The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Local Government

  • PMQT – 1 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

     

    Q1. Mr. Mudie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 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. Mudie : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Home Affairs Select Committee on its decision to inquire into party political funding? Will he also join the Opposition in urging full co- operation and disclosure–that disclosure to cover items such as the £17 million secretly paid to the Conservatives to cover the cost of the previous election?

    The Prime Minister : Of course the Conservative party will submit a memorandum as requested and will of course be available to submit oral evidence. We have always said that we are consistently opposed to state aid for political parties. If the hon. Gentleman is being so sanctimonious, I hope that he might consider whether his party is truly in favour of state aid or not.

     

    Q2. Mr. Sykes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

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

    Mr. Sykes : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to express his condemnation of the proposed rail strike tomorrow–

    The Prime Minister rose– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Sykes : — and does he agree that the state monopoly should be broken up as soon as possible? Has he noticed, by the way, how many Labour Members have scurried off to their constituencies before their union paymasters go on strike tomorrow?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that it was worth waiting for the rest of my hon. Friend’s question. I entirely agree that the strike is deplorable. What is equally deplorable is the deafening silence from the Opposition who know very well that, when it comes to strikes, they are on strike in terms of condemning them. They are still the strikers’ friends.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister will, I hope, be aware of the deep disquiet in the country about the events in Srebrenica. Does he agree that it is vital that the United Nations is enabled to resume its humanitarian relief convoys as a matter of urgency? Will the Government make it crystal clear to the Serbs that their barbaric disregard for humanity is simply not tolerable?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on both points. We are appalled by the plight of Srebrenica. It is terrible, and we believe that the Serbs must co-operate with the United Nations humanitarian effort. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, British aid workers and British troops have been instrumental in providing more aid in Bosnia than any other country. That is a proud record, and we wish to see it continue. I align myself entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments about Srebrenica.

    Mr. Smith : May I associate the Opposition with the tribute that the Prime Minister paid to British aid workers and British troops, who are performing an invaluable role in assisting the humanitarian effort? But does the Prime Minister accept that if there is to be a lessening of the sickening events involving innocent women and children which, sadly, we have been witnessing on our television screens, sanctions must be applied more comprehensively and effectively against Serbia, and that the international community simply must insist that humanitarian convoys be accompanied by military escorts?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly support the idea that there should be much stricter enforcement of sanctions ; we would be perfectly prepared to contemplate the widening of sanctions as well as the stricter enforcement of existing sanctions. That matter is under discussion between our allies and ourselves at the moment.

    Mr. Fry : As we enter the era of the council tax, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Conservative-controlled Wellingborough borough council, which is to levy an average tax of £177–by far the lowest in the country? Is that not a wonderful achievement, considering that services have not been cut, and is it not the clearest possible signal to the electorate of this country to vote Conservative in this year’s local government elections?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that there is widespread understanding around the country that the council tax is the fairest method that we have yet had of dealing with local government finance. Not only that, but those people who are fortunate enough to have a Conservative council will find that, band for band, they will pay less council tax than those whose council is Labour controlled.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister not realise that being appalled by Srebrenica is not good enough? Being appalled by Srebrenica will not save a single life. The question is what the Prime Minister and the British Government intend to do about Srebrenica. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that town and its 60,000 Muslim inhabitants are designated by the Vance-Owen plan as part of the Muslim territory. Will he therefore recommend to other western powers that we protect Srebrenica from being annihilated by the Serbs–or is this to be yet another example of our standing by the side, wringing our hands and saying that nothing can be done until it is too late for anything to be done?

    The Prime Minister : I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will weigh carefully what he says on that matter, because I think that what he has said will be deeply offensive to the 2,300 troops that we have in Bosnia, to their families and to the many other people who are concerned about their safety there. They are doing a magnificent job ; in many ways we have led the assistance being given to all parts of Bosnia over recent months. We strongly welcome the Security Council resolution enforcing the no-fly zone. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will have more to say about that after Question Time.

    Mr. Page : May I make my right hon. Friend aware that the trustees of the Maxwell pension fund will meet later this month to discuss the common investment fund, which now stands at about £180 million? I urge him to contact those trustees and beg them to have a distribution or a partial distribution of that fund so that, in conjunction with the Cuckney fund, the pensioners can be paid while the missing millions are traced and a long-term solution is put in place.

    The Prime Minister : I certainly join my hon. Friend in urging the trustees and the liquidator of the common investment fund to restore advance payments as soon as possible. I understand the difficulties, and I hope that the trustees will be able to respond.

     

    War Crimes (Yugoslavia)

    Q3. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the leaders of other member states of the Security Council of the United Nations to discuss the implementation of UN resolution 808 ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The United Nations Secretary-General is due to produce a report by the end of April on the most effective and rapid means of establishing an ad hoc tribunal. United Nations member states have been invited to contribute views on an informal basis. Several states, including the United Kingdom, have so contributed.

    Dr. Godman : This is the first time since Nuremberg and Tokyo that an international war crimes tribunal has been set up. Unlike Nuremberg and Tokyo, however, is it not likely that the implementation of United Nations resolution 808 will turn out to be an exercise in futility? Has not the United States State Department already labelled those murderous leaders, Milosevic and Karadzic, as potential war criminals? Are they to be granted immunity from war crimes proceedings? Who will apprehend the criminals? Will British soldiers be involved? Will British police officers and lawyers be involved? It is surely a charade.

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that it will be an exercise in futility. There are complex matters of international law to be determined, which are still under discussion within the United Nations, but it is intended, where possible, to ensure that people who commit war crimes face a tribunal and are punished satisfactorily and suitably.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Hendry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

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

    Mr. Hendry : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the opposition of the police, my constituents and myself to the proposed all-night rave scheduled to take place in my constituency at the end of May. Does he agree that such events have less to do with entertainment than with organised crime and pushing illegal and dangerous drugs? Does he agree that the High Peak, as one of the most popular national parks in the world, is a wholly unsuitable venue for such an event? May I assure him that he has the support of the Conservative side of the House for the Government’s proposal to give the police more power to tackle these people? Will he ensure that the measures are brought forward as soon as possible?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend touches on a point which will concern many parents. The statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary yesterday shows beyond doubt that the Government are determined to crack down on those who ignore the rights and property of law -abiding citizens. It is wholly unacceptable behaviour. That is why we are giving the police tougher powers to deal with it.

    Mr. Simpson : Is the Prime Minister aware of the report recently highlighted in the Nottingham Evening Post, which illustrated that claims for severe hardship payments had increased in the east midlands by over 750 per cent. in the last three years, leaving large numbers of young people with no jobs, no cash and no hope? Will he explain how he has failed to deliver jobs to those young people and when will he restore entitlement to benefit payments to them?

    The Prime Minister : I should mention to the hon. Gentleman that payments from the social fund could not have been made until we introduced the legislation to do so. No such comparable payments existed. As for jobs, it is interesting to note that for the first time in several weeks–in fact, since the unemployment figures fell last time–an Opposition Member has mentioned unemployment. We continue to take measures which will seek to increase jobs for all sectors of the community.

     

    Q5. Mr. Kynoch : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

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

    Mr. Kynoch : I welcome the support given to small businesses in the recent Budget. Is my right hon. Friend aware that my area of Scotland has benefited significantly from the oil and gas industry, and in particular from oil exploration in the North Sea? Is he further aware that the changes in petroleum revenue tax have provoked enormous support from my constituents? Will he ensure that the transition to what many oil companies regard as a better low tax regime is smooth and does not cause undue disturbance and disruption in the industry in the meantime?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, many people have welcomed the changes in taxes, not least because of the big encouragement to development that is clearly evident in the new structure. That development will create future jobs, a matter which every hon. Member is concerned about. I take the figures from memory, but I seem to recall that in the year 1991-92 the previous petroleum revenue tax system actually cost the taxpayer £200 million net.

    Mr. William Ross : Has the Prime Minister noticed that the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic said that the idea that the Republic was a haven for terrorists is a fallacy? Does he understand that my constituents were surprised about that until they realised that today is the first day of April?

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about the matter, but I must say to him that he should not confuse the actions of a minority with the views and instincts of the majority of people. I do not believe that the majority of people in the Republic of Ireland support the activities of the IRA, and I believe that their response to recent events is a clear illustration that that is the case. I hope and believe that the vast majority of people in the Republic of Ireland will join the hon. Gentleman and every other hon. Member in the House in condemning the IRA and all its murderous activities.

     

    Q6. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 April.

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

    Mr. Amess : As we approach the first anniversary of the re-election of my right hon. Friend’s Government, does the Prime Minister recall that only four weeks after that event a Conservative council was elected in Basildon? What conclusions does my right hon. Friend draw from the fact that, under the council tax, Conservative Basildon will, for the first time, not be capped while nearby socialist-controlled Harlow district council will be?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has made a profession of making Basildon world famous and is doing it remarkably well. As it is also the anniversary of my hon. Friend’s re-election, I offer him my congratulations on that. When he won, we knew that we had won, and it was an especially sweet victory.

    It is no coincidence that a Conservative council produces a lower council tax charge than a Labour council. That is what we would expect. That is what we see in Conservative councils up and down the country at all levels of the council tax.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Local Government Conference – 27 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference, held in London on Saturday 27th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Two years ago, at this Conference, I spoke about my roots in Lambeth. It was where I learned how politics shapes people’s lives. That same local government learning curve is followed with benefit by many in our Party – like those who sat in this hall two years ago and now sit in Parliament. They have brought with them the experience of local government: the best experience it is possible to have.

    One thing local government taught me was – don’t always listen to the experts. Listen to the people. It was a lesson I relearned at the General Election. All the experts said we would lose – but we won. And won by doing what the wise men said we shouldn’t do.

    And again, on May 6th, whatever the wise men say, we’re going to see more Conservative Councils and more Conservative councillors. And we’ll do so because Conservative Councils Cost You Less and Serve You Better. And Labour and Liberal Councils cost you more – and serve you right.

    Unemployment

    In a moment I want to turn to the future of local government. But first let me deal with one of the issues that most concern people at present – the need for jobs.

    Every politician cares about unemployment. It’s the trivial politics of simple abuse to suggest otherwise. We all want to see more permanent jobs. But the worst thing any of us can do is to pretend there is some quick fix solution. To kid ourselves and mislead others that with some as yet undiscovered potion there’d be jobs for all.

    As the Government, it is our duty to set out the plain truth. So let me do so. But, because it is relevant, let me first put it in context. Unemployment is not just a problem in this country. It is nearly worldwide. Does anyone think the Spanish government want unemployment at nearly 20 per cent? That France wants three million without jobs? That the [indistinct] government are happy that one in six of their population are unemployed? From Canada to Australia, from the USA to France, from Germany to the UK, unemployment has worsened seriously in every country. In recent days, as Leyland-Daf collapsed in Holland with job losses in the United Kingdom, Volkswagen in Germany cut 36,000 jobs, Boeing 28,000 in the US and Nissan and NTT in Japan announced they would shed 35,000 jobs.

    When pessimists knock Britain and damage our prospects, I hope you will answer back. Set out the facts that show we are poised for recovery. Remind them that interest rates are at their lowest since 1977; inflation is at its lowest since 1967; mortgage rates for first- time buyers lower than at any time since 1956.

    And tell them of our trade prospects. Exports are at record levels. Who would have thought a few years ago that we would be exporting cars to Japan? Yet we’re doing just that – in growing numbers. And now we have the biggest market in the world on our doorstep. More of our workforce in this country are in jobs than Italy, France, Spain, Germany or almost any European country you care to name.

    Last year, in the depths of recession, 400,000 new firms set up in business. In Europe five out of the top 10 companies are British. So are 11 Out of the top 20 and 17 out of the top 30. Today, we have the lowest number of strikes in recorded history. These are the conditions that encourage so many foreign companies to invest in Britain, bringing prosperity and jobs with them. Another £100 million worth of American investment was announced just yesterday creating up to 700 jobs. And on the same day, Michael Howard gave the go-ahead to Derby’s City Challenge Action Plan which will create over 4,600 new jobs. I know there are difficulties. In no sense do I ignore them. But don’t let us overlook the good news or we risk perpetuating the bad news.

    We don’t help the unemployed by spreading doom, gloom and depression. We help our competitors. Other countries don’t talk themselves down. And neither should we. The best way to help unemployed people back into work is to have confidence in our nation and self-confidence in ourselves.

    It has been a long haul to put the economic conditions in place for sustained growth and lasting jobs. Now we must take advantage of them. The European Commission predicts that we will be the fastest growing economy in the EC next year. Let’s prove them right. We have done it before. And we can do it again. And it will help enormously if we ditch this habit of national self-denigration. It isn’t necessary. And it isn’t helpful.

    Getting people back to work will take time and it will take persistence. It will be a hard fight. It will need growth in the economy. But we are determined to achieve it.

    The long-term strategy is right. But we have a short term problem to deal with too. So let me tell you what we are doing. We have a massive programme of support for people who are unemployed. Helping them to find work where possible. Keeping them in touch with the labour market. Encouraging them to use their time constructively. We want to do more to keep people in touch with the world of work, either by giving them new opportunities for work experience, or, in some cases, making sure they take advantage of existing opportunities.

    Our employment programmes are being expanded further from this April. Expanded to offer opportunities for 1.5 million people to get back into work. We are producing practical measures to deal with this problem. Labour call for us to “do something”. But whenever we bring in programmes to help – youth training, job interview guarantees, training for work, Jobclubs, Restart, and our Jobplan Workshops – what do they do? Labour vote against those programmes. “Do something”, they say. Well, they could do something too. Get Out of the ‘No’ lobby and onto the side of those looking for work. And that’s where they’ll find us.

    And one other thing. We reject – and will continue to reject – the Social Chapter. France can complain as much as it likes. If investors and businesses choose to come to Britain rather than pay the costs of socialism in France, let them call it social dumping. I call it dumping socialism.

    Let Jacques Delors accuse us of creating a paradise for foreign investors. I am happy to plead guilty. Again and again we warned our European partners about the Social Chapter. And now that our warning has turned out to be right we are not changing policy. They can have the Social Chapter. We’ll have the jobs.

    The importance of local government

    I don’t need persuading about the importance of local government. I know and feel it in my bones. It forms a central part of my political beliefs. So let me set out for you my credo for the future of local government.

    Above all, I want the 1990s to see a renaissance of local government – with modem, forward-looking local leadership. Rooted in civic pride. Rooted in ideals of public service that made household names of so many Conservative council leaders in the past.

    Second, local councils, like central government, must commit themselves to better quality in public service. People won’t be fobbed off any more with the old excuses – and rightly so.

    Third, local government must work with central government to give people more responsibility over their own lives.

    Fourth, it’s time to set a structure for local government that will last. We need to define its responsibilities once and for all. And then let you carry them out.

    Fifth, we must build a new accountability fit for the 21st century – a new accountability that goes directly from those who run public services to those who use them. Many local government services impact directly on the family. In these areas, particularly housing and education, people want to exercise their own choices, not subcontract them wholly to Government – however benevolent and well intentioned Government may be.

    Local Government Structure

    I believe we have a system of local government finance that will last. Now we must seek a structure of local authorities that will stand the test of time as well. I want this change in structure to be the best – and the last.

    There is, I think, a widespread view that the structure and responsibilities of local government are not as clear as they should be. The pattern is too complex. There is a case for structural change.

    But a structure that lasts will not be one that Whitehall has imposed. It will be one that grows naturally from people’s loyalties and local traditions. That’s why we have no national blueprint for local government structure.

    In the 1880s this Party set out a pattern of local government that endured for a century. In the 1990s I want to agree a new pattern – one that lasts, in its turn, well into the century to come. I want an end to the wrangling and the wrestling about structure and functions. I want agreement about the proper role of local government – where it is, what it is, and how it should perform. I want you to know what that role is. I want the public to know it. Then I want to leave you to get on with the job. My message is straightforward: let’s stop batting one another around the head and get on with good government.

    Where the system works well, don’t let’s change it. And let me tell you one other thing, plain and simple. There is going to be no – repeat no – new tier of regional government set above you. That is a cock-eyed idea of our opponents – without identity, without price, without principle and without purpose. And that applies to our opponents as well as that idea. It’s just another half-baked piece of socialism we can do without. We are getting rid of regional monstrosities in Scotland; we have no intention of re-inventing them elsewhere.

    Local government in the modern era

    We are the Conservative Party. Think what that means. It means we do not change for change’s sake. We only change for improvement. And we look for improvement in local government because we care about it.

    I want our reforms to be the friend of local government, not the enemy. The more effective local government is, the more popular it will be. We want to show people which councils are serving them best – and those councils will be Conservative councils.

    The public pay their taxes compulsorily. They should be given more information voluntarily. That’s why we are allowing the Audit Commission power to publish more comparative league tables of performance – powers I hope they will use. Local people should have the chance to judge how their councils are doing. Let’s give them straight answers to the questions they ask. They deserve them – and we must give them.

    Quality Service from Conservative Councils

    I know that not everyone welcomes the new openness. Even some Conservatives are uneasy. We shouldn’t be. It is one of the great differences between us and the other parties. We recognise that this is the age of the consumer, not the producer. And the new ethos of public service and value for money must apply as much to the local council as it does in the market place.

    No-one here has anything to fear from that. It is in Conservative councils that you’ll find the best quality at the best price. I don’t have to look far for proof of that – Huntingdonshire District have set the council tax for a Band C property at minus £4. But I’m the first to concede that my neck of the woods does not have a monopoly of virtue – Hambleton has come in at minus £10, and Wellingborough even lower.

    It’s in Labour councils that you’ll find the homes left empty, the rents uncollected, the inefficiency and worse.

    If you doubt that’s true, consider this. Labour councils are planning to charge nearly £100 more in council tax than Conservative ones. Liberal Democrats are planning £50 more. That’s the soggy Left for you – Labour will take an arm and a leg; the Liberals an arm or a leg. But the poor old taxpayer is clobbered either way. And isn’t it just typical of the Liberals? They never did know their arm from their elbow.

    Creating a New Accountability

    I spoke also of a new accountability. Let me say more about what we mean by that.

    We mean direct accountability – of supplier to customer. It is parents who have the strongest interest in the success of their children’s school. So give them the right to ensure that the school delivers. Give them the information about how the schools in their town or district are, doing. Give them the chance to choose the school in the first place.

    Council tenants want more control over the management of their lives. So give them the chance to buy – and help them to do so. And if they don’t want to buy, give them the assurance that remote, incompetent and unresponsive management will be shaken up. Give them the information about the standards of service they’re getting, and the right to choose.

    Hardly revolutionary, you might think. Yet there are still some in the Labour Party who claim that to give people more information upon which to base their choices is an assault on democracy.

    Don’t you find that astonishing? Is that not really a perversion of logic and language. How can giving choice be an assault on democracy? How can giving more information be an assault on democracy? So much for the fine talk from Labour about being the Party of the individual. What they mean is that Labour is the Party that likes to tell individuals what to do.

    Let us be the Party that tells individuals what Government is doing.

    We give them information.

    We give them choice.

    And we give them power.

    These are the policies that people want. And if Labour really understood individuals they would know that. All of us here today have a sense of common purpose. Michael Howard and his team have been working hard to build an ever closer relationship between Conservative councils and a Conservative Government. And what you have done to introduce the Council Tax smoothly is a tribute to that new spirit as well. We serve the same people in the same country and we serve them best when we work together.

    Enabling Businesses to Grow

    Let me tell you of some of the other key areas where I want Conservative government – central and local – to be working in partnership in the ’90s.

    All of us in public service have our part to play in getting the economy growing again. You know – as I know – that we are entering a very difficult time for public sector spending. But the truth is that for the economy to grow, we have to reduce the cost of the public sector.

    This year’s local authority settlement is tight. So is public spending as a whole. We have a 1.5 per cent limit on public sector pay. I know many of you are being very robust in your budgeting this year. But with inflation now down to 1.7 per cent, there is no better time for pushing through tough decisions on spending and pay.

    And, in our battle for more jobs, there is more we can do to help business. Take planning. Of course we must cherish and protect our heritage. No one doubts that. But restrictive planning policies can shut the door on business opportunities. Wherever possible, we should be helping new businesses locate in our areas, and help people to move where jobs are available – not stand in their way.

    And you can help, too, by getting unnecessary regulation off businesses’ backs. I acknowledge that we in government have often gone too far in imposing unnecessary regulatory duties on local councils. Well, that’s going to stop.

    But I need your help too. Some council departments enforce such regulations with too heavy a hand. We must stop that as well.

    So here are some questions for you to ask your Environmental Health Officers and your social services departments. And perhaps they should ask their clients too.

    Why do so many nursery schools complain about social services inspection? Do Environmental Health Officers really take account of local needs when they inspect the local shop? Do they insist on higher standards for the private and voluntary sectors than they do in the public sector?

    We have to make deregulation effective. So I ask for your help to do so. It is one sure way of helping businesses to grow. Prospects to grow. And jobs to grow.

    Better Housing

    And, in local government, you have other ways to join us in extending choice and opportunity to all.

    In housing, it was Conservative, councils who pioneered the right to buy. They saw an opportunity to help people achieve their dreams of home ownership. And they did so. And government followed where local government led. As a result, nearly one and a half million council tenants have become home owners under Right to Buy since 1979.

    And don’t believe it when people say that the demand for home ownership is past. I don’t accept that for a second.

    That is why the Housing bill, now before Parliament, gives tenants a new right to become home-owners by converting their rents into mortgage payments.

    And now – with mortgage rates for first time buyers the lowest since 1956 – now is the time to remind tenants that they can have huge discounts when buying their home.

    Michael Howard and his team will be launching a new campaign to spread the Right to Buy. They will be taking that message to more than a million tenants this spring.

    I want you to help them spread that message. Help those people to know the pride of ownership. To have their very own piece of Britain. And to build up something for themselves and for their children.

    Better Education

    We must also give parents a bigger say in the education of their children. More schools are going grant maintained. All schools are running more of their own budgets. And I don’t expect to hear of Conservative councils standing in their way. We must always remember what we are fighting for – and what we are fighting against. In the 1980s, housing was the chosen battleground for the Left. The Right to Buy challenged their biggest power base. Why? Because it gave people what they wanted – independence and a stake in our country’s future. That policy brought great dividends to the Party, our Party which made it possible.

    Education is still a battleground for the Left and for the same reasons. Education can liberate. An educated person is hard to oppress. It is education above all that makes a society of opportunity and breaks the bonds of class. To parents it brings that most priceless gift: the certainty that their children will have better opportunities than they ever had.

    That’s why the Conservative Party – in central and local government alike – must recognise that our education reforms are the most vital of all for our country. Don’t listen to those who want to cloak exam results in secrecy. Don’t listen to those who want to keep parents locked outside the school gate. I won’t mince my words: the campaign against testing is a disgrace – a smokescreen thrown up to cover the disastrous results of failed educational theories.

    So let’s make parents and pupils the driving force in our schools. Let people in years to come look back and remember that it was we – we in this Party – who set the course for a revolution in the standard and quality of education. Who threw away the nostrums of the ’60s. Who let our teachers do the job as commonsense tells them best. There’s a lot at stake in this battle. So go out and win it.

    The Message of Conservatism

    This Spring, we face County Council elections. Take this message with you as you campaign.

    If you want to keep the Council Tax low, vote Conservative.

    If you want high standards in schools, vote Conservative.

    If you want local government that puts people first, vote Conservative.

    Our councillors know no equals in dedication, determination and commitment. You get involved to make things better. You don’t turn away and leave it to others. So don’t be bashful. Go and get out there. Tell them what you stand for. Tell them what you have achieved. Tell them what you plan for the future.

    That is what you’ve always done. That is why you win. And that is why you’ll deserve to win again on May 6th.

  • PMQT – 25 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th February 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on an official visit to the United States, which is clearly going extremely well.

    Mrs. Ewing : Will the Lord President of the Council accept that there has been a very warm welcome for the fact that the European Commission has designated the highlands and islands of Scotland as being eligible for objective 1 payments? This matter has been made all the more urgent by the fact that Ardersier is to be placed on a care and maintenance basis. Will the Lord President make it clear that the United Kingdom Government are to argue that the highlands and islands area to be covered by objective 1 should be the same as the highlands and islands enterprise area, which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and parts of my constituency? In both cases the economy is very fragile, and we need this assistance.

    Mr. Newton : The whole House will join the hon. Lady in welcoming the announcement that the highlands and islands have been included in the list of recommendations that the Commission is making for designation under objective 1 in the next round of the structural fund. Of course, those recommendations are still subject to scrutiny and to final decision by the Council of Ministers. In the discussions, the United Kingdom will certainly seek to ensure that the needs and interests of west Grampian and of Argyll and Bute are taken fully into account as efforts are made to achieve the best outcome for the highlands and islands.

    Mr. Dykes : As my right hon. Friend has said, the Prime Minister’s visit to President Clinton and the new American Government has been extremely successful. Can he confirm that we are resisting the rather unfair attacks on the Airbus, the excellent British and European aircraft, and on its related equipment being made by American manufacturers, bearing in mind the fact that American subventions for aircraft are much higher than those in Europe?

    Mr. Newton : I am not in a position to give details of every aspect of my right hon. Friend’s conversations, but I have no doubt that he has emphasised the British Government’s view on those matters.

    Mrs. Beckett : How would the right hon. Gentleman feel if he were serving in the British Army, under fire in Bosnia, and were handed a P45?

    Mr. Newton : The need to achieve balanced and well-considered reductions in the armed forces was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Armed Forces some months ago. It is appropriate that that exercise should be carried through in a balanced and fair way. Of course, there is no question of anybody becoming redundant while in Bosnia.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is it not a further example of the Government’s incompetence that one week they are reprieving regiments because the British Army is overstretched and the next they are making soldiers redundant? Are they not gratuitously undermining the morale of British troops in one of the most dangerous theatres of operation?

    Mr. Newton : It seems to me that, against the background of a need acknowledged by all parties to make some reductions in the armed forces, it is right that it should be carried out fairly and even handedly. It would be much more unfair to leave troops serving in Bosnia in a state of continuing uncertainty when the position is being clarified elsewhere.

    Mrs. Beckett : Surely it is adding insult to injury to make soldiers redundant when the Government know perfectly well that there are no jobs for them to come back to. Is he aware that in some parts of the country, as many as 2,000 people are chasing every job?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that the armed forces have extensive arrangements for assisting those whose services come under the heading that we are discussing and that the great majority of those who left in the previous phase of change in the armed forces have found jobs, and their skills enhanced their prospects of doing so.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will my right hon. Friend commend the action of the judge at Lancaster Crown court who imposed on four youths who were guilty of affray and other crimes–one of whom was on bail–an immediate custodial sentence, which will teach a salutary lesson to other gangs who choose to maraud?

    Mr. Newton : Without being familiar with every detail of the particular case, I endorse the general thrust of my hon. Friend’s remarks. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have her support and, I hope, that of the House when he issues further proposals shortly in respect of juvenile offenders and of those offending while on bail.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Leader of the House recall the Prime Minister’s commitment that under the citizens charter the public would be compensated when the authorities failed? Is he aware of today’s Treasury Committee report which concludes that the Bank of England has manifestly failed in its duty of supervision in the case of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Will the sufferers be compensated, or is this to be another example of “do as I say but not as I do”?

    Mr. Newton : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already carefully considered the implications of the Bingham report and made it clear that the Government do not believe that it would be right to offer compensation beyond that provided in general banking legislation under the statutory deposit protection scheme. Of course, my right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole will carefully study the report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I certainly do not expect them to change their conclusion.

    Mr. Richards : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s trade union reforms have completely transformed the industrial relations climate, and will he join me in welcoming to our policies the Johnny-come-latelys on the Opposition Benches no matter how belated their conversion?

    Mr. Newton : Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend and endorse what he says. The Opposition have opposed every significant piece of reform legislation that we have passed since 1979 in that connection, but have had to come to a grudging acceptance of them as their beneficial results become clear. We have a continuing flow of examples of investment coming into this country which has been helped in coming here by precisely those reforms.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bennett : I have here a few reports covering the past 14 years of Home Office Ministers assuring us that they would get tough on crime. Can the Leader of the House tell us how many promises were made and why they have not worked? Could it possibly be because of the sort of society that this Government have created, in which people have been encouraged to be selfish and to put self-interest first ; a society in which no one is expected to understand right or wrong, but merely whether one can get away with it, and in which Ministers are trained to say, “Not me, guv”?

    Mr. Newton : I would take that more easily from somebody who was not a representative of a party which has voted against or sought to weaken every substantial measure designed to tackle the problem : the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and, regularly, the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The test of the hon. Gentleman’s commitment will be how he votes when the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act comes again before the House shortly.

    Mr. Waterson : Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in my constituency of Eastbourne and throughout the country stand to benefit from the Housing and Urban Development Bill? Is it not a great pity that Opposition Members voted against it on Second and Third Readings?

    Mr. Newton : Yes it is, and it is typical of the way in which the Opposition so often fail to vote in the way that much of their rhetoric indicates that they should.

     

    Q3. Ms. Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Ms. Eagle : Does the Lord President of the Council agree with the views expressed yesterday by his colleague, Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that Britain’s withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism was a humiliation which could have been avoided if Britain had cut interest rates earlier and realigned earlier? Does he agree with me that Lord Lawson’s comments are hardly a ringing endorsement of his Government’s economic competence?

    Mr. Newton : No, I do not entirely share the views that my right hon. and noble Friend is reported to have expressed. I would have found it more credible coming from the hon. Lady if she had joined the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in referring to something that her constituents will benefit from–the inclusion of Merseyside in objective 1 status.

     

    Q4. Mr. Willetts : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Willetts : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the battle against over-regulation must be one of the Government’s highest priorities? Is it not absurd that health and safety regulations prohibit one of our leading physicists, who has written the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” entry on electricity, from changing a 13 amp plug in his own laboratory?

    Mr. Newton : It certainly sounds so on the face of it, but I had better undertake to look into the particular case, while agreeing entirely with my hon. Friend’s basic proposition, which is that we need precisely what is now being carried out by the Government–a thorough-going review of some aspects of over-regulation.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hoon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hoon : Since the Leader of the House is keen on talking about European Community funding, can he explain to Britain’s depressed regions why not one penny of the £1 billion that is available to this country from the EC in regional funding had been spent at the end of last year? Will he assure the House that all that £1 billion will be spent, together with the £2.5 billion matching funds that will be required in the next 10 months, and ensure that the money is spent in Britain on helping our depressed regions rather than being lost to other countries?

    Mr. Newton : The Government fully comply with the Community’s rules in these matters and have every intention of making that even clearer than, evidently, it is to the hon. Gentleman.

     

    Q6. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Evennett : Has my right hon. Friend observed that on average council tax in Labour authorities will be £100 higher than in Conservative authorities and will he pass that information on to the Prime Minister when he returns from his successful trip to the United States? Furthermore, does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative councils are efficient and effective, while Labour councils just cost the people more?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, I have noticed such reports. There is a remarkable correlation between high levels of council tax and Labour control, and between low levels of council tax and Conservative control. If there is any risk of that lesson being missed, we shall ensure that the electorate are made aware of it between now and the local elections in May.

    Mr. Home Robertson : May I take the Leader of the House back to the question of the redundant soldiers? What does he say to Royal Scots serving in Northern Ireland, and members of the Cheshire Regiment serving in Bosnia, whom I met last week, who applied for voluntary redundancy on the understanding that their regiments were to be amalgamated and who would now like to have the opportunity to withdraw their redundancy applications? It is not good enough to say that they have the right to appeal. Under the new circumstances, they should have the right to stay in the Army and should not be issued with P45s.

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces tells me that that matter was the subject of exchanges in yesterday’s debate and that he made the position clear to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) then. I am certainly not going to add to that now.

  • PMQT – 11 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Heppell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Heppell : Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the impartiality of Independent Television News is threatened by the appointment as its next chairman of Mr. Michael Green, a known Conservative supporter and Conservative donor? Or does the Prime Minister share the views of his predecessor and ask himself, as she did, “Is he one of us?”

    The Prime Minister : No, I do not think that the impartiality of ITN is at all threatened by the appointment of Mr. Green, any more than I would question the impartiality of many programmes whose presenters may have one or other political opinion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of one single militant teacher trade union which proposes to ballot its membership to boycott all tests [Interruption.] –Yes, all tests associated with the national curriculum? Will he also join me in saying just how damaging that would be to the education of the nation’s children?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that point, and I thoroughly condemn the union concerned. I believe that it will be seen by parents as a concerted attack on the rights of pupils and their parents to know what progress the pupils are making in their education at their individual schools. I very much hope that the teachers of that union will reject the proposition put before them.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not a deplorable indictment of Conservative government that during the Conservative years crime has more than doubled? What action does the Prime Minister propose to take to protect our citizens from the crime wave that is sweeping the nation?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to want to put the blame for everything on the shoulders of the Government– quite apart from the view expressed by his shadow home affairs spokesman this morning. Let me illustrate for the right hon. and learned Gentleman some of the things that we have done. There has been the passage of the Public Order Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, both Criminal Justice Acts, the Prison Security Act and the Act to ban joy riding, every one of which was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party.

    Mr. Smith : Has the Prime Minister noticed that, whatever he claims to do or to have done, the crime rate rises consistently year after year? Does he think it remotely tolerable that, according to the Government’s crime survey, there are about 25,000 break-ins in this country every week? When will he do something about protecting our citizens from that?

    The Prime Minister : I note that there was no pledge from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to support legislation that we brought forward in previous years or to support us in the future in dealing with crime. Crime has increased ever since the second world war, under all Governments. Our record in combating crime is comparable with that of other countries in western Europe. This trend has been seen year after year, but it is not a matter which can be dealt with just by legislation. I doubt whether any other Government would have provided for the police the resources that the present Government have provided. Certainly, no other Government would have sided with the victim against the villain in the way that the present Government have.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night Gloucestershire county council set a budget £10 million over its standard spending assessment? Does he know that Gloucestershire county council has debts of £25 million but has no plans substantially to reduce that figure? Does my right hon. Friend agree that plans should be made immediately to see that Gloucestershire county council seeks to reduce its debts so that money can be spent on education rather than on debt servicing?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is regrettable that any authority should set an excessive budget. We have made it clear that we shall not hesitate in any way to cap such budgets. It is open to local authorities to set new, lower budgets, and I very much hope that Gloucestershire county council will do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Barnes : I was interested in the Prime Minister’s initial reply about his engagements for today, but what about his engagements for tomorrow? My Representation of the People (Amendment ) Bill seeks to put the missing millions back on the electoral register and to secure access to polling stations for disabled people. Will the Prime Minister be around tomorrow to vote in support of that measure, and will he bring his friends with him? I know that he needs all the friends that he can get nowadays?

    The Prime Minister : I shall, in fact, be in my constituency meeting those friends.

    Mr. Elletson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conviction of the IRA terrorist Jimmy Canning represents a real success for the security services? Will he join me in congratulating those services in putting that murderous thug behind bars?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that that will be the wish of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. I am happy to congratulate both the Crown prosecution service and the Metropolitan police.

    Mr. Ashdown : While the Vance-Owen plan extracts the very best out of the terrible opportunities left open to us in Bosnia, does the Prime Minister realise that this is not a peace of which either he or other western leaders can be proud? It is their failure which has resulted in a price being paid in the dismemberment of the Muslim community, the disintegration of a state which was recognised by the United Nations, and reward for the aggressors. Does the Prime Minister understand that while we must all hope for peace in Bosnia, our hopes for peace in Europe will depend on our learning the lessons of this miserable affair?

    The Prime Minister : I regret that the right hon. Gentleman continues to take a wholly negative view of the enormous amount that has been done to seek a satisfactory peace in Yugoslavia. What is significant is the remarkable co-operation between the United States, the European Community and the United Nations in seeking to bring that conflict to an end. The best way forward, and the only credible way forward that has yet been found, is the Vance-Owen plan, which we strongly support. I very much welcome the policy statement from the United States Government earlier this week.

    Mr. Moss : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three councils in Cambridgeshire–East Cambridgeshire, South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire–which recently announced a zero component for the district council portion of the new council tax? How is it that some councils can deliver a highly effective service to their taxpayers while others, such as Harlow, are gross overspenders? Could it be because the Cambridgeshire councils are not controlled by Labour?

    The Prime Minister : I think that there are two answers. First, the councils are efficient ; secondly, they are not run by the Socialist party.

     

    Q4. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley : Does the Prime Minister not think it scandalous that at a time when the Health Department budget has been put into the public sector spending review and when prescription charges are about to be increased by 10 per cent., the West Midlands and Wessex health authorities have been allowed to squander £67 million on renting luxury homes in London, on air travel, on entertainment and on corrupt computer deals involving former Cabinet Ministers?

    The Prime Minister : I have no intention of commenting on the detailed points made by the hon. Gentleman. There are adequate ways of making sure that they are examined. As to the health budget and all other budgets, one reason for undertaking a fundamental review is to make sure that taxpayers’ money is well spent and that it is spent first on those areas that most require the expenditure.

    Mr. Allason : When my right hon. Friend undertakes his review of European regulations that are handicapping British industry, will he turn his attention to the tourist industry and consult the Torbay environmental health officer who requires every hotelier in Torbay to check, monitor and register the temperature of every deep freeze in every premises three times a day on penalty of prosecution? Is that not exactly the kind of daft regulation that we should get rid of?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that regulation to my attention. I will ensure that it is examined. There are many regulations that we could usefully manage without. The intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to identify them so that we can remove them.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hutton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Hutton : Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities and national health service trusts are currently being forced to cancel operations and close wards because of the inadequacies, and in some cases the mismanagement, of NHS resources? Is he aware, in particular, that in my constituency Roose hospital, which provides excellent geriatric care for elderly people, is being forced to close? Will he tell the House what measures will be taken to ensure that such hospitals stay open? How does he believe it helps health care for hospitals such as Roose to close?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the increased resources for health authorities–spending of £36 billion this year and planned spending of more than £37 billion next year ; an increase in national health service expenditure by up to 57 per cent. ; and an increase in the number of people treated. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the health authorities and the health service on that remarkable record.

     

    Q6. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Robertson : Does my right hon. Friend agreed that it is the job of Government to attack cartels, cliques and vested interests–cartels in trade unions, cliques in Labour-controlled local authorities and vested interests that support the vast majority of Labour Members?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly suspect that my hon. Friend has struck a sore spot. Every member of the shadow Cabinet is sponsored by a trade union, two thirds of the votes at the Labour conference are still wielded by trade unions; they will not support our tests in the schools because that is what the National Union of Teachers wants, they oppose our reforms on health because that is what the Council of Health Services Employees wants, and they fight competitive tendering because that is what the National Union of Public Employees wants. There is no doubt whose pockets they are in.

    Mr. Faulds : Has no one– [Interruption.] Cheeky little pup.

    Madam Speaker : Order. I recollect that “Erskine May” does not allow that sort of language.

    Mr. Faulds : “Cheeky little pup” is a term of endearment, Madam Speaker. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Cyprus– [Interruption.] –rather, the Vance-Owen plan– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down.

    Mr. Faulds : Bosnia is not a laughing matter– [Interruption.] Those idiots on the Government Benches. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Vance-Owen plan as now drawn up is unacceptable because it rewards Serbian ethnic cleansing and is in danger of creating a Palestinian-type situation within a quarter of a century? Will the Prime Minister for once listen to reasonable advice from America, and will he understand that that plan can become acceptable only if the Serbian aggression is held, if the danger to the Bosnian Muslims and their territory is removed, and if war criminals in Yugoslavia are brought to proper trial?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has set out many of the matters which have been our policy for some time and were reiterated earlier this week by the American Administration–in particular, the point about war crimes. We have also supported–and others are now joining us in doing so–increased and hardened sanctions, particularly along the Danube, to put further pressure on the Serbs. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the map is not yet a settled matter. Nevertheless, there have been very dramatic improvements towards peace as a result of the Owen-Vance proposals. We need to continue to pursue those, and to continue to put pressure on each of the combatants until they reach a conclusion which will be satisfactory, which can be policed properly and which can bring the dreadful conflict to an end.

  • PMQT – 28 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making official visits to India, Saudi Arabia and Oman. I am pleased to advise the House that, following discussions with the Sultan of Oman, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that Oman is to purchase the Challenger 2 as its new main battle tank, together with its armoured repair and recovery vehicles. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating Vickers Defence Systems on its well-deserved success in the first export order for Challenger 2.

    Mr. Burns : Notwithstanding that extremely good news, on a slightly different subject, has my right hon. Friend had time today to see the deeply disturbing allegations of fraud in Hackney, coming on top of the discovery of possibly record local government fraud in the Labour London borough of Lambeth? Will he assure the House of the Government’s determination to root out the systematic cheating and defrauding of charge payers?

    Mr. Newton : Yes. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend of our determination in that respect and I have no doubt that we shall be joined in it by the Opposition Front Bench. I have also, I may say, been doing some research on what the commentators have been saying and I came across this one which said :

    “in many areas Labour local government is lacklustre and incompetent. In a few it is simply corrupt and nepotistic. “This is nothing new. Ineffectual or rotten Labour councils … have been a feature of British political life for as long as anyone can remember”.

    That was in Tribune .

    Mrs. Beckett rose–

    Mr. Cryer : If that was in Tribune what about New Statesman ?

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is the Lord President aware that the December trade deficit of more than £1.5 billion is the worst for two and a half years and that whatever gloss he may put on it, the country is still in deep recession and deep trouble with no sign that the Government are prepared to do anything about it?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that the trade figures recently have shown that for the first time for a very long time our share of world trade in manufactures has stabilised and that the figures– [Interruption.] that is, after decades of decline. The figures today, which inevitably reflect to some extent the consequence on import prices of the depreciation of the pound, also show that export volumes were at record levels for the three months to December ; they were up 5.5 per cent. on the year before in the face of a slowdown in world trade, and there are particularly encouraging signs of a continuing increase in car and other manufactured exports.

    Mrs. Beckett : I suppose that that was the gloss. The reality is that, despite a huge devaluation, exports this month are down, while imports continue to rise. That is unprecedented during a recession. Is it not the case that we now have a payments deficit and a budget deficit, and that, for the past three years, 400 people have lost their jobs every day in London alone? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the people of Britain are worried sick about this, and that the only people who are not are the Government?

    Mr. Newton : The reality is that inflation is at its lowest for six years, that interest rates are at their lowest for 15 years, that productivity is at an all-time high and that all surveys show an increase in business confidence. As I said on Tuesday, it is time that the Opposition stopped trying to talk that confidence down again.

     

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Amess : Crime in Basildon has fallen over the past year. Does my right hon. Friend think it right for a mass murderer to be interviewed on television about his crimes, on the grounds that it is of educational value and in the public interest, when common sense tells us that it might well put ideas into the mind of a disturbed person? Does my right hon. Friend think that right? The majority of my constituents in Basildon do not.

    Mr. Newton : I think that I can safely say that the same is likely to go for the majority of my constituents in Braintree. I can do no better than reply to my hon. Friend by referring to what my vigorous right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said on the radio this morning. He said :

    “it is in my opinion contrary to public interest for somebody who is a mass murderer of his kind”–

    of Nilsen’s kind, that is– [Laughter.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Very amusing, but I think that the Leader of the House wants to get on.

    Mr. Newton : The Leader of the House wants to complete the quotation, Madam Speaker.

    My right hon. and learned Friend said that it was wrong for “a mass murderer of his kind to be allowed publicly to relate his offences in this way–it’s bad taste, bad judgment and it’s totally insensitive to the feelings of the victims of people he killed”.

    Mr. Ashdown : If things are so wonderful, as the Leader of the House claims, will he tell us whether he can recall a time when any Government have presided over unemployment of 3 million, while borrowing £1 billion a week and running up a trade deficit that is heading towards £20 billion a year? Is not that, by any standards, the mark of an economic policy that is floundering and a Government who have failed?

    Mr. Newton : I am somewhat surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman joining Labour Front Benchers in their exercise of talking the economy down again. I repeat that the conditions for recovery are in place, and confidence is growing. I would expect to have the right hon. Gentleman’s support in ensuring that that continues.

    Mr. Dickens : Will my right hon. Friend welcome the reduction in interest rates that was announced this week? It has saved British industry £1 billion. Is it not particularly helpful for our manufacturing industry, and to all those with mortgages and overdrafts? Is not some good news coming out of all the gloom? [Interruption.]

    Mr. Newton rose–

    Madam Speaker : Order. All this hilarity is a waste of valuable question time.

    Mr. Newton : The reduction in interest rates is indeed extremely good news. My hon. Friend might have extended the point that he made in his question by saying that, with the interest reductions that have taken place since 1990, we have seen £11 billion cut off the costs of British industry, and £160 off an average mortgage payment.

     

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Martlew : Will the Leader of the House inform the Prime Minister, when he returns, that in the western part of the United Kingdom there is a great deal of concern about the fact that the Government are failing to give British Rail the necessary resources to upgrade the west coast main line? Does he agree that, without that investment, the economies of the west midlands, north Wales, the north-west of England, Cumbria, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be grossly disadvantaged? Does the Leader of the House agree also that it would be nonsensical for the Prime Minister to underestimate the political influence of areas that account for one third of Members of Parliament?

    Mr. Newton : Should I be able to find the necessary extensive opportunity, in the wake of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I shall, of course, report his views to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have no doubt, however, that my right hon. Friend will disagree with the hon. Gentleman just as much as I do, against the background of the fact that British Rail’s external financing limit next year is to be nearly £1.5 billion.

     

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Rathbone : May I ask my right hon. Friend to request the Prime Minister to review the policies of the British Government and of the European Community towards Israel in the light of the horrible deportations that have taken place there and of the upholding of those deportations by the Israeli supreme court yesterday, and thus bring pressure on the Israeli Government to accept as swiftly as possible United Nations Security Council resolution 799?

    Mr. Newton : It is obvious from the response to my hon. Friend’s question that his concern is widely shared in the House. He will know that the British Government continue to urge the Israelis to comply with United Nations Security Council resolution 799. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sent a personal message to the Israeli Foreign Minister last week, and they will meet in Brussels on 1 February, when, as my right hon. Friend has already told the House, he will emphasise the need for the Israeli Government to take urgent steps to solve the problem of the deportees.

     

    Q5. Mr. Gunnell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Gunnell : Will the Leader of the House give his estimate of the total number of jobs, in both the public and the private sectors, that are at risk through rail privatisation? Does he agree with Lord Prior’s assessment that there will be 12,000 potential job losses in the areas of rolling stock and signalling? While I welcome the news for Leeds about the Challenger tank, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he agrees that more Yorkshire jobs will be lost in railway engineering factories in Hunslet, York, Wakefield and Doncaster as a result of these threats, unless there is action within weeks, rather than months or years?

    Mr. Newton : I do not agree. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend’s proposals for rail privatisation and the development of competition are the best means of ensuring an effective and efficient railway system and of guaranteeing jobs for many people in the long term. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that his area, Leeds, and Newcastle, because of the Vickers presence there, are among those that will benefit from the work that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done on his visit abroad.

     

    Q6. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Sir Michael Neubert : Will my right hon. Friend spare some sympathy today for our Community partners, the Irish, whose traditional luck seems temporarily to have deserted them? Whereas Irish overnight interest rates have gone up to 100 per cent., we in liberated Britain have the lowest rates for 15 years, to the great benefit of business, industry and millions of home owners.

    Mr. Newton : I very much share the pleasure that my hon. Friend has expressed in what we have been able to do over interest rates. It shows that we are now moving in the sort of direction that both British industry and the whole of the British people want to see in achieving economic recovery.

  • Mr Major’s speech to the 1992 Local Government Conference – 7 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to The Conservative Local Government Conference on Saturday 7th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Britain is fortunate in the dedication of her Councillors and her council officers. This Party is particularly fortunate. Let me start by thanking you for all you do.

    When I spoke to this Conference last year I referred to my own period in local government. I learnt then that being a Councillor is not easy, it means commitment. It can mean days – weeks – of spare time surrendered, late nights – perhaps after a long day. Meals snatched, sleep lost, problems coming at all hours. Every one of them urgent to those who face them. Councillors must sort them out, without fuss, often without thanks, usually without personal assistance. There are no deputising services for Councillors – no-one to stand in for you. It’s your name in the Council book.

    So it isn’t easy I know. But I hope you will go on working for your communities. Because a properly conducted local council, the kind which so many of you here influence or control, can have a greater impact on the quality of life for most people than central government itself. And the converse is also true – a poorly conducted Council means more than inconvenience for its tenants, schools, and residents. As we have seen in far too many inner city areas, it can bring them to the very edge of despair.

    Every voter should remember that at the local elections in May. There’s only one way to be sure of value for money, quality service, and priorities that match public needs. To vote Conservative. And that’s what we must persuade them to do.

    Across the world Socialism is dying. We must help it on its way in this country too.

    Together, we must take municipal socialism, designer socialism, closet socialism, the whole paraphernalia of this modern Labour Party, and send it packing. And, while we’re about it – since they agree so much – let’s send the Liberal Party along with them.

    As we’ve moved towards an Election, we’ve faced a barrage of strident Labour campaigns. I’m relaxed about that. But the public expect and deserve reasoned debate. And we must make sure that they get it. So we’ll concentrate on policy, compete on policy, and we will win on policy.

    A Conservative victory is crucial for Britain. Crucial because we want to take our country forward – not slip back into old habits, long discarded. Crucial because Britain is ready to come out of recession – and only a Conservative Government can bring it out. In present world conditions, there is no quick fix. I wish there were – but the plain fact is that there isn’t. Across the globe some of the strongest economies have slowed. Britain cannot evade the effects.

    Succeeding in the 1990s will take hard work. Keeping inflation down. Keeping taxes low. Offering incentives to those with the will to succeed. Doing all the things we’ve done in a decade in which the face of Britain has been changed immeasurably for the better.

    It is high time some of Britain’s home-grown critics stopped talking her down. Just think what we’ve achieved in changing the everyday lifestyle of the average Briton.

    Whereas in 1979 one in eight of young people went into higher education, it’s now one in four. And soon it will be one in three.

    Whereas less than half of all pensioners had a telephone, it’s now five in every six.

    Where just over half our families owned their own home, it’s now nearly seven out of ten.

    Where just one home in a hundred had a video recorder, it’s now more than two out of three.

    Where only one in twenty had shares, it’s now one in three.

    And where we did some 3000 heart by-pass operations, it’s well over 14,000 today. Where only 3 heart transplants, it’s over 300 today. Where not one single person had a personal pension, now over four and a half million do.

    I don’t believe people will tolerate attempts to write off a country that’s made such progress as if it was some kind of banana republic. Banana republic? Bananas.

    The truth is we’ve taken giant strides forward. But we can go much further. New expansion and new prosperity lie within our grasp.

    What the country needs now, above all, is confidence. Self-confidence. Confidence in our future. And if confidence in business is to grow, there’s nothing will make it grow faster than a Conservative victory at the next General Election.

    All the other ingredients for recovery are in place. So we must make sure that we’re back in place. To build prosperity in the ‘90s. And with a clear majority.

    Any other outcome would shatter Britain’s prospects. If you were inventing a policy to destroy confidence, where would you start?

    You’d start with higher taxes. Higher inflation. Higher interest rates. New levies and new surcharges. A green light for the trade unions. A minimum wage policy tailor-made to destroy jobs. The wilful upending of every existing policy – simply because it’s there.

    In other words you’d start with Socialism. Such policies would be a disaster for every family. A disaster for every business, a disaster for every community. Labour’s tax and spending plans are the road back to the day before yesterday. They would put a ball and chain around our ankles. Shackle our country, as we are fighting to compete in a challenging world.

    They simply haven’t the wit to see that if you grab people’s money, if you hit people’s hopes, if you block people’s choice, then you don’t just blight the prospects of the families themselves. You risk the whole future of our country.

    Take education, a crucial local government service. What could be more important than getting the best schooling for all our children?

    What our Party stands for is commonsense in the classroom.

    Proven teaching methods. The learning of basic skills. Proper reward for the best teachers. That’s what our new Review Body will bring.

    We want local management for schools, a trend led by my own county council in Cambridgeshire, and backed by Conservative councils across the country.

    We want what our Citizen’s Charter guarantees. More power for parents. A report for every parent on how their child is doing. Regular inspection of their school and a sight of the inspector’s report.

    And we want better choice for parents. We’ve given them the right to send their children to the school they like. Now we need to tell them how that school performs. Then every parent can compare them – and can choose the best, the most appropriate for their child. Such a decision is far too important to be left to the chances of school gate gossip.

    I want children to have the kind of education that best equips them for life. Helps them understand what it’s all about, gives them the chance to enjoy it, helps them make the most of it. That’s why we want variety in education. Because our children deserve it.

    That’s why we want good comprehensive schools teaching on the right principles.

    Why we’ve given every school more control over their future.

    Why we’re bringing quality and hope into the inner cities with the new Technology Colleges.

    Why we’re helping bright children from every background through the assisted places scheme.

    Why we also defend the rights of independent schools. And why we’ll back any council that puts standards first in everything they do.

    Our agenda on education is straightforward. The best for every child, the best from every child.

    Who on earth could oppose these ideas? I’ll tell you who. Those educational ostriches who bury their heads in the sand. Who can’t see around them the desert that a generation of Left-wing ideas has created in far too many of our schools.

    I find it hard to understand such bunkered attitudes. And so, in the campaigns ahead, will every parent, every grandparent, every would-be parent in Britain. Every person who wants the best for their children and grandchildren will reject Labour’s plans to turn back the clock.

    For theirs are not the actions of a party that cares; they are the actions of a party that scares.

    That is not our way. We want all our children to enjoy opportunity and choice throughout their lives. That means levelling up. And saying no to levelling down.

    The levelling down brigade have just one last outside chance to renew their experiments on our children. The return of a Labour Government. We must – and we will – deny them that chance. For our children. And for their children, too.

    There are many reasons for the Conservatives winning the next General Election. But few are better than Labour’s attitudes to the education of the men and women of tomorrow.

    Yesterday Ken Baker announced details of our plans for a National Lottery. It’s expected to raise £1 billion net a year. That money will be used for improvements throughout Britain – on projects that could never take priority over the first calls on taxation – the National Health Service, education, pensions and defence.

    It will help us to preserve our heritage, safeguard our great buildings, and create a legacy for future generations. We will be able to help young artists, actors, and musicians; improve our galleries and museums; provide matching funds for new charitable causes; help Britain’s Olympic bid for the year 2000 succeed. The prospects are limitless.

    Who doesn’t wake to a thrill of pride when we beat the world at sport? How much better we could do if we gave the right training to the champions of the future, who in their turn will inspire a whole generation of the young. I want to see the fund being used to find more Gooches, more McColgans, more Linekers, more Carlings, more facilities for our young athletes right across the board.

    We won’t produce a Wimbledon champion without a real commitment to tennis. And we won’t produce the Currys or the Torvills and Deans if we don’t have ice rinks.

    We marvel at the skill of young Russian and Rumanian gymnasts. But our youngsters have the same talent, the same ambitions. Give them the same opportunities and support – and watch them go for gold.

    I want to do better still for all our young people, champions and beginners alike. I’ve long believed in a National Lottery. Well, now we’re going to have it. And with it a better Britain, for the charities, the artists, and the sportsmen of tomorrow.

    I sense a powerful revival of local pride in our country. Greater interest in our heritage. Concern for our long-term future. I believe those attitudes will mean a growth in interest in local government at all levels – from parish to county.

    It will be a time for councils that innovate and adapt. For those that listen and don’t dictate. That help their communities and don’t insist on doing everything themselves. It will be a time for councils that keep charges on their citizens low. A time for Conservatives. In other words – you.

    There will, of course, be changes. Conservative Councils are already taking the lead in new ways of managing local government. Cutting back on red tape. Bringing in private sector skills. Rigorously conducting performance review.

    That is the right way forward. The way that will enable local government to enter the next century with the same self-confidence that it had at the start of this one.

    As I said there will be changes. But we are proceeding cautiously with discussions on structural change. We want the new Local Government Commission to listen to your views, and the views of the people you represent in a way that’s never been done before.

    This week, in Wales, David Hunt suggested important changes. These reflected lengthy discussion among councils and public alike.

    Whatever changes the Commission may recommend for England must reflect your views. We are not seeking to impose any single blueprint. But I’ll make one thing clear. I don’t believe that some of the bodies created in the 70s have captured public loyalty in any way. Local pride draws from deeper wells. Older traditions. That’s where public affinities lie.

    I cannot predict the outcome of this review. It is necessary for all of you to take part in the debate. But two promises I can give you.

    There will be no return to the wasteful GLC and super-metropolitan bodies of which Labour became so fond.

    And we will not bring in costly regional assemblies in England, as Labour and Liberals propose.

    There is no case for such assemblies. There is only one reason why these are on the Labour and Liberal agenda – to mask the fact that their self-seeking devolution strategies for Scotland and Wales are falling apart. They know that people don’t want these unnecessary assemblies, but they want people to have them because that suits their own political interests in Scotland. In England, people don’t want such an unnecessary new tier of local bureaucracy. And there will be no place for them under a Conservative Government.

    This is a watershed for local government. A time for a new start. The Town Hall should be a forum for the whole community, not a fortress for one political ideology.

    Huge damage has been done to local government by political posturing. High spending councils destroyed the credibility of domestic rates. High spending councils undermined the principle of the community charge. Too often the result of their actions has been tension between town hail and centre. I regret that. I want to put it all behind us. I want to rebuild the historic partnership between us. It has always been the strength of this Party. Together. That is the right way for us to work.

    The new Council tax – now passed by Parliament – will provide a lasting basis for stability in council finance. It preserves the principle, the just principle, that the widow living on her own should pay less than three adults next door. Of course, our opponents say they would repeal it. They promise a return to the rates. Back to yesterday again. Well, by all means let Labour go to the doorsteps and campaign for the rates. That’s another sure way they’ll lose.

    Your elections in May are vital. Labour councils have always been careless with the public’s money. What was it Tony Crosland said ‘The party’s over’.

    But that’s not Labour’s message today. No. ‘The party’s on’. That’s Bryan Gould’s message. Open season on the pockets of the public.

    The party would be on again alright – in Labour Town Halls up and down the country. But the public wouldn’t be getting the invitations – they’d be getting the bills.

    Can you imagine what would happen if the loony Left – and too many loonies still are left – if those people ever got to work with Labour’s plans?

    No controls on spending.

    The Audit Commission abolished.

    Competitive tendering abandoned. Councils allowed, in Mr Gould’s own words, to do ‘anything they want’. Anything? Anything?

    Just imagine it. Lambeth free of spending control. Haringey allowed to do anything they want.

    Anything they want? Why don’t Labour councils just get on with what the public want?

    Collecting the rents.

    Finding people homes in empty council property.

    Taking politics out of the classroom.

    Collecting the rubbish – not talking it.

    Backing the police, not running them down.

    They tell us the extremists have gone from Labour town Halls. If only they had. Gone quiet, maybe. But not gone, as all too many of you know. And if ever Mr Gould’s ‘do what you like, spend what you like’ policy gave them a chance, Labour’s extremists would be out of the woodwork so fast you’d think chemicals were being injected. A case of Rentokil meets Rent-a-mob, if ever there was one.

    At this conference we see the responsible face of local government. The true face of local government that has served our country well. Too many local councils have drifted away from the public. Become remote; sometimes resented. I want us to see more of the right people attracted onto local councils. I want us to restore the friendly face of local government. That must be our aim for the 1990s.

    And we will succeed in that aim by working on Conservative principles. Principles of public service. Principles shaped by open minds and steady hands. Principles of leadership.

    One thing must not change. The Conservative Party belongs to the people. It is, quite simply, on the people’s side.

    It is an historic choice that Britain faces this year. Five hundred years after the new world of America was discovered, the ancient continent of Europe is rediscovering its destiny. Just as in 1492, it is a new world that we see opening before us. A single market in our community. A single continent after generations of division and of strife.

    And, as ancient nations are reborn as democratic states, as hope is rekindled, it is plain to see that the rebirth of our continent is rooted in something far older than the froth and frenzy of Socialist philosophy. What has Socialism done in this century throughout the world. Socialism in this century has sown seeds of envy, division, and spite. Seeds that have borne bitter fruit in countless ways in the lives of countless millions.

    But now that rotten fruit is dropping from the trees. What you hear is the dying fall of Socialism. The springtime of a new Europe. Founded on lasting free market principles. On freedom. On wealth creation. On the responsibility, to others and for others, that this Party and those who support it always affirm. On the right to own. And the power to choose.

    Under the Conservative Party, throughout the 1980s, Britain under Margaret Thatcher, stood firm when the wind was still cold from the East. The stand that we made in those difficult times helped to make the new Europe possible. And it is this new Europe we are beginning to shape now.

    Yes. In a Conservative Britain you do – and you will – have the power to choose. To choose between the past, the old ways, the rabble and rubble of Socialism. Or the future, the way of hope, the way of partnership, the way of prosperity – the Conservative way, where welfare and wealth creation for all the people go hand in hand. A true partnership with the people. I know that in 1992, wherever that choice is made, it is to our way that the people of Britain will turn. And with our Conservative Party that they will stand, and fight, and win.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Local Government Conference – 2 March 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference made on Saturday 2nd March 1991 at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Gulf

    Mr Chairman, over the last few weeks the conflict in the Gulf has been uppermost in all our minds. Thousands of young men and women from the communities you represent took part in the battle to free Kuwait. Some gave their lives in that cause and all of us have been touched by their loss. Our hearts go out to their families and friends. We will never forget those young men. Nor will we forget what each of those out there in the Gulf has accomplished. Our duty now is to work for a peace worthy of their achievement and to bring those men home as soon as possible. I know this Conference will pay tribute to their courage.

    I am delighted to be with you today. I began my political career in local government some time ago. And I am proud of that. I enjoyed it. I learned a lot from it. Local government is important. It is just as much a trust to be elected as a councillor as to hold office in the Government. Because to be elected is to undertake obligations. That is the trust. And it is something that no-one in politics must ever forget.

    Lessons from Lambeth: Conservative and Labour compared

    Many years ago, I became Chairman of housing in what was then Conservative Lambeth. And I had good reason to know the housing problems far too many people faced. Indeed in some ways I had shared them. I knew that it was the duty of a Conservative council to help. To help obtain for people what they wanted, not provide for them what the Courcil wanted. We were innovators. We built in Lambeth council houses for sale. We opened the first ever Housing Aid Centre. And we took housing officers out to meet the people of Lambeth face to face and hear their problems. And very interesting meetings some of those turned out to be too.

    Few people wrote then about what was happening in Lambeth. It was quiet work and efficient – typically Conservative, in fact. How things changed under Labour. Then Lambeth became famous. Famous for putting politics before people, personal ambition before public service. Famous for red flags flying over the Town Hall. For bureaucracy blossoming, while services withered away. For costs surging through the roof, while quality was kicked out of the window. The very worst in local government. That’s Labour’s legacy.

    And, sadly, not only in Lambeth. Camden and lslington; Haringey and Hackney; Derbyshire and Liverpool. All Labour Councils. And all bywords for incompetence and waste. Each of them proving that Labour local government – like Labour national Government – never works. It never has. And, what’s more, it never will.

    Commitment to, principle of local government: aims of local government

    Mr Chairman, we are here for one reason. Not just because we have served or do serve in local government. But because we care about it. Because we know that when it operates well local government is the best way to see that local services fit local needs. Up and down the country Conservative councillors, like those of you here today, have shown what good local government can mean. You have put in long hours and made many sacrifices. You can be proud of what you have achieved.

    But seeing that local services fit local needs doesn’t mean councils must themselves provide every service. Far from it. I believe in the principle of the enabling council. A council that acts on behalf of the public, not the providers. Its job is to ensure that good services are delivered, seek out new methods, and call in specialist skills, wherever those are needed. Its job is to buy in the best quality at the best price, whether from its own workforce or outside, and then to put it to the benefit of its local community. That enabling role is the key to good local government.

    But if councils are to be confident and perform well, they must also be secure about their role. They need certainty. They need to know what their tasks are. I am determined to see a stable and lasting framework created for local government in the 1990s. And by that I mean a structure that is effective and will endure. A system of finance that is sustainable. For only that will attract people of high calibre into local service. No-one here should be in any doubt. Good local government will be vital in this Governments strategy to widen opportunity and spread responsibility throughout the country.

    Past achievements of Conservatives in local government

    No-one should question our commitment to that aim. This Party was the principal architect of modern local government.

    – from the enhancement of Victorian city centres:

    – through the social improvements of Neville Chamberlain and others in the first half of this century;

    – to the new ideas and methods of public service pioneered by Conservative Councils today.

    This Government will support all of you in building on that great tradition of reform.

    Need to look to the long-term, not immediate worries

    The last twenty-five years have not been easy for local government. Amidst many pressures it has been damaged. The infiltration of the Loony Left and the shifty centre into too many of our town halls has seen to that.

    Local Government has become too defensive, too inward-looking, too much obsessed with means and too little about ends. Over the next years I want us to look again to the longer-term role of local councils. I want to chart out a fresh vision and a better course for local government.

    Finance: cutting costs and relieving needs, attack on non-payment

    Many of you, of course, are already involved in the debate about finance. Michael Portillo has already discussed that with you this morning. I want to make just three points today:

    First, no system of local government finance can last if the public think their money is being wasted and their services are poor. More Conservative Councils are proving to the public that charges can be cut, yet services developed further. They deserve our praise for that. And the rest of our Party must follow their lead.

    Secondly, we have already made considerable efforts to see that most help with local costs goes to those who most need that help. We are now improving support for those whose bills were most affected by change through the Community Charge Reduction Scheme.

    Take Lancashire, for example, where as we all know particular problems were faced. There, the relief available next year for couples living in smaller properties – half average rateable value – will in some cases be up to £500. On average across the nation people will pay £100 less than the headline community charge. The help we are giving will benefit some 18 million people nationwide. It deserves to be far better known. And in the next few weeks we must ensure that it is.

    The point I will make on finance is this. Conservatives help people in need in practical ways and with practical solutions. How different from those in the Labour Party who posture about solidarity, but push others into breaking the law. Non-payment can be justified in no circumstances. Never by Labour councillors claiming attendance allowances paid out of the community charge. And least of all by Labour MPs. What they don’t pay, others less well off have to pay for them.

    It is a disgrace that Labour MP after Labour MP is trooping into the courts to proclaim his defiance of the law. Of this I’m sure: those who break the law have no right to make the law. It should be a source of lasting shame to the Labour Party and its Leader that no action has been taken to crack down on behaviour like theirs.

    Bad management discredits local government

    But it’s not just over the community charge that Labour leadership has failed. Labour Council after Labour Council and Liberal Council after Liberal Council has wasted the public’s money and let their services run down. You all know some of the examples:

    – The council that spent millions of pounds on a new civic centre – and forgot to include a council chamber. Big spending on bureaucracy; no accountability to the public. The very model of modern Labour local government.

    – There was the council that lost over £5 million in running a time-share operation. Only the Labour Party could give the time-share sharks a good name.

    – And then there was the council that sent a member and an officer on a fact-finding trip about football. What a coincidence that the trip was to Italy during the 1990 World Cup. Labour’s version of the penalty shoot-out; the council shoot out to the sun; and the public pay the penalty.

    It is this sort of nonsense that has cast discredit on local government. Because of this sort of nonsense the good work of the many has been missed among the excesses of the few.

    The Conservative Agenda: less government, more service

    We in this Party must now set a new agenda, provide reforming leadership, and rebuild confidence in local government. Many of you have already begun. Conservative Councils have led the way in cutting back bureaucracy, bringing in private sector skills, and concentrating attention on service to the public.

    But we need to do more. There are still attitudes that are wrong. Still too many who see competitive tendering as a threat. Still too many who think the answer to a problem is to appoint an officer. In my experience the better answer is often to disappoint an officer. And still too many committees, too many reports, too many members struggling in piles of paper and mountains of unread bumph.

    What we need in local government is less paper and more action. Less empire-building and more innovation. Less government and more service. That must be the Conservative way.

    Simpler local government

    The very essence of local government should be variety. Some people feel there are too many layers of local government in some areas. It may well be that we need to simplify the structure and reduce the number of bodies we now have overall. We have that position under review. And here, too, your views will count.

    But some change surely must come. I do not think that the pattern of local government has to be uniform. Why should it be the same everywhere? Differing structures might be right for different parts of the country. Local opinion must play its part. But on no account will we create wasteful new tiers of local government as Labour and Liberals propose.

    Finance and structure are important. But in my view they should be part of, and not control, the arguments about local government as a whole. The key questions are simple. They are about functions. What is local government for? What is the proper range of its activity? Who is it seeking to serve? And how best can it achieve those ends?

    Those are the key issues. And in developing new ways to answer those questions, I want our party to stay in the lead. There are two areas, above all, where I want new ideas to be felt – in education and in housing.

    Education – local authorities to assist not obstruct, change

    I have spoken elsewhere of my belief that education must be top of our agenda for the 1990s. We are now giving more influence to governors and parents. The best local authorities encourage that change; the worst stand in its way. I deplore the way in which some councils have held back funds from schools keen to take on local management.

    In some places too much of the schools budget goes into administration and too little into the classroom. We need to shift that balance. The role of LEAs is changing. There will still be crucial tasks to perform. But we Conservatives believe that it is the wishes of parents, not the politics of the councillors, that must determine priorities in school.

    Housing – putting people first

    In housing, too, changes must come. And, again, Conservative councils are in the lead. Conditions on far too many of our housing estates – owned, managed and maintained by local authorities – are an absolute disgrace. Since 1979 we have set out to tackle those problems:

    – Giving tenants the right to buy.

    – Developing the role of housing associations.

    – Offering new freedoms to those unable to buy their own homes.

    Competition, choice and freedom are as always the public’s friend. So what is it that we want to see? In housing I want to see home ownership and our housing reforms go further. But I also recognise that for the foreseeable future many families will remain in properties under council control. They, too, deserve the best service. All too often they are left with the worst.

    As one former Labour MP said of Labour Hackney Council, “tenants were not treated as people at all.” Tenants not treated as people at all. What does that tell you of the arrogance of Labour Councils” It tells me that nothing has changed since I lived under the control of Labour’. And it tells me, too, that if there is one thing this Party must do, it is to sweep out of our town halls the outrage of attitudes like those.

    Housing management is one of many areas where more use should be made of outside skills. Here, too, the job of councils is to choose the best way of providing what people want. It is to protect their own staff if they are not performing up to the mark. Where there is patronising of tenants, or slow response to repair jobs, it needs to be exposed, not excused.

    Yet, all too often, Labour councils react the other way. If a council’s housing management is not delivering results, then it is high time to bring in a new management team. That is true of many other white collar as well as manual tasks. Legal departments. Computer services. Conveyancing. Aspects of planning. All these could be on the competitive tendering list. And when new management is brought in I for one don’t want to hear that every one of yesterday’s administrators have become today’s monitors, and that life in the old town hail is as cosy as ever before.

    More contractorization

    Conservative councils are making those changes voluntarily. But Labour councils are not. So what we will be looking at in Government is how well compulsory competitive tendering has worked so far, at where we need to revise existing legislation, and in what new areas contracting should be applied. These techniques offer new opportunities for councils to improve their services and provide better quality for the public.

    It is not just because we back private sector approaches in themselves. It’s not only private we back; it’s quality and cost- effectiveness from wherever it comes. But we cannot – and will not – accept that the public should be denied the most efficient service their council can provide.

    So what is the system of local government we want to see? It is a system that reacts to the choices of the public and which doesn’t deny them. It is a system where those who check on quality are independent from those who provide it. It is a system where information on how services are doing is shared with the public and not hidden from them. It is after all that very same public who depend on and pay for the services themselves. Above all, I want a system in which a good new idea is seen, not as a threat to the workforce, but an opportunity for the public. The principle of competitive tendering will help carry forward all these objectives. And that is why you in Conservative Councils have been the first to embrace it.

    It is because Conservative councils have always been leaders in innovation and change, that Conservative local government is trusted, while Labour local government is feared. You can have pride in the part you have played to bring that about.

    Neil Kinnock skulks away when the Press ask him about his own local council. Hardly surprising that he does. We took Ealing from Labour last year. Then there were changes. The gender advisers, whatever they were, in every council department were moved. The animal rights officer who was trying to close pet shops – he lost his job. But the key facts are these. Thanks to a Conservative Council Neil Kinnock pays less and receives more than he did under Labour. Funny really that he never mentions it. He’s uncharacteristically silent when the Press come to call.

    Well, we in this hall are not going to stay silent. We are going to tell people what Conservative local government has achieved and will achieve in future. We are going to set out our commitment to first- class local services. Together on May 2nd we are going to drive Labour and Liberal councils out of office throughout Britain. And we are going to put into office Conservative councils, committed to the principles we have set out today, and ready to restore integrity and pride to local government in every part of our country.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Local Authority Expenditure – 2 July 1980

    The text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Local Authority Expenditure, published on 2nd July 1980.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consultation he is having with the local authority associations on overspending by local authorities.

    Mr. Heseltine I have no meetings planned before 31 July the date due for the submission of revised budgets for local authority expenditure for 1980-81, but I hold regular meetings with local authorities in the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.

  • Mr Major’s Intervention during Local Government Expenditure Debate – 27 February 1980

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s interventions during the Local Government Expenditure debate held on 27th February 1980.

    Mr. Major asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of local government revenue expenditure was accounted for by staff wages and salaries as at (a) the financial year 1973–74 and (b) the latest date for which information is available.

    Mr. Heseltine In 1973–74 wage and salary costs accounted for just over 50 per cent. of gross local government revenue expenditure of 71 per cent. of gross current expenditure. In 1978–79, the figures were 51 per cent. and 69 per cent. respectively.

    Mr. Major I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it indicates an imperative need to continue to restrain staff levels and levels of wage settlements in local government? Will he urge on local authorities, wherever possible, a policy of retrenchment in staffing levels to ensure that the money available is used for services rather than excessive staffing?

    Mr. Heseltine I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing these important points to the attention of the House. I have asked local authorities to constrain manpower recruitment wherever possible. I am absolutely sure that, in the present climate of public expenditure, the more that the available resources can be used to provide services rather than increase the number of employees the better.

    Mr. Ian Lloyd May I endorse the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major)? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my local authority the increase in the wage and salary component last year was 39 per cent.? If that is 39 per cent. of 70 per cent., how can it possibly be said that local councillors are effectively in control of finances in their authority?

    Mr. Heseltine The present levels of rate fixing indicate that there are considerable numbers of Conservative authorities that are very much in control and therefore able to effect considerable constraint in the rate levels. It must be a matter for the individual judgment and accountability of the local authority and its councillors in each area.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Local Authorities Expenditure – 30 January 1980

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Local Authorities Expenditure, published on 30th January 1980.

    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the result of his consultations over local authority capital expenditure controls.

    Mr. John Townend Asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the local authority associations regarding capital expenditure controls.

    Mr. Heseltine A consultation paper outlining the proposed capital expenditure controls was sent to the local authority associations on 27 October 1979. I have met the leaders of the local authority associations, and officials have also met to discuss the proposals. In the light of these discussions revised proposals have been incorporated in the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, and a further explanatory paper has now been sent to the local authority associations.