Tag: Railways

  • PMQT – 19 March 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th March 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Trotter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

    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. This evening, I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

    Mr. Trotter : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when he visited the Gulf he heard the Challenger 1 tank had performed very well and that the Vickers work force gave stalwart support to the Army before and during the conflict? Does he agree that the new Challenger 2 is designed specifically for the British Army’s requirements and that it meets them? Will those factors be given due recognition and is he aware of the need for an early order if Vickers is to maintain its manufacturing capability and win export orders for this world-beater?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I confirm what my hon. Friend says. The performance of the Challenger 1 tank in the Gulf was quite outstanding. Before we reach a decision on the replacement–on a Challenger 2 tank–we must analyse the lessons that we learnt in the Gulf. I hope that that will soon be done and then we shall move speedily to a decision.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recall saying recently : “Michael’s claim of taking education from the poll tax and putting it into central education has the disadvantage that it has to be paid for elsewhere, either in more borrowing, more taxation, or pre-empting money that would otherwise go to the health service”? Is that still the Prime Minister’s view?

    The Prime Minister : Government services have to be paid for, from whatever pocket they may come, and that is still the case.

    Mr. Kinnock : I know all about that– [Interruption.] –but from the way the Government are behaving, one wonders whether they know all about that, too. Will the Prime Minister now answer my question? Does he still take the view that he enunciated a short time ago, or does he now agree with Michael? If he does not, is he still dithering in between?

    The Prime Minister : I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he knows that local government services have to be paid for. I just wish that he would tell some of his hon. Friends that–[ Hon. Members :– “Answer.”] The right hon. Gentleman will have all his answers by the end of this week.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Does my right hon. Friend accept that my appalling voting record over the past few months is no reflection on my wholehearted support for him and the Government?

    On a more serious note, does my right hon. Friend agree that the united voice that went out from the House in support of our troops on the ground in the Gulf was of immeasurable help to them and that that, combined with the unsurpassed military leadership under which we served, led to the magnificent military outcome?

    The Prime Minister : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I think that I echo the views of the whole House in saying that in recent weeks my hon. Friend has been in the right place. We welcome him back to the House– to the place which is his by right.

    Mr. Ashdown : If the Prime Minister will not recall his own words, will he recall the words of his predecessor, who, speaking in the House on 15 November for a Government in which he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that transferring education expenditure to central Government would result in huge tax increases and in a reduction in local services? Does the right hon. Gentleman still agree with his right hon. Friend?

    The Prime Minister : There are many things about which I am in wholehearted agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). Those things include clear opposition to proportional representation and a reluctance to do deals with the right hon. Gentleman.

     

    Q2. Mr. Simon Burns : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Burns : Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 12,000 of my constituents travel by British Rail from Chelmsford to Liverpool Street every day? Does he accept that although the service has improved somewhat in the past few years, it still leaves a great deal to be desired? Can he reassure my constituents that the current record levels of investment in British Rail will continue, so that services may be improved further?

    The Prime Minister : I sympathise with my hon. Friend. I know that the views of his constituents are shared by my constituents and by the constituents of many other hon. Members. The Government’s investment priority is to ensure that all routes are brought up to the high standard that commuters have a right to expect. That is, and has been, our policy.

    Mr. Mullin : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to welcome the release of the six innocent men who were convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings? Does he agree that if confidence in our judicial system is to be restored it will be necessary for someone above the rank of police sergeant to take responsibility for the recent series of disasters?

    The Prime Minister : No one in the House either now or at any time in the past, would have wished to see innocent men gaoled. As the convictions were insecure, it is entirely right that the gentlemen to whom the hon. Member referred have now been released. The whole House will be pleased about that. Clearly, we need to look at procedures. The royal commission on the criminal justice system will report speedily and comprehensively.

     

    Q3. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Nicholson : My right hon. Friend will recall personal tax rates of up to 98 per cent., a standard rate of 35 per cent. and weird taxes such as selective employment tax. However deep our party’s hostility to those taxes might have been, no one doubted that they had to be collected and that they had to be paid. Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Taunton, where the community charge has been collected efficiently, are of the opinion that until the House changes tax measures, public authorities will have a duty to collect taxes and individuals, including hon. Members, will have a duty to pay them?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Everyone has a duty to uphold the law as passed by the House. That is particularly true of hon. Members. Those who seek to make the law should never break the law.

     

    Q4. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Does the Prime Minister agree that an important principle of British public life is that when the Ministers or other senior public figures make grave errors of judgment they resign? In doing so, they restore confidence in their office and they salvage a little of their reputation. Will the Prime Minister draw that principle to the attention of Lord Chief Justice Lane?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly not draw that to the attention of Lord Chief Justice Lane. I believe that he applied the facts of the case as he saw them; hindsight knowledge is never an attractive thing.

     

    Q5. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Field : Recognising the long hours worked during the Gulf war by my right hon. Friend and the distinguished service– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This takes up a lot of time.

    Mr. Field : –and the distinguished service given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), may I invite them both to partake of the invigorating political air of the Isle of Wight during the Easter recess, where they will observe that the Conservative borough councils of South Wight and Medina have transferred all their housing stock to housing associations, making the Isle of Wight a unique county?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a tempting offer. If I may deal with the underlying concern of his point, to paraphrase Mr. Samuel Clemens, reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and I would welcome my hon. Friend’s invitation.

    Mr. Salmond : Will the Prime Minister confirm that he told his Back Benchers yesterday that the Achilles heel of the poll tax was its uncollectability? Will he therefore acknowledge that the campaign of resistance to the tax has been a key factor in sinking his predecessor’s flagship? When the Government make their statement on Thursday, will it contain any form of apology to the people of Scotland for the additional year under which we have suffered from this iniquitous tax?

    The Prime Minister : I will confirm no such thing and if the hon. Gentleman played any part in any campaign of disobedience, he has no right to be in the House.

     

    Q6. Mr. Haselhurst : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Haselhurst : Does my right hon. Friend accept that London commuters generally will welcome the increased emphasis that the Government are putting on the quality of service in rail transport? As the Stansted airport rail link starts, from today, to place heavier burdens on the infrastructure of the West Anglia line, can commuters there hope that their interests will not be subordinated to the interests of airline travellers?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, improvement in quality is very much the objective of the Government’s policies and of British Rail. He will know that modern rolling stock has been provided for the Stansted express and is intended to provide both fast and frequent services to the newly expanded airport. I shall draw my hon. Friend’s concerns about normal commuter services on the West Anglia line to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

     

    Q8. Mr. Lofthouse : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Lofthouse : Will the Prime Minister tell us why he recently said that the poll tax would prove to be enduring and would be a vast improvement on the rates? As he appears rapidly to have changed his mind, does he expect the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to change hers, too?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will find the answers to all those questions on Thursday.

     

    Q9. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Bowis : Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the editorials pointing out that if Wandsworth had received the same amount of Government grant as neighbouring Lambeth, it could have put a cheque in the post to every charge payer? Does he agree that the lesson to be drawn from that is that whatever system of local government finance we have, the only one worth voting for is one run by Conservative councils?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a valid point–

    Mr. Meale : No, he does not.

    The Prime Minister : Yes, he does. Lambeth received almost £300 a head more in external grant than Wandsworth, yet most Wandsworth residents seem to think that they get better services than do the residents of neighbouring Lambeth. The reason is clear : Lambeth is a Labour council and that is why the service is so expensive and so rotten.

    Mr. Clelland : Although I fully appreciate the need to review defence procurement policy following the Gulf conflict, does the Prime Minister agree that that would affect only the size of the order for main battle tanks, not necessarily the manufacturer which will provide them? Will he therefore have a word with the Secretary of State for Defence with a view to making an early announcement that the order will go to a British manufacturer, Vickers Defence Systems?

    The Prime Minister : I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and we shall seek to learn all the lessons possible from the Gulf conflict. As soon as it is concluded, we shall endeavour to reach an early decision. I hope that there will be no unnecessary delay.

    Mr. Nelson : Will my right hon. Friend find time to reaffirm the Government’s strong commitment to defence? Does he agree that one reason why our armed forces did the job in the Gulf was that, over the past 10 years, the Conservative Government have voted and spent the necessary money for the right equipment and training, while the Opposition parties have constantly called for disarmament and defence cuts?

    The Prime Minister : I happily reaffirm that. Defence remains a matter of intense importance to this side of the House and, in case there is any doubt, I should make it clear that that includes nuclear defence.

  • PMQT – 12 February 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th February 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Maclennan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February 1991.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also called on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and presented her with a gift from the Cabinet to mark her 90th year. In addition to my duties in the House, I will be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

    Mr. Skinner : It was a cold weather payment.

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Maclennan : While welcoming the Cabinet’s recognition of my constituent, the Queen Mother, in that way [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Maclennan : Would the Prime Minister say why, when he came to the House last week to announce the waiver of the exceptionally severe weather payment seven-day condition, he gave no inkling that it was to last 24 hours and that within four days, his Minister for Social Security and Disabled People would announce that things were to go back to where they are now. The “now you see it, now you don’t” approach cannot be the way to look after those who are so heavily dependent upon that payment.

    The Prime Minister : If there is doubt about that point, let me seek to remove it beyond peradventure at the moment. As I said last week, given the exceptionally severe weather, we wanted to ensure that vulnerable groups would take appropriate steps to keep warm so we waived the seven-day qualifying period. Given the continuation of severe weather since then, we shall once again be waiving the seven-day period. Of course, we shall continue to monitor the situation carefully and if the cold weather continues we shall take similar measures.

     

    Q2. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

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

    Mr. Evennett : While my right hon. Friend was enjoying his much publicised breakfast at the weekend, the people of Lithuania were voting in a referendum. Does he agree that the desire for independence by the Lithuanians, as expressed in the result of that referendum, should be heeded by the Soviet Union?

    The Prime Minister : I sympathise very much with my hon. Friend’s point. I would like to see the Soviet authorities negotiate with the elected representatives of the Baltic authorities about their aspirations. That is a point I hope to be able to put to President Gorbachev when I meet him next month.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister share our deep concern that unemployment, business bankruptcies and factory gate prices are all up while investment and output are down? Whose policies does he blame for that–the current Chancellor’s or the previous Chancellor’s?

    The Prime Minister : I think that everyone shares the concern about bankruptcies and unemployment. We also share the considerable degree of pleasure at the growth that there has been in recent years, at the growth in the number of businesses–which, even last year, was running at more than 1,000 a week–and at the prospects that will continue to exist for this country as we increasingly drive inflation downwards.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister understand that he has taken many of those new businesses–and longer-established businesses–straight into slump with his policies? Why will he not now cut interest rates, use a more sensible system of managing demand and try to stop the slump now, before the damage gets even worse and goes on for even longer?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should know that the generalised slogans that he uses simply will not do. Let me quote to him what even The Guardian said of the alternatives :

    “As for the Opposition parties, their call for interest rate cuts with no accompanying recognition of the economic realities is politically opportunistic and economically naive.”

    I agree with The Guardian.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I put it to the Prime Minister that, this very week, factory gate prices are up, unemployment will be up and bankruptcies are up? Is that what he intends to continue to do? If so, I put it to him that his policies are hurting just about everyone and working for just about no one.

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that our policies are working. I believe that that will become increasingly apparent. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the rise in output prices. I must say that I think that that is a suspect figure. In any event, the January figure may well reflect the delayed and continued impact of the autumn increase in oil prices. Throughout this year, the right hon. Gentleman will see a continuing fall in the rise of inflation.

    Mr. Rowe : Although at this moment it may seem bizarre to imagine that there could be advantages in transferring from road to rail, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in better times, when the Department of Transport appraises capital projects it allows for both freight and passenger savings on roads?

    The Prime Minister : In so far as I could hear the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I believe that I agree with him. British Rail has a substantial investment level at present ; indeed, it is the highest level for 30 years. As the former chairman said not long ago :

    “the investment programme is about the maximum rate we can physically manage.”

     

    Q3. Mr. Fisher : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

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

    Mr. Fisher : Is not the Prime Minister ashamed that an estimated 50 young homeless people are sleeping rough on the streets of Stoke-on-Trent? They are not eligible for his severe weather payments or his emergency aid. What place is there for them in his classless society?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, on a number of occasions I have expressed my concern and outlined the action that we are taking to deal with the position of young people who are sleeping rough. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning set out some policies some time ago and explained that a considerable amount of resources would be devoted to implementing them. One of the problems that is recognised and acknowledged by the voluntary groups – if not, perhaps, by every hon. Member – is that some of those who sleep rough have every option to go into shelters but frequently do not exercise it.

    Mr. Janman : Is my right hon. Friend aware of press reports which speculate that the public sector borrowing requirement for 1991-92 will be £9 billion? Does he agree that during the forthcoming 12 months it is important that the Government apply the same discipline to themselves as companies in the private sector are having to apply, and that Government spending should take into account prevailing economic conditions, not pretend that they do not exist?

    The Prime Minister : We must certainly always take into account the prevailing economic conditions in terms of public expenditure control. That is certainly what we shall do.

     

    Q4. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Does the Prime Minister recall one of his early votes in the House of Commons on 20 December 1979, when he voted to break the link between pensions and earnings? Does he realise that as a result of that, pensioners have not enjoyed increases in their standard of living through general improvements and that they are now worse off by £22 a week for a married couple and £13 a week for a single pensioner? Does he realise that if those links had not been broken, people would have had sufficient money to pay for fuel, make sure that they had enough to eat and put on warm clothing and so combat the cold weather? Does not the Prime Minister realise that against that background, the announcement that he has made today of the extra £1 heating allowance is extremely miserly?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is being very selective in the figures that he quotes. If he cares to examine the degree of net disposable income among all sectors of the community, including the elderly, he will find that it has risen substantially throughout the past decade.

    Mr. Lee : Given that our nation likes a modest flutter as much as it likes a traditional Happy Eater breakfast, does my right hon. Friend care to give some encouragement today to those of us who favour the concept of a national lottery designed to provide additional resources for sports, the arts and museums?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises an intriguing question.

     

    Community Care

    Q5. Mr. Tom Clarke : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s present policy towards Sir Roy Griffiths’s recommendation that local authorities should perform the lead role in the provision of community care.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policy on community care remains as set out in the White Paper “Caring For People” and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Local authorities begin implementation of those policies in April this year.

    Mr. Clarke : What steps does the Prime Minister intend to take to deal with the increasing problems of many elderly people in residential care who have witnessed a growing number of closures of private and voluntary sector homes as a result of the care gap and inadequate income support? Will he absolutely insist that elderly people do not suffer, in spite of the need for social service and social work departments to reduce their expenditure in order to avoid poll tax capping, even though the real anxiety is to respond to elderly people’s needs, which they recognise in their own communities?

    The Prime Minister : The concerns for elderly people that the hon. Gentleman sets out and which local authorities have are well understood and appreciated. He weakens his case by his remarks about community charge capping, not least because a large number of those authorities that face capping do so because of a flagrant and wilful abuse of their expenditure in many aspects.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is considerable anxiety in local government, not least among the staff of part III residential homes and also, of course, the residents of those homes, that many local authorities feel obliged to put such homes into the private or charitable sector, thus creating considerable instability? Will my right hon. Friend take account of the anxiety, particularly among elderly people and their families, who are deeply upset by the instability that is being created?

    The Prime Minister : What we are seeking to do is to ensure the maximum availability of the appropriate sort of accommodation and to ensure that it is provided in the most cost-effective manner. That accommodation may, on occasion, be in the public or the private sector, but it is the quantum of assistance with which I know my hon. Friend is most concerned.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

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

    Mr. Fraser : Does the Prime Minister recall that shortly before he became Prime Minister he said that the subject that he cares most about is education? He repeated those sentiments at the Young Conservatives’ conference at the weekend. I have in my hand the sum total of all those speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman on education since 1979 – it averages one line a year. Can the Prime Minister put in the Library any other speeches on this subject, which is so close to his heart?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically fatuous.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : If colleagues insist, I shall withdraw “uncharacteristically”. For the bulk of the period in the House since 1979 I have either been in the Whips’ Office, and thus unable to speak, or a Minister with other departmental responsibilities. If the hon. Gentleman had had what undoubtedly would have been an education to him from listening to the speeches that I have made outside the House he would not have asked that question.

     

    Q7. Mr. Squire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

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

    Mr. Squire : Despite my right hon. Friend and I both having left state schools at 16 and therefore, perhaps being poor educational advertisements [Interruption.] I said perhaps. Would my right hon. Friend underline his determination that standards and diversity in our state schools are enhanced and improved, and above all, that the staying-on rate of students beyond 16 and 18 is increased?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend’s point. Education is undoubtedly the key in the future to opening new paths for people, not just people with high abilities, but, of course, people with much lesser abilities as well. We want an education system that rewards dedicated teachers and provides education in the state sector of which we can be proud. That is what we shall be increasingly reaching towards throughout the Conservative Governments of the 1990s.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Young Conservatives Conference – 9 February 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 31st Young Conservatives Conference, held at the Spa Complex in Scarborough on Saturday 9th February 1991.


    [Text is from a Conservative Party News Release, some small portions are missing from the original speech]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In each of the last three General Elections well over a million young people voted Conservative – three times as many first time voters supported us for every two who voted Labour in 1987.

    That is good, but not good enough.

    Why did we enjoy that support? It was because young people shared the values that we care about. I believe we want to strengthen and deepen that commitment.

    I want them to know that the Conservative Party is open to them and to their ideas.

    They will be welcome – and we need them.

    Their idealism.

    Their willingness to challenge accepted wisdom.

    Their readiness to try new ways. And we must respond to their hopes as well.

    To their concern for the sort of life they want to build for themselves.

    Today the world is changing at an unprecedented rate. We cannot be immune from that.

    Our principles and our philosophy are firm. But we must still adapt in order to thrive.

    We must be open to originality, to innovation, and to change. And so long as I am able to ensure it, we will.

    In a few moments I want to share with you some of my thoughts about our priorities for the future.

    But first I want to speak of one group who are uppermost in our minds at present – those in our armed forces in the Gulf.

    A few weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting many of them. They made a lasting impression.

    They had no doubt that the task they had been set was just. And they left me in no doubt that they were wholly equal to that task.

    And since then – night after night and day after day – we have seen them prove that with a skill and courage we can only admire.

    They deserve all the support they can get – and they will get from us all the support they need.

    And when they have done their job we will bring them back home – as soon as we can.

    For here, at home, there are deep anxieties faced by their families.

    I have received in recent weeks many letters from them.

    Some are worried. Some emotional. All proud.

    I believe the whole nation shares those feelings.

    We did not want this war.

    But we have it.

    And we face a difficult period ahead.

    But Saddam Hussein must know what he faces.

    He faces defeat.

    The timing maybe uncertain.

    But the outcome is absolutely certain.

    Because we intend to complete the job they have begun.

    The British people understand very well the key principle underlying the Gulf conflict.

    Throughout history the instinct of Britain has always been to defend freedom.

    To uphold the rule of law.

    That above all is why our troops are in the Gulf.

    For our troops back home and all over it is not enough simply to protect the rights and freedoms that we have inherited. We must look beyond the present.

    We must extend them.

    In the last ten years tremendous advances have been made. Now we must move forward again.

    We must look now at the opportunities that should be there and are not.

    At the choices we do not yet have.

    And at the people who have not yet benefited from change. The success of our Party since 1979 has sprung from our readiness to reform – our willingness to make the changes necessary to produce a better quality of life.

    And I promise you today that great programme of reform will continue in the years ahead

    In our Party we know you have to produce wealth before you can use it.

    Like many other nations, Britain faces economic difficulties at present.

    The next few months will be uncomfortable.

    I regret that.

    But short term expedients won’t do.

    They will only lengthen and worsen the problems themselves.

    We must follow a policy that will cure those problems, not simply mask them.

    That is precisely what people expect of us.

    Every time we have faced economic difficulties we have brought the country out of them.

    We have a good track record.

    And we will come through our problems yet again.

    The centre piece of any strong economy is low inflation. And in that there are good signs for Britain.

    Inflation is coming down, and will continue to fall throughout the year.

    It will halve from its peak.

    And we will still be driving it down.

    There are some who that say inflation doesn’t matter so very much.

    What that shows is that to them people don’t matter so very much.

    Well, people matter to me.

    I know that inflation is the enemy of personal security and peace of mind – for people of all ages.

    It gnaws away at the hard won savings of the pensioner. It disrupts business and destroys jobs.

    It betrays the basic trust in the value of money that lies behind every transaction in our daily lives.

    That is why we must and will defeat inflation as our first priority

    But, you know, when we talk of efficiency, of competition, and of economic success, we do it not for its own sake.

    Not for material reasons only.

    But for what we can achieve with the resources we create.

    In the year ahead we will set out our ideas for the 1990s and beyond.

    We have an agenda to work through.

    Some of those ideas will be tried and tested.

    Some will be new.

    Some will involve novel concepts.

    But all of them will have one thing in common – the long-term needs of this country and the people that live in it.

    Our Party exists to give more people more choice, more independence, more control over their daily lives.

    We know that the role of government should be limited. At present it is still too big.

    But let there be no question about one thing.

    We must never accept the contention that limited Government means lower standards.

    That state services must be second-best.

    I want to see an unending search for better quality in all our public services. When we deprive people of their money in never taxes, they have a right to ensure that it is never wasted in government.

    So I want to see new ideas flowing into public service. More privatisation, yes, of course.

    But also more partnership with the voluntary and private sectors.

    More use of the best private skills.

    For far too long we have tolerated public services that are just not good enough.

    Council house repairs that are shoddy and slow.

    Hospital appointments that take all day.

    Trains that run late and buses that travel in packs. Children refused admission to the schools to which their parents wanted them to go.

    In all of these areas we have been investing enormous sums – in health, in transport, and in education.

    But are we getting proper value?

    We must make those services operate better for the people who use them.

    And operate with the same efficiency within the public sector as we would expect outside the public sector.

    At the top of my personal agenda for the 1990s is education.

    Education is the key to opening new paths for all sorts of people, not just the most gifted and for doing so at every stage of their lives. And it is also the key to the Tory ideal of a mobile, dynamic and diverse society.

    So my objectives are straightforward – improving quality and standards.

    More pupils staying on in education after 16.

    Much more choice, and better training for all young people. I want to see more vocational options in schools of equal rigour and repute to the academic courses.

    And this must go hand in hand with greater coherence and quality in post-school training.

    There has been great progress over the last ten years. Some parts of our education system are unrivalled.

    But others clearly are not.

    Right back to the 60s and before, serious mistakes were made. Tried and tested methods were swept aside.

    Unproven theories were foisted on our children.

    And as a result, standards were lowered. And as a result of that the status of teachers was undermined.

    As a nation we cannot be proud of what has been done over the last thirty years for many of our children.

    Too many of them have been allowed to expect too little of themselves and too many other people have expected too little of them.

    Over a decade ago the Labour Party recognised all this to be true.

    They launched what they called a “great debate” about education.

    But of course it was not debate that was needed.

    It was action.

    As usual, it was left to a Conservative Government to take it up after 1979.

    In 1979 we set ourselves to tackle those problems.

    And since then, we have introduced a great range of reforms in our schools.

    Given more choice and influence to parents.

    More responsibility to governors.

    Set out the building blocks of a new system with better education in the National Curriculum.

    These policies are working.

    More pupils are getting more out of their education.

    There are now five 16 year olds staying on at school for every four just two years ago.

    Ten years ago only one person in eight went on into higher education.

    Now it is one in five.

    And soon it will be one in four.

    We have many more young people graduating from our universities than ever before in the past.

    Those are the real tests of success. And the policies of the Conservative Government have passed them in the last ten years.

    And we are passing them.

    So the 1980s have seen an opening of freedom and choice.

    But I for one have no intention of resting on the Government’s achievements.

    I want to bring the benefits of the best possible education to all. We cannot accept a situation where in some places nearly 40 per cent of school leavers get at least five higher level GCSEs, while elsewhere, less than ten percent do so. The Conservative Party has never accepted the notion that excellence for the few excuses mediocrity for the many.

    It is, of course, the teaching profession that must lead the drive to higher standards and aspirations in our schools. I want to see dedicated teachers rewarded fairly.

    But I also want to see more effective scrutiny of performance in schools.

    And I want the most rigorous standards applied in teacher training.

    We must ensure that every subject is taught to a high standard.

    Teachers may need to be better trained in the subjects they are going to teach.

    It is no good having hours of study of the theory of education if you actually fall down in the practice of teaching it when you get into the classroom.

    So we want to see an educational system that is the equal of anything abroad.

    Doing the basic things well.

    It is not only a question of reading and spelling.

    Although it is most emphatically a question of every child having the right to be taught how to read fluently and spell accurately.

    And it is also teaching to a good standard with the right combination of factual knowledge and critical understanding in every subject.

    And of training people for worthwhile qualifications in job related skills when they choose a vocational course.

    And so what is it we seek? In summary we seek a system of education and training able to equip the children of today for the twenty-first century.

    That is the objective that we will be seeking in our education policy throughout the 1990s.

    And we need that for a variety of reasons, we need it because we need that education, that excellence in education to maximise our success both domestically and in Europe. And also of course, because that education equips people so much better to enjoy all the aspects of life both in work and in leisure, that will be opening up before them in the years to come.

    Above all in the 1990’s we will face a competitive future in a world that is becoming increasingly competitive and most especially in a European community that will become increasingly competitive. There will be no hiding place for inefficiency, no hiding place for the shoddy and the second-rate once we get into the Europe of the 1990’s. That will all change as the reforms of 1992 increasingly come to place. Those who are well equipped and do well, work well, think well, produce well, are efficient and effective will be the leaders of the Europe in the 1990’s. And we are, and will remain, an important and enthusiastic part of the European community. It is simply not enough for some people to say, ‘I don’t really like Europe, but I will tolerate it’, for if we take that view about Europe we will never be the centre of it and can not lead it in the direction which we wish it to go.

    It may be true in some ways that we need Europe but by golly it is equally true that Europe needs us and we had better make sure we are a key part in it.

    It is not only the opportunities in Europe, though I will return to those in a moment. Look at the opportunities opening up in other parts of the world, the increasing democratisation of so much of Eastern Europe, a part of the world that for a very long time indeed we have seen subjugated, and unable to open itself up to a free enterprise system and all the opportunities that will flow from that.

    That is all changing and has been changing in the most dramatic fashion in recent years.

    And then you see the extent to which throughout the whole of South East Asia and elsewhere there are growing industrial giants with whom we will have to compete in the future and then there is the increasingly growing and important market throughout the whole of Latin America. Those are the opportunities that lie there for British industry, British commerce, and British people in the future.

    And to return to the central point, providing we have the education system, the skills and the enterprise we will be able to win in those markets and winning in those markets will mean a much higher standard of life and living for all people who live in this country in the future.

    And nowhere will that competitiveness be more needed than within the European community itself.

    And that is why I say again that we must remain an enthusiastic partner in Europe.

    It is not for nothing that we led the way in the drive for the Single Market. It was not without good reason that we took sterling into the Exchange Rate Mechanism. We propose to play a leading part in Europe’s future and no-one should doubt that for a single second.

    And Britain will have a strong voice in the new Europe. Strong because of our commitment.

    Strong because we have hard heads as well as soft hearts. Strong because Britain under a Conservative Government has firm principles and a very clear idea of where it wants to go and what needs to be done to get there.

    And we will also resist the unworkable.

    Set realism in place of impractical dreams and protect the diversity of Europe while removing obstacles to partnership and enterprise.

    Necessarily you in the Young Conservatives must look to the long-term, to the year 2000 and beyond.

    And so you should.

    It is your future for a good deal longer than it is mine. Your Government has the same instincts. We will set our sights on the same horizon and so we should because it is our responsibility to do so.

    Mr Chairman, I have a total faith in Britain and in its future.

    I don’t accept for a second the craven argument that we cannot compete with the Germans and the French.

    I don’t agree with the pessimists who always believe we must devalue in order to remain competitive and I despise the defeatists who run down this country and write off its future. Defeatism is always an excuse for doing nothing. But we have no intention of doing nothing. In the months ahead our agenda will unfold. Throughout the last decade Conservative Governments have proved successful to an extent beyond most peoples’ imagination. I believe that will be increasingly recognised.

    Throughout the past decade Conservative Government’s have shown very clearly what it is possible for the British economy and people in this country actually to achieve and do. That is a record that people will look back on, I believe, in years to come with some envy and with a considerable amount of pride.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Train Drivers – 3 March 1982

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Train Drivers, published on 3rd March 1982.


    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish any information he has on the rostering systems of railway drivers and staff in other European countries.

    Mr. David Howell I understand that in four European countries the rostering systems for railways drivers is as follows. In all cases variable day rostering is the normal practice and no distinction is made between single-manned turns and the small proportion of turns which are double manned. I do not have information about other countries.

    Country | Minimum Turn (hours) | Maximum Turn (hours)

    France | No information | 9

    Germany | 6 | 12

    Holland | 5 | 9

    Sweden | 2 | 10

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on Rail Electrification – 2 February 1982

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on Rail Electrification, published on 2nd February 1982.


    Mr. Major Asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive proposals from British Railways for the electrification of the east coast main line from King’s Cross.

    Mr. David Howell I hope soon to receive proposals for electrification of the first stage of the east coast main line as well as a 10-year electrification programme.

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on the British Railways Board – 22 May 1980

    The text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary written question on the British Railways Board, published on 22nd May 1980.


    Mr. Major Asked the Minister of Transport whether there is a procedure to involve his Department in the planning arrangements of the British Railways Board.

    Mr. Fowler The British Railways Board prepares a corporate review each year and submits it to me. The review helps it in its business decisions. It helps me to judge the effects of decisions I have to make, as on investment, financial targets, or support. While the review is and must remain that of the board, it will help very much if my Department and where appropriate the Treasury, can be kept in touch with its preparation and have the opportunity to comment. This must, of course, respect the position of the board as well as of Ministers, and must rest on a high degree of mutual confidence. I am glad to say that discussions with the board have now made clear how my Department and the Treasury are to be involved in the board’s planning arrangements. My officials will now start to receive papers of the 1980 review, on which the board has been engaged for some time. The board will in due course submit its completed review to me.