies that we have been following create jobs, whereas the policies that they are following have created unemployment across Europe.

     

    Q4. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March.

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

    Mr. Illsley: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the attack by Lord Tebbit on his Deputy Prime Minister, whom he described as

    “tasteless, tacky if not dishonourable, and self-centred”?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister replied for himself quite adequately on that matter.

  • PMQT – 14 May 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th May 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. French : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

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

    Mr. French : Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is desirable to have an easy flow of goods and people between countries, it is essential to maintain effective national border controls, not only as part of our fight against international crime and drug trafficking, but to preserve that extra security which we as an island nation have come to expect?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The benefits that we see from the freedom of movement could easily be lost if we could not protect ourselves against terrorism, smuggling and illegal immigration. On border controls, the Government do not agree that article 8A requires the abolition of all controls on people at the Community’s internal frontiers. It is our policy to control the entry of nationals at the point of arrival. That is the most effective way of control for an island nation, and our European partners must understand that.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister aware that today’s rise in unemployment is the 24th consecutive monthly increase? Is he aware that during the past year unemployment has increased by over half a million and that unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds has increased by more than 200,000? Against that background, does he think it right to continue cutting Government funding for training?

    The Prime Minister : Any increase in unemployment is one too many. I accept that, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about it. The only way we shall create permanent jobs that will be sustained and will provide proper career opportunities is to have the return of confidence, the right levels of investment and the right economic background. That is what we are seeking to achieve. That is the right way to deal with unemployment in the short term, the medium term and the long term. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have one of the most substantial training schemes that this country has ever seen or any other country has ever seen.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does not the Prime Minister yet accept that a critical part of any policy for future employment is a good, strong, continuing policy on training? The figures in the Government’s White Paper on public expenditure– [Interruption.] The figures in the Government’s own White Paper show that there is to be a continuing cut in employment training and youth training. There are 800,000 young people aged between 18 and 24 who are unemployed now. Is it not clear that the Government’s message to them is no jobs, no training, no hope?

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that that is remotely accurate. On the substantive part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, training is improving all the time. More workers are qualified–up to 73 per cent.–more people are staying on at school for more skills and more firms are investing in training, the figure for which is now £20 billion. This Government have created 300,000 training places whereas the Labour Government created 700. Just a few weeks ago the British people were well aware of which party would put the nation back to work and they made their choice decisively.

    Mr. Kinnock : Since the Prime Minister wishes to refer to it, the fact is that under the last Labour Government unemployment reached a maximum of 1.25 million. It is now well over double that. This Government have never managed to get unemployment down to that level. Why will he not face up to the problem of unemployment, accept his own figures and understand that the Conservatives have not only sabotaged employment in this country and lost 1 million jobs in the last two years, but are not providing employment training in the way that should be provided in any modern country, let alone one with 2.7 million unemployed people?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should sometimes recollect that there never have been a Labour Government who did not push unemployment up dramatically. A higher proportion of our nation–70 per cent., a higher proportion than anywhere else–is in work. Our job creation record throughout the 1980s was better than that of most European Community countries, providing over 2 million more jobs than in 1983. The right hon. Gentleman takes a selective view of the rest of the world. He ignores it when he talks of recession. He accepts it when he talks of unemployment. He might need a more consistent line if he becomes leader of the Socialist International.

    Mr. David Evans : I congratulate the Prime Minister on his stunning victory at the general election. Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Welwyn Hatfield on getting rid of a Labour administration after 13 years? Will he assure me that we shall not hold the next Conservative party conference in Sheffield and that we shall not close the conference in total darkness with fireworks going off? [Interruption.] They might all turn out to be damp squibs, as happened to the Labour party.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his own distinctive points in his own distinctive way, and I have no doubt that the voters of Welwyn Hatfield, in returning him, have seen him do precisely what they expected of him. In response to his direct question, I can certainly confirm that the next Conservative party conference will not be held in Sheffield.

     

    Q2. Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Wareing : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when his predecessor first entered the House, it was five months before she made her maiden speech and that, when she did, she introduced a Bill which opened up local authority meetings to the press and public? In view of the secrecy that presently surrounds the meetings of hospital trusts, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation under which all management committee meetings are open to the press and public?

    The Prime Minister : I have told the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Duchy is examining areas of government where it is possible to remove levels of secrecy. That has begun and will continue. We shall make the outcome known to Parliament in due course.

    Mr. Bill Walker : When my right hon. Friend is carrying out his review, and is taking stock of the situation, of Scotland, will he bear it in mind that his leadership and the firm stand taken by him and the Secretary of State for Scotland against assemblies and parliaments in Edinburgh resulted in the splendid general election result and the subsequent splendid result at the district elections, in which Perth and Kinross district council was restored handsomely to Conservative control?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, I believe that the Union has ensured that Scotland plays a full part in the most stable political entity to be found anywhere in Europe. It has served the whole of the United Kingdom well. It has certainly served Scotland and England well. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said recently, Scotland is alive and flourishing. Indeed it is. We welcome that. It is alive and flourishing within the Union.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that, despite his attacks on our proposals for a carbon tax during the election campaign, we now greatly welcome his conversion to the case for a carbon tax to tackle global warming? Does he accept that the European Commission’s proposals are too timid and too conditional to attack that problem effectively, that the next response must come from the Americans and that he has a role in persuading the Americans to make that response?

    The Prime Minister : There are many ways to deal with the problem of CO and we still await the Commission’s formal proposals. We cannot yet be certain what it will do. It is absolutely clear that it would make sense to adopt such a tax only if our major competitors in the world also did so, both for environmental reasons and because acting alone would harm competitiveness in this country and across Europe. I shall discuss with Japan and the United States what action might be taken, but I have no intention of prejudging what that action might be.

    Mr. Brandreth : Did my right hon. Friend happen to see the punch-up in the Italian Parliament yesterday, when it was attempting to elect a new President? Does he see that as an example of the benefits of proportional representation or merely a dress rehearsal for the election of a new loser- -so sorry–new leader of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I did not see that particular report, but I am aware of Italy’s present difficulties as it tries to determine a new Government after an election that has split the political parties through using proportional representation.

     

    Q3. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Janner : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the midst of a viciously high level of crime, the Leicestershire police force has been forced to cut its budget for the current year by more than £1 million? Will he, therefore, please take this opportunity to deny reports that the Government are placing pressure on his right hon. and learned and reticent Friend the Home Secretary to cut central funding for police forces, because to do so would be irresponsible, dangerous and totally unacceptable?

    The Prime Minister : Those who know my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would not suggest that he is readily susceptible to pressure. He will be as concerned as the Government have been in recent years to ensure that the police force is equipped for its battle against crime.

     

    Q4. Mr. Carrington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Carrington : Some pensioners and other people on low incomes in Fulham often struggle to pay their heating bills. Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, join me in warmly welcoming the 3 per cent. reduction in gas prices announced today? Does not that show that privatisation, if properly and effectively regulated, is to the benefit of everyone?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I welcome the 3 per cent. cut in prices that has been announced. It adds to the reductions in recent years since privatisation took effect and illustrates clearly the benefits of competition.

     

    Q5. Ms. Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

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

    Ms. Hoey : Does the Prime Minister agree that even if every single empty property in local authority and private sector control were used for families, there would still be a huge shortage of affordable, rented housing? Will the Prime Minister tell the House simply how many affordable, rented homes he plans to build in the next Parliament?

    The Prime Minister : It would be a great improvement if all those empty properties, largely in the ownership of Labour authorities, were made available for letting. It would also make a tremendous difference to the availability of property if the Labour party would remove its long-standing prejudices against the private sector, which discourage so many people from bringing private property into the market for letting.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hague : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today’s report that, in line with the patients charter, the General Medical Council is to propose the biggest changes in the regulation of doctors for 150 years? Will he also welcome yesterday’s statement by the British Medical Association that, from now on, it wishes to work with the Government in implementing health reforms? Is not the increasing acceptance of the Government’s health policies by the medical profession a vindication at last of the work that has been done in the past few years to ensure that the health service today is better funded, better managed and provides a better service to its patients than ever before?

    The Prime Minister : I very much agree with my hon. Friend and with the statement made by the chairman of the British Medical Association. We now have a far better working relationship. As a party, we are looking ahead. Indeed, it is only the Labour party which fails to look ahead to see the changes, improvements and benefits taking place in the health service as a result of our funding and our reforms.