The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Inflation

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Central Council – 26 March 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to Conservative Central Council, held at Plymouth Pavilions in Plymouth on Saturday 26th March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The First Three Years

    Someone once wrote of me that, when faced with a problem, I would take a piece of paper – draw a line down the middle – on one side I’d list the problems and on the other the objectives.

    That’s true. It’s an old habit.

    The other day I was looking for a note I wrote on the day I became Prime Minister. On the left hand side, under “problems”, I had written:

    Inflation

    Interest rates

    Unemployment

    November 1990. Inflation was almost 11 per cent. Interest rates were stuck at 14 per cent. And unemployment was rising fast.

    That day – three and a half years ago – they were our biggest problems.

    Today?

    Unemployment: down by 220,000 in just over a year. That’s a city about the size of Plymouth back in work.

    Interest rates are at their lowest for over 20 years.

    Inflation has been under three per cent for over a year – we haven’t seen that for a quarter of a century.

    Taken together, our present economic position offers tremendous opportunities for the years ahead.

    If I’d said in 1990 that we’d achieve those objectives so comprehensively in just three years, people would have said that I simply didn’t understand the extent of Britain’s problems.

    ‘He’s new,’ they’d have said, ‘he’ll soon grow out of it.’

    But I haven’t grown out of it. Britain has.

    And now exports are up, retail sales are up, productivity is up. Our economy is presently growing faster than any other leading European country – and that is expected to continue. So it’s time to start writing Britain up – and stop writing Britain off.

    No-one else will get that message across. We must do it. So we must junk the jargon and put our case across in straightforward terms that everyone can understand.

    Changing lives: schools

    Take grant-maintained schools. You’ve all read the Central Office literature.

    It’s very good literature. It gives all the information you need. It tells you we now have nearly 900 GM schools. But it doesn’t make the policy live. Doesn’t tell people what being grant-maintained really means.

    These are local schools, funded by government. Voted for by local parents, run by local people – for local children.

    And there are now over half a million children in them.

    ‘Trust the people’ is an old Conservative maxim. And that is exactly what we’re doing. Shifting power from Whitehall and from Town Hall – and back to local communities.

    Our opponents seem uncomfortable with people having more choice. They don’t trust them with it. Where we decentralise they demoralise.

    Well, I know who I admire. Not the Labour and Liberal education authorities who’ve tried to stand in the way of these local schools. But the Governors, parents and teachers who, in the teeth of sometimes bitter opposition, have had the courage and the vision to create them.

    Changing lives: hospitals

    And just look at this, a Liberal leaflet dealing with another policy where we are taking power from the centre and giving it to the people – health.

    Do any of you remember the Kincardine by-election? I do.

    The local hospital wanted to become self-governing within the NHS. But the Liberals wanted people to think the hospital was leaving the Health Service.

    So they said the Trust was a dangerous first step towards privatisation. Simply untrue.

    People were worried. And they voted Liberal in the by-election. But the Trust went ahead. And what happened? Well, I’ll tell you what didn’t happen – privatisation didn’t happen.

    And I tell you what else didn’t happen. Something that’s owed to people in that part of Scotland and to that hospital – an apology from the Liberal Party.

    Since then that self-governing hospital – freed from Health Service bureaucracy – has treated a record number of patients.

    Waiting times and lists are down. And it has new services it never had before.

    And, at the General Election, the seat came back home to the Conservatives.

    But, what happened in Kincardine has happened right across the Health Service.

    Since the reforms we are now treating 1,000,000 more patients a year than we did before. One million more. Don’t just glide over that. Behind every one of that million lies a personal story of care given and hope revived.

    So don’t worry about partisan criticism. It is in the nature of politics at the moment. It will pass. And time will root out the truth.

    And the truth is that a Labour Government may have set up the Health Service. But it’s Conservative Governments that have built it up.

    Changing lives: public service

    We are sweeping out the cobwebs of the public sector. Sometimes what we find is uncomfortable. But we’re right to expose poor service – so we can improve it.

    That is the aim of the Citizen’s Charter. It’s a ten-year programme to transform the quality of public services.

    That’s why every one of the 24,000 schools in the land is being inspected in just four years. Under the old system it would have taken 200 years to inspect just the primary schools. Now reports are sent out on every child. Exam results – and truancy tables – are published for all to see.

    Every hospital in the land is setting times for appointments. We have reduced the time people wait for hip, knee and eye operations. Three out of every four people are now treated within three months.

    And those in genuine need of key benefits have seen the time taken to deal with their claims cut by a third.

    These are real changes improving real lives.

    I belong to the school of thought that believes that people should get as good a service in the public sector as if they’d gone to the private sector and paid cash on the nail. And we are determined they will.

    Looking forward

    These are some of the things that have been achieved in the last three years. It’s time to lift our heads above the parapet and say so.

    We have to look to the future. So let us travel forward for a moment.

    And then look back from – let us say – spring 1997. I pick that date at random, of course.

    By then we will have had 48 months of steady economic growth. More new companies up and running. More people back in work. More families better off.

    Why? Because we’ve got the fundamentals of the economy right today.

    In 1997 we’ll see British industry manufacturing more. Selling more. Exporting more. Proving that British firms can make at home and sell abroad.

    Why? Because British companies are now more competitive than anywhere else in Europe. And they’ll stay that way, so long as we keep the Social Chapter at bay.

    We’ll see more people owning their own homes. More people living in decent housing, not anonymous tower blocks.

    Why? Because we’ll press ahead with the Right to Buy and private renting, and we’re going back to housing on a human scale.

    We’ll see more children in nursery education. New apprenticeships. And more young people going on to colleges and universities.

    Why? Because we’re not just interested in raising standards in the schools. We want better education for all – for life and through life.

    We’ll see more being spent on the arts, on charity, on sport. And we’ll see more people taking part in them.

    Why? Because we’ll have a national lottery, raising billions of pounds for good causes and the national heritage.

    And I also hope we’ll see more team sport back in our schools. I have no time for those Left-wing ideologues who oppose competitive sport.

    Put children together and what do you see. They run. They jump. They fight. They compete. It is their natural instinct. We don’t help them by hiding that away from them. Life can be tough. They need to know victory and defeat. And the sooner they learn it, the better equipped they will be for life.

    These are some of the things there’ll be more of three years from now.

    But also let me tell you what there’ll be less of.

    There will be fewer people committing Social Security fraud – because we are bringing in modern technology to beat the cheats.

    I know the British instinct. We’re always ready to help someone in genuine need. But there’s a counterpoint to that – and it’s a real sense of anger against people who cheat the system and take advantage of others, often poorer than themselves except in those qualities of decency and honesty that make this country what it is.

    There’ll be fewer squatters on private property. The Criminal Justice Bill means trespassers really will be prosecuted, and not before time.

    There’ll be fewer young criminals on the loose creating mayhem. There’ll be secure homes for them and safer streets for the public.

    There’ll be fewer offenders getting away with just a caution. There should be fewer people committing offences while out on bail, because if they do, they can be certain that the courts can come down on them hard.

    And especially down here in the West Country, decent hard-working people are fed up with people invading their property and destroying their crops. In future, if these New Age travellers drive in, the police will have powers to drive them out.

    So much of what I’ve described is just plain commonsense, building on old principles. Marking out a clear line between right and wrong.That’s what I mean by going back to basics. And I’m certain of this. Britain needs more of those basics, not less. And I don’t think there’s anyone here today who wouldn’t agree with that.

    Many of you here are facing local elections in the weeks ahead – some against Labour, some against the Liberals.

    But whoever your opponent is, the first thing to do is to take pride in your own record.

    Ever since the birth of the modern Conservative Party our local councillors have been one of our greatest strengths.

    Last month at our Local Government Conference in London we set out the policies on which we’ll be standing.

    Higher standards in schools. More say for the public. A tough line on crime.

    And above all, keeping the Council Tax low. Here’s one figure to take out with you and say day after day after day. Conservative councils cost you £131 less than Labour ones. £131. Knock that home.

    Wherever you go tell them. Conservative councils cost you less. Labour councils just cost you.

    Let me just say a word or two about the sheer incompetence of some of those Labour councils.

    Last year John Smith spoke of his concern about growing cynicism in politics. About the need for standards of integrity and honour. And about politics being a moral activity.

    Let me break with the adversarial nature of British politics. I agree with Mr Smith about that. But Mr Smith, you must be consistent.

    It’s not possible to talk about standards of integrity and honour if senior members of the Labour Party condemn people before an enquiry has reported.

    You can’t have standards of integrity and honour if they make false allegations and never retract. If they charge impartial public servants with political bias.

    By all means let’s maintain those high standards. But let us do it right across the board. And let that include Labour councils.

    Let Mr Smith condemn councils like Lambeth.

    I wonder if any of you saw the report about how much it cost to get two gas fires fitted in Lambeth? In the real world it costs £500. But what did it say it cost in Lambeth?

    £2000?

    £5000?

    £25,000?

    No. In Lambeth, it said that two gas fires cost the taxpayer £71,000. That’s 140 times the usual price. It’s scarcely believable – but I fear it’s true.

    And let’s not stop there.

    Take Derbyshire. Where did the Chairman of the Finance Committee have his office? In his prison cell.

    He’d been jailed for fraud. But he still went on getting his allowances and running the council’s finances. Nothing seems to be barred in the modern Labour Party.

    Local elections: Liberals

    I don’t want to waste much time on Liberal councils, though come to think of it waste would be a good place to start.

    But here in Plymouth, just a stone’s throw from Devonport, let’s take a cool sceptical look about Liberal claims for the West Country. Down here they said that Devonport should get the Trident contract. Up in Scotland they said Rosyth should get it.

    When it came to the crunch, they backed Rosyth. When put to the test the Liberals put Devonport last. That tells you everything you need to know about Liberal concern for the West country.

    At council level Liberal and Labour work together. The only time they compete is about who can charge the taxpayer more.

    Liberal councils are asking £67 extra on average on your Council Tax bill. Liberal Richmond has had the biggest rise in London – almost four times the rate of inflation.

    Liberal-led Hampshire has had the biggest rise in the Shires – more than five times the rate of inflation.

    If you want high standards of service and good value for money in local government, Conservative councils win hands down.

    Let everyone remember that on May 5th.

    European elections

    In the last week of the General Election, when we were way behind in the polls, I spoke out about the Union between Britain and Scotland.

    Some people thought I’d gone mad.

    But it was the right thing to do.

    Many of you will remember the long, bruising debates about Maastricht. It was not easy to get it through.

    But it was the right thing to do.

    Now, we are engaged in difficult negotiations with our partners in Europe. We are under furious assault from some quarters on both sides of the channel.

    But preserving British interests is the right thing to do.

    These negotiations are difficult. Points at issue are important and complex.

    But they are not insoluble. It is quite possible to get an agreement that secures our interests without damaging the concerns of our partners. That is what negotiation in Europe is about.

    I hope we can succeed, because enlargement of the Community is an important prize.

    Unfortunately as so often happens with the European debate, the complexities of the issue have been lost.

    It is cheap and easy to say that our position has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with Party management.

    But it is untrue.

    And isn’t it absurd that whenever the British Government takes a stand upon a legitimate interest we are parodied as being anti-European?

    No one thinks that of the French, the Germans or the Spanish when they take a stand in their interests. Nor should they, because every country in Europe fights its own corner very hard.

    Frankly, those people who comment in this way should just grow up and learn what the European debate is really about.

    We fight hard for our vision of Europe because we want Europe to succeed. Being a good European doesn’t mean you sign up to every dot and comma that our partners propose.

    It does mean we use our own judgement about the long-term interests of the Community. Because our national interests, our economic interests, our jobs, our livelihoods are engaged in Europe as never before.

    Over half of all our exports go there. To a huge single market right on our doorstep that Conservative Britain helped to create.

    Thousands of British companies, large and small, trade with Europe and provide huge numbers of jobs. And it is in the homes that their workers go back to at the end of the day that Britain’s interests in Europe are felt.

    And there is one other priceless legacy of our partnership in Europe. And that has been a Europe free of war.

    Fifty years ago a huge armada of ships and men gathered on the South coast to liberate the Continent. To end a war which had ravaged Europe. In June we will remember those veterans and thank them.

    Because of them, we have had an unparalleled prize. Fifty years of peace in Western Europe. Do you know when Europe last enjoyed 50 years of uninterrupted peace? If I tell you that the Cabinet then had names like Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, you get the idea. 1800 years.

    Today, our interests lie in being part of a Europe that sustains that peace. And keeps peace elsewhere.

    A week ago I was in Bosnia on the borders of the European Union.

    I visited Gorniy Vakuf, Vitez, Bugojno and Sarajevo and saw British troops helping deliver a new peace.

    In Gorniy Vakuf we saw villagers return to their shattered homes, carrying furniture on handcarts and children returning to play on the streets for the first time for months.

    In Sarajevo we saw a city return to life after months of nightmare and British troops dominating the trouble spots.

    Aid convoys often now travel unmolested and unescorted as troops corral weapons, man checkpoints, and keep former combatants apart.

    I’ve seen the British Army operate in many parts of the world. But I can say to you with perfect conviction that I have never been prouder of the British Army than I was last week.

    This was Britain in the heart of Europe.

    So we are firmly a part of Europe and let us conduct the debate on that basis. The decision in June is about how we shape that Europe. It is not Europe right or wrong. It is Europe Right or Left.

    And the distinction between those positions is very sharp. The policies of the Labour and Liberal Parties in this country on Europe are startlingly similar.

    Between them they would impose a minimum wage. A 35 hour week. They would renegotiate our rebate. Double Community spending. And if that is not enough, they would surrender our national veto.

    And what does that mean? It means we would no longer control our foreign policy. Our defence policy. Our planning controls and much else besides.

    What kind of manifesto is that? I’ll tell you. It’s one we should publicise – North, South, East and West. There aren’t just differences between us and the other parties – there’s a yawning gulf.

    People tell me they are confused as to where John Smith stands on Europe. So let me help you.

    In 1971 Labour opposed Europe, but John Smith voted for it.

    The following year, although he still said he was for it, he voted against. And he was against Europe through most of the 1980s.

    In 1992, John Smith became Labour Leader. Labour was now officially in favour of Europe, but Mr Smith told his Party to abstain.

    But now it’s 1994. And whatever Europe wants is good enough for him. He has abdicated independent judgement.

    So I hope you now understand where John Smith stands on Europe. And if you do, will you write it down on a postcard and send it to him. I’m sure he’ll be extremely grateful.

    If you know any Conservatives who are saying: ‘These elections don’t matter’, or ‘I don’t see why I should help’, just tell them, too.

    They do matter. And – if they care about Britain – they should help. For if they sit at home, others won’t. And people who believe – passionately – that we should be submerged in a different kind of European state will be out there day in, day out, knocking on doors, distributing leaflets.

    If in the next couple of months you look out of your window and you see people with red or orange rosettes going up and down your street campaigning, just remember this.

    They too, have a view about Europe. But it’s not your view, it’s not mine. And it’s not the view of the people of this country.

    We have a vision – one that’s right for this country and right for Europe. And we will pursue that vision best with the help of more Conservative MEPs back in the European Parliament.

    Peroration

    I wasn’t born a Conservative. I became one. By choice and by conviction.

    I don’t believe a great country is built by Government or planned from the centre.

    Governments can open doors, remove obstacles, point the way.

    But it’s people down the ages who have made our country what it is. Millions of people who never make the headlines – working together to better themselves and make a better future for their children.

    I believe that the people who made Britain – if only they have the confidence – can help to make Europe too.

    We’re an old Party. Were an old country. We have values and experience that make us equal to any challenge.

    In our Party we don’t walk away from difficulties. We go out there to meet them, solve them and turn them into success. That’s what we’ve always done. And that’s what we will do again.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference – 26 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference on 26th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    “Making Councils Work for You”

    Making Councils Work for You is the theme of this year’s Conference. In those five words is the very essence of local government.

    It is something Conservative councils have always sought to do. It was what I tried to do here in Lambeth – what is it now, a quarter of a century ago.

    Present today will be people here who have served in local government all that time. That’s something to be proud of: a record of service that many have reason to be grateful for.

    There’s one lesson I learned in local government. Politics is about people. About their lives. That is why our policies are based on individual choice, individual opportunity, individual responsibility.

    That is the message we need to carry. Street to street, house to house, face to face. Tell it to people on the doorstep. After all, it’s their communities, their choices, their freedoms, their children, their future.

    So tell me tell it how it is – without the gloss of intermediary comment. That’s the way to hammer home our message and make sure it is received.

    In this we have an advantage. Our strength comes from the ground up. More than any other Party, our message is carried to the country by our local supporters, local councillors, local candidates and local party workers.

    This year, many of you will be fighting in the local elections. We’re going to have to fight hard to win. Mid term elections are never easy.

    But I’ll tell you one thing. We’re not going to win if we stay on the back foot. We must be positive. We must be confident. We must be united.

    THE ECONOMY

    And, Mr Chairman, we have reason to be. These elections will take place against an economic background that seemed impossible a year ago.

    Unemployment is falling. Growth faster than predicted. Business confidence rising. Exports up. Retail sales on the up. And British industry going from strength to strength.

    We can’t expect our opponents to say all this. Indeed, we can be pretty sure they won’t.

    So we must say it. And when we’ve said it – say it again, and again, and again.

    Make sure everyone notices it. Don’t let the good changes that are taking place be hidden. Gloves off. Punch the good news home. Build up the confidence that will build up our prosperity.

    When were interest rates last this low? 16 years ago. When was inflation last this low for so long? 25 years ago.

    When were mortgage rates last this low? 25 years ago.

    When was the number of strikes last this low? Over a century ago.

    When did we last have such good news on all these fronts together? Not in my lifetime. Not in anyone’s.

    I don’t intend to see the Conservative Party on the defensive.

    What we’ve done is right for the country.

    And what we’ll deliver is good for the country.

    So help spread that message wherever you are.

    For the last two years politics has all pointed in one direction. The issue has been the recession. No-one takes our opponents seriously. No-one pays much attention to what they say. They’ve had a free ride. They’ve talked complete drivel – and got away with it.

    But that won’t last. In due course people will notice the vacuum that is their policy. While we’ve been working to put Britain back on its feet, their only concern has been to put the boot into Britain.

    So – remember. While your main job is to explain our policies, just – occasionally – take a moment out to expose theirs.

    TAX

    Meanwhile, let us take all the key issues head on. Tax – for a start. Let me come straight out about where we stand on tax. All our instincts are to get tax down. There’s no other Party in British politics that can say that.

    Yes – taxes are rising in April. Why? Because tax income fell during the recession. And because public spending had to rise.

    Yes, but why did public spending have to rise? Mainly to help those people who were vulnerable during the recession – a recession we can now see was not – as advertised then – a British phenomenon, but one that has spread right across Europe and beyond.

    It was right to help people during that recession. We could not have done otherwise. No Conservative Government could turn its back on those most in need. Nor did we.

    That’s mainly why spending went up. But we’re through recession now – the first nation in Europe to be able to say that. Now we need to rebuild income and control spending. This country has been through many sacrifices to get to this position. We are not going to throw it away now.

    The first task of any responsible Government must be to balance the books. And, even though we’ve now cut spending, this still means that taxes have had to go up.

    We didn’t put them up because we wanted to. We did it because we had to. What we need now is to build a recovery that lasts. That is what responsible government is all about.

    But there’s something else you can tell them on the doorsteps. We remain by instinct a tax-cutting Party -the only tax-cutting Party. And when it is possible to cut taxes again, we will.

    So don’t just defend our record. Remind people of this…. Every time the Conservatives have voted for lower taxes, Labour have voted for higher ones. And the Liberals have voted with them.

    Every time the Conservatives have voted for lower public spending, Labour have voted to spend more. And the Liberals have voted with them.

    And when did Labour or Liberals call for spending cuts? You’re right – never. They called for more spending – as they always do.

    Nor do they stop at high tax and high spending in Britain; they want high tax and high spending from a high and mighty Brussels too. Yes – we’re in Europe. Because that’s where our interests lie. But not the Europe Labour and Liberals want.

    Just look at Labour’s plans for Europe. Sheer madness.

    Higher taxes on business. Extra burdens on business through the Social Chapter. Extra costs on business through a 35 hour week.

    In the European Parliament Labour have even voted for taxes on investment income – the old axe on savings and pensions. How extraordinary to propose a tax surcharge on savings income, just when interest rates are low. What damage that would do to the elderly and the prudent. The politics of envy are alive and well – and living in Labour policies.

    And if that’s not enough, they and their Socialist friends actually want to double the money that Europe spends. Double your money. Double the Community budget? That means doubling our net contribution.

    Hands up all those who want to double our net contributions to Brussels? No hands up? – the observer from the Liberal Party must have slipped out to lunch.

    How does that square with keeping your tax bills down? It doesn’t, does it? You can’t give more money to Europe unless you take more tax at home.

    In Whitehall, in Brussels and council chamber, too – it’s taxes, taxes everywhere. Remind the people – with every Labour promise, the taxing meter clicks upward.

    That’s the key difference between the Parties. And that’s the lack of difference between our opponents. Labour and the Liberals: two halves of the same tax demand.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW

    Mr Chairman, when I spoke to you last year, I said I wanted to produce an enduring structure for local government. I meant it. I come from local government. I have an affection for it. I want it to be successful.

    And it’s always been my belief that structures will only endure if they reflect the traditional loyalties and identities of local people.

    Local government is at its best when people know what its responsibilities are and who is responsible. When they know to whom they should look for help on particular issues.

    At the moment in many places that isn’t very clear. There are blurred responsibilities. People often don’t know who to turn to. There’s scope for better integration of services and savings from improved efficiency. Achieving that would not only be good for the structure of local government, it would be good for its prestige.

    In many cases unitary authorities will deliver advantages. Where that is so I believe we should have them. But the argument for unitary authorities may not be so strong everywhere. Where that is so, we have made it clear that we will not change for change’s sake. There is no national blueprint.

    And I promise you this. All through this process government’s doors will be open. John Gummer and David Curry will take your views fully into account before coming to any final decisions.

    We share a common objective of which this process is only a small part. To get back to the time when the big figures of local government were invariably big figures on the national stage as well.

    I want to see that happen again. You play a vital part in making your communities better places. I want your work to be recognised and your voice to be heard.

    IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL DECISIONS

    Mr Chairman, debates on structure will no doubt continue. But immediately ahead of us lie elections which will decide what matters far more: who runs the council.

    We’re realists. We know many people will vote on national as well as on local issues. That is why good news on the economy matters so much.

    But don’t think that what you do isn’t noticed. It is. Or doesn’t count. It does. Because most people’s day to day lives are affected by local government just as much as central.

    Many problems are best solved locally. Sorted out by thousands upon thousands of decisions and actions taken at council level. And, whatever the local problem is, I know one thing for sure. It’ll be tackled best, if it is tackled by Conservative councillors.

    On almost all the key issues of local government, there are sharp differences between the parties. And time and time again it is the Conservatives who are most in tune with the people.

    EDUCATION

    Take education. We can all agree it’s vital. Words are cheap. But only we Conservatives have produced a clear policy for the future. And we have done it against the flat opposition of the other parties, national and local.

    Children have only one chance. If schools fail to teach the basic skills, then pupils lose the opportunity to make the most of their lives.

    Every child needs the basic equipment for success in life. The three Rs do matter. And so too does confident command of standard English. If you can’t write a clear application, you may never even get an interview for the job you want.

    We Conservatives have a clear strategy for a better future.

    We’ve given parents the right to choose which school they want their child to go to.

    We’ve brought in a new National curriculum.

    We’ve insisted on testing – checking progress in every school.

    We’re taking on those trendy theorists who have done so much damage in teacher training.

    We’re giving more power to the schools.

    We’re giving parents and public more information about our schools than ever before. School reports, full prospectuses, truancy records and performance tables.

    And who is it that opposes us – on all these critical commonsense policies? Why, Labour, of course.

    They are the abominable no-men of education. They think they know better. So they say “no” to choice in education, “no” to information about how our children are doing in school, and “no” to more say for parents.

    How completely, how absurdly, time and time and time again the Labour Party has misjudged the mood of the people of this country. Not just in the council chambers – but in the Shadow Cabinet, too.

    Hundreds of thousands of parents have voted for Grant-Maintained schools – but John Smith and co still want to scrap them.

    Millions of parents want to see our school performance tables – but Labour still want to scrap them.

    Assisted places for poor children? They’ll scrap them, too. Their attitude is all so negative and out of date.

    And this week Labour have even revived their old blind prejudice against independent schools. They are talking of ending charitable status. What hope for our children’s future, when Labour’s spokesmen trek back into a discredited past?

    Mr Chairman, there seems no attitude on education so vindictive that Labour won’t back it.

    In some Labour-run authorities, young children in CTCs have been picked on and stopped from playing music or team games with children from other schools.

    I don’t know about you – but I don’t think you can sink much lower than that. What a spiteful policy. It is educational apartheid, and it should stop – now.

    Team sports are vital. They are part of childhood. And they are part of life. I am determined to see them played far more in our schools. And I don’t want to see classroom wars or perverted political ideology stand in the way.

    LAW AND ORDER

    Mr Chairman, as I go round the country one subject resonates more clearly than any other – concern about crime. This year in Parliament, we have the most comprehensive legislation for years to crack down on crime. To give the courts and the police the powers they need.

    But all of you can help us – and I’ll tell you how. For no-one should ever think that local councils can’t help in the fight against crime. The war on drugs and the war on crime involve us all. And you in your councils can play a big part in winning that war.

    Here’s an example. I recently visited a Conservative council in London. Ealing. I found they were leading the way in new projects for fighting crime on the streets.

    You didn’t need a degree in criminology to see the sense of what they were doing. It was simple practical action. Just fitting gates in the alleyways of estates. In just one year it cut domestic burglaries by a third.

    Not expensive. Not difficult. Just plain common or garden sense. Back to basics you might say.

    And that’s just one of many things councils should do.

    You can set up neighbourhood watch schemes.

    Work with the police and local businesses under our Safer Cities programme.

    And don’t underestimate what better planning can do. To help you and to pull threads together we’re publishing new guidance today on planning that will help councils cut out crime.

    Better lighting, entry phones in tower blocks, better street design. Simple things like these can make life more difficult for the mugger, the burglar and the ram raider.

    So, too, could more closed circuit cameras in City centres. We’re out to stop the criminal – and the best way to do that is to spot him before he strikes. Closed circuit cameras have proved they can work. So we need more of them wherever crime is high.

    Yes, no doubt we will hear some protests about a threat to civil liberties. Well, I have no sympathy for so-called liberties of that kind. The one liberty that concerns me is the liberty of people to go out in the streets without fear and to know that they and their property are safe.

    Anything that helps them and hinders the criminal is fine by me.

    PARTY DIFFERENCES

    Mr Chairman, in ten weeks time people will be voting up and down the country on what council will run their area in the years ahead. The choice they face couldn’t be clearer.

    What was it Jack Straw said the other day about Labour councils? He said he was “proud of what Labour councils have achieved”. Well, if he is, he must be easily satisfied. He went on to say, “The facts speak for themselves.”

    Yes, they do. But I wonder if he realises what they say.

    Seven out of the ten authorities with the highest Council tax arrears? Labour.

    Eight out of ten with the worst rent arrears? Labour.

    Nine out of ten with the worst exam results? Labour.

    Ten out of ten with the highest council taxes? Labour.

    “The facts speak for themselves”. They do indeed. And what they tell you is to vote Conservative – unless you want a council that puts up your taxes because it doesn’t collect the rents, and doesn’t teach your children.

    Thanks Jack for reminding us. Although I have a feeling that’s not what you wanted us to hear.

    And since I’m in the mood to let facts speak for themselves, here are a few more that positively scream out.

    Who runs the ten councils with the highest debts? Yes. Labour.

    And did you know those ten councils collectively have borrowed so much money that the latest figures show they owe more than Nicaragua?

    And if you think that’s unfair because there are ten councils and only one Nicaragua, let me tell you what else those figures show.

    After ten years of Socialism, Birmingham’s debt is almost three times the size of Albania’s. And it took Albania forty years of communism to build up her debt.

    And in case you think that’s a freak, then Hackney owes more than Haiti. Hackney’s Labour.

    Camden owes more than Chad. And Camden? Labour.

    And Sheffield owes more than the Seychelles. Sheffield – since we’re talking about elections today, that brings back some happy memories. Perhaps Labour would like another rally there – it might even be worth us paying.

    Week after week John Smith talks about competence in government. Well, that’s fine. But he should take a close look at incompetence in Labour local government instead.

    No wonder he calls for the cancellation of Third World debt. He thinks he might need the IMF to bail out third-rate Labour councils instead.

    LIBERALS

    Before we leave the third-rate, let’s spare a word for the fourth-rate also. Here’s one last question about council debt. Who runs the council with the eleventh largest debt? No, not Labour. Yes, you guessed it. The Liberal Democrats.

    Wherever Labour leads, the Liberals follow, tails wagging, right at their heels.

    We’ll confront Labour head-on. But don’t let’s forget the Liberal threat.

    Do you remember the Liberal posturing at the last Election? All that fuss about PR? Paddy’s patent remedy. People soon saw through that piece of quackery.

    The Liberals said PR was the key to a new style of politics. And that was half true at least. Because it was a key alright – a Liberal key to a Labour Britain.

    And events have proved that. Just look at what’s happened up and down the country. Wherever people have voted Liberal in protest, the Liberals have used that key to open the Town Hall door for Labour.

    In Berkshire, Essex, Hereford, Lincolnshire, Shropshire, Suffolk and Kent, what do we see? Liberals touching their cap and opening the door for Labour. Lib-Lab pacts putting up council taxes and snuffing out common sense.

    I hope everyone remembers that this May.

    There’s only one way to vote Tory. But there are two ways to vote Labour.

    A hung council is a swung council. And it always swings to the Left.

    The only consistent policy the Liberals have is to let in Labour wherever they can. Backstairs deals. Selling their principles for a few committee chairmanships.

    Three chairs for the Libs – and, hey presto, you have a Labour council.

    CONCLUSION

    Mr Chairman, I’ve spelt out for you today some of the challenges we face. But also the opportunities – and today we have opportunities better than we’ve had for years to take our country forward.

    At this conference we have set out our shared beliefs. And told the world how strongly we hold them. Our commitments on education and crime strike a chord in every household in this country.

    We in this Party are not in politics to advance a narrow political ideology. We are there to do what we can for the people we serve.

    Over the last two years, I admit, we’ve taken a fair amount of stick. But now is the time to give some back.

    We’ve been on the defensive. But now is the time to go on the attack.

    It will take time before our policies work through. Time before all their benefits are seen.

    But one thing I do know. We won’t convince anyone if we stay at home indoors. In all the years of service on your councils, in all your actions, you have helped to build the reputation of this Party.

    Now go out and sell it. You deserve to win. Make sure you do.

    So get on your coat. Get on the doorstep. And get stuck in.

  • Mr Major’s Speech Marking 25th Anniversary of Carparo – 11 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at a lunch to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Carparo.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be here today as a guest in my own constituency on this very special occasion of the 25th anniversary of Carparo. It has during the last hour and a half or so provided the odd surprise or two. When I heard a motion from the House of Commons, or at least a message from the House of Commons. I have to confess to you, for a fleeting second there was a twinge of concern. I cannot think for the life of me why this should be, but it most certainly was. But it is a rare event to have a motion of that sort. Rare, but I think justified because the motion referred not only to the contribution of Dr Paul, not only to the remarkable success of Carparo, but it also referred to the success of a British manufacturing enterprise and I was delighted to have that motion put down by colleagues from more than one party in the House of Commons.

    Before I turn to other matters can I just say how pleased I am personally to see the High Commissioner, Dr Sindha. He is, in my own experience, and I think in the judgement of many better judges than I of these matters, an outstanding High Commissioner who served India’s interest with great skill. But in doing so remains a very close friend to this country as well and I am delighted to see him here today. What a remarkable achievement, to have built Carparo up in such a time, on such a scale, across such a wide range of different activities. When I heard that motion about the British manufacturing industry, what came immediately to my mind was this thought – too often in this country we underestimate what can be done in this country and what is done. As I go around the country and see what is actually happening in manufacturing and non-manufacturing enterprises alike. I see stories of success, of innovation, of skill, of far-sighted judgement -of which we hear far too little in this country. We hear the bad news so frequently. It would be of more use to all of us – in industry, commerce and private citizens alike, if we were to hear a little more of the remarkable successes of so much of the British manufacturing industry.

    I have taken the opportunity in the last few weeks and I will return to this in a few moments, of going around the country, having a look at some of these remarkable examples of success, and I propose to do that again in the future. Because the success that Dr Paul has achieved, is a remarkable example of what can be achieved by hard work and enterprise. The success of Carparo is symbolic of what is happening in a large part of the British manufacturing industry more generally, and I’d just like to say this about manufacturing. There is more than one school of thought about manufacturing. There is a school of thought that regards it almost as marginal to the success of British industry, and there is a second school of thought that regards it as fundamental to the success of British industry. I take my stand with the second school of thought. I don’t regard manufacturing as a Cinderella part of British industry. Making things matters in this country and we must make it clear to everyone that all of us believe that making things matters. It has changed manufacturing. Changed in a remarkable way. Both in image and content, over the last 20 years or so. What we need in manufacturing is more of the best brains, the best skills, that our young people can produce. We need to build up those skills. We need to change the culture in this country, in the way in which typically we look at the manufacturing industry specifically and commerce more generally.

    I saw with some interest, just a day or so ago, a remarkable survey published by the CBI and I’m delighted to see Howard Davies, the Director General with us this afternoon. It was a survey of a wide ranging series of aspects of manufacturing. It showed manufacturing orders rising strongly, right across the United Kingdom. It showed business optimism increasing. It showed companies expecting output and demand to rise. Business optimism, at its highest level for 4 years. Orders up, exports up, exports even up in difficult markets as an increasingly competitive British industry penetrates even markets currently in recession on the continent and elsewhere. It showed costs under control, unit labour costs down over the last 12 months, and for the first time since the recovery slowly and painfully began in June, getting on for nearly 2 years ago, 20 months ago now. We began to see more companies expecting to increase investment over the next year, with engineering perhaps doing particularly well. That was from the industrial trends survey, which over the last 30 years has perhaps shown itself to be the most reliable indicator of what is going to happen in our economy. The prospects for the future look even brighter and for those who believe that the tax changes will perhaps put a break upon the recovery, as Howard Davies said just a few days ago, looking, and I quote directly, looking at the experience of previous tax increases in the late ’60s, the early ’70s and the early ’80s, that shows that tax increases will not halt the recovery. The key is confidence and we should not talk ourselves into pessimism which is not justified by the facts. I believe that is absolutely and entirely right. Because potentially at the moment, if you look across the range of economic indicators and the increasing competitiveness that British and commerce, we have potentially, the best circumstances for sustained growth with low inflation that we have known in this country for very many years.

    I have taken the opportunity of escaping from that Whitehall/Westminster nexus to go and look out in the real world at some of the things that are happening. Earlier this week in the East Midlands, I visited Triumph Motorcycles. Not all that long ago within the memory of everyone, every adult in this room, the British motorcycle industry just ceased to exist. They disappeared. An attempt to revive it as a cooperative failed. It seemed that another industry had fled the country and gone for good. But now Triumph have brought it back. Substantial capital investment and training is now growing and exporting to Japan, to Canada, to Germany, to New Zealand and to countries all around the world. A week earlier, in Yorkshire, to see in the textile industry Firth Carpets, again an industry that many people thought were in real difficulties and yet now, after suitable investment and good management, it’s competing with the best in the world and will take the advantages that spring from some of the changes in the Uruguay Round. The week before that, at Perkins Engines in Peterborough, another area where success for the future seems to be guaranteed and today of course, the truly remarkable success story of Carparo.

    Our host referred earlier to our joint date with destiny in 1968. I was elected to Lambeth Council and ended up here today, he had £5,000 and ended up where he is today. If only I’d had £5,000. In 1968, the success of the company is of course the stuff of dreams. But not only dreams, hard work, skill, aptitude, risk, application and yes luck, are the ingredients that have helped make the company what it is today.

    Perhaps a talisman of some of the other changes that have taken place. What I passionately believe is that at the moment people simply do not realise the transformation that is taking place in the British economy and it’s vital that they do so that they take the opportunities that that transformation is about to offer. We are in this country, frankly, not very good at talking about our successes. We should be. Because success will breed further success. It will breed confidence, it will breed investment, it will breed growth, it will breed tax revenue, it will breed jobs and it will breed a better quality of services that the tax yields that follow will enable us to fund.

    People abroad can recognise our successes and the changed climate. Why else would so much external investment from the European Community, from Japan and America, be coming to this country. Because they have seen the change with their perspective from abroad in the way that so many of us in this country have not yet recognised it. They know the opportunities here. They know what can be done by the right sort of investment over the long term in the United Kingdom economy and increasingly we should recognise it ourselves in this country. We should be more self-confident. We should say more about our successes and I hope we will. Exports at an all time high and Carparo playing its own part as a previous winner of the Queen’s Award for Export Achievement.

    We still have in the United Kingdom some of the best and some of the biggest companies in Europe. 14 United Kingdom firms in the top 25 in Europe. That inward investment I referred to from Japan, the United States and elsewhere. These companies don’t come here for the weather, they come here for the business climate. The low taxation climate, in terms of business. The increasing aptitude and willingness of people to seek skill training and I wish to turn to that in a moment. The number of companies moving from Europe to the United Kingdom. Black and Decker of course being a recent example, not just inward investment, but companies bringing their whole enterprise to actually establish it here in the United Kingdom and they come because the conditions are right. I wonder how many people in this room can last remember when we had inflation around 2 per cent for a full year. Certainly not since 1960. With interest rates at the lowest level since the mid-1970s, with productivity improved, with manufacturing output up, with unemployment having fallen in 9 months out of 11, while alas in so many of our competitive countries in Europe, it’s still rising sharply and with industrial relations wholly transformed. If I had stood here 12 years ago and said to you that we would have at the present time, the lowest number of days lost to strikes since records began and a relatively clement industrial relations attitude between workforce and management that exists in this country today, frankly most of you would not have believed that it would be possible. But it’s happened and it is of vital interest to manufacturing industry.

    But there is one other change that I wish to refer to and it relates particularly to industry. There is an artificial cultural distinction between blue collar and white collar workers that has existed in this country for too long and has done too great a damage over too long a period. We do need those people who work in industry to have the esteem they deserve and those artificial distinctions between blue and white collar workers are outdated, absurd, damaging and they should be put in the dustbin immediately and never taken out again. What we need, if we are to have the success in the future that I believe this country is capable of, that is going to be built on the right macro economic structure created by government and the right investment and vision undertaken by business. If we’re to achieve that, not just this year, next year, the year after, not just in good years but in difficult economic years as well, then we need to attract more of our brightest and best brains into industry.

    The world is more competitive today that it has ever been. It is going to get more competitive. We’re not just competing with our friends and colleagues in the European Union, in France and Germany and Portugal and Spain. The competition comes also and here we must gear our competitive structure to meet it. The competition comes the Pacific Basin, from Japan, from the United States and unless we lift our eyes to make sure we can compete with those countries, then we will not remotely begin to achieve the success that is necessary in the future. That is why we need to keep our industrial costs down. That’s in a nutshell, why I myself thought it wrong to accept the provisions of the Social Chapter and decline to agree it in the Maastricht Treaty negotiations. That is why I myself believe that we must do all we possibly can to reskill Britain in manual skills of all sorts. We do need those skills to meet that more competitive world that lives out there, which you as businessmen must compete. We need more apprenticeships. We need to see the increasing thrust of our young people going into higher education. We had a target of one in three of our young people getting into further and higher education by the turn of the century and we have achieved that target this year, six years ahead of schedule. We need that to continue. We need to put an increasing weight and interest and acknowledgement of vocational qualifications of one sort or another. This is a revolution. A revolution in culture, a revolution in business management, a revolution in thought, about the way in which we look at business and industry.

    Those days will, within my political lifetime. But every shred of profit was looked at enviously are surely regarded as absurd by the overwhelming majority of people in this country today. Business itself is willingly accepting more and more social obligations of one sort or another. The generous donation to London Zoo by Carparo and the generous donation to some of the charities Norma works for today is an illustration of that. It stretches right across business, free enterprise, profitable, in increasingly accepting the obligation to assist in sponsorship of arts and other charities and good causes of one sort or another. The old artificial division that existed so many years ago, of hostility for private enterprise, has been steadily draining away over the last 15 or 20 years and in that climate we have to recognise what the underlying philosophy for the future must be. It is a perfectly simple philosophy. If business wins, Britain wins and we need to gear our policies to provide business with the greatest possible opportunity of winning. Business of course has the primary role. Government must provide the right macro economic climate. It can help in other ways. Help with exporters, help with export credit, help with taking trade missions abroad to use political clout to open the doors to businessmen to secure their deals. That is something that I believe is a legitimate responsibility of business and increasingly we will do that and we will use our Embassies and High Commissions abroad to promote the interests of British business. That is in all our interests in this country.

    Carparo has illustrated much of that. Carparo is winning. In many ways has won. Could move from a company with £500 to the multi-million pound concern with interests all around the world that it is today is a truly remarkable success story in private enterprise. I’d like to extend my congratulations to Sir Raj Paul and all his colleagues who have contributed to that success.

    A few moments ago at the conclusion of these remarks, our host invited everyone in Carparo to rise and drink a toast to their guest today. I, for my part if I may, would like to return the compliment. We’re here to celebrate the 25th anniversary of a success story well worth celebrating. I would like to conclude by inviting all the guests to join me in a toast to Sirraj Paul and all who have made Carparo such a remarkable success story.

    Dr Paul and Carparo.

  • PMQT – 10 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Flynn : In a letter to me from the Imperial Tobacco Company, the corrupt practice is exposed that, in the general election, it awarded 1,000 advertising sites to the Tory party because the Tory party promised not to ban tobacco advertising. The Government have now delivered on that promise to their paymasters. The cost will be borne by the nation in several thousand avoidable and unnecessary deaths. Will the Prime Minister promise today that never again will the Tory party accept bribes, favours or money from the tobacco industry?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly overlooks the excellent record that this Government have had in reducing smoking–down from 45 to 28 per cent. He knows very well of the changes in taxation that have been necessary to achieve that. He illustrates that no company that was remotely sensible would support the policies of the Labour party.

    Mr. Waterson : Will my right hon. Friend consider making public funds available so that every business in the land can be sent a copy of the European socialist manifesto so that they may judge for themselves whether it is a constructive business plan or a fast route to failure?

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure that would be a proper use of public funds. I very much doubt whether anybody would really wish to read it. It is certainly clear that what is contained in that socialist manifesto, which was signed up to by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)–without, as I recall, reading it–would be desperately damaging for British industry. It is equally true that the decision in the past of Members of the European Parliament who support the Labour party to vote for ending single nation vetoes would in effect mean that we would not be able to sustain our rebate, at a cost of many billions of pounds to the British taxpayer.

    Mr. John Smith : Given the widespread concern throughout the country at the arbitrary and unfair decisions that are being produced by the system operated by the Child Support Agency, why are the Government so opposed to allowing an independent review of its decisions?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there will be a full debate on that issue later today. As I have said on previous occasions, we have made it clear that we shall keep the nature of the system under review and if it seems necessary to make changes we will do so. We are embarking on implementing a principle that is supported uniformly across the House. We need a little more experience of how it works. We will keep it under review. If it is necessary to make changes, we shall make them then, not now.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the Prime Minister aware that the phrase “keeping under review” has been the bromide response of bureaucrats down the decades? Why do the Government–despite all the evidence–stop the Child Support Agency from taking into account divorce or separation agreements involving the transfer of assets, which may be highly relevant to establishing justice between the parties?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously did not listen to what I said a moment ago. I made it perfectly clear that we would continue to evaluate the workings of the Child Support Act 1991 and the agency. We intend to secure a well-accepted, consistent mechanism to deliver a better child maintenance system than we have had in the past. That is why I said that we would keep the matter under review.

    This system is unlike anything that has been tried before. It is generally accepted to be right in principle–not least by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is nodding. It is right to consider it and, having considered it, decide then whether further changes are necessary.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister cannot be so complacent about the anger that is now felt throughout the country–and his Back Benchers certainly should not be so complacent about it. Does not 80 per cent. of the money recovered by the agency go straight to the Treasury? Did the Government intend that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman reveals instinctively that he thinks in terms of “big government”, rather than thinking of the taxpayer. The money is actually returned to the taxpayer who contributed it in the first place.

    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain’s only interest in Bosnia is assisting in the provision of humanitarian aid? Can he assure the House that we will not prejudice that effort by attacking any of the combatants?

    The Prime Minister : The measures agreed yesterday at the North Atlantic Council are intended primarily to reinforce the peace process. There will be renewed diplomatic effort to encourage all sides to reach an agreement and stick to it.

    No course in Bosnia is free of risks; that has been the case from the beginning. I do not myself believe, however, that doing nothing would be the right option for the House or NATO to adopt in the circumstances that have now arisen. In the discussions at the North Atlantic Council, we urged our allies to look forward. We do not favour purely punitive action; force should not be used unless it is genuinely necessary, and increases the chance of a peaceful settlement.

    Another relevant point is the fact that NATO has warned all sides to cease their bombardment. It has taken specific and carefully constructed decisions to reinforce the efforts of the commanders on the ground, but the objective is to help the civilian population without changing the character of the United Nations’ role.

     

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

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

    Mr. Cousins : Does the Prime Minister agree that, although private matters can be cruelly exposed within hours, issues of public accountability can sometimes lie dormant for years? Can he assure the House that British aid and export packages have never been used to cover the cost of large-scale commissions and backhanders?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of no circumstances in which that has happened. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I hope that he will show it either to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or to me.

    Mr. Cash : Has my right hon. Friend seen the manifesto adopted by the European Peoples party on 3 February? Is he aware that it contains a commitment to a single currency, a central bank, the social chapter, a common immigration policy and a constitution for the whole of Europe? Does he agree that Conservative Members could not possibly accept those proposals, and repudiate them explicitly?

    The Prime Minister : Neither do we have to accept them; nor will we. The Conservative party at the European elections is in agreement and will contest those elections on a distinctively British Conservative manifesto on the future of Europe.

     

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

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

    Mr. Illsley : On the subject of the appropriate use of the taxpayers’ money, does not the Prime Minister agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Department of Employment can waste £59 million on unused computer equipment, when thousands of my constituents are facing cuts in unemployment benefit as a result of his mismanagement, or are bureaucratic waste, sleaze and corruption no longer his responsibility?

    The Prime Minister : The Government always study Public Accounts Committee reports carefully. The lessons in that have already been learnt and put into practice.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alan Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mr. Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that national health service trusts, general practitioner fundholding and the patients charter are yielding valuable improvements in efficiency and quality of service? Does he further agree that not only the patients, but those who work in the national health service do not want those reforms undone and everything turned upside down, as the Labour party proposes?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The test that we should apply to the health service and efficiency is perfectly straightforward. Is the health service treating more patients? Is it providing better care and is it treating people more quickly? The answer to each of those questions is yes. The national health service treated 2.5 million more patients last year than in 1979. By contrast, the ludicrous document launched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this morning, contains nothing that would lead to a single extra patient being treated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would like to abolish trusts and fundholding. That is a recipe for inefficiency, upheaval and chaos.

    Mr. Jamieson : Is the Prime Minister aware that his education Minister in the other place announced last week that there would be no extra assistance to grant-maintained schools for their liability to pay value added tax on fuel? Is he aware that grant-maintained schools are now paying £2.50 in every £100 in taxation rather than on books?

    The Prime Minister : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more and more schools are seeking to become grant maintained and doing so week after week?

     

    Q5. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : In his very busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to look at the recent Confederation of British Industry survey, which shows that business confidence in Britain is at an all-time high? Orders are up and, in the words of the CBI survey, the recovery is deepening and widening. Does he agree that such good economic indicators and such good signs bode well for private investment in projects such as crossrail?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend refers to one of a number of surveys that have highlighted the improving economic circumstances. The survey to which my hon. Friend refers shows business and export optimism up in each and every region of the country. Orders are up, output is expected to rise and investment in plant and machinery is expected to rise. That is against a background of low inflation with unit costs falling in most regions. The prospects for British business are extremely good. By getting inflation under control, cutting public spending and bringing interest rates down, we have provided exactly the right economic circumstances for long-sustained growth with low inflation and the creation of employment.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Q6. Mr. Macdonald : To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the number of people killed in Sarajevo since the passage of the United Nations Security Council resolution of June 1992 authorising the use of force by UNPROFOR to protect the safe areas.

    The Prime Minister : We do not have reliable estimates for casualties in Sarajevo. The death toll has been high. The killing of 68 shoppers in the market last Saturday was a step change in a deteriorating situation. There can be no guarantee of peace in Sarajevo or in any other part of Bosnia. There is no feasible and certain means of resolving the problem from outside, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s decision yesterday will put the parties under heavier pressure to stop the bombardment and make peace.

    Mr. Macdonald : Does the Prime Minister accept that there can be no logical or moral justification for distinguishing between Sarajevo and the other UN-designated safe areas in Bosnia, and that about 2, 500 civilians have died in all those safe areas since June last year, when the UN authorised the use of force to protect those people? Will he, therefore, undertake to work to extend the ultimatum that has been issued in respect of Sarajevo to those other safe areas?

    The Prime Minister : We have to determine what is practicable. We are already working, as far as Srebrenica and Tuzla are concerned, to try and ensure that the situation improves. We are now doing that having seen the special difficulties in Sarajevo. To follow to its logical conclusion the concern that the hon. Gentleman set out would involve our becoming involved, very probably with troops on the ground, throughout the whole of the area of conflict. However strongly the hon. Gentleman may feel about the matter, or others, that is not a practicable proposition.

  • PMQT – 8 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    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. Dowd : And very entertaining they were, I am sure. Will the Prime Minister admit that the Government’s proposals in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill for the measure of a pint of beer represent a total surrender to the interests of a big brewers, who are such generous backers of the Conservative party? Taken together with the craven submission to the interests of tobacco companies over advertising, does not that demonstrate conclusively that whenever the interests of the Tory party’s paymasters are involved, the customer is always the loser?

    The Prime Minister : On both counts, the answer is no. In the Deregulation and Contracting Our Bill we are concerned about removing burdens on business. The principal reason for seeking to remove burdens on business is to encourage their competitiveness, their profitability and their success and to encourage the creation of jobs. It is no good the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues parroting remarks about wanting jobs if they then oppose the measures that will help to create them.

    Mr. Cormack : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progressive destruction of a great European capital city and the extinction of a sovereign state that we recognise are unacceptable?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the problems of Sarajevo and he will know that I will be discussing those with my right hon. Friends this afternoon and that the North Atlantic Council will have a further meeting tomorrow.

    Mr. John Smith : On that point, does the Prime Minister appreciate that, if no action is taken to protect the people of Sarajevo from the pitiless shelling to which they have been subjected, the Serbs are bound to conclude that no action will be taken against them whatever they do?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the United Nations Protection Force contingent is in Bosnia to help the civilian population. The United Nations cannot end the civil war by force. That is a point which is generally understood and I am pleased to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that. That has never been a feasible option. Ultimately, peace will come only at the negotiating table, but the United Nations may need to use force for specific purposes– for example, to carry out its mandate and to protect its own people in Bosnia. It may need tactical air support from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We have always been prepared to see air power used for those purposes, provided that the commanders judge it appropriate.

    On the question of Sarajevo, I do not believe that we can wait for action to follow an overall settlement. I do not believe that it is right to tolerate the continued mortar and artillery attacks against the civilian population. UNPROFOR, with support from NATO, must apply immediate and strong pressure to halt those attacks.

    Mr. John Smith : I appreciate that we cannot end a civil war by military intervention, but should not we set ourselves some minimum objectives? For example, should not a political objective be set to remove all the weapons within striking distance of Sarajevo, with the threat that if that is not done, air attacks will be pursued? Why do the Government not say that that is one of our, and our allies’, political objectives?

    The Prime Minister : As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) a few moments ago, the North Atlantic Council will meet tomorrow to consider, on the advice of military commanders, what pressure can most effectively be applied and how. If we use air power, we must be clear about the objectives of that action. The aim must be to reinforce pressure to end the bombardment of Sarajevo. To that end, the United Nations command must be able to set clear and specific conditions, knowing that tactical air support is available to back it up if necessary.

    Any use of force must be forward looking. It must seek to improve the situation in Sarajevo and contribute to the pressure on the parties to end the war. Those are not easy options and no one in the House believes them to be so. Any decision must take careful account of the importance of the humanitarian operation and the safety of the civilians and soldiers running the operation. Those are the objectives that NATO must consider tomorrow in determining how to proceed.

    Mr. John Smith : On the precise point about the threat to Sarajevo, will the Government support a proposition that an ultimatum should be issued to the Serbs to withdraw the weapons of attack from striking distance of Sarajevo?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday made a clear recommendation that

    “The aim should be to bring about the immediate lifting of the siege of Sarajevo, using all means necessary, including the use of air power”

    but it then went on and looked to the North Atlantic Council to carry forward that process. That decision was precisely in line with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Sir Donald Thompson : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he was received by textile workers at Firth’s in my constituency 10 days ago, what their assembled customers told him and whether he was able to reassure them about the future?

    The Prime Minister : It was a most enjoyable visit to Firth’s. It is perfectly clear that the company is very successful. Its order book and exports are expanding, and it has invested in the most modern manufacturing equipment for textiles. There was no doubt about the success of that firm in the minds of either its management and work force or its customers who were present on that occasion.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister’s new, more muscular mood on Bosnia is welcome, but may I remind him that it is now four weeks since he told us of his determination to open Tuzla airport as soon as possible, and probably five weeks since the launching of the Serb spring offensive aimed at obliterating what remains of Bosnia? Can he tell us of any progress in opening Tuzla airport to which he has set his hand?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that matter is under consideration within the United Nations and NATO. It is not a unilateral matter for the British Government. The United Nations, with NATO’s support, is taking a firm line over the roulement of troops at Srebrenica, the opening of Tuzla airport, confronting obstacles to road convoys, warning off the Croatian army and demanding an end to the bombardment of Sarajevo. All those important and difficult matters are being considered by the commanders on the ground on a day-to-day basis. They are receiving the full support that they need at a political level.

    I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would stop pretending, as he does so often, that there is some easy, magical and painless solution to a problem that is intensely difficult for the commanders on the ground and everybody concerned with the operation. The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent in one respect only : he has been consistently wrong on every course that he has advocated since this dreadful conflict began.

    Mr. Paice : When my right hon. Friend was a banker, before he came to the House, how would he have reacted if a business man had presented him with a business plan that concentrated on building up overheads, increasing jobs at the expense of output and maximising wages whether or not the business could afford them? How would he react to a business plan with the social chapter, a minimum wage and returning to all the problems that beset business in the 1970s?

    The Prime Minister : I suspect that I would have reacted to it in exactly the same way as business men will today. They are perfectly clear about the business environment that they want. They want minimum interference from the European Community, the Government or local government. They want low inflation, the lowest possible interest rates and the right business environment. They do not want a 1960s-style business plan.

     

    Q2. Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Dr. Jones : Has the Prime Minister seen the report in The Times today that John Cahill, the chairman of British Aerospace who has just sold Rover to BMW, is to get a pay-out of nearly £10 million after only two years with the company? How can that be justified?

    The Prime Minister : That is not a matter for me.

    Hon. Members : Resign.

    Madam Speaker : Order.

     

    Q3. Sir Peter Fry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Sir Peter Fry : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best business plan for Britain is an economy with inflation at 1.9 per cent., the lowest rate of corporation tax in the European Community and the lowest interest rate for many years? Does he also agree that the business plan put forward by the Leader of the Opposition would put British business straight into the hands of the receivers?

    The Prime Minister : We all know of, and see regularly, the hostility of Opposition Members to business but the economic conditions that we have now put in place–low inflation, low interest rates and low corporation tax–are precisely what business wants. The Governor of the Bank of England said the other day that economic prospects today are better than at any time in his professional career. We have the basics of the economy right and British business needs the opportunity to build on those basics to create the prosperity, the growth and the jobs that everyone in the country wants.

     

    Q4. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

    Ms Eagle : If the Prime Minister does not believe that a £10 million pay-off to somebody who has just sold our last remaining car industry to foreign competitors is not a matter for him, will he please explain to the House precisely what is a matter for him?

    The Prime Minister : I am intrigued at what the two hon. Ladies say. What intervention and control would the Opposition propose?

     

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

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

    Mr. Gill : The House will be aware of today’s announcement that British Telecom intends to extend its cheaper afternoon rate to peak periods. In welcoming those price reductions, will my right hon. Friend agree that they would have been impossible under a Labour Government because of the Labour party’s pathological opposition to privatisation and competition?

    Mr. Major : My hon. Friend is entirely right. Those changes have come about because we decided, against the opposition of Labour Members, to privatise the industry. I gather that many calls will now be 25 per cent. cheaper. That is very good news for everyone who uses the telephone. By privatising British Telecom, increasing competition and introducing a proper sense of regulation, we have helped to make the services more efficient, more reliable and better value for everyone who uses them. That is what happens when one leaves the private sector to run things, when one does not seek to over-regulate and over-control in every respect.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Leeds Chamber of Commerce – 28 January 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s speech held at Leeds Chamber of Commerce on Friday 28th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When I sat down here at this top table this evening, I learned the moment I heard that remarkable Grace that this was going to be a special evening, a very classy evening, something perhaps just a touch out of the ordinary so I listened to what the Rector had to say and in the midst of that excellent dinner I thought I might reply for a moment in kind so let me have a crack at doing exactly that:

    The Rector spoke tonight in rhyme and captivated us all the time; It even made me forget that he in times past once worked for the BBC. [Laughter and applause]

    That made him feel distinctly odd but thankfully drove him back to God!

    So I thought I’d follow his lead and say my message in the very same way:

    My call tonight is clear and bright: “Don’t worry boys, the country’s all right!

    Interest rates down and inflation low, exports up and we’re ready to go.

    Things are better and they won’t get worse, we can even accept the Grace in verse! [Applause]

    So Rector, into the pulpit and say: “God Bless Britain, we’re on our way!” [Applause]

    You can go home now! That’s it! We may say it more elegantly, perhaps in better grammar, perhaps in a bit more detail but that’s it so those who wish to leave may decently do so and no offence will be taken!

    It is always a great pleasure to escape from that chattering circle around Westminster and find out what is happening in the real world (Hear! Hear!) – I see you have been there! [Laughter] – How wise of you to come back!

    I have had a most enjoyable and interesting day in the area and I’m delighted to be here this evening and to see, if I may say so, so many of my friends from the House of Commons on both sides of the House here this evening and I am delighted to see them all here.

    Your President mentioned David Curry, the new Minister for Leeds. I would simply single him out for this reason if I may: in Leeds centenary year what we have is one of our youngest and best Ministers to look after your interests at Westminster and I have not a shred of doubt he will discharge that responsibility admirably. [Applause]

    Over the years, like many people who were born down south, I have observed the changing face of the north but I am in no sense the only person to have done that. Consider, for example, the observations of an Italian journalist back here in Britain after ten years’ absence abroad and what did he find? He found here a Britain transformed for the better but with one big failing, a failing touched upon by your President. This is what he said:

    “The British seem unable to appreciate any of the achievements of modern Britain. Not once was I told how good British theatre or the BBC World Service still are or how impressive Marks and Spencers and British Airways have become. There are many examples of the British failing to appreciate what they do well and concentrating instead upon what they do badly. The British have managed to turn grumbling into an art form and are kilometres ahead in it than anyone else.”

    But this wise Italian had one shining exception. He went on:

    “The north of England has stopped moaning, has rolled up its sleeves, displaying some of the grit and determination which astonished the world 150 years ago.”

    Mr. President, I agree with that and today in this area I saw some of that grit and determination and I have not a shred of doubt about your future in this part of the country.

    But if an Italian can stand back and look at our country, so can we. It is our country, so let us for a few moments do that this evening and take a clear-eyed look at ourselves, focus on what we do best and then build on what we do best.

    My overriding priorities for 1994 are the economy, education and building a safer and more ordered society. These, Mr. President, are the basics and tonight I will concentrate on the first two.

    First, the economy. Getting back to the most basic basics of all, lower borrowing, lower unemployment, low inflation and more growth. As you so rightly said, Mr. President, we have to break the inflationary psychology which has so bedevilled our prospects in this country for so long and everyone must understand that competitiveness is the route of our future prosperity, that unless we in this country are the best others will take our markets and steal our profits and as a nation we must steel ourselves to do whatever it takes to win in those international markets.

    The underlying message is very simple. If business succeeds, Britain succeeds; if business fails, we will drift on but not with the same prosperity, not with the same enthusiasm, not with the same belief in ourselves and not with the same political clout in the world and above all the route to future success lies with low inflation. I have always believed that. If you have ever been in a position where you can’t pay the bills at the end of the week, then you feel strongly about inflation and that is why on the very first day I became Chancellor of the Exchequer I was determined to take action that would break the inflation habit for good.

    There is in this country what I personally believe is a cynical view, a cynical view that a little bit of inflation is good for you, people feel better, wages go up, benefits rise more, asset values go up and people have a little bit more money but if that little bit of inflation is higher than your competitors it isn’t good for you and if you are poor or on a fixed income it is deadly for you; like a drug, it makes you feel better for a while but then you need bigger and bigger doses and soon you are hooked on a very nasty addiction indeed.

    Curing that addiction has been very painful. I understand that perhaps as well as anyone in this room, perhaps as well as anyone in this country. During the recession, many businesses and many individuals have been hurt but we are coming through that and a very different prospect lies immediately before us.

    Inflation over the past year has been 2% or less. No-one under the age of 40 can remember when that was last the case and what is more, while it may rise a little over the months ahead, low inflation is here to stay and what does that mean? It means industry can now invest with confidence but if we, if you, the business people who make the wealth to raise the taxes to support this services of this country, if you are to benefit from low inflation we must also break the habit of paying ourselves more than we should. We have no business any of us – public sector, private sector, it makes no difference – to demand pay increases year after year regardless of productivity, regardless of the market and regardless of the competition.

    You in the private sector are keeping your labour costs down while so many of your competitors are seeing them rise. In the public sector too we are keeping tight control of our running costs. We are insisting that any pay increases must be financed out of increased productivity and efficiency. That doesn’t mean no pay increases for public servants; it does mean that the Government will only pay what can properly be afforded.

    Everyone in this country without exception wants the benefit of low inflation but no-one wants the costs of getting there. Getting to low inflation and keeping low inflation is the very stuff of political unpopularity but it is necessary. I can only say to you that no prime minister – certainly not me – is paid to be popular and just right now, Mr. President, that is probably rather a good thing, if I may make the point!

    I will tell you what I believe about that. I believe it is right to take the tough decisions today that will make everyone better off tomorrow. To bring Government borrowing down, we have had to put some taxes up. I would very much have preferred not to have had to do that but it was necessary because sound finances are the only basis for sustained economic growth. Spending must be paid for, it can’t just go on unless one is prepared to meet that discipline and that is also why we have taken some tough decisions on public spending.

    Public spending means either more borrowing or higher taxes or both. We intend to cut borrowing and I do not wish to see higher taxes so I propose to take no nonsense on taxes from politicians who have been handing out promises of extra spending on every street corner. Those promises could easily be made but if those promises are to be kept, they would have to be met by the taxpayer and I remember only too well when the taxman took 98 pence in the pound from savings income, 83 pence in the pound from earnings; remember when corporation tax was 52% and I just have to say this to this audience: tax rates like that cause acute damage to the economy and I believe we must never go back to them. [Applause] It is low direct tax rates that have made Britain a magnet for investment, for enterprise and for skill and that is why other companies are now moving from continental Europe and elsewhere to set up business here in the United Kingdom: low inflation, sound public finance. These policies are right, right for Britain and right for our future prosperity.

    Mr. President, lift your eyes from the everyday headlines that you see, stand back a little and just look at the circumstances that really apply in this country at the present time. Do that with a clear and an uncluttered eye and what do you see?

    You see, I believe, above all else that we now have in this country the conditions for long-term sustainable growth. Last year, the economy grew by 2% – double what people expected – and I quote: “The world’s largest economic survey shows Britain leading Europe out of recession.” That is official; that is what the British Chambers of Commerce say quite apart from what the Government believes. [Applause] We have interest rates at 5.5%, the lowest for 17 years and amongst the lowest in Europe. The time lost through strikes is now the lowest for over a hundred years since records were kept; unemployment down around a quarter of a million since last January. In the United Kingdom still one-in-ten still without work most of them [Inaudible]

    I am not in any way complacent about unemployment, neither do I dismiss for a second the effect that it has upon individuals and their families but that one-in-ten figure is now falling. In other countries that is not the case. In the United Kingdom one-in ten and falling, in France one-in-eight and rising, in Spain one-in four and rising, in the whole of the European Community one-in-nine and rising. We are the only country in Europe seeing more jobs and shorter dole queues and I intend to ensure that we see more jobs and shorter dole queues in the future as well. [Applause]

    Set against that background, it is hardly surprising that our flexible labour markets are the envy of many others in Europe. Your President spoke of the Social Chapter. It wasn’t easy to say No to the Social Chapter but it was right to say No to the Social Chapter and however it may come back to us, this year, next year, some time in the future, I shall say No to the Social Chapter again and I will tell you why: not just because it damages competitiveness though it does but because I think it is morally wrong to provide fresh help for those people in work and ensuring in so doing that those people out of work have an even smaller chance of getting back into work at some stage in the future. [Applause]

    We have at the moment in the economic circumstances that are coming together – and they have painfully come together, they have not magically appeared, they have painfully been brought together over the past two or three years – some unique opportunities and don’t let anyone kid you that we can’t take them.

    You spoke, Mr. President, of people not appreciating what was right in this country and sometimes knocking it. Well here perhaps are a few things that everyone should know:

    We export 20% more per head than Japan and 85% more per head than the United States of America; we have more companies listed in the top hundred European companies than any other country and Japanese and United States companies have chosen to invest in the United Kingdom more than in any other European country; they have shown with their cash, their investment and their hopes for their future that they have a vote for this country and the future of this country.

    We have seen in the last decade or so massive economic changes for the better. The average family today is taking home around £60 a week more after tax and after inflation. Twice as many of our people in this country have foreign holidays, there are twice as many two-car families. I could spread that list to the corners of this room and back again but it isn’t just the material improvement in our well-being that matters. How many of our young people now go on to higher education? They have more than doubled in the last decade or so. One in every three of our young people now have that opportunity. That was the target I set for the Government to be reached by the year 2000; we have reached that one-in-three target this year – that target has already been met.

    And then take another aspect of our lift in this country, charitable giving, again more than doubled and not least from those of you in business.

    But if the changes of the last fifteen years have been rapid [Inaudible] the world is changing, changing at a bewildering pace, becoming more competitive for you to operate in than at any time we have seen at any stage in the past. Our markets will change, Europe will change. The countries of eastern Europe may well be members of the European Union, markets for us but also competitors for us as well. The economies of the Pacific Rim will continue to grow rapidly.

    In this country, we, you, business are going to have to prepare for that. We have to keep asking ourselves the questions: “Are we meeting demand? Where are our weaknesses? Are others doing better than us? If so, why and crucially, what can we do about it to make sure we maintain our competitive edge?” Above all we need to give businesses more freedom, the freedom to succeed. I tell you what success means: success means keeping business taxes low, keeping business free of rules and regulations, backing British exports, investing in our infrastructure and investing in people and in skills.

    We have acted in each and every one of those areas and there is a good deal more still to be done. We have brought corporation tax down, our business taxes are the lowest in the European Union and I intend to keep them that way. But ask any businessman – in Leeds or anywhere else you like – what he really wants from Government! You have given me several answers tonight but if to take your example of the genie, you could have had only one wish, I bet you would have replied like this: “Right Government! Get off my back and get rid of the red tape!” That, I believe, is what business wants from the Government. [Applause]

    I agree and we are acting on it. We have a huge Deregulation Bill cutting excessive regulation across Government, in transport, in employment, in environment and in fair trading. The bonfire of the [Inaudible] an end to controls, to forms and to paperwork and I was delighted to hear of your support for that tonight, Mr. President.

    We are backing British exports – the opportunities are there and you are taking them. Just this morning, the trade figures have shown yet again that exports are running at record levels and now we have a GATT deal opening new markets all around the world and let me tell you this: very reserved we are we British, we don’t bang our own drum very often, not often enough in fact, so let me do it now:

    Mr. President, without Britain I doubt whether there would have been a GATT deal at all nor for sure would there have been a Single Market and yet today as the rest of Europe comes out of recession GATT opens up the world market and we have a Single Market of over 340 million people right on our doorstep. I am determined that the Government will help British exporters make the best of those opportunities. We have expanded insurance cover for exports and lowered premiums, you in business have loaned your whiz-kids to Michael Heseltine so that the DTI can provide the best possible export advice, our embassies abroad are putting more and more effort into helping British exporters large and small; more than ever promoting British interests means promoting British trade abroad.

    But business needs good back-up at home as well because to sell the goods you have to move the goods and that is why we are modernising British transport. For years we have had this ludicrous hang-up, this ludicrous belief that big projects can only be done by the State – rot! Who built the railways in the first place? The private sector built the railways – you did and you can do it again in the future.

    So we are now opening-up major projects to private sector investment and private sector expertise. The private sector will help to build the Channel Tunnel rail link and the new Forth Road Bridge, it will modernise the West Coast main line and there is a great deal more to add to that.

    But there is a bigger, longer-term issue that will determine whether Britain will lead the world into the next century. You cannot be competitive without the people to compete and they are moulded in our schools, in our colleges, in our universities as well as in the training grounds of British industry. In many respects, the position is good but in others it isn’t and we frankly cannot afford it not to be, quite literally can’t afford it. Illiteracy and innumeracy among the work-force cost you as employers around £5 billion a year and it costs the children themselves through stunted lives, opportunities missed and a life less rich than it should be and that is why getting back to basics in education must be at the centre of our programme.

    I intend to work with teachers to build a better educated society. The national curriculum backed by testing will ensure that all State schools concentrate on the basics of education, on grammar, on spelling, on maths, on science, on reading, writing and arithmetic – the three R’s. I believe that is what parents demand, it is what employers ask and it is what I am determined that the education system will deliver.

    But I believe there is more still to come. I still believe that we must get rid of the damaging distinction that some people make between white-collar skills and so-called blue-collar skills. What disruptive class-ridden nonsense those distinctions are! Every individual’s different skills and qualities count and they must be made to count in their interests and in our country’s interests and that is why we have improved the range and quality of vocational qualifications for pupils over sixteen.

    I now want to work towards opening-up those opportunities, opening them up for children from fourteen upwards who want to take them so that schools will have the chance to teach a mix of academic and vocational subjects each with equal value, each to fit the child and their own aptitude to build a better future for them and help them build a better future for all of us.

    That must be true for all young people. That is why we have abolished the false distinction between polytechnics and universities, it is why we have created modern apprenticeships to treble the number of young people skilled as technicians, craftsmen and supervisors.

    Mr. President, let me just make the point plain: what we are working for is nothing less than the re-skilling of Britain and anyone who has come up the hard way knows how many others there are who have talent but don’t have the luck, who have talent but don’t break through the barriers, who have talent but don’t have the chance to contribute all that they could from their skills and their will to work. I am determined to give them that chance in the future. Decent education first, good training later – that is the way to let everyone fulfil their potential regardless of who they are or where they may have started.

    None of this, Mr. President, is abstract stuff. It is for real. What is at stake is our future as a country and their future as individuals and here in your city of Leeds I believe you know this better than almost anywhere else.

    Thirty years ago – not all that long – Leeds could have settled for being just a declining textile city but you didn’t. You acquired new skills and you made the old skills pay. Textiles aren’t a thing of the past, they have a future and Leeds has some of the most advanced plants in Europe. The new industries have a future too: financial services, food processing, defence, medicine and high-tech industries, huge investments coming to Leeds, a massive vote of confidence with other people putting their money and their future in your city because you know here in Leeds what change means, you know you can ride it and you have proved it in the past and I think it is no wonder that independent estimates say that Leeds is the fastest-growing job magnet in Britain for the 1990s.

    Yes, competitiveness is about making Britain prosperous and powerful but it is more than that: it is also the means to provide all that is civilised in the life we love. Your two great universities here, your theatres, Opera North, the Leeds Piano Competition, your famous art galleries, you brought together here some of the finest public collection of Henry Moore in Britain if not in the world and I am even told the gallery has been eyeing-up the Henry Moore sculptures in Downing Street but much though I love you, you can keep your hands off my Henry Moore sculptures!

    As it is in the arts, so too in sport. Leeds home to Rugby League, football – and here my eyes mist over – cricket, Headingly. I don’t know, looking round this audience, how many cricketers may be here this evening. One or two and I bet every single one of you remembers that test match in Headingly in 1981. It seemed impossible for England but we won but don’t just remember the runs that Botham scored, the resistance of Dilley or the wickets of Willis; remember that it was that gritty Yorkshireman Chris Old who held the show together when it mattered and opened the opportunity for that victory. I still remember at the most difficult moment of all that great Australian fast bowler Dennis Lilley saying this: “I’m betting on England to win!” Well, looking round Leeds today and looking at all of you tonight let me tell you what I am doing: I’m betting on Britain to win and I’m confident that we will. [Applause]

  • PMQT – 18 January 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q1. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit South Elmsall.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Enright : With the closure of Frickley colliery, one in three men in South Elmsall is now out of work, which is extremely serious. Will the Prime Minister promise to back Wakefield district council’s bid for coalfield area funds so that it can co-operate, as it has successfully before, with the local chamber of commerce, British Coal Enterprise and others to produce a regeneration programme, which is so desperately needed? Wakefield council has shown that it can do it sensibly and sensitively and I ask that it be given the opportunity.

    The Prime Minister : I understand the difficulties that face the hon. Gentleman and those of his constituents presently without work. I am delighted that unemployment has fallen in his constituency in recent years, but I recognise the serious problems that exist there. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will specifically benefit from the coalfield area fund, but a wide range of help will be available. In the hon. Gentleman’s area alone, £4 million will be available for an industrial and commercial development programme, and £3 million will be provided to training and enterprise councils for training and business support. As the hon. Gentleman will know, intermediate area status has been granted. Regional enterprise grants have been extended and, in addition, in excess of £2.5 million of European structural funds has been granted to the Wakefield area. We shall continue to keep those under review and do all that we can to help miners who have lost their jobs.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Rathbone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.

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

    Mr. Rathbone : Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment today to congratulate police and Customs on the co-ordinated job that led to the seizure of £50 million worth of cocaine in Manchester recently? Is he in a position yet to announce how the Government will co-ordinate Government departmental activity to give new impetus to the Government’s own efforts to counter drugs misuse?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend touches on a vital point, which is of great concern to this Government and across Europe. The fight against drugs involves all of us–police, customs, parents and Government–and we must all play our part in stepping up the campaign against those who deal in that trade. I welcome the seizure of cocaine to which my hon. Friend refers and congratulate all those involved in it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced before Christmas that the Government are setting up a drugs unit, the purpose of which will be to ensure that the policies of all Departments are co-ordinated to improve co-ordinated action against the general problem of drugs.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell us whether by any chance he received a memorandum around the time of the Budget from the Treasury informing him that freezing income tax allowances for two years in succession would force 400,000 low-paid people into income tax for the first time? Was he aware that his Budgets would have that result?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, take-home pay for people in all strands of income has risen materially over recent years–by 40 per cent. plus for those on average earnings since 1979 and by 30 to 40 per cent. for those on half-average earnings. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might also recall that it fell between 1974 and 1979 for single people and for couples without children, and barely rose for couples with children.

    Mr. John Smith : That was hardly an answer to my question. If the Prime Minister cannot answer that question may I ask him whether anyone told him that the tax changes in those Budgets would put the equivalent of 7p on income tax and that a typical family would have to pay another £1,330 over the next two years, or are those things that he preferred not to know about?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not entirely satisfied with the first answer, let me tell him further that even after the Budget there will be half a million fewer taxpayers next year than there were in 1979. Tax rates have fallen dramatically over that period and low inflation means that freezing personal allowances will cost basic rate taxpayers 34p a week when compared with inflation. He mentioned people on low incomes, but he neglected to mention family credit, child care allowance, the uprating in child benefit and the fact that the real take-home pay of families on average earnings will be 40 per cent. higher than when his party was last in government.

    Mr. John Smith : May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a special effort of memory? I know that it is hard for him with all these papers crossing his desk all the time, but can he not struggle to recall his repeated promises to the British people that he would not increase income tax or national insurance and that he would not extend the scope of value added tax? Is not the breaking of those promises the reason for justified public cynicism and anger at this discredited Government?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is beginning to sound like a very worn record. It is absolutely clear that the standard rates of tax under the Conservative party have dropped dramatically since the Opposition were in government and, in any given circumstance, the rate of taxation under any Conservative Government would be lower than under any Labour Government at any time.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Ann Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.

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

    Mrs. Winterton : Bearing in mind the interest presently shown by the press in the lives of the politicians, does my right hon. Friend agree that the press itself should show the same honour and integrity that it expects of others?

    The Prime Minister : Madam Speaker,– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I am as anxious as anyone to hear the response to that question.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend might think that ; I could not possibly comment.

     

    Q5. Mr. Mudie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.

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

    Mr. Mudie : The Prime Minister will be aware that at permanent secretary level he was advised that the aid package to the Malaysian power station was a bad buy, uneconomic and an abuse of the aid system, yet he still instructed that the aid should be given. In view of the fact that it will cost the British taxpayer more than £230 million, does he consider that to be good judgment, and if so, why is he refusing to allow Members of the House to see papers relating to that decision?

    The Prime Minister : The Government made a commitment to the Pergau project in 1989 personally to the Malaysian Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I decided in 1991 to proceed, both to honour the commitment made by my predecessor and in the wider context of maintaining billions of pounds of British exports to Malaysia–exports of £5 billion since 1982, and doubled exports between 1988 and 1992. To have withdrawn the contract would have put British jobs at risk. It is about time that the Opposition took a consistent position on these things. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his party’s call for lower unemployment with his criticism of this project? The British Government are backing British business and achieving orders abroad and all the hon. Gentleman can do is carp and criticise. Does he want jobs for British workers or does he not?

    Mr. Kynoch : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the latest figures for manufacturing output show further significant growth? Does he agree that that represents further proof that the United Kingdom is leading Europe from recovery into a period of sustained growth?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can certainly confirm that to my hon. Friend and the basis of this is the record that we have on inflation, the fact that we have been able to bring interest rates down and the fact that it is now clear to everyone that the British economy is recovering and growing–recovering more comprehensively and growing more rapidly than any other economy in western Europe.

     

    Q6. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.

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

    Mr. Winnick : Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern felt by so many people at the amount of financial sleaze in this country arising from Government policies and attitudes? Is he further aware that the one “back to basics” attitude that people desperately want and crave is the restoring of integrity to public life? Is it not clear that they will not get that from the Government?

    The Prime Minister : I agree entirely about the necessity for integrity in public life. The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have sought to take a moral stand about standards in public life. I do not object to that. It is also necessary for those Opposition Members to look at their own colleagues who spread smear and innuendo on a week-by-week basis with a complete disregard for the truth. Smear and innuendo are the hallmarks of political cowardice and they have become the trademark of the Opposition.

    Dr. Liam Fox : Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Rover Cars on its 9 per cent. increase in sales last year many of which were exported through Royal Portbury docks in my constituency? Is he aware that their production output outstripped Mercedes Benz in a difficult market and that neither the success of Rover nor Royal Portbury docks would have been possible without the privatisation programme which only the Conservative party would have had the courage to champion?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend both about the remarkable success of Rover Cars which I hope and expect will continue in future, and the success of privatisation both specifically and generally. It has been remarkable. What we now see in the motor car industry–in Rover and other parts of the industry–is that it has made the most remarkable turn around in recent years and soon will be a net exporter of motor cars. It is quite different from the old days a few years ago when Red Robbo and others were wrecking the entire industry.

     

    Q7. Ms Quin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.

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

    Ms Quin : Is it not the case that the only clear message that the Prime Minister gave to the public yesterday when he was questioned by the Scott inquiry was, “Don’t ask me, I’m only Prime Minister?”

    The Prime Minister : I suggest that, in due course, the hon. Lady reads the six hours of detailed evidence that I gave. She might then regard her remarks of a moment ago to be just a touch inadequate.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q9. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister whether he plans to make an official visit to Worcester.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Luff : If my right hon. Friend were to visit Worcester– [Interruption.] would he join me in welcoming the decision by two of the teacher trade unions to drop their boycott of national curriculum tests? Does he agree that that sets an excellent example for the other teacher trade union–the National Union of Teachers–to follow?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I very strongly agree with that. I very strongly agree with the two teacher trade unions that have decided to drop their boycott. It would be of immense help, not just to the profession of teaching but, essentially, to the children in the classroom, if the NUT were to take precisely the same action so that the tests can proceed. I believe that there is no justifiable reason for the boycott in the future. There was little, if any, justification before ; now there is none. The NUT should follow the leadership of the other two unions.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy – 9 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy during an interview given in London on Sunday 9th January 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if inflation had been beaten].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think you can ever say inflation is beaten, I certainly would not say that. But if you look over the last 30 or 40 years, time and time again we have had a wave of inflation leading to stop/go policies and great damage to the British economy. What concerned me first and foremost, not just when I became Prime Minister but from the moment I became Chancellor, hence in many ways my enthusiasm for the Exchange Rate Mechanism at the time, was the need to get inflation down to the same level or lower than our principal international competitors and then make sure we can keep it there.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if inflation could be kept in the 1%-4% band for the rest of the Parliament].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is certainly our expectation and our ambition. One can never be certain because a certain element of inflationary impulse comes from abroad, but it will certainly be our intentions to keep it within those parameters. Provided we can do that we have the most solid and secure base for not just medium but long term sustainable growth both in employment in prosperity over the years immediately ahead and that I think is the central issue.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for his economic predictions for the year ahead].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made a number of predictions last year, one was unemployment, I said that it would fall and it did; I said that we would get a significant amount of growth, it looks as though we have got growth; I said that exports would increase, they have increased; and I said we would carry our legislation, which we did do. So I think last year’s predictions worked out, upon reflection, rather well. This year I would certainly expect the trend in unemployment to go down, that does not mean there will not be a single month when it goes not go up, I cannot say that, but I think across the year there is no doubt that the trend in unemployment is now downwards, so certainly I expect that, I am reluctant to put a figure on it, but I think there will be quite a reduction in unemployment in the next twelve months. We will certainly see more growth, I think we will see a continuing growth in exports and we will see quite a reduction in the fiscal deficit. So I think many of our prospects are looking sharply better at the beginning of 1994 than they were at the beginning 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he thought the economy would grow by 3% in the year ahead].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be in the 2.5 – 3 percent bracket, it is a fairly inexact science forecasting, there are too many intangibles, but it will be in that sort of bracket and I would certainly expect growth at that level or a little higher the year after.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 December 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th December 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Policy Objectives

    Mr. Tracey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the policy objectives of the Government which have been fulfilled since the general election of 1992.

    The Prime Minister : Among the more important objectives fulfilled since the last general election have been getting inflation down and keeping it down so that it now stands at 1.4 per cent., the lowest level for 26 years; the continuing fall in unemployment, for the eighth month running this year; the achievement of a successful GATT deal which will benefit industry and consumers alike; the continuing rise in retail sales and manufacturing output; reforms of the education system to provide children with a better education and a wider choice of qualifications and parents with more information; an intensified fight against crime; the continuing progress with the citizen’s charter, with resulting improvements in public services; and further progress with NHS reforms and an increase in the number of patients treated.

     

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister when he received a copy of the letter signed by members of the United States Congress, the Japanese Diet and right hon. and hon. Members appealing for a public inquiry on and review of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

    The Prime Minister : A copy of the letter was received in my office on Monday 13 December and has now been passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for consideration.

     

    Regional and Urban Policy

    Mr. Stern : To ask the Prime Minister if he will detail the duties of sponsor Ministers in relation to regional and urban policy.

    The Prime Minister : The duties of sponsor Ministers in relation to regional and urban policy are set out in a note placed in the Library of the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 4 November, Official Report, columns 515-24, when he announced the package of urban and regional policy measures. A copy of that note has been sent to my hon. Friend. In carrying out their duties, sponsor Ministers will liaise as necessary with hon. Members.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards the correction of answers given to Parliament where civil servants responsible for drafting, or Ministers or former Ministers have told the Scott inquiry that they were inaccurate.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry is still in progress : his conclusions will be published in the inquiry’s report. The Government will respond to the report when it is published and hon. Members will then be able to table questions on the report and on the Government’s response.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what contact, either by written communication or telephone or telefax, his office has had with Mr. Frank Machon of Glasgow in regard to matters raised at the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : Mr. Machon wrote to my office once during 1991, and once in 1992. In addition, the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) wrote on three occasions on Mr. Machon’s behalf during 1992.

     

    Ex-Ministers

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to this answer of 7 December, Official Report, column 143, if he will name (a) the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office who received a severance payment on 14 April 1992 (b) the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office who received a severance payment on 27 April 1992.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Belstead’s appointment as Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, ceased on 14 April 1992. On 27 April, Lord Cavendish resigned as a Lord in Waiting, but was erroneously referred to as Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office.

     

    EC Directives

    Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December, Official Report, column 686, if he will publish a list of the 17 directives which the European Council agreed should be repealed, withdrawn or amended.

    The Prime Minister : The 17 directives are listed in an annexe to the Commission’s report on subsidiarity, which has been made available to the House. The Brussels European Council on 10 and 11 December called for early action to put the report into effect.

     

    Home and Justice Affairs

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister what matters were agreed in principle at the European Council in Brussels on 10 to 11 December concerning home and justice affairs; when such matters were debated in the House, or any of its Standing Committees; and when he expects publication of conventions of the European Union incorporating these matters.

    The Prime Minister : The European Council expressed its determination to use the new provisions of the Maastricht treaty on co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs to the full. It noted the work which had already been done in these areas and approved the action plan prepared by the Interior and Justice Council, in particular in relation to a number of specific areas. The Government followed the practice adopted for the former immigration/Trevi ministerial meetings and deposited in the Library of the House documents approved by the Interior and Justice Council on 29 and 30 November. The action plan and work programmes sent to the European Council have now also been placed in the Library. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has made proposals for future parliamentary oversight of title VI work, which will include sending to Parliament important documents before they go to the Council. We look forward to the House’s reaction to these proposals and to putting an effective scrutiny procedure in place. Any conventions that are found to be necessary to achieve the aims of the interior and justice programme of work will be dealt with in accordance with this procedure.

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Meacher : To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of correspondence received by (a) his office and (b) each of his office’s agencies receives (i) an acknowledgement within five days and (ii) a substantive reply within 15 days.

    The Prime Minister : My office aims to acknowledge correspondence within five days and provide a substantive reply within 15 days.

     

    South Africa

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if it is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy to encourage South Africa under a majority Government to join the Commonwealth.

    The Prime Minister : While it will be for the new democratically elected Government in South Africa to decide on whether it should seek to return to the Commonwealth, Her Majesty’s Government and their Commonwealth partners look forward to welcoming a non-racial and democratic South Africa back into the association at the earliest opportunity.

     

    Civil Servants

    Mr. Steinberg : To ask the Prime Minister what Civil Service rules or guidelines exist in relation to contact between civil servants and hon. Members and their personal staff; whether there have been any recent changes to any such rules or guidelines; and if he will place copies of any such rules or guidelines in the Library.

    The Prime Minister : There have been no recent changes in guidelines concerning briefing of MPs by civil servants.

    It is an established principle that civil servants should not engage in activities likely to call into question their political impartiality, or to give rise to criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purposes. Accordingly, the following rules apply :

    (a) civil servants in their official capacity are prohibited from attending conferences arranged by political parties;

    (b) they may not attend meetings of policy or subject groups of the parliamentary parties;

    (c) they may not attend all-party subject groups or committees except to accompany a Minister and to respond to factual questions;

    (d) these rules need not inhibit factual briefing by officials of MPs on overseas or regional visits;

    (e) Ministers may also arrange factual briefings by officials, for MPs of one party provided that a Minister attends the meeting and similar facilities are offered to MPs of other parties;

    (f) Ministers should always be present when MPs are to discuss sensitive areas of public policy with officials.

    Written briefing material provided by officials to Ministers may be distributed to Back-Bench Members provided that it would be released to any bon fide inquirer and that hon. Members of all parties may have access to it.

    The rules do not prevent agency chief executives and managers of local offices, with the Minister’s approval, from communicating with hon. Members about problems of individual constituents.

    The convention governing pre-election contacts between senior civil servants and Opposition leaders was set out in my reply to a written question by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 27 November 1991, at column 527.

     

    Post Office Privatisation

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister when he received the report from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on the privatisation of the Post Office; and if he has now completed his consideration of it.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of papers from colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry arising from the review of the structure and organisation of the Post Office, both before and since the departure from the Government of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. No decisions on the outcome of the review have been taken.

     

    Northern Ireland

    Mr. Marlow : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out his views on the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : I support it and will uphold it for so long as it remains the democratic wish of a greater number of the people in Northern Ireland.

     

    Subsidiarity

    Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the European Commission’s lists of (a) proposals which fail the subsidiarity test and will be dropped or changed and (b) Community laws which the Commission believes must be simplified or abolished, to which he referred in his oral statement of 14 December 1992, Official Report, column 24, on the European Council at Edinburgh; and what progress has been made in the past year on each of those directives.

    The Prime Minister : The lists referred to by my hon. Friend were included as an annexe to the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council, copies of which were made available to the House. Details of progress are contained in the Commission’s report on subsidiarity, which has been made available to the House.

  • PMQT – 16 December 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th December 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Callaghan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list official engagements for Thursday 16 December.

    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. Callaghan : Is the Prime Minister aware that, exactly one year ago, a man who was suffering from mental illness climbed into a paddock of a zoo and was savagely mauled by lion? Despite the public dismay and concern over that incident, there are still thousands of mentally ill people who are tramping the streets of our major cities. They often live in cardboard boxes and are unable to look after themselves. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a national disgrace? Will he tell the House what action he will take to get those people off the streets and into places of care and protection?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of action has been taken–most noticeably in London–to get many people, both those suffering from the ailment to which the hon. Gentleman refers and others, off the streets. That has been remarkably successful, and we will continue with that policy.

    Mr. Lamont : Does my right hon. Friend recall his admirable speech at the Conservative party conference in which he said that the Union between Ulster and Britain was of immense importance to the Conservative party? Did not that echo his comment during the election that he stood with passion and commitment for the unity of this country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that stands a little oddly beside his statement that this country has no strategic interest in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend therefore declare today that he believes in the Union, that he wants it to persist and that he believes it has been in the interests of the people of this country?

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that it stands remotely oddly with the joint declaration which I set before the House yesterday. The joint declaration reaffirms in unmistakeable terms the commitment that we have consistently given to the people of Northern Ireland, and I reaffirm that again now.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer who told the Treasury Select Committee yesterday that the tax increases in this year’s Budget were the equivalent of an increase of 7p on income tax?

    The Prime Minister : What my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday was that the aggregate sum of money raised after three years would amount to a crude equivalent of 7p. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that takes no account of growth in the economy and many other matters. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about taxes, perhaps he might contemplate some of his proposals for new taxes. He is committed to eight more taxes, without any indication of how he would fund his spending promises or meet the debts that occurred as we helped vulnerable people through the recession.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister realise that the Chancellor told the Select Committee yesterday that the increases would amount to between £15 billion and £17 billion? Is there anything more crude than promising not to increase taxes before an election and putting them up by £15 billion afterwards?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not realise that he is referring to the cost of Budget measures over the next three years. He is obviously deficient in understanding and has produced an entirely spurious one-off tax increase. I can understand why. I quote what the acting general secretary of the Fabian Society wrote about the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the “Labour Review”. [Interruption.] I hope that the Opposition will laugh in a moment because this is what was written about the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party :

    “If the characteristics being exhibited by the Parliamentary Labour Party were translated into the conduct of a single individual, she or he would certainly be in therapy.”

    Mr. John Smith : May I put a straight question to the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I know that his party does not want to hear it. Does he deny that before the last election, the Conservative party promised not to increase taxes?

    The Prime Minister : Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny- – [Hon. Members :– “Answer the question.”] Does he deny what his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said about unemployment? He has had nothing to say today about unemployment, nothing about inflation and nothing about the eight taxes to which he is committed. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down. I want to hear the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : The Opposition do not, because they will not like it. Let us hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman about his proposed taxes on tourism and development, his payroll tax, his education tax and the fact that he wants to have the same level of corporation tax as our competitors in Europe. What about his pollution tax and his windfall tax? The man does nothing but propose new taxes day after day.

    Mr. Richards : Is my right hon. Friend aware that small businesses in my constituency are absolutely delighted with the Chancellor’s Budget and that, together with low inflation, low interest rates and increasing confidence, they are looking forward to a period of steady growth in the foreseeable future?

    The Prime Minister : I have no doubt that that is the case. It is largely the growth and success of small businesses that are bringing down unemployment, and have been doing so month after month throughout this year. When unemployment figures go up, that is the only issue that concerns Labour Members. When those figures start coming down, apparently it is matter of no importance whatsoever.

    Mr. Ashdown : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that 1.25 million people are close to starvation in beleaguered central Bosnia, many of whose lives will be further put at risk in the bitter cold yet to come if the local power station at Kakanj is allowed to cease operations? Is he aware that, without vital supplies, that will happen in 20 days’ time? Is he further aware the vital supplies provided by Britain are now being blockaded by the Serbs and Croats? Will the Prime Minister see what urgent action could be taken to make the provision of those vital supplies a test case for the Geneva convention on free passage of convoys so that those lives could be saved?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to the aid effort through the winter. We have made it clear, to pick up a point that will concern many hon. Members, that we still need to see the opening of Tuzla airport. We have so far provided more than £150 million-worth of assistance, and more than 2, 300 troops are delivering that assistance, day after day, under the most difficult conditions. We are examining what we can do to deal with the present difficulties in Bosnia. The co-operation of parties on the ground will be needed to enable us to deliver the humanitarian assistance that we are prepared to deliver and fund. Throughout the conflict, our record has been second to none, and we will continue to do all that we can to ensure that people receive supplies throughout the winter.

    Mr. James Hill : My right hon. Friend knows that the economy is beginning to emerge. We are reducing unemployment every day and there will be more money in the coffers by the time of the next Budget. Does he agree that more money must be allocated by the Treasury to the Home Office to enable the pledges given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to be carried out, not only on the neighbourhood watch security patrols but on the numbers of police required? In Hampshire, for instance, we asked for 120 extra police and were given only five this year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those measures are part of the Conservative philosophy and that, in the not-too-distant future, money will be available to fund them?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced measures not very long ago which, if carried out, will enable approximately 5,300 police officers to move from dealing with administrative work out to the front line to deal with the matters that my hon. Friend mentioned. That action has been taken within the expenditure levels agreed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Bridget Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 December.

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

    Mrs. Prentice : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor on the subject of stopping tax abuse? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his Budget speech that claims that more money might be found in that way were much exaggerated. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Public Accounts Committee, which found another £1 billion tax loophole for the aristocracy? Would not the Chancellor be better employed closing such tax loopholes than stinging every family in the country for an extra £10 a week as a result of his tax-raising Budget?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady should know that my right hon. and learned Friend closed a number of genuine loopholes in the Budget. That will yield about £2 billion over the next three years. The loopholes so beloved of the Opposition Front Bench are not loopholes generally but measures such as ending relief on capital gains inheritance–which would leave less for parents to hand down to children–and reforming the rules applying to non-domiciled status foreigners, which is the Opposition’s latest idea. All the main parties agreed, when that measure was reviewed in 1989, that the existing rules should remain because they made Britain an attractive business location.

    The Opposition’s loophole campaign is a smokescreen to hide the fact that they have no idea how to fund their policies. They are trying to convince people that they could do so by closing tax loopholes, but what they would do is take away measures that assist industry and introduce those that would cost jobs and assist our competitors.

    Mrs. Angela Knight : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the general agreement on tariffs and trade provides important trade opportunities, not just for countries such as Britain but for developing countries? Removal of the trade barriers will give them the chance of export-led growth to benefit their economies and bring about prosperity.

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I entirely agree with that. My hon. Friend will know that, at the Commonwealth conference, we agreed that a number of Commonwealth countries–including less-developed and developing countries– would send a mission to the main Governments around the world in the GATT negotiations, to ensure that there was a satisfactory settlement. I noticed yesterday that Malaysia, on behalf of the less-developed countries, had hailed the round as a victory for common sense.

     

    Q3. Mr. Worthington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 December.

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

    Mr. Worthington : Why have the Government put 7p on income tax, or its equivalent?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is clearly not very good at listening, or he would have heard the answer a good deal earlier, but I will tell him what the Government have done.

    The Government have got interest rates down to the lowest levels for 16 years; inflation at the lowest level for 26 years; unemployment falling, while it rises everywhere else in Europe; growth that is faster than in any other country in Europe; a GATT deal to benefit industry; retail sales up; and a whole range of other economic improvements. That is the Christmas message to bring a smile to people’s faces next year–not the misleading questions asked by the Labour party.