The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Local Government

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Central Council in Bath – 15 March 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to Conservative Central Council, held in Bath on Saturday 15th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today, I’m going to set out what I believe.

    And why you can only be sure with the Conservatives.

    We’ll win because our policies work. And Labour’s don’t.

    Because we say what we believe in. And Labour don’t.

    Because we’re proud of our record. And they’re trying to hide their past.

    That’s why Labour make such a performance of saying that they’ve changed.

    Mr Chairman, who were the leading lights of the Labour Party when the Blairs, the Cooks and the Browns joined it?

    I’ll tell you. The Kinnocks, the Benns, the Foots, the Healeys.

    Now they’re non-persons.

    They’re not talked of – except in private, where Mr Cook says Mr Foot is the best Prime Minister we never had.

    in public he supports Mr Blair – just – but in private he says something else.

    New Labour in a nutshell.

    But our real opponent is much more formidable than Labour.

    We’re fighting the argument that “it’s time for a change.”

    Economic change

    Time for a change?

    Odd, isn’t it – in 1979 Britain was near bankrupt, scorned, a great nation on the slide. Our country really did need change then.

    Why? Because in that harsh, unforgettable winter, Britain was governed by Labour.

    This spring, children born that winter will be voting for the first time.

    In their short lifetime, an old, decaying – some said dying – nation has been rejuvenated, restored, revived.

    Those young people won’t know it. Far too many others out there seem to be forgetting it.

    But Britain has changed – from being a European basket case to an international role model.

    People once talked of the British disease. Now they’re copying the British solution.

    The once sick man of Europe is setting the pace.

    So, when you hear siren voices wailing ‘It’s time for a change’ – fix them in the eyes and challenge this nonsense:

    ‘A change to what?’

    Is the nation moaning, out there “Low inflation. Who needs it? Let prices rip”?

    Are they frantic at the lowest basic rate of tax for sixty years? “I can’t bear it. Let’s put a penny on income tax again”?

    Do they despair as unemployment falls, month after month? “How boring. Why can’t we lose jobs like France and Germany”?

    Do they weep that we’re number one in Europe for inward investment? “Forget it – we don’t want foreign money here. Let’s have that Social Chapter, load costs on those companies and drive the new jobs away”?

    Mr Chairman, you know they don’t. No sensible person is asking for that.

    So, I say to the “time for a change” merchants: “Find me a better country in the world in which to live”.

    If you can – well, bye, bye, we’ll miss you.

    If you can’t, pipe down – and let us get on with the job of building the well-being of our nation to a level it has never known before.

    A Smaller, But Better State

    Mr Chairman, my Conservatism is first about helping more people realise their own private hopes and personal ambitions.

    And second about removing the avoidable fears that blight too many lives.

    Over the years Government after Government has wanted to do this.

    Now we have the prize we’ve all been seeking – the strongest, most stable economy that Britain has seen since way before the war.

    So now, we can really make progress.

    My aim is to make the state smaller, but better.

    That’s why our target is a 20 pence basic rate of tax – and for state spending to fall below 40 per cent of the nation’s wealth.

    Working two days a week for the state – surely that’s enough for all of us?

    I believe that if things can be done better in the private sector, they should be.

    But I also believe some things should always be done in the public sector.

    And if so, they must be done well.

    Over the years we’ve reined back the size of the state. Steel coal, gas, electricity, water, airways – all once leeched on the state for subsidy.

    Now they’re in the private sector, yielding taxes for schools, hospitals, police.

    It’s a remarkable record – a smaller state, lower income tax and better services.

    And there’s further to go.

    The Next Conservative Government

    Mr Chairman, in the last few days some interviewers have asked me: “It’s been a tough few years, Prime Minister. Why do you want to go on?”

    I’ll tell you.

    Because I dream of a people’s Britain, in which all the people – not only the confident and well to do – can make their own choices and mould their own lives.

    I believe that’s their right. Their right – to choose, to save, to spend, to know that they own.

    I want to see everyone have these opportunities.

    To see the have-nots become the haves.

    That’s why we started the sale of council houses.

    Why we’ve sold shares and spread savings.

    And it’s why we’re going to provide secure pensions for everyone.

    Because the Conservatism I’m talking about isn’t just for the lucky, the fortunate, the able, the self-confident.

    It’s for everyone.

    For those for whom life is a struggle.

    For those who don’t have the best education.

    Don’t have a decent home.

    Don’t live in a safe neighbourhood.

    Don’t have a job.

    I should know. I come from them. I care for them. And I long to see them have their fair share of the good things of life.

    Opportunity for all: the next Conservative Government is for them, as much as for anyone else.

    We’ll make sure that those who don’t have, do have.

    People’s Pensions

    Mr Chairman, as Britain grows wealthier, we must see to it that more of what the State spends goes where the taxpayer would like it to go.

    I believe in the Welfare State – and the security and comfort it offers the British people. I’m determined it will be there for our children and grandchildren.

    But we can only guarantee its future if it remains affordable.

    We have set out recently big ideas to do just that.

    Today’s pensions, for example, rely on each younger generation being able to pay for the old.

    As more people live longer, can we be sure that would always be possible?

    It’s a giant of uncertainty that no truly caring government could ignore. A giant that the next Conservative government will begin to slay.

    We aim to build on what William Beveridge intended.

    To build up – over time – a secure pension scheme for all.

    But we’ll go one better.

    Ours won’t be a state pension – though it will have a state guarantee.

    It will be a People’s Pension, owned by everyone – personally. It will be theirs – by right.

    It will be funded by real investments – not unwritten promises and rising tax.

    It will guarantee the new generation – our children and grandchildren – not just the basic state pension, but their own personal pool of savings.

    By the time they retire, someone on average earnings should have built up £130,000 of savings. Enough to provide a pension of £175 a week.

    It’s a long-term plan – a true Conservative idea – one that will give our children a security and independence that previous generations could only dream of.

    Protecting Savings

    Often true security and peace of mind come from savings.

    People save for security. For comfort in retirement. Against a rainy day. To ensure the dignity of self-provision.

    They worry about the cost of care if they grow infirm when they are elderly.

    And they despair when their savings are eaten up to pay for care.

    This week we announced a plan to tackle this problem.

    We will lessen the worries so many people have about the cost of nursing home care.

    It’s quite simple. A partnership.

    We intend to help people who plan ahead and take out insurance against long-term care.

    In return, for every £1 they spend, we’ll disregard an extra £1.50 of their assets and protect them from being used to pay for care.

    This will mean people can protect more of their savings for themselves and their families.

    Too many people who have prudently saved still find their money stripped from them by the accident of illness in old age. This will protect them.

    It’s the second great aim for the next Conservative Government – to banish the fear of losing their lifetime’s assets to pay for care in illness.

    I believe in the cascade of wealth between the generations. So we’ll help build it up. Help protect it – and, as we can afford it, steadily reduce the burden of tax upon it.

    A Modern National Health Service

    Over the last generations we’ve seen the greatest leap forward in the health of the nation that we’ve ever known.

    People are living better and living longer.

    That’s good.

    But, as more and more people live longer and longer, the demands on our doctors and hospitals must grew.

    And that means constant investment in new science and new treatments in the National Health Service.

    If you spend all your time worrying what will happen when you lose your health, you’ve no time left to enjoy it.

    So here’s a pledge to fight the third great fear – the fear of disease.

    It’s a pledge that no other party has matched.

    A pledge for you to take to the doorsteps, to the millions of families who treasure the peace of mind the National Health Service gives.

    We will continue to improve the Health Service year on year.

    We’ll plough savings back into health care year on year.

    And the next Conservative Government will provide more money for the NHS, over and above inflation, year on year on year, for the next five years.

    It’s why prosperity matters.

    Because growing national wealth will mean better National Health.

    Our aim is to make good health more infectious than disease.

    As far as the NHS is concerned, if you’re ill we’ll make it better.

    A Guarantee of Standards

    Mr Chairman, Britain will live or die by whether British workers can think better and work faster than our competitors. The prizes of the next century will go to countries with the best educated workforce.

    That means we need the best education for every child, in every class, in every school.

    We’ve come a long way – but not far enough to meet tomorrow’s challenges or parents’ wishes.

    Parents deserve more choice. We’ll give it to them.

    No ‘ifs’. No ‘buts’. No small print or sly evasions.

    More grant-maintained schools, more specialist schools, more grammar schools.

    If that’s what they want, that is what we – and we alone – guarantee they can have.

    Choice is crucial – but it’s no use if it’s a choice between two bad schools.

    Children have only one chance at education. Many schools are good. Exam results impressive. But it’s not universal.

    I’m not prepared to stand by and see children let down by bad schools and bad councils.

    That’s why we’ve put in place our reforms. A national curriculum. Local management. Tests. Tables. And inspections. We had to fight for them all – against bitter hostility from Labour.

    Our reforms have shone a spotlight on the dark corners of the education system. Exposed failing schools and the failing education authorities that run them.

    As a result, in our Manifesto, we can now do what no previous government has ever dared to do before.

    We can offer parents a guarantee of education standards.

    Where we need to, we’ll take action to turn failing schools around.

    And where whole education authorities are failing, – and, sadly, some are – we’ll send in professional teams to sort them out.

    Councils like Islington, Hackney, Haringey – the real Labour heartlands – have failed and failed and failed.

    They have betrayed generations of children.

    Time after time tests and tables show Labour councils to be the bleakest areas of the education landscape.

    And the Leader of the Labour Party has the gall to say that education is his passion. “Education. Education. Education.”

    But what has he ever done about those deplorable Labour councils?

    Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

    Nothing – but turn the car key and drive away to another borough and another school.

    Towards a GM school that Tory policies made possible – and which his policies would destroy.

    I don’t believe children are less clever in some areas. I believe they’re let down in some areas.

    I come from local government but I have no brief for it when it fails. So I offer this warning.

    We will not follow Mr Blair and Ms Harman as – head aloof – they pass by on the other side.

    We will go into those education authorities. We will examine them. And where they are failing, we will take their powers from them – in the interests of our children.

    The Inner Cities

    Our Conservatism must be for everyone – whoever they are, wherever they live.

    We want to spread the prosperity of the suburbs into our inner cities.

    Already we’ve transformed the face of many cities.

    But we must do far, far more.

    We’re going to tackle the problem of inner city deprivation more imaginatively than any Government before.

    We’ll bring to every tenant the choice of freedom from shoddy council control – for a fresh start with a better landlord.

    We’ll build a new partnership between public and private sector.

    Where tenants agree, we’ll bring in private capital to improve their lives on a scale never seen.

    To transform housing; improve schools; fight crime.

    Dignity, security, prosperity must walk down every street in the land.

    And that must include the inner cities.

    Grown up Government: Preparing for the Future – Now

    Mr Chairman, in the first years of this century Winston Churchill and Lloyd George laid the foundations of the Welfare State.

    The wartime and post-war governments, drawing on the work of William Beveridge, brought in state provision on a huge scale. It was right for its time. And, for a long time, it has served us well.

    But now we are on the threshold of a new century. Right across the world – even in the richest nations – people are looking forward and saying that the State cannot shoulder all the burden -and for ever.

    Some things, like the free National Health Service, is a principle we must never change.

    But, I believe it is time for the third great move forward in public welfare.

    To bolster social security with personal and family security.

    To build alongside State provision growing private wealth.

    To replace the insecurity of dependence for many with the security of independence for all.

    I have laid some of those ideas before you today.

    This is a bold vision – a grand ambition. It is what I have always longed to do.

    When it’s accomplished – and the next generations have the savings and security that we are preparing for them – then I believe people will look back and say: “How lucky we are that governments then looked forward – not twenty minutes or twenty days, but twenty, forty, sixty years.”

    Mr Chairman, government is a grown-up business.

    It’s not about clutching for the advantage of the hour.

    It’s about working for the advantage of future generations some of us may never even know.

    And to do that, whatever may be the short-term reaction – from the unthinking, the uncomprehending, the sheer opportunist.

    Doing the right thing, at the right time, for the ends we know to be right.

    Labour

    Our record is in the book, our policies are on the table, our principles are clear.

    So when people go into the polling booth, and put a cross in the box beside the Conservative candidate, they’ll know what it stands for.

    You can only be sure with the Conservatives.

    But before they mark that X, I’d like them to think carefully – very carefully indeed.

    That X will decide the fate of Britain for the next five years.

    But they could mark X somewhere else.

    X for the unknown quantity.

    An X that might stand for … well, just about anything.

    Imagine waking up the morning if the X files stacked up for Labour.

    It would be like waking up on an aeroplane that’s taxiing for take-off. What would the new captain say?

    “Welcome on board. Before we take-off, I’d just like you to welcome your crew.

    You probably remember the last crew from the same training school crash-landed. So did the one before. Indeed, everyone before. But don’t worry, we’re new.

    In fact, we’re so new none of us have flown before, except on a television simulator.

    During the flight, our bar steward, John Prescott, will be coming through the cabin, offering a selection of goods, all of which cost more tax.

    I can’t tell you yet what altitude we’re flying at. Or what speed. Or what direction. But I’m hoping a focus group will tell me shortly.

    Our destination – is unknown. But I can tell you the flight time will be about five years.

    In the meantime, please ensure your seat-belt is securely fastened.”

    Please ensure your seat-belt is securely fastened. That’s surely true. You would certainly need it.

    Imagine.

    Trade union bosses licking their lips, their lunch boxes packed with their sandwiches and pay demands.

    Businessmen reassessing their options, thinking how many they’d have to sack once Labour signed the Social Chapter.

    Currency markets holding their breath, remembering how the last Labour government bankrupted Britain.

    Scottish Nationalists preparing to say ‘Whatever Mr Blair offers, it’s not enough’.

    And the European Federalists, rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of a Britain that will never be isolated in Europe, no matter what they proposed.

    If Mr Blair ever walked in through the most famous door in the world, half the hopes of Britain would disappear out the back.

    It’s taken 18 years of sound government and sheer hard work by the British people to get us here.

    We must not throw it away. Throw it away with the wrong economic policy.

    No, Mr Chairman.

    It’s not time for a change.

    And it would not be safe to change.

    Not safe to change economic management.

    Not safe to adopt reckless and opportunistic commitments to constitutional change.

    Not safe to toe the line in Europe and wreck our competitiveness.

    I’ll tell you what it is time for.

    It’s time for the clear-headed.

    Time for the far-sighted.

    Time for the experienced.

    Time to be sure.

    It’s time for us.

    That’s why we’ll win.

  • PMQT – 28 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

    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. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concerted campaign by Labour-controlled authorities against compulsory competitive tendering? Is he further aware that my local authority, South Ayrshire, favours direct labour organisations against the interests of small local contracting companies that have provided excellent services at low cost for a number of years? Does he agree that the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland highlighted that wasteful practice led to his being awarded the title of Parliamentarian of the Year?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the wasteful behaviour of a large number of Labour-controlled local authorities. Before the Opposition complain about council tax levels, they should put their own house in order. If they did, they would be able to hold down council tax.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, according to the Red Book, the overall tax burden next year will be higher than it is this year?

    The Prime Minister: No, I do not confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. For some time, the right hon. Gentleman has been desperate to cover up the fact that living standards are rising. The Opposition have produced the most spurious attacks on tax in the past few weeks. They claim that there have been 22 new taxes over the past five years, but I can identify 25 tax reductions in the past couple of years. The right hon. Gentleman takes no account of rising incomes and people moving into higher tax brackets, so he is painting a misleading picture. We have the lowest rate of basic tax for 60 years. It was 33p and it is now 23p.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister wants to take credit for the fact that people’s earnings have increased, but they have earned that money, not the Government. Is it not curious that the Conservative party no longer wants to talk about tax? Will the Prime Minister return to the central question that I asked him? Is it or is it not right, according to his own Red Book, that the overall burden of taxation next year will be higher than it is this year? As one of his hon. Friends said, the answer can only be yes or no. Which is it?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to what I just said, he would have had his answer. The right hon. Gentleman does not take into account the fact that more people are working and incomes are rising. Had the Labour party presented a Budget earlier this week, taxes would have increased quite dramatically. On the one hand he accuses us of cutting expenditure and on the other hand he accuses us of putting up taxes. We have kept direct tax down and we have increased expenditure on health, the police and other important services.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps, on the third occasion, the Prime Minister will now answer the question. Because of all the taxes in the Budget–the insurance tax, the airport tax, the council tax, the fuel tax, the abolition of profit-related pay–according to his figures, the tax burden is to rise next year. It will rise not just next year but, according to the Government’s plans, the year after, the year after that and the year after that, to a level higher than under the last Labour Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister will now answer the question: is it true that the tax burden is to rise next year? If it is, is not the reputation of the Tories as a low tax party now dead and buried?

    The Prime Minister: The more people work, the more they earn. That is the point that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand. If he thinks that taxes are too high, which ones would he cut? What support has he given us in cutting taxes? If he thinks that tax is too high, will he indicate that he will not proceed with the windfall tax, or a tartan tax, or a health tax or a teenage tax? How will he pay for the £30 billion-worth of promises that he has made? The plain fact of the matter is, however he huffs and puffs, people know that dogs bark, cats miaow and the Labour party puts up taxes.

    Mr. Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the French lorry drivers dispute is now causing serious traffic chaos and economic hardship in Kent, particularly around the channel ports of Ramsgate and Dover? Now that the strike is going on, it may have a much wider impact on the country. Will my right hon. Friend make strong diplomatic representations to the French Government to extract a firm commitment that full and fair compensation will be paid to British lorry drivers whose livelihoods have been affected by the mindless militancy of their French counterparts?

    The Prime Minister: I am horrified by the consequences of the dispute for British drivers and companies. Claims for compensation must be met by the French authorities. We have made that point to them. I hope that, very soon this afternoon, the leader of the Labour party will make clear his condemnation of one of his own Members of the European Parliament, who has today described the striking French lorry drivers as “a shining beacon”.

    Mr. Prescott: What sort of Government is there in France?

    The Prime Minister: The deputy leader of the Labour party asks what the Government in France are. What are the strikers and why are they being supported by Labour Members of the European Parliament? Will the deputy leader of the Labour party go down and talk to British lorry drivers and tell then that he thinks that the strikers are a shining example?

    Mr. Prescott: It is a Tory Government in France.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is the strikers’ friend now, as he always has been.

    Mr. Ashdown: I wonder why the Prime Minister and the Government do not realise why people are so fed up with all this lying about tax. Is not the central question this: does the Prime Minister really believe that the British people are so stupid that they could be tempted to vote Conservative again because he has cut their income tax by 1p, when his own figures show that he has forced their council tax up by between £40 and £60 a year?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about council tax, he might look at the council tax levied by local authorities under Liberal Democrat control. He might realise by how much their council taxes have gone up. He might remind the British public again that he is committed to increasing the standard rate of income tax. I hope that he will make that entirely clear. He is calling for more money to be given to Liberal Democrat councillors, who are

    “politically inexperienced and potentially a liability”.

    That is not what I think; it is what his party’s internal document says about its councillors.

    Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not his policy to barter or bargain for the restoration of an IRA ceasefire, which should never have been broken, and that Sinn Fein’s self-exclusion from the talks remains absolute, unless or until there is an unequivocal restatement of the ceasefire and the Provisionals establish over a period of time a commitment to exclusively peaceful means?

    The Prime Minister: There has been a great deal of rumour and disinformation on this issue in recent weeks. The Government have had a number of exchanges with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and others about the possibility of a new IRA ceasefire. We have made it absolutely clear throughout those exchanges that IRA-Sinn Fein should give up violence once and for all and commit itself to exclusively peaceful means. We have also made it clear that we cannot and we will not change our policy to bargain for a ceasefire. In order that that should be absolutely clear, we are publishing today a statement of our policy, which we sent to the hon. Member for Foyle last weekend. A copy is being placed in the Library together with a short explanatory statement.

    The talks that have been carrying on for some time are likely to break for Christmas soon and to resume later in January. When Sinn Fein could join the talks depends on its own actions–[Hon. Members: “This is a statement.”]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Listen to the answer to the question. These are crucial issues that concern our country.

    The Prime Minister: I must tell hon. Members that this a matter of great interest to people not just in Northern Ireland but everywhere.

    When Sinn Fein could join the talks depends on its own actions. We need to see an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire, we need to be able to make a credible judgment that it is lasting, and we need to know that Sinn Fein will sign up to the Mitchell principles. Those matters are in Sinn Fein’s hands. We are not seeking delay; we wish to see inclusive talks involving all parties as soon as possible, but if Sinn Fein continues to exclude itself, the talks must and will go on without it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Martlew: Does the Prime Minister sanction the Tory party campaign on “Honest John”? If so, does he agree that it is designed to deceive the public over tax? When are posters going to go up saying that the Prime Minister promised not to increase VAT, a promise that he broke; and that he promised not to increase taxation year in, year out–another promise that he broke? Is not the reality that nobody believes “Honest John”?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to our posters that indicate that we now have lower income tax, higher living standards and lower unemployment, and that that has come about directly as a result of policies that we have followed over the past few years as the Government. I am glad that he draws attention to those advertisements. I hope that everybody will see them.

     

    Q3. Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

    Sir Irvine Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that Sheffield city councillors have increased their council allowance by 200 per cent., that Sheffield city council spends £350 per pupil on education administration, whereas other metropolitan authorities spend only £250, and that Labour Members of Parliament get free accommodation from Sheffield city council? Is he also aware that Silverdale school in my constituency, which is in need of urgent repair, has been informed that there is no money for such repairs? Does not that show how Labour runs Sheffield city council and how it would run the country?

    The Prime Minister: The more Opposition Members barracked my hon. Friend, the more it was clear that he had hit a bull’s-eye by pointing out the way the Labour party behaves in local government. He mentioned Sheffield. Certainly it is one of the councils that have failed to collect millions of pounds of council tax.

    Mr. Prescott: What about Westminster?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman mentions Westminster–but he neglects to mention Southwark, Leeds, Newham, Camden, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Lambeth, all of them Labour councils over many years or dominant Labour under no overall control. What is it they say about Labour?

    “New Labour in local government offers excellence and efficiency.”

    Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

     

    Q4. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

    Mr. Barnes: As a matter of statistical integrity, will the Prime Minister confirm what he sought to avoid in answering my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition–that page 88 of the Red Book, which deals with total taxation and national insurance contributions, shows that there is an increase year by year over the next five years in the amount that will be paid out as a percentage of gross domestic product? Will he be honest?

    The Prime Minister: As I said to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield and other hon. Members earlier, that is the impact of more people working and being paid more, and of fiscal drag. Those are the facts that the hon. Gentleman does not understand. The reality is that people have more net income in their hands than they have had at any time in the past, and living standards are rising. However he tries to muffle reality, he cannot hide from that fact.

  • PMQT – 9 May 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s policies, especially on child benefit, the youth training programme and the lack of a minimum wage, give the youth of this country tremendous opportunities? Does he also agree that, given that it wants to abolish child benefit and the youth training programme and impose a minimum wage, Labour has nothing to offer Britain’s youth?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition have illustrated the case by their actions over the past few days. Today, they are going to try to retain child benefit for people coming from abroad at precisely the same moment that the shadow Chancellor is trying to abolish it for every family in this country whose child is taking A-levels. Frankly, I find that inexplicable.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall saying that, if the provisional allegations of the district auditor in respect of Westminster city council were confirmed, he would condemn those involved absolutely and unreservedly? The provisional allegations have been confirmed. Will he now condemn those involved unreservedly, as he promised that he would?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is misquoting. Let me make three points. First, both I and my party are in favour of the highest possible standards in public life. I condemn wrongdoing in any quarter.

    Secondly–I am surprised that I have to say this to a distinguished lawyer–I believe in justice. As the auditor’s report makes clear, the individuals have the right to appeal against the auditor’s decision. I understand that they vehemently contest the auditor’s report and that they have said that they will take the matter to court. In the face of such a clear-cut protestation of innocence, I think that any sensible and cautious person would be wise to await the outcome before making a judgment.

    Thirdly, with the trail of waste, inefficiency and corruption in Labour councils up and down the country, the right hon. Gentleman is in no position to lecture anyone.

    Mr. Blair: He said that, if the provisional allegations were confirmed, he would condemn those involved, and now he fails to do so. May I point out that of course they have the right of appeal–for heaven’s sake, the Home Secretary is in the appeal courts most days of the week. I also remind the Prime Minister that some of us remember how he stood at the Dispatch Box and condemned the Monklands council of my late right hon. and learned Friend, and predecessor, John Smith in the middle of an inquiry when the allegations were then dispatched.

    Does the Prime Minister not recall that the allegations are about putting homeless people into asbestos-ridden flats and appalling bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will he not take this opportunity to fulfil his promise as Prime Minister and now condemn what any reasonable person would condemn?

    The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to condemn cases of proven malpractice and those who have been found guilty in a court of law. I saw no condemnation from the right hon. Gentleman after Lambeth was found guilty of malpractice. I saw no condemnation when it was thought that between 400 and 500 officers in Lambeth were receiving fraudulent payments. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that the matter must go to the courts. The people challenged in this matter have declared their innocence in very clear-cut terms. I am surprised, in the face of that, that a lawyer would decide before the matter has gone to court to make a judgment about the outcome of that matter. I think that that is a contemptible way for the right hon. Gentleman to behave.

    Mr. Blair: I believe that what is contemptible is what we have just heard from the Prime Minister. As for saying that the allegations are not proven, they have been proven–that is precisely what the district auditor has proved under legislation set up by this Government. Is not the Prime Minister’s real problem that this was not a maverick group of obscure local councillors, but the flagship Conservative council? They carried on their activities with the knowledge and approval of the Conservative party. If the Prime Minister fails now to condemn what has been described as disgraceful and improper conduct, will it not be crystal clear to the British people that there are no depths to which the Conservative party will not stoop to gain re-election to any office that it holds?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that it was only a matter of time before the Leader of the Opposition tried to widen the smears that his party has been making.

    We have learnt that Labour Members take a smear, spread a smear and hope that it will stick. That is what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been doing for the past two or three years.

    If the right hon. Gentleman is so pious, will he tell us whether he condemns his colleague, who sits on the Labour Benches, who is a surcharged councillor? Will he tell us why he appointed to his shadow Treasury team someone who encouraged people not to pay the council tax, against the law? Will he tell us whether he agrees with the comments of his deputy leader? He said:

    “In a local authority situation you obey the law or not obey the law. We”–

    presumably that is the Labour party–

    “don’t have any firm principles in the Party of how we might deal with the problem.”

    Against that background and the record of his party and his party’s councils, I shall take no charges from him about a matter that must go to court and is not yet proven.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great majority of my constituents would wish to mark Europe day by suspending all our net contributions to the European Union–which cost the taxpayers of this country £4 billion last year–until such time as all threats to our historic position as an international trading nation have been withdrawn?

    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the supremacy of British courts, but I must tell him that, if we decided to withhold payments to the European Union, that decision would be struck down in the British courts and not in the European Court of Justice. I must also tell him that, because the net under-payment in the European Union this year will be less than the net payment by this country, there is unlikely to be the draconian effect that some of my hon. Friends anticipate.

    I believe that it is right for us to press, in the European Union, for this matter to be speedily resolved. That is what we intend to do, and that is what I intend to press day after day. I want a solution to the problem, not an institutionalising of the problem so that beef farmers suffer longer, or no solution is reached.

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Illsley: Given the Prime Minister’s refusal to condemn certain Westminster councillors for their corrupt conduct, will he take this opportunity unreservedly to condemn those Conservative Members who have failed to register their parliamentary incomes of millions of pounds?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should be aware of what Madam Speaker said about this problem. She said that, if an hon. Member has a complaint about the registration of interests by any hon. Member, he should write to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and not raise it on the Floor of the House. That is not my view; it is the ruling of the Chair.

    Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the Leader of the Opposition stated that one of the Opposition’s few policy decisions was that they would allow homosexuals into the armed services? If it is true that the Opposition are today allowing a free vote on that issue, does not that smack of very poor leadership and lack of direction?

    The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition. We will discover the views of every hon. Member later today.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Pike: The Prime Minister will recall that, on 21 February 1991, he said:

    “We should be happy to have Dame Shirley’s advice”.–[Official Report, 21 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 432.]

    In view of the condemnation of the six councillors named as guilty in the report that was published today, will he recognise that there was advice from the policy unit at No. 10 Downing Street, and from the Department of the Environment, on the turning of a blind eye when Westminster council was committing those illegal and disgraceful acts? When will he condemn those who were guilty? When will heads roll–or will he bite the dust as Prime Minister and fall at the general election before this sordid affair is sorted out?

    The Prime Minister: Everything the hon. Gentleman has said is nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but, as it happens, the quotation he has just given the House is entirely out of context, to make a dishonest point. If he had read the question, hon. Members would know that my reply related specifically to Westminster’s success in holding down local taxation. That is in sharp contrast to the performance of Labour councillors. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now do me the courtesy of reading the quotation and placing an apology and a correction in Hansard.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Hughes: On my right hon. Friend’s visit to Scotland, will he take with him the message that establishing a Parliament in Scotland, but still allowing Scottish Members of Parliament to vote on English and Welsh matters, would be deeply resented by English and Welsh people and that allowing Scottish Members of Parliament that double set of rights would be gerrymandering on a very large scale?

    The Prime Minister: It most certainly would. My hon. Friend highlights a fatal flaw in the Labour party’s plans. Labour Members have no idea how they would answer the question first posed by the hon. Member for West Lothian, now Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The position of Scottish Members in this House would be untenable. That is the view once set out clearly by the shadow Foreign Secretary.

    The reality is that I cannot imagine that the Labour party has properly thought through or understood what it seeks to do in establishing a tax-raising assembly in Scotland, which would provide a staging post for the leader of the Scottish National party to try to take Scotland out of the Union. I oppose that, although it is not in my party’s interest to do so, because it is against the interests of Scotland and against the interests of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members support it because they see it as being in their own party, partisan interest.

    Mr. Radice: On Europe day, will the Prime Minister put the case for British membership of the European Union?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman cares to read the speech that I made to the Institute of Directors a week or so ago, he will see the case put clearly. I have made it clear from the Dispatch Box time and time again that it is in the interests of this country to be in the European Union, arguing for the sort of European Union that is good for this country. That is my position, it remains my position and it will remain my party’s position. What is not my party’s position is that, as a result of that, we agree, and slavishly follow, the views of each and every one of our European Union partners. It is not our view that we will “never be isolated” in Europe and will therefore follow the caravan wherever it might lead. If Europe goes in a direction that is not suitable for this country, we shall reject that direction and not follow Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1995 Scottish Conservative Conference – 12 May 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association Annual Conference at the Royal Concert Hall in Glasgow on Friday 12th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me turn first to those Conservative councillors who lost their seats in Scotland last month and in England and Wales last week.

    From my time as a councillor, I know how bitter defeat feels. I know the disappointment when a good local record is swept aside by national politics.

    So let me say to them: you served local people ably and well. You served local democracy well. Your defeats were none of your doing. And I am proud of what you achieved.

    There are two things we can do after such a defeat. We can grumble and be disillusioned.

    Or we can fight back.

    We can work to make sure that the councils our opponents won this spring come back to us at the first opportunity.

    So we will keep an eagle eye on them.

    We shall set up a “Council Watch” to see how they keep their promises. To see how they spend your money. To see how they put your council tax up.

    We must put disappointment aside. Go out into local communities. Work. Work. Work. Begin now to prepare for the next elections. And when they come we will take back those councils, each and every one of them.

    Politics is in a strange mood at the moment.

    Curiously this is partly because we have won the battle of ideas and forced Labour to deny some of their ancient prejudices.

    We’ve won the battle for an enterprise economy.

    For individual choice. For consumer power.

    We’ve defeated the old socialist ideas of state control and public ownership.

    Of course, Labour still hanker for them in private. But in public they’ve been forced to claim that they disown all the values they once believed in.

    All gone. The Socialist cupboard, we are told, is bare after the most comprehensive philosophical wipe out in British political history.

    Well, I am a bit suspicious about that. Some changes, yes.

    But if Labour could shed so easily the values they held for so long, how deep is their commitment to values they’ve lifted from us likely to be?

    I’ll tell you. As deep as electoral convenience needs it to be. Labour know that the electorate wants Tory values. So they have an extraordinary election cry.

    “We were wrong all the time. The Conservatives were right. But trust us to behave ourselves in future. Oh, and by the way, please don’t ask us about policies.”

    We’re very generous hearted, we British, We always forgive sinners who repent and Labour is benefiting from that at the moment. But we’re also discriminating and I think people will ask “if they were wrong before, why should we believe they’ll be right in future?”

    It’s a good question – and we’ll go on asking it.

    The extraordinary thing about our Party is that, after 16 years in government, it is still fizzing with ideas.

    In this week alone we have announced measures to:

    – cut electricity bills

    – make our Post Office more competitive

    – and crack down on drugs

    And before, the Commons rises for the summer we will:

    – publish a Housing While Paper

    – launch a major new national volunteering programme

    – invite the first private Sector bids to run British Rail services

    – announce a fares policy to help commuters

    – publish a second Competitiveness White Paper

    – consult widely on ID Cards

    – and announce a bold expansion of nursery education.

    We already have a range of ideas which will keep us moving forward for years.

    But it is right for us now to discuss with you, the bedrock of our Party, what you want to see in the next Manifesto.

    A Manifesto grown from our grassroots, as we build the next phase of Conservatism.

    I came from the grassroots of the Party.

    I know the wealth of talent and experience our supporters have to offer.

    So I will be the first leader in our Party’s history to give every member in every constituency an historic opportunity.

    An invitation to help shape the policies of the future.

    I have already set up Policy Groups on more than 30 policy areas, chaired by senior Ministers, and including representatives of all parts of the Party. Their first reports will reach me by the end of June.

    Now it is right to unveil the next stage of this unprecedented exercise in consultation.

    From this summer to next spring there will be a series of discussions across the party and across the country.

    Each discussion will be around the Five Themes set out last month:

    – how to secure economic prosperity

    – how to improve further opportunity and choice for everyone

    – how to improve decent, commonsense values in law and order

    – how to deliver first-class public services

    – And how to build pride in the nation.

    These discussions will be detailed and genuine. They will take place on an agenda which will be shaped by the work of the relevant Policy Groups.

    I want Conservatives up and down the country to take part in this.

    CPC groups – as ever – will form the core of policy discussion at constituency level. But we intend to involve as many party members as possible.

    These discussions will be followed by Conferences here in Scotland, Wales and across England, where we can bring these ideas together.

    The developing agenda – not detailed Manifesto points – will begin to be unveiled at next year’s Central Council Meeting in Harrogate.

    I will play an active role in leading this process, together with all my colleagues.

    The Conservative Party has always listened to the people.

    That is why we were the first party to support the Right to Buy.

    The first to introduce Trade Union democracy. The first to give parents the right to know about their children’s schools.

    So we will begin this massive consultation exercise within our party, and then will broaden it to engage and enthuse the public as a whole.

    So I am going to go out and about. To meet you, to talk to you and to listen to you.

    To build a People’s Policy to bridge the gap between the doorsteps of Britain and the Corridors of Power.

    I’m going to share with you the hopes I have for this country of ours. The problems we face. The opportunities we have. I’m going to talk about the long-term as well as the short-term.

    And when we’ve reached a policy conclusion, I’m going to ask the nation for a majority sufficient to put it into operation.

    I believe that the commonsense of Conservatives up and down the land is the best guarantee that we will enter the 21st century with the right policies for our nation’s future.

    Let me turn to two or three of the five themes. First, policies to spread economic prosperity and security.

    People feel secure when:

    – their jobs are secure

    – their living standards grow steadily year after year

    – and they can be confident that their children will have a better future. I know of no-one who doesn’t want that.

    But it doesn’t happen by magic.

    If we’re really determined to build security and prosperity for all – as I am – then we must continue to build an enterprise economy. And to get that we must take the tough decisions to create it.

    Sometimes they’ll be unpopular. Because it means resisting the clamour of every interest group for higher spending.

    It means clamping down on inflation, however loud the protests. And it means cutting state borrowing, whatever the moans.

    We’ve been doing that. And it is the right thing to do – and to do what is right, however, difficult, is not a bad creed for politics.

    And, as a result, we can now look forward to the best and most prolonged period of economic recovery for decades.

    This is no ordinary recovery. What we may be seeing – provided we can carry it fully through – is the reawakening of Britain as a growing economic power.

    And before our critics scoff let me give them some examples.

    When we came to office, Scotland was the home of dying industries, poor productivity and mass trade union power. Frankly, it was an economic mess.

    Today Scotland is in the forefront of new technologies. Scotland makes more than a third of all the personal computers manufactured across Europe and over half of all Europe’s cash machines.

    Scotland is attracting inward investment from companies in Germany, Japan, the United States and across the globe.

    They are attracted here by the enterprise culture built by the Tories, the corporate tax structures, designed by the Tories, and our lack of the Social Chapter insisted on by the Tories.

    Since 1980 Scotland has seen self-employment increase by two-thirds.

    For the first time in decades, the United Kingdom is increasing its market share of exports.

    And we are now paying our way in the world.

    For years we looked enviously at the industrial competitiveness of Japan. So we attracted their investment. Now Japanese companies based in Britain are exporting their products from here back to Japan.

    And now, just think about this. Today, when you put visible and invisible trade together, the UK is in surplus with Japan.

    How many of us ever thought we would see that happen again? That transformation is remarkable.

    And it’s been achieved by implementing the Conservative agenda of reducing burdens on business. Cutting back the power of shop stewards.

    Getting Whitehall off the backs of our companies. Lowering corporate taxes. Resisting unnecessary regulations from Brussels.

    And above all, by setting free the talent and skill of individuals right across this country. No serious observer can doubt these changes.

    And yet the country had better be warned: every aspect of this transformation would be reversed in one term of Labour government.

    We were told that by changing Clause IV Labour showed they were reformed: they no longer believed in nationalisation. At last, they were a modern party.

    But what have they spent the last fourteen days doing?

    Pledging themselves to reverse rail privatisation – even though it will produce lower rail fares.

    Promising to end compulsory competitive tendering – even though it has saved council taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds.

    Threatening new controls on privatised companies – even though their increased efficiency has produced a much better deal for consumers.

    And trying to block the privatisation of the nuclear industry – even though it will cut electricity bills right across the country.

    What this shows is that there is still a yawning credibility gap between what Labour says and what Labour does.

    Do real Labour honestly worry about the profitability of our companies at ward meetings in Govan and Monklands?

    Do they agonise about the “insecurities” of the middle classes in Constituency Labour Parties in Tayside?

    Do delegates at Labour Conferences rack their brains to propose new policies to help private enterprise?

    Of course not. You only have to ask the questions to know the answer.

    If they were really serious they’d stop supporting the Social Chapter.

    They’d drop their ideas to force employers to recognise trade unions.

    They’d abandon their commitment to a minimum wage.

    They won’t, of course. Because their commitment to the market is skin-deep. Were they to be in government, their Party would resurrect the calls for Socialism.

    Daily our warnings are being proved right.

    We always said the minimum wage would be damaging to jobs. And this week has proved it

    First the CBI made it clear that they believe that any minimum wage would destroy jobs, drive away investment and cripple our companies.

    And now we learn of a huge row within the Shadow Cabinet.

    John Prescott attacked Gordon Brown’s figures on the minimum wage.

    Gordon Brown attacked John Prescott. So in the end, decisive New Labour could only agree not to publish a figure at all.

    Let me help them out of their dilemma. A minimum wage would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and hurt most those who are most vulnerable.

    And that is why we believe it is wrong.

    This little cameo creeping out from behind the mask shows how utterly unfit for office Labour still are.

    They have ideas aplenty on how to make companies less competitive but none on how to help them win.

    That is why, next time as last time, the economy will be an area where we will win – and win well.

    I want to say a word or two about crime.

    We’ve always stood for decent commonsense values and for strong law and order.

    We’ve always stood by the police.

    Our first thought has always been for the victim.

    And we’ve always believed in tough action against crime, And we’ve backed up our views with votes in the House of Commons.

    The battle against crime is constant. It’s never easy. It has to be fought consistently over years.

    Tougher penalties. New crime prevention measures. More powers for the police. That’s what we have been doing.

    The statistics show that crime in Scotland is falling. Good – but not good enough.

    So we have introduced measures which will have a significant effect on the fight against criminality.

    We are introducing a national DNA database to harness the advances of science against the criminal.

    This may prove to be the biggest breakthrough in the detection of crime since the invention of fingerprinting.

    From now on, those who break the law had better know that the best techniques of modern technology will be used to track them down.

    Just one drop of blood or tissue or hair at a crime scene could be enough to identify and catch a criminal.

    We have set up a national fingerprint register.

    And in the next few weeks a national database of criminal records will go live to provide a valuable new weapon against convicted and persistent criminals.

    From now on, if someone is arrested in Glasgow the police will be able to know immediately whether they have also been committing crimes in London.

    And our new Criminal Justice Bill in Scotland will give the courts and the police a wider range of powers than ever before to catch, charge and convict criminals.

    All these changes are designed to make our country safer and put more thugs behind bars.

    But we have fought this battle alone without Opposition support. Where have Labour been as we have waged this war?

    When we strengthened police powers to stop and search criminals, were Labour tough on criminals? No, they voted against.

    When we gave the police new powers to deal with riots, were Labour tough on rioters? No, they voted against.

    When we ensured that all prisoners serve at least half their sentences in prison, were Labour tough on prisoners? No, they voted against.

    And when we passed laws to fight terrorists who bomb and maim the innocent, were Labour tough on terrorists?

    Hazard a guess.

    No, they voted against.

    But most revealing of all, how did Mr Blair describe Michael Howard’s 27 measures to fight crime?

    Measures to crack down on young offenders. Measures to tackle bail bandits. Measures to stop professional crooks running rings round the courts. Measures called for by the police for years.

    Mr Blair called them “gimmicks”. Gimmicks.

    Well, I don’t call them gimmicks.

    The view I take of crime is quite straightforward. We are engaged in a war against the criminal.

    In that cause we should put the rights of the public first and the rights of criminals second.

    Most people are perfectly able to distinguish right from wrong.

    If people break the law, they should not be excused.

    They should not be pampered.

    They should be punished.

    That is what that people of this country expect. That is what this Party expects.

    That is what I believe.

    And that is what our policies will deliver.

    Let me just say a few words about policy on Europe. Britain’s future depends on us getting that right.

    The European Community gives our companies the biggest home market in the world.

    It has brought peace to countries which had fought for centuries.

    And it can increase the influence and prosperity of all the countries within it. It has many virtues.

    So I want Europe to succeed.

    But not at any price.

    And not at the expense of the nation-state.

    I am keen to co-operate with our European partners. But I will not deliver Britain to a federalist future.

    At Maastricht I negotiated long and hard for two key opt-outs against total opposition from our partners.

    Both were vital for our national interests. I secured them.

    I removed Britain from the Social Chapter – making this country a haven for foreign investment, and giving our companies a crucial edge over their competitors.

    And I reserved for us the absolute right to take our own decision, in our own time, about whether we join a single currency or whether we stand aside.

    There has been some speculation in recent days about what will happen to those opt-outs at the next Inter-Governmental Conference.

    So let me tell you.

    Those opt-outs will stay. They are permanent.

    And they are not negotiable.

    In any discussion about Europe’s future, I will always consider Britain’s interests before I decide,

    That is what this country expects. And that is what this party will deliver. Pride in the Nation is a phrase with a particular meaning here in Scotland.

    We have a deep instinct as Conservatives. We care passionately about the nations of the United Kingdom. Our feelings are emotional as well as intellectual.

    There is no other political party in the world whose history is so deeply bound up with the identity of one particular country.

    You couldn’t translate the Conservative and Unionist Party to any other country. Yet for 300 years, it has given voice to the people of a United Kingdom.

    I am proud of our Party. Of its history. Of its record. It has built Britain’s influence in the world.

    It has defended our institutions and our freedoms from threats without and within.

    It has worked unceasingly to spread decent values of democracy and push back the darkness of totalitarianism.

    In a rough, tough world, Britain has a high profile – at the UN, in the G7, in NATO and in Europe.

    We have real influence as we approach the 21st century.

    So it would be a disaster if we of all nations imploded into nationalist divisions of our own.

    Labour’s devolution policy is a shambles. With one speech last year, I forced a U-turn on regional assemblies in England. Since then, Ian Lang and I have asked a series of simple but important questions of Labour’s leaders about their ideas.

    Questions like how much would it cost? They don’t know. What would happen to the Scottish Office? Difficult one, that. And what is their answer to the West Lothian Question?

    Mr Blair said that “The answer to the West Lothian Question is the answer that we’ve always given”.

    Unfortunately for him, they’ve never given an answer.

    In that at least it’s consistent with the rest of Labour’s Scottish policy. There are lots of questions, but rather fewer answers.

    Labour’s approach to devolution is as elusive as the Loch Ness Monster but a good deal more dangerous.

    Nessie brings jobs to Scotland. Devolution would drive them away.

    So, why do Labour support devolution? It’s a good question.

    Not because they really care about the constitution of Scotland. If they did care, they would have found answers to these basic questions.

    Not because they think it make Scotland more prosperous, they are tartan taxers. They accept that it would put Scottish taxes up – and they know that the Scottish business community think it would drive away investment.

    No, the simple reason why Labour support devolution is just to lure votes away from the Scottish Nationalists.

    Yes, they are ready to play with the very survival of our United Kingdom for party political advantage.

    It is the most cynical policy of modern times.

    There could be no clearer demonstration of the difference between parties which talk about convictions and values – and those who live them.

    I scorn such cynicism. And I will never take any lectures from people such as these on the importance of principle in politics.

    And what of the Scottish Nationalists themselves?

    At least they have thought their policy through. It would be profoundly bad for Scotland but it is thought through.

    They admit that if you fiddle with the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament you will ultimately destroy the unity of the United Kingdom itself.

    The SNP aren’t Tartan heroes. They should be seen for what they are.

    They are socialists. They are unilateralists. And they are politically extreme.

    Their message is a contradiction of all Scotland really stands for. A denial of its historic role. Inward looking and introverted.

    They thrive on negative resentment, the culture of criticism. They kick traditional institutions just to feel good. It’s a dangerous game to play.

    The SNP’s approach boils down to one phrase. Socialism in one country.

    It has never worked. It can never work. And our task is to make sure that it is never tried.

    Scotland would pay a high price for independence.

    Taxes here would soar and soar again.

    Independence would be an unpriced menu.

    But I do not rest my opposition to independence solely on that.

    For Scottish independence would hurt not only Scotland, but the rest of the United Kingdom as well.

    All of us – Scots, English, Welsh and Northern Irish – would find ourselves citizens of a lesser county, with a smaller voice in the world, and with less chance to influence our future.

    So we are and will remain the Conservative and Unionist Party. We believe in the Union and in Scotland’s place in it.

    I believe the Union is in the lifeblood of our party and our nation. It’s our duty to stand up and defend it. We won’t shirk that duty.

    So long as I have heart and voice I will defend the Union against all who would weaken it.

    In the interests of all our country some causes are bigger than the transitory rancour of politics. And this is one.

    Those who would seek to marginalise Scotland must be defeated. And with the help of those in this hall they will be.

  • PMQT – 27 April 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

    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. Greenway: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the council tax levels set by the district councils in my area for middle-range band D houses? Labour York is charging £101, a 21 per cent. increase; Liberal Democrat Ryedale is charging £78, a massive 57 per cent. increase; while in neighbouring Conservative Hambleton, householders are getting a £32 refund. Does that not show that Labour remains the high- tax party, that a protest vote for the Liberal Democrats can prove very expensive and that people are better off under the Tories?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm what my hon. Friend has said. Examples similar to those that he has given can be found right around the country. The Labour party has sought repeatedly during the local election campaign to mislead people with comparisons on council tax, but it knows, as everyone else should know, that, band for band, like for like, Conservative councils are infinitely cheaper than Labour councils and substantially cheaper than Liberal Democrat councils.

    Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister sympathise in any way with the anger of nurses, who will be paid differently for the same job, according not to their performance, but to the money in the hospital trust?

    The Prime Minister: We have done for nurses precisely what they asked of us. We have provided them with their own review body and met in full its recommendations. That is something that no previous Government were prepared to give nurses. We have given them that. A great many nurses have now accepted the national settlement, to which, of course, must be added the local settlements.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is surely aware that the review body set a national figure and that it included the local component because of Government pressure to do so. He therefore cannot shuffle off responsibility on to it. Is not the effect of Government policy on the health service now to pit nurse against nurse, hospital against hospital, doctor against doctor? The result will be to divide and rule and the commercialisation, demoralisation and break-up of the health service, when people want to see the national health service run as a proper national service for the people.

    The Prime Minister: No Government at any stage have funded the health service as generously in terms of pay or other aspects of it as we do. Set against what the right hon. Gentleman has just had to say, can he perhaps explain whether it is fair or unfair that nurses’ pay has risen by an average 78 per cent. in the past six years, which is twice as fast as the economy as a whole? Does he also recall that, under the Labour Government, nurses’ pay actually fell–it did not even maintain its value; it fell? Since then, it has increased by 78 per cent., and nurses have, as they have always sought, an independent pay review body that is, I remind the right hon. Gentleman, independent.

     

    Q2. Mr. Clappison: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Clappison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who are indulging in political knockabout on the subject of tower blocks are ducking the real issue, which is how we can help the people who live in tower blocks? Will my right hon. Friend urge all local councils to co- operate with the Government in getting rid of tower blocks?

    The Prime Minister: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Yesterday, I tackled serious issues that affect the lives of many people in inner cities. As a smokescreen at that time, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) issued a press release purporting to represent my record at Lambeth council. Even a cursory checking would have shown the hon. Gentleman that every aspect of that press release was a falsehood.

    It is, of course, more than a quarter of a century ago, so I have had the facts checked. The buildings for which I am supposed to have been responsible were designed and approved by the Labour council, before I was elected to the council, let alone became housing chairman. The Leader of the Opposition may well shift uneasily in his seat. He speaks of higher standards in politics and he allows the Labour party to indulge in falsehoods, day after day.

    Mr. Ashdown: Would not the Prime Minister’s great predecessor, Winston Churchill, turn in his grave if he knew how much of the public’s money was now being spent to purchase his state papers, while investment in the nation’s real assets–our children and their education–is being cut to ribbons by the present Government?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, has his facts entirely wrong about the state papers. What were purchased were the personal papers of Sir Winston, which could have been freely sold to any number of buyers, and which Sir Winston had decreed, through his trustees, should go to his subsequent descendants. It is those papers that have been purchased.

    The archive, as a whole, includes state papers and personal papers, many of which have no connection whatsoever with Sir Winston’s time in government. The personal papers could have been freely sold to any number of buyers. It was to maintain the archive intact that the national heritage memorial fund, which is independent, decided to fund the purchase of the personal papers from the Churchill family trustees. The Government decided at the same time to transfer the state papers, similarly, to Churchill college.

    There is no question whatever of lottery money having been used to purchase papers that are the property of the state, and the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his remarks.

    Mr. Jenkin: May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the rather nasty and vindictive policy being pursued by the Lib-Lab pact on Essex county council, which is withdrawing support for the transport of children to grammar schools? Does he agree that, while the Opposition parties try to speak the language of choice and diversity, they continue to have the language of envy and vindictiveness engraved on their hearts?

    The Prime Minister: I am surprised to hear what my hon. Friend has to say in view of the repeated comments about education from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his hon. Friends. It seems that they are concerned about discrimination only when it does not involve some pupils in Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities, whose parents happen to have chosen for them to go to grammar schools.

     

    Q3. Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Tipping: The Prime Minister has clearly had time to reflect on the statement that he made yesterday about inner cities and their housing conditions, but does he remember that in 1979, £7 billion was spent on housing investment and this year the figure has been cut to£2.5 billion? Is that not another example of the Government saying one thing, but doing another?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the records through the years, he will find that the changes made in inner cities–all of them beneficial–have been opposed by him and his colleagues throughout the past 16 years. The 12 urban development corporations, which are now credited with turning round the worst inner city centres, were opposed by the Labour party. Estate action and housing action trusts were opposed by the Labour party. The single regeneration budget, which is helping to fund the scheme that I saw yesterday in Hackney, was opposed by the Labour party. The deputy leader of the Labour party, who has a loose connection with facts most of the time, seems to believe that his party was responsible for the private finance initiative. May I remind him that the Labour party has opposed us time after time over moves to bring private capital to the inner cities. I know that the Labour party is stealing many of our policies, but the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) should have some shame and not try to steal all of them.

    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for the continuing Northern Ireland peace process and the encouraging signs therein. When does he expect the talks with Sinn Fein to start and how long are they likely to last? I know that that is a difficult question. Is my right hon. Friend optimistic about the outcome?

    The Prime Minister: The exploratory talks with Sinn Fein will start before very long. Those exploratory talks must be concluded, with a number of matters settled, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has set out on a number of occasions, before we can enter into the political talks process itself. I very much hope that the exploratory talks can begin very speedily.

     

    Q4. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Griffiths: Since so many charities have lost income because of the national lottery and since Lady Churchill so freely gave to the national archives so many of Sir Winston’s works, does the Prime Minister not think that it would be patriotic to follow her example today?

    The Prime Minister: Charities will find that they will be substantial beneficiaries of the national lottery–that will continue to happen year after year. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the substantial help that will go, not only to charities, but to a number of other worthy causes, as a result of the Government’s initiative.

     

    Q5. Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Duncan: Is the Prime Minister aware that 250 jobs are about to be created by the reopening of a colliery in Nottinghamshire and that the Asfordby pit in my constituency is about to go into full production? Will my right hon. Friend call on the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to give credit where credit is due? The right hon. Gentleman should recognise the success not only of a privatised coal industry, but of the gas industry. After the passage of the Government’s Gas Bill, will not the benefits of competition and choice be extended to every domestic consumer of gas in this country?

    The Prime Minister: I imagine that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) heard what my hon. Friend had to say. Despite the ridiculous predictions from the Labour party time after time, competition has reduced prices in the gas, electricity and telephone industries. I see no reason to suppose that it will not deliver a successful coal industry. In the case of gas competition, domestic customers should see their bills fall by about 10 per cent. thanks to the measures taken–something I should hope that everyone would welcome.

     

    Q6. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Mullin: Has the Prime Minister read the recent speech by Mr. Michael Grade about the rise of Rupert Murdoch? Does he think that it is right that a foreign-owned corporation headed by a ruthless megalomaniac should control one third of our newspapers and much of our television? Does the Prime Minister plan to do anything about it?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have been studying the law relating to cross-media ownership. That study is not concluded and, as soon as it is, we shall publish what we propose to do.

    As to Channel 5–which is clearly what the hon. Gentleman has in mind–the process of choosing a Channel 5 licensee must be, and is being, conducted on the basis of long-standing rules legislated by the House.

    Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Lord Chancellor to think again about paying legal aid in civil cases to people who are not ordinarily resident in this country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that our constituents object to that practice, not on the basis of the applicant’s nationality, but because there is not enough money in the legal aid fund to pay legal aid to our middle-income constituents who have paid taxes all their lives?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a matter that a number of people are concerned about. I assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will examine it.

  • PMQT – 20 April 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 April.

    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. Evennett: Did my right hon. Friend see last night’s Labour party political broadcast? Can he confirm that, contrary to the information in that broadcast, under his Government since 1992 expenditure on education, health and law and order has been substantially increased? Would he care to comment on that deplorable use of television to mislead the public?

    The Prime Minister: In answer to my hon. Friend’s direct question, no, I did not see the Labour party political broadcast last night. I was much better occupied meeting health authority chairmen to discuss the success of our health reforms, but I do understand from the substantial publicity generated that it contained a number of inaccuracies.

    Over recent days, the Labour party has claimed that council tax is lower in Labour areas. It must know that, on a fair comparison of like for like and band for band, that is not true. Band for band, Labour councils cost more in each and every band. The Labour party must know that spending on health has gone up, spending on education has gone up, and spending on the police has gone up, contrary to what it has led people to believe. The new Labour party has had a lot to say about trust, so I hope that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will withdraw the inaccuracies from the broadcast last night. If I may quote him, he has reached “a defining moment”.

    Mr. Blair: On the Tories, truth and tax, will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that, having fought the election on a pledge to cut tax year on year, as a result of the 20 new taxes since he was re- elected, the average family is £800 a year worse off? Is that true or false–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman’s figures are wrong. The House will have noticed that he has not taken the opportunity to withdraw the blatant untruths that he and his right hon. Friends have been peddling in recent days. He knows that those things are factually inaccurate. He continues to repeat them. He appears at press conferences where they are repeated. On that basis, if he had any trust, he is throwing it away.

    Mr. Blair: Let the country be the judge then. It is right, is it not, that on 27 March 1992, days before the general election, the Prime Minister pledged specifically that he would not extend value added tax? When the Labour party said that he would, we were accused of dishonesty and scaremongering. It is true, is it not, that at the very next Budget after that election, he extended VAT to fuel and power? Who told the truth then? Was it the Labour party which warned that the Tories would extend VAT or was it the Conservatives who promised that they would not?

    The Prime Minister: On matters of fact, within the last 48 hours, on matters readily determinable, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have told untruths and repeated those untruths. I set it out before the last election that I wished to see tax reduced. That was my position and it remains my position. When it is prudent to do so, we shall return to tax cutting. On that occasion, I hope that we will have the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. As to the earlier point, I repeat that within the last two days, the Opposition have stated repeatedly facts which they must know to be untrue. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw them?

    Mr. King: On behalf of this House and our country, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convey to the President of the United States and to the people of the United States our deepest sympathy for the terrible terrorist outrage that they have experienced? Will he assure the President that any assistance that we can give through intelligence or other sources to help bring to justice those responsible for that outrage will be given? Will he reaffirm to the President our welcome for his firm assertion that terrorism must be fought from whatever quarter it may come?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is hard to convey the depth of feeling that everyone will have in their hearts about the hideous act of barbarism and terrorism that occurred in Oklahoma and the misery and death that it has caused. I have been in touch with President Clinton and I have expressed our profound sympathy to him, to that country and to the bereaved and injured. I told the President that we are ready to help in any way we can and, as events will show, we are assisting.

    Mr. Ashdown: I am sure that the whole House will support what the Prime Minister has just said. On the subject of cuts, will the Prime Minister accept that, as schools face the crisis caused by the Government’s cutting of education funding across the country this year, they will be perplexed to understand why the Government have increased the funding on education quangos from less than £3 million in 1987 to more than £98 million this year? Why is that?

    The Prime Minister: We have increased funding on education right across the board, consistently year after year. That is why more than 50 per cent. extra has been spent on every pupil up and down the country since we came into office. That is why more than 50 per cent. more is spent on school books and it is why there are far more people in classrooms helping the teachers. It is why children are getting far better education results and why more of our youngsters are going on to university; it is because we have given a priority to education at primary level, secondary level, specialist level and university level, and will continue to do so.

    Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of the appalling tragedy at Oklahoma and the terrorist incident at Yokohama, it would be absolute folly to reduce expenditure or in any way to cut back on security and intelligence?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the vital importance of security and intelligence and the important priority that we have given it. In addition, of course, to the appalling attack that we saw in Oklahoma, it was also a day on which we saw terrorist attacks in Spain and possibly also in Japan.

     

    Q2. Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Janner: As we all join in sympathy with the mourners and sufferers in the unspeakable terrorist outrage in Oklahoma, will the Prime Minister please consult the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary about the ways in which international terrorists are abusing our laws on asylum and sanctuary? Notorious criminals such as Ganouchi, who are seeking to escape justice in their own countries, are turning Britain into a well-known haven for terrorists. As international terrorists know no boundaries and no frontiers and as no one knows where they will strike next, please will the Prime Minister give that matter absolute priority?

    The Prime Minister: I reject the suggestion that this country is in any way a haven for terrorists, but I share with the hon. and learned Gentleman the importance of dealing with the problem. We attach a very high priority to countering any activity in the United Kingdom by international terrorist groups, and I can confirm to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are at the moment looking into the law on asylum, with the intention of making improvements and bringing them before the House. I hope that we will have widespread support across the Floor of the House for the measures against terrorism. I look forward to seeing the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends in our Lobby on that particular matter. It is a matter to which we attach the very greatest importance.

    Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the general public that there is no need for local authorities to dismiss teachers? Their income is not hypothecated. If they have to make savings, they can make them across the whole range of local government services. They could get rid of administrators or social workers, or stop printing political newspapers.

    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to the House on previous occasions, we regard education as a priority for the Government. It will remain a priority. I believe that within local authority budgets, and education budgets in particular, the classroom teacher should remain the priority.

     

    Q3. Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Purchase: If the support grant settlement that applied to Westminster Tory council were applied to English authorities generally, would not 95 per cent. of Labour councils have no rate increase this year? Is the Prime Minister aware that, by contrast with Westminster’s inflated grant, Wolverhampton has lost £8 million in grant and has had to make £7 million of cuts in its budget? Is not it time that the Prime Minister stopped taxing by stealth, came clean and put the formula correctly to the people of England?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is repeating yet more unsubstantiated and inaccurate Labour smears, as I will now demonstrate. The grant is determined by an objective formula which takes into– [Interruption.] What the hon. Gentleman does not know is that the previous Labour Government were more generous to Westminster as compared with, say, Liverpool, than the present Conservative Government. In 1978, they assessed Westminster’s need per head at 49 per cent. more than Liverpool, compared with 42 per cent. more this year. The hon. Gentleman did not know that, because he just picked up the latest smear from Transport House. He should check his facts and withdraw.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that we do not allow– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We must hear the question.

    Mr. Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that we do not allow the north American habit of paid political advertising on television? It might lead to an extension of the kind of broadcast that was shown last night, which demonstrated that the person who authorised it is unprincipled, untrustworthy and should not be allowed to control public expenditure. He cannot tell an increase from a decrease.

    The Prime Minister: I certainly share that view about paid political broadcasting on television. I think that very few people would wish to see that. What we really saw last night was that behind the high-flown language of new Labour lies the gutter politics of old Labour. That is the case. It has always been the case and it is now becoming obvious.

     

    Q4. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 April.

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

    Mr. Illsley: First, let me assure the Prime Minister that this question does not come from Transport House. Does he realise that, if Barnsley local authority received the same amount of Government grant per head as Westminster council, it would not have any need to levy a council tax at all and could re-pay each council tax payer a staggering £867 each, rather than having to face council tax capping, which will mean sacking teachers and increasing still further some of the largest class sizes in the country? Why should children in my constituency have to suffer to subsidise a corrupt council?

    The Prime Minister: If every council in the country had the same grant as Tower Hamlets, they could make a bigger reduction than they could for Westminster.

    Mr. Rowe: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Liberal-Labour coalition, which now tries to control Kent county council, discovered at its recent meeting that it had underspent by £17 million, yet nevertheless flatly refused to fund the teachers’ pay increase? Is that not a cynical abuse of the children in our schools for party political purposes?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fair point that could be echoed by many of my other hon. Friends who are unfortunate enough to have either Labour or Liberal Democrat councils.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the 1995 Local Government Conference – 4 March 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1995 Local Government Conference, held at the International Maritime Organisation at 4, Albert Embankment in London. The speech was made on Saturday 4th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Everyone in this room believes in service. Many of you have a long record of service in local government. In recent years that has been against a difficult political and economic background. But that is now changing.

    We are now into a comprehensive economic recovery. It hasn’t been easy. It’s involved difficult and often unpopular decisions that have had a backlash for you in local government. I know how unfair that is. But the decisions we made were necessary and now we need to capitalise on them. To make sure that it is widespread and that it improves the security and livelihood of people as well as the health of industry and commerce.

    I was given the wise advice that politics is about people when I entered local government. I learned in local government that too many people have too little self-esteem. There is a poverty of ambition.

    Yet local government can help with many of the causes of that: education, housing, social services. So local government matters. It matters in the delivery of the services and in creating the choices and opportunities that people deserve. And it is not an accident that these are found more often in areas with a long tradition of Conservative local government.

    When I am with Conservatives in local government, I know I’m with people who share the values and instincts that brought me into our Party. You and I joined the Party for the same reason.

    It spoke a language people can understand. Not the language of protest, of rights, of obligations by others – but the language of opportunity and hope and service.

    Our party has beliefs but, like the British people, we’re not ideological. We’re not defined by grand theories handed down from on high. We’ll never have a Clause IV to abolish. We grow from shared values and experience. We speak to people about their aspirations and their futures. We are not little Englanders nor are we blind nationalists. But we do share a deep love of country. We want it to do better. We care about its traditions and its future. We are a commonsense party, pragmatic when necessary and we find answers in practical action.

    Always remember, we are different from other Parties. We see people first and foremost as individuals not as part of a group. To us, they’re people, not a block vote. We don’t set one part of society against another with the politics of envy. We don’t trade politically on social divisions. We don’t pigeonhole and categorise on the basis of class, colour, gender or creed. Our Party is open to everyone. And it always must be.

    When times have been difficult, as they have, we are wise to remember our virtues and our strengths because they are what set our Party apart.

    Economy

    Let me now turn to the fact that should be central to public debate at present – but isn’t. The fact that we are now well into the broadest based, most secure economic recovery we have seen for generations.

    I know that for many people, this recovery isn’t apparent. It would be much more evident if it were led by house price rises and consumer spending. But we know where that leads. We are better with what we have: a long-term recovery led by investment and exports.

    All around the world people can see how well the British economy is doing. Only here in Britain is that not recognised. That matters. It matters politically. It matters economically too. Because confidence is a key ingredient in taking advantage of our recovery.

    You can help us and yourselves by taking this message out onto the doorsteps. When people ask about the feel good factor invite them to look at the lengthening job columns in your local paper, point to the falling dole queues, to the local businesses that have won new export orders.

    To the fact that employment in manufacturing is growing for the first time in generations. To the fact that we are beating the performance of the best economies in Europe. These things matter to local government because your spending and your services depend upon the growth of the British economy.

    And herein lies one of the ironies of government. We need growth to pay for services. But to make sure we have that growth we must hold down spending to what we can afford.

    That is why this year’s spending round was tough. The local government settlement is tight. It had to be. This means choosing the right priorities. Let me illustrate the point.

    Is it really more important to expand top management in town halls or to put money into services? You know the answer. But an extra £500 million has gone into top management over recent years.

    Is it really defensible that in some authorities, employees take twice as much sick leave as in others? Of course not. But it happens.

    Is it really the right priority that for every three teachers in the classroom, there are two others in the education service who are not teaching?

    And why in times of stringency, is it always the front line teachers that we are told will be cut back?

    The responsible local government position is to say: yes, it’s a tough settlement so we’ll pick our priorities and our teachers are among the first of them. That’s the way local government acts best in the interests of local communities.

    Of course setting the right priorities is difficult. But that plays to our strengths. Many Conservative councillors bring to local government invaluable experience in business. You know what it’s like in the market place. You know how intense are the competitive pressures out there. Local government cannot be divorced from the real world.

    Regional Assemblies

    Nor should it be too divorced from its electorate. The virtue of most local government is its closeness to the electorate. But that link with people would be gravely weakened if local government were to lose many of its services to the new regional assemblies that the Labour Party would like to inflict on us.

    Frankly, the last thing our communities need now is Labour’s plans to put you under the control of regional government. Another whole tier of government would make Britain the most over-governed country in Europe.

    And why are they doing it?

    Because they’ve promised a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales and they don’t want an English backlash.

    And why have they offered these?

    Because they’re running scared of the Nationalists. And why are they running scared of the Nationalists? Because they need to win a large majority of seats in Scotland and Wales to win a General Election at Westminster.

    So there you have it.

    Because of their partisan political interests at Westminster Labour are prepared to inflict a whole new higher tier of Regional Government, at unknown cost, with a huge increase in bureaucracy and weaken the powers of genuine local government.

    And “once regional government is up and running the demand for more services will be unstoppable.”

    Don’t take my word for it – that’s a straight quote from Labour’s policy document.

    And at whose expense will that be? It will be at your expense. Let me tell you why. According to dear old Frank Dobson, Labour’s policy would ‘probably’ – note that – suggest that a few responsibilities for delivering services should be transferred from local government to regional assemblies. So, these new Assembly’s won’t just take devolved powers from Westminster – they will inevitably suck up powers from the present system of local government. A new principle – devolution upwards.

    Which few responsibilities are they going to take? Well, we don’t really know. Planning? Transport? Education? These are all functions local government now has. Is Frank Dobson suggesting that Labour is likely – wholly or partly – to suck them up into regional assemblies? He seems to be. And, of course, the appetite of these assemblies will grow with the feeding.

    I wonder how many Labour candidates for the local elections realise that Labour wish to disembowel the Councils they’re standing for.

    And these regional authorities will also have an appetite for spending. They’ll spend. You’ll precept. So they’ll get the money and you’ll get the pleasure of sending out the Bills.

    Or will you? Because who do you think said this:

    “You could not conceivably establish elected regional assemblies as well as having a tier of shire counties and districts underneath that”.

    Jack Straw said that. Does that mean that they’ll suck up all your powers? We don’t know. That’s the latest revisionism. So presumably it’s official Labour policy. Probably. But what does it mean? Are you to be abolished? Heaven alone knows.

    Now, you’ll have noticed that what poor old Frank Dobson has been saying is quite different from what Jack Straw said.

    But if they can’t agree on what these assemblies will do, surely they can say where they’ll be established. Well you’d be disappointed. They have – and I quote – ‘no fixed views’.

    It’s not as if they can plead ignorance of local government. Frank Dobson has plenty of experience. He was Leader of Camden Council, among the most inefficient and expensive in the land. The Council, not Frank. Well, maybe Frank too. In any event, I think he was the Leader. He would say he was ‘probably’ the Leader.

    So there we have it. I have never known such a total shambles as Labour’s plans for Regional Parliaments and Assemblies. They are a complete mess. Farcical, amateurish, ill-thought out and contradictory. The plain fact is instead of rambling around the country addressing carefully selected audiences on Clause IV, a dinosaur that has been dead for years, the Labour leader should be explaining this nonsense to Local Councils. 16 years in opposition and they’re still making policy on the hoof. They have lots and lots of options. No one can say their local government policy is in a straitjacket. But perhaps the person who wrote it should be.

    Call me old fashioned, but when I was a councillor in Lambeth the people who emptied the bins were called dustmen. And it was an honourable calling. Then the politically correct decided dustmen had to be called refuse collection operatives. Now I understand Labour authorities call them environmental hygienists. Well, I suggest we give our environmental hygienists a copy of Labour’s plans and tell them to pass it to honest, down to earth dustmen and they’ll know exactly what to do with it.

    What nonsense their plans are. We don’t need yet another tier of councils, more politicians, more bureaucrats, more directives, more frustration and more costs. They want councils that:

    – deliver low council taxes;

    – put the frontline first;

    – play a role in making our streets safe;

    – back local business.

    There’s a clear choice here, First, lower council taxes. If you want to pay over £75 more, vote for your Liberal candidate. If you want to pay about £150 more, vote for your Labour candidate. But if you want to spend more of your money on your groceries, your clothes, your holiday, your family, then vote Conservative.

    But, paying less doesn’t mean getting less – if you give priority to frontline services. Conservative councils work for higher standards in the classroom. Labour Sheffield doubles its leisure budget and cuts its funds for education.

    And Wigan spends £1/4 million of its education budget on vintage traction engines, including the splendidly named Lively Lady. Frankly, I’d sooner money went on lively pupils.

    Conservative councils give priority to better homes. Labour Sheffield admits it takes twice the national average time to prepare properties for new tenants.

    Conservative councils give priority to fire services. Labour Dudley apparently thought it more important to send its councillors to Delhi to see how the Indian Fire Brigade works.

    And good Councils, too, are involved in the fight against crime. They have a pivotal responsibility in making our streets safe. The best way to fight crime is to make sure it doesn’t happen in the first place. It is not just a matter of leaving everything to the police. Better street lighting, more closed circuit cameras in streets and shopping malls – the electronic bobby on the beat. Intelligent use of the planning laws. And it also means backing the active citizen. In many ways local authorities can play a role which makes streets safe for the law abiding and dangerous for the criminal. You, as leaders of our communities, need to give the message loud and clear. We are all on the same side in the fight against crime.

    We must always be the party that backs local business. You know that it is the factories that create the local jobs, it is the shopkeepers who create the bustle, vitality and character of our town centres. But how often, as councillors, do you hear of over-zealous officials imposing petty restraints which make life difficult for business and drive shops from the centres of our towns? It is you, as Conservative councillors, who can exercise the restraining arm. With your help, you can help local business prosper and create jobs.

    Peroration

    Conservative councils stand for commonsense, not politically-correct nonsense. Stories about the antics of Labour councils pandering to political correctness well might be funny. But, it’s not so funny if it’s your money going down the Swanee.

    I have a great trust in the commonsense of the British people. I don’t believe they’ll be taken in by clever-dick sound bites. They want a rational explanation of the great issues. They want to know what is at stake. We’ve got to get out and tell them. Now more than ever we must go on the attack and end the easy ride that Labour and the Liberals have had.

    A General once said: ‘Wars are not won by evacuations’.

    They are won by winning the battle of ideas.

    By offering the best services at the lowest cost

    By taking our case, undiluted, out to the doorsteps.

    It’s an old fashioned concept. It’s hard work. But it’s the right thing to do and I believe it will bring you the success you deserve.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 6 May 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held in London on Friday 6th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it might be useful before I departed for the Channel Tunnel opening today to say just a word or two to you about last night’s elections.

    There is no point whatever in whingeing when you have had a set-back and I certainly do not do that. Last night was a poor result and it is very clear that many of our natural supporters decided on this occasion that they would stay at home. What I would like to do first is to congratulate those Councillors who won seats last night, whatever party they may represent. They have important responsibilities on local councils and I look forward to working with them in discharging those responsibilities.

    May I also express my thanks to those Conservative Councillors, many of them who have served the local community for a long time, who last night were defeated in their bid to be re-elected to their own local authority. I think it is the case that they were defeated because of a national feeling and not because of a local feeling against their performance. What we must now do is work to ensure their return to office at the first possible occasion.

    The Conservative Party that I care about is a good deal bigger than any election set-back. We must now pick ourselves up and fight back and that is precisely what I intend to do and I invite every Conservative to join me in that fight. I do not believe in present circumstances that the Party will forgive anyone who stands on the sidelines or utters a discordant note. Frankly we cannot afford that luxury, we have important elections immediately in front of us for the European Parliament and we must now turn all our efforts to winning those elections.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, in case there should be any misunderstanding, can you confirm that you will stay as leader and that you will fight any challenge that may come along?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can confirm that.

    QUESTION:

    And you know this morning that [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I know this morning, I can confirm that. The Conservative Party have a mechanism for a challenge to the leadership of that party, that mechanism can quite properly be used by Members of Parliament. If anybody choose to engage in that fight they will find me standing there waiting for them.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a range of issues. I think the bruises from the recession are very deep and I think people have not forgiven us for that. The economy now, I believe, is moving into a more buoyant phase that we have seen for many years, most people in business recognise that but it certainly has not rippled through to people in the High Street and in their own homes yet. I think that certainly was a very important factor. And frankly I think natural Conservative Party supporters are distressed when they see discordancy in the party.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I regard public office not as a matter of personal pride ambition, I regard public office as a responsibility and a duty. At the last general election 14.5 million votes were cast for the Conservative Party with me as its leaders to see this country through the next few years, that is an important responsibility. We have set in place many of the policies that are now showing signs of bringing us out of recession and back to growth, I wish to see those policies through.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are wholly wrong about that. The economy is moving I think more speedily than many people imagine and I believe that that will become increasingly apparent in the weeks and months ahead.

    QUESTION (Elinor Goodman):

    [Indistinct] if the Euro-elections are as bad as these?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will meet a challenge whenever it comes.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] if so, would it be of a Euro-sceptic party or as a part of Europe party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have agreed our manifesto, it was agreed yesterday in Cabinet, there was total agreement about the manifesto upon which we will fight the European elections. It is very clear cut, it is a distinctively British Conservative manifesto. I think it will find an echo in every part of this country, it is very, very different from the sort of manifesto that the Labour and Liberal parties will contest the election on. I relish that election campaign, there are issues of great national importance to be decided, I believe we have the right policies for that campaign and I believe we will do well in it.

  • PMQT – 3 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

    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.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : While congratulating Mr. Mandela and Mr. de Klerk on the success of the recent elections, does the Prime Minister share with me praise for the South African people who, in the face of terrorism, came out in such numbers to exercise their vote with enthusiasm and good manners? Is not there a real lesson for any dissident group that it cannot, by terror, overthrow the will of a people dedicated to democratic practice, especially in this nation?

    The Prime Minister : I agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman about that. I think that the democratic elections have been an enormous success for the people of South Africa, for Mr. Mandela and for Mr. de Klerk. I am delighted that we had so many British parliamentary observers there, of which I believe the hon. Gentleman was one. I am delighted also that British personnel and police were able to help with the elections.

    I spoke last evening to Mr. Mandela and assured him of our continuing help as his Government carry forward reform and change in South Africa. What has clearly happened in South Africa, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, is that the power of the ballot box has prevailed over force of arms. That should apply everywhere.

    Mrs. Peacock : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great support in the United Kingdom that there would be for the introduction of identity cards, particularly if the cards could incorporate a photograph and a driving licence?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, I have considerable sympathy with that view. Two examinations are under way at the moment : first, identity cards particularly in so far as social security is concerned; and, secondly, a wider look at the prospect of identity cards more generally. As I have said to the House before, there are some practical difficulties, but we are examining them to see whether they can be overcome.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister think that it is a quite extraordinary situation that, even before the local government election campaign is over, a senior member of the 1922 Committee should demand, on grounds of incompetence, the resignation of the chairman of the Conservative party and the Secretary of State responsible for local government?

    The Prime Minister : Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have not faced senior members of my party emigrating to New Zealand.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Why? Because if you are here you must come to order, that is why; otherwise you can leave the Chamber.

    Mr. John Smith : But can the Prime Minister tell us why he presides over a Government in which one Cabinet Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, openly condemns Cabinet colleagues for plotting against his leadership? Was she right to do so?

    The Prime Minister : The whole Cabinet is completely determined to carry through the programme on which we were elected, and we propose to do so. That means low inflation, less regulation, low interest rates, strong defence, an active foreign policy and moving Europe in our direction. There is complete unity on that matter, much to the dismay of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Mr. John Smith : If the whole Cabinet is united, does not the Prime Minister think that he should remind some members occasionally to demonstrate that fact in their public utterances? While Ministers are permitted by the Prime Minister to squabble and plot as they please, is he surprised that public confidence in his Government has almost completely broken down? If he cannot control his own Cabinet, is it any wonder that we doubt whether he can run the country?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought perhaps to look more closely at what is said by many members of his own shadow Cabinet and his own party from time to time. What we are in the process of doing is moving this country into a position of the most sustainable growth with low inflation that we have seen in this country for several decades. That will affect to the good the living standards of each and every person in this country and it will be as a result of the policies followed unitedly by this Cabinet.

    Mr. Ottaway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent Wellcome Foundation report on sexual attitudes and behaviour revealed that 19 per cent. of Britain’s teenagers under the age of 16 were sexually active? Under those circumstances, does he agree that, where such children have been prescribed contraceptives at the discretion of their GP, there might be cases where it is inappropriate to report that fact to the parents?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that anyone condones that sort of activity by under-age children. I think that it is the responsibility not only of parents but of other people in responsible positions to try to put sexual activity in a proper context for young people.

    Mr. Beith : Does it remain Government policy that British participation in a single European currency is not ruled out but will be decided by Parliament at a later stage? If so, how can the Prime Minister have a senior Treasury Minister who believes and states that to join a single currency would involve giving up government of the United Kingdom? Have things gone so far that he cannot sack the young pretender?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend has made it clear this morning that he fully supports our policy on a single currency, a policy agreed by the whole Cabinet of which he is a member. So that there need be no misunderstanding anywhere about it, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what that is. We shall retain the right, confirmed in the opt-out that I negotiated in the Maastricht treaty, to make our own decision on whether to move to a single currency for Europe. That will be the subject of a separate decision by our Parliament here at Westminster if and when that decision needs to be taken, and it will be taken then in the light of our interests and needs. It will not be taken now. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has made it clear that he subscribes wholly to this position.

    Mr. Jacques Arnold : Has my right hon. Friend noted that the councils charging the highest council tax band-for-band are all controlled by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I had heard that, and I also hear the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) shouting at me, “Some £40 less.” I am pleased that he shouts that out because in front of me I have a quote from the deputy director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies who said :

    “Labour figures are misleading. The average bill may be higher not because of higher charges but because the average house is worth more”.

    Like for like, the Labour party is charging far more council tax than the Conservative party and so, although not quite so severely, is the Liberal party. However the hon. Member for Blackburn wriggles, that remains the case.

     

    Q2. Mr. Donohoe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

    Mr. Donohoe : Will the Prime Minister take a cursory glance at his own Front Bench and tell the House who he thinks Brutus will be?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman has mistaken the time of year. We are past March.

    Mr. Waterson : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that, under the national health service, all patients are treated according to clinical need, irrespective of age? Thus, for example, in Eastbourne the 25 per cent. of the population who are over 65 account for 64 per cent. of the total resources and bed days.

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to accept the figures used by my hon. Friend. I am in no doubt not only that people over retirement age are given excellent treatment by the national health service but that they are entitled to that treatment as of right. They are given the best possible treatment and, where appropriate, are referred to specialists to obtain it.

     

    Q3. Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

    Mr. Evans : Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that during the current local election campaign he has had a great deal to say about the levels of council tax charged by various local authorities? Is he aware of the fact that if Westminster city council had received the same rate support grant per head of population as the borough of St. Helens it would have been forced to charge £1,079, instead of £245, for a band D property? Will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents how a rate support grant system that throws up such huge disparities is not politically corrupt?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes his usual assertion without any real examination of the facts. If he looks at the local authorities that lost a lot of money under the standard spending assessment this year he will find towards the top of the list Wandsworth borough council, which he neglected to mention. If he wants to know why Westminster sets the lowest council tax in England I can tell him that it is because it has tendered out more services than other councils. It saved £11 million on compulsory competitive tendering–equivalent to £110 on the council tax. The tendering of street cleaning is saving £1.8 million per year, yet the council spends more on arts than any other London authority. Those are some of the reasons why Westminster is so efficient and some of the reasons why the council deserves to be re-elected.

    Mr. Evans : On a point of order, Madam Speaker ; in view of the ineptness of that reply from the Prime Minister I wish to give notice of my intention to raise this issue on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

    Mr. Streeter : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the International Monetary Fund’s recent assessment of the British economy as being one of the few economic bright spots in the world? Is not this in stark contrast to the days, in the 1970s, when the Labour Government had to go, cap in hand, to the IMF to bail them out? What a difference 15 years makes.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. Not only do we have both inflation and interest rates at historically low levels, but we have exports running at record levels and growth this year running at twice the rate in any other significant European country. This is expected to continue next year. It is a result of the policies that the Conservative Government have followed.

     

    Q4. Mr. Salmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

    Mr. Salmond : May this Bench join in the general celebrations and best wishes for President-elect Mandela and the new South Africa? Do the Government intend to redeem the Prime Minister’s clear pledge of three years ago that the Rosyth naval base would be sustained? Can Scotland have a yes or no answer to that question, and not more waffle?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear last year that the Rosyth dockyard has a programme of allocated work stretching– [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait for just a moment. It was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend that the Rosyth dockyard has a programme of allocated work stretching well into the next century. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman shuts up he will get his answer. So far as the naval base is concerned, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all defence bases are being examined as part of the defence cost study. Rosyth is being treated on the same basis as other naval bases. The study is continuing, and my right hon. and learned Friend has not yet received proposals.

    Mr. Dunn : Given that industrial disputes are at their lowest level for decades, does the Prime Minister agree that the reintroduction of sympathy strikes would cause a nightmare at the workplace?

    The Prime Minister : I have no doubt that that is the case. Last year, the sum total of working days lost was about 600,000. In 1979, in one month alone–January, I think–more than 3 million days were lost. There is no doubt of the damage that sympathy strikes would do. Equally, there is no doubt of the damage that would be done if our trade union reforms were repealed, and people were again encouraged to take their disputes on to the streets rather than to some form of satisfactory agreement.

     

    Q5. Mr. McFall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

    Mr. McFall : Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to endorse the remarks by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said that water in Scotland will never be privatised? In addition, will he give an assurance that value added tax will never be levied on water and sewerage charges in Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister : I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. His party has been running a campaign referring to the privatisation of water in Scotland, yet he has just admitted that water in Scotland has not been privatised. I hope that he will now withdraw everything that he and his colleagues have been saying in recent months. They have been misleading the people of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman knows that Scottish Water is to be restructured into three new public water authorities. I hope that he will now go out and tell that to everyone in Scotland.

  • PMQT – 28 April 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th April 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Anne Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

    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.

    Mrs. Campbell : As the management of British Rail Maintenance Ltd. has announced the loss of 600 jobs at Eastleigh, following the fragmentation and privatisation of British Rail, what message can the Prime Minister give to the residents of Eastleigh who are to be made redundant, or does he feel that it is not a matter for him?

    The Prime Minister : I seem to recall that on many occasions in the past when privatisation has been mentioned there have been such questions and imputations that the service would fall. In every instance, the service has improved for people and the costs have been maintained. We can see that most evidently in the energy industries, but in others as well.

    Mr. Budgen : As it is suspected that no fewer than 60 of the employees of a respectable employer such as Southwark council may be unjustified overstaying immigrants in Britain, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be an urgent review of the possibility of introducing identity cards into this country?

    The Prime Minister : As I have said on a previous occasion, there is a strong case to be made for identity cards. There are undoubtedly great practical difficulties in introducing them and there are other matters to be considered as well, but we have been looking at some of the options in that respect and we propose to continue doing so.

    Mr. John Smith : Now that the Prime Minister has overruled his Health Secretary on the question of media access to Bart’s, will he now overrule her on the far more important issue of her disgraceful decision to order the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Bart’s?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there was never any question but that he or any other right hon. or hon. Member could visit Bart’s or any other hospital. The right hon. Gentleman wished to do what he has done on so many occasions in the past and take the opportunity of turning the national health service into a political football– [Interruption.] –and the expression on the face of the right hon. and learned Gentleman shows us that that is the case. So far as the accident and emergency departments at Bart’s and the other London hospitals are concerned, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us whether he agrees with his own health spokesman who, apropos this matter, said :

    “The status quo is not an option.”

    Mr. John Smith : If there was never any question about myself or other Opposition spokespeople being allowed to visit Bart’s– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I call the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) to order– [Interruption.] Order. I call the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) to order. I have heard enough from both sides.

    Mr. John Smith : If there never was any problem, why was I telephoned by the Department of Health to tell me that media access was not to be permitted, although the Prime Minister went to Basildon with precisely those facilities? Furthermore, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the Government rely, for their policy on London, on the Tomlinson report, which is now fully discredited by nearly everyone in London?

    The Prime Minister : On the latter point, the Tomlinson report is not discredited by nearly everyone in London. On the question of accident and emergency cover in London, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were more concerned with the realities of health care and less concerned with party politicking at the expense of the national health service, he might have looked at some of the proposed improvements to accident and emergency departments in London–at Homerton, King’s, Lewisham, Royal London, St. Thomas’s, UCLH, Whipps Cross and Whittington, none of which he wishes to mention at all. I said a moment ago that there was no difficulty about the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself going to Bart’s. Many people will judge for themselves whether he was simply trying to make party political points. I took the view that it was a matter for his conscience, and I therefore decided that there should certainly be no ban. As for Basildon, for many years rules have been laid down by the Cabinet Secretary concerning the three weeks before elections ; those did not cover the time of my visit to Basildon.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that the reality of the Government’s plans for London is that 19 hospitals will be either closed or merged and that 2,500 desperately needed hospital beds are to be lost? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not halt this disaster for health care in London and order an immediate moratorium and the review that all of London wants?

    The Prime Minister : Do I hear a pledge of more expenditure from the right hon. and learned Gentleman? What he is saying sounds very much as if he is in the business of spending vast extra sums of money. Either he is proposing to do so–in which case he should tell us how much and where the money is to come from–or he should withdraw what he has said in the last couple of minutes. If he is concerned about the national health service, he might also reflect on his own party’s record–an NHS budget that fell by 3 per cent., capital spending that was cut by one third, nurses’ pay that was cut by 21 per cent. and doctors’ and dentists’ pay that went down by 23 per cent. Perhaps he will also tell us which of his spokesmen he agrees with– the one who said that the party would increase health spending to 7 per cent. of gross domestic product, at a cost of £6 billion, or the one who a few days later produced his “Health 2000” documents with every extra expenditure commitment removed.

    Mr. Elletson : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this bank holiday weekend thousands of tourists will flock to Britain’s leading tourist resort–Blackpool–to see the tower, which during the week was painted gold to celebrate its 100th anniversary? Does he agree that the Blackpool tower is now a glittering symbol of the success of the British tourist industry, which is the second largest industry in the country, employing thousands of people? Does he further agree that the greatest threat to jobs in tourism comes from the Labour party with its support for the European social chapter and the European socialist manifesto?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right in each of his points. There is no doubt that the Blackpool tower is a world famous landmark. I hope that this year and in future years it will continue to attract hundreds of thousands of extra tourists to Blackpool and other parts of the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is the Prime Minister aware that Liverpool city council appears to be preparing to suppress a report into the mismanagement of public funds amounting to £5 million on the city’s cable television contract? Will he confirm that he supports the principle that the public have a right to know on these matters as much in Liverpool as they have in Westminster?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman makes his point very eloquently, but if I may say so I think that the point was not aimed quite so much at me as perhaps in another direction not so far away.

    Mr. Jenkin : May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the level of the council tax in Colchester? Is he aware that substantial extra grants were given to Lib-Lab Essex and Lib-Lab Colchester and that they still chose to put the council tax up? Does not that demonstrate that they always put taxes up, even when they do not have to?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend draws an important distinction between the parties, in that the opposition parties are keen to raise tax specifically to fund extra and more ambitious spending programmes. There is no doubt that the average council tax for Labour authorities is very high, far higher than that of Conservative authorities, and that the average council tax of Liberal authorities is also substantially higher than that of Conservative authorities.

     

    Q2. Mr. Jim Cunningham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

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

    Mr. Cunningham : Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking to carry out a drastic overhaul of the Child Support Agency following the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report which highlights human misery and poverty inflicted by the agency?

    The Prime Minister : I have not yet had a chance to study the NACAB report, but I think that no one–perhaps “no one” is a rash statement–or that there are few in the House who disagree with the basic principles behind the Child Support Act 1991, and I think that few would dispute that adequate financial maintenance for children is an important contributing factor to their overall welfare. Of course, the CSA has to balance a whole range of interests–the parent with care, the absent parent, the taxpayer. It is a new system and we are keeping it under review. As I have told the House before, when and if we determine that it needs change, we will look at that change and introduce it.

    Mrs. Gorman : Does my right hon. Friend agree with Lord Young who, when speaking to the Institute of Directors, said :

    “We are wasting our time in Europe and fiddling while the Treaty of Rome burns”?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my right hon. and noble Friend made a number of points about the European Community and about the general position of Europe in its trading attitude with the rest of the world. On that point he was correct, for I have made the point in the House on many occasions. It is not a question of Europe competing within itself–the British with the Germans, with the French and with the Spanish–but of the competitiveness of the whole of Europe with our competitors around the world : in Japan, in the Pacific basin, in the United States and elsewhere. I entirely agree with my right hon. and noble Friend on the importance of that matter.

     

    Q3. Mr. Kilfoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

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

    Mr. Kilfoyle : Can the Prime Minister explain why so many of his Conservative colleagues in local government in London wish to avoid being seen on the campaign trail with him?

    The Prime Minister : I have spent some time on the campaign trail–perhaps unlike the hon. Gentleman–with my Conservative colleagues in London, and I think that he is incorrect.

    Sir Peter Fry : Will my right hon. Friend, when he is on the campaign trail, point out that, of the 45 million cases dealt with annually by the health service, the vast majority are happy with the service that they have received? Is it not time to praise the health service rather than using every odd case as an opportunity to criticise the dedicated people in it?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. Literally millions of people in Britain are treated by the health service every year, and they know from their own direct experience how good the health service is and what has happened to funding and the improvements in funding of the health service during recent years. If that funding had not been there, there would not have been an increase in the number of patients treated in hospital and as out-patients or in the quality of health care, and a wider range of treatments would not have been available. Every hon. Member knows that to be the case, and those who refuse to acknowledge it do a disservice to the dedicated professionals in the health service.