The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Taxation

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1995 Conservative Party Conference – 13 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1995 Conservative Party Conference, held in Blackpool on Friday 13th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Introduction

    Today is Friday the Thirteenth. Remember it. This is the day I’m going to tell you how we’ll win the next election.

    And if anyone is superstitious they shouldn’t be.

    This is Margaret Thatcher’s 70th birthday and she won three elections in a row.

    So the omens are good.

    Many happy returns to Maggie today, and it’ll be many happy returns for us at the Election.

    We’ve won four and we’re going for five.

    All elections are important.

    But the next is a watershed.

    Because whoever wins will inherit the strongest economy for decades.

    We built that economy.

    It wasn’t easy.

    And I don’t know about you but I’m not in the mood to hand it over to Labour to wreck.

    So, Mr Chairman, we’re going to mount the fight of our lives. And when the time comes, we’re going to deliver the win of our lives.

    Leadership

    But first a bit of housekeeping.

    As you know, in June I resigned as Leader of our Party and called a leadership election.

    I did so because speculation was drowning out everything we were trying to do.

    How could you argue our case on the doorstep with that sort of thing going on?

    Well of course, you couldn’t.

    It had to end – whatever the risk.

    I might have lost. If I had I would still have been at this Conference. Still offering my full support to the Party, I believe is best able to govern this country.

    But I won.

    And today, face to face, I’d like to thank you – for your support – when the going was rough.

    Thank you, too, to my campaign team led so ably by Robert Cranborne.

    And there’s someone else who has always been there when the stakes were high.

    She’s here today too.

    Of course – I mean Norma.

    Labour

    But, that was yesterday.

    Today, we meet united, healed, renewed – and thirsting for the real fight – with Labour.

    Last week the Labour leader predicted that we’d wave the Union Jack. Of course. This Party has never waved any other flag and we never will.

    To win, Labour must persuade people this country is on its knees. Clapped out. Beaten up.

    They shouldn’t find that too difficult. That’s the way it always is – under Labour.

    But they know it isn’t true under the Conservatives. And the world knows it isn’t true.

    The world knows the only way our country would match their deception would be if they were running it.

    I don’t question Labour’s patriotism.

    But is a funny patriotism to rubbish our achievements – how shall I put it? – before breakfast, before lunch, before tea and before dinner, and then get up and do it again before breakfast – on the Today programme.

    I don’t doubt Labour’s good intentions : the road to hell is paved with them.

    They say they want to help businesses – so they’ll clobber them with the Social Chapter.

    They say they want to help the unemployed – so they’ll destroy jobs with a minimum wage.

    They say they want to treat the unions fairly – so they’ll give them privileges even Michael Foot didn’t dream of in the 1970s.

    I think Labour has been re-reading “1984” – the book that introduced “Doublethink”.

    You remember – doublethink is the trick of holding two contradictory beliefs at the same tine – and accepting both.

    It was the brain-child of another public school-educated Socialist. His name was George Orwell.

    But actually it wasn’t. That was his pen name.

    His real name – was Eric.

    His surname?

    You’ve guessed it. It was Blair.

    Eric Blair.

    He changed his name. I can’t say the same thing about my opposite number.

    He’s changed everything else. His politics. His principles. His philosophy.

    But – to the best of my belief – he hasn’t changed his name.

    At least not when I got up to speak.

    But he’s abandoned so much, so fast you never know.

    The Liberal Democrats support all Labour’s nonsense.

    But they’re neither here nor there.

    Because as we saw the other day, they’re the only party in British political history that has had its entire battle plans wiped clean off the media – by a goldfish.

    The Great Divide – Us Versus Them

    Mr Chairman, around the world, people now believe Britain is winning.

    But don’t let’s fool ourselves.

    I’m looking to the future.

    There’s still a lot to be done.

    The new Millennium will bring longer, fuller lives.

    Shifts in world power.

    More and more competition.

    Changes in technology, fast and furious.

    And, even with growing wealth, new welfare problems.

    That is the Millennium challenge. We have to respond to it.

    Explain to people the opportunities within their reach. Tell them what can – and cannot be done – and what the price will be.

    By telling them I mean really telling them. I don’t mean insulting them by trivialising issues for instant media consumption.

    I believe the public will respond to the plain truth.

    I believe they’re as sick as I am of politics by soundbite, by nudge and wink.

    No wonder people are turned off politics. The way some politicians conduct the debate would disgrace a nursery.

    There are only two ways to the future. Labour’s way. And there’s ours.

    Scratch beneath Labour’s rhetoric and you see the reality. Prescott, Beckett, Blunkett, Dobson, Cook. They believe a socialist state can do it all.

    If that were true the past 50 years would have been quite different. Cradle to grave socialism – I always thought that rather constrained way to go through life.

    But the State can’t do it all – and, what’s more, the State shouldn’t do it all.

    Beat Labour one more time, and we’ve beaten socialism for good.

    Our way – the Conservative way – is very different.

    We believe the Government should choose what Government should do – and do it better.

    Beyond that we should help individuals shape their own future. Help them – but not nanny them.

    Conservatism is choice.

    Choice is liberty.

    Blazon it on your mind.

    We should offer choice whenever we can.

    But there’s one thing in our Tory tradition that has inspired me, it’s our historic recognition that not everyone is thrusting and confident and fit. Many are not: and they deserve protection. With a Conservative Government they will always get it.

    Individual rights will be defended.

    Ownership will be encouraged.

    And, above all, we will stand for – and will protect – one United Kingdom, unbroken and undivided.

    The Enterprise Centre of Europe

    We Tories often talk of business and the need for success.

    It’s worth remembering why. It’s quite simple.

    If business makes profit, it provides jobs and pays taxes.

    And those people with jobs pay taxes too. Taxes pay for our teachers, our nurses and our public services.

    So we must make business more successful.

    We are in Europe – and rightly so. It’s the richest home market in the world.

    Half of our trade goes there.

    But half does not. And both halves are equally important.

    That’s why Malcolm Rifkind will actively pursue the vision of Atlantic Free Trade – refreshing our vital links with the Americas.

    If we’re to compete with America, Japan and the Pacific Basin, we must be the unrivalled Enterprise Centre of Europe.

    Let me spell out precisely what that means.

    It means high spending and high taxes are no longer an option. The state spends too much of our national wealth. We must get that share below 40 per cent – and keep it there.

    The state spends too much of our national wealth. We must get that share below 40 per cent – and keep it there.

    If the State spends too much, it taxes too such.

    In the recession, we had to put taxes up to protect the vulnerable.

    Now the recession is over, as soon as prudent, we must get taxes down again.

    And – be in no doubt – I don’t only mean income tax.

    I mean the taxes that damage investment and stultify wealth creation. I mean inheritance tax. I mean capital gains tax.

    We must cut them, and then – when affordable – we should abolish them.

    We receive more investment into Britain than any other European Country.

    This very day, the Queen will open Samsung’s massive new development in the North East.

    Fujitsu, Daewoo, Nissan, Black and Decker, NBC, Siemens have all decided their future is here.

    You don’t hear Labour talk of this.

    Of course not. These companies didn’t invest in a socialist Britain.

    They set up here because it’s a Conservative Britain.

    And they’ll only be followed by others if we keep Britain Conservative.

    Labour say they know how to run a market economy.

    I asked Humphrey the cat about that.

    I’ve the first time I’ve seen him move so fast.

    It took all the resources of the Royal Army Medical College to get him over the shock.

    Labour have stood in the way of everything we’ve done.

    Where were they when we cut inflation?

    When we faced down union power?

    When we fed life back into the corpse of so many nationalised Industries?

    Humphrey could answer the question. Humphrey knows. Like Macavity, Labour wasn’t there.

    They were the advocates of the easy options and they opposed every tough decision we took.

    Interest Rates up? Disgraceful, said Labour.

    Interest Rates down? Not enough, said Labour.

    Interest Rates the same? The Chancellor must act, says Labour.

    Always, always, always the easy option.

    So when they criticise us, just remind them of this.

    If we’d followed their advice, we’d have been in Carey Street.

    Unemployment has been coming down for two and a half years.

    But it’s still far too high.

    The best route to more jobs is more small businesses.

    We are the Party of small business. When I was a small boy, my bread and butter was paid for by my father’s small business. He made garden ornaments 40 years ago and some fashionable people find that very funny.

    I don’t.

    I see the proud, stubborn, independent old man who ran that firm and taught me to love my country, fight for my own and spit in the eye of malign fate. I know the knockers and sneerers who may never have taken a risk in their comfortable lives aren’t fit to wipe the boots of the risk takers of Britain.

    When my father’s business failed – because his health failed – I saw the price the small businessman may have to pay.

    I know the sacrifice they make for the dreams they have.

    They don’t know whether they’ll succeed.

    But they work as hard as they can.

    That’s why, as Ian Lang told you, we’ve set up the biggest consultation with business ever seen in this country – to find out what more we can credibly do to help then.

    Frankly, Mr Chairman, I think they’re heroes.

    Europe

    I know one thing: we mustn’t pile burdens on business.

    So let me say this to our friends and partners in Europe.

    Don’t ask me to sign the Social Chapter. I won’t do it.

    I don’t look for popularity abroad – I prefer to protect jobs right here.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I’m for Europe, not against it.

    And I intend to argue for policies that will help it succeed. Pressure to stop arguing and go with the European consensus is strong. It’s difficult to set rational argument against the last movement of Beethoven’s Ninth.

    We must be sympathetic, but we must stand our corner.

    We must ask our partners to understand our thinking and we must understand theirs.

    Against the background of the traumas Europe suffered over the past 60 years – war, dictatorship, civil war, military occupation – it’s not surprising to me that they look towards European unity as a guarantor of political stability. Of their decision never to go to war with one another again.

    Only twenty years ago, Greece, Spain and Portugal – new partners in Europe – were ruled by men in dark glasses and epaulettes.

    Now these countries are secure in the European Union.

    In a few years’ time – thanks in large part to British policy – they will be joined by Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and others, now liberated from Communist dictatorship.

    They are knocking on the door to entry and we want to tie them in to the democratic family of Nations.

    Because it’s in our British interest: a further guarantee that our children and grandchildren will never face the conflicts than cost the lives of so many of our fathers and grandfathers.

    Unoccupied, undefeated, the war left Britain with a very different perspective from the rest of Europe.

    If we want to persuade our partners that their policies for Europe are wrong – as I believe many of them to be – we must use our imagination to understand their feelings and their motives.

    We entered Europe,

    For prosperity.

    For co-operation.

    For a louder voice on that great Continent.

    But we did not enter it for a new tier of Government.

    We did not enter it for Socialism through the back door.

    And we did not enter it for a federal Europe.

    It wouldn’t work for us. Our partners must understand that it’s politically and constitutionally unacceptable.

    But that’s what Labour would agree to and I believe they are profoundly wrong.

    We will advance our arguments firmly and courteously in Britain and in Europe.

    For Britain for Europe.

    But underneath the rational argument we should not be misunderstood.

    If others go federalist, Conservative Britain will not.

    Welfare spending

    Mr Chairman, providing quality care for those most in need is a strong part of the Tory tradition.

    Shaftesbury and Disraeli were doing it when socialism was just a distant nightmare in most people’s minds.

    We are proud of our free National Health Service. We have fought to make it the best in the world in the next century. We have put more resources into health. Not just once, but year after year. And we are modernising it, so that it remains the best in the world.

    But, Mr Chairman, we are succeeding. People are living longer. And that success in health creates new challenges for our welfare system.

    The easy way out is to load the bills onto future generations – issuing blank cheques for our children to pick up.

    In other words, living on tick. I wasn’t brought up to do that. And I don’t think that it’s right for the country.

    We have already done more than anywhere else in Europe to build up massive pension funds.

    But because we live longer, we need to develop similar approaches to long term care – encourage new forms of savings, new kinds of insurance, more flexible use of pensions.

    That’s the next step forward in our welfare system, and one we are examining right now.

    We don’t have all the answers yet. But it is important that people know we’re addressing their long-term problems.

    It’s a huge challenge but it’s one we can’t duck and one we must get right. And it’s one that will only be met by recognising the money we spend has first to be earned through an enterprise economy.

    It’s a strong Tory tradition that you and I look after ourselves and our families before we turn to others to pay our bills.

    That’s why we need to target our welfare spending on those who need it.

    I don’t need anyone to tell me that the welfare system matters.

    I know what it’s like when the money for the week runs out by Thursday.

    But welfare should offer people a ladder back to the pride of self-reliance, not a trap for the poor.

    That’s why we’re designing a welfare system for the twenty-first century.

    Targeting benefits. Reforming pensions. And helping people from welfare back into work.

    But not tolerating those on welfare who won’t work.

    From next autumn, everyone who is unemployed will need to undertake a contract for work.

    A contract that makes it absolutely clear that they have obligations to accept paid work when it is available.

    Mr Chairman, we’ll continue to shape a welfare system that is generous to those in need. We can do no other.

    But it must be one that also reflects the basic Tory instincts of rewarding prudence, thrift and family responsibility.

    Education

    Education affects not just careers, but people’s whole lives. That’s why, when I became Prime Minister, I put education at the top of my agenda.

    I haven’t changed. But education has.

    Since then we’ve introduced regular tests. Made school inspection more rigorous. Given parents more choice and information.

    Today, three times as many young people become students as in 1979.

    Last year I told this Conference that we would make nursery education available to all 4 year-olds.

    We’re doing just that with vouchers: to put power and choice where it belongs: not in the hands of bureaucrats. But in the hands of parents.

    Choice. Choice. Choice. And all opposed by Labour.

    I still want to widen choice in education.

    Some years ago, we set up the Assisted Places Scheme. It helps children from low income homes to go to our best private schools.

    It’s been a great success.

    But Labour hate it.

    That’s true to form – they always claim to want to help people – but in return they demand that people know their place.

    And in Labour’s view there is no place for children of low income families in private schools. So they want to abolish the scheme outright. Labour’s message to them is: no choice for the poor.

    One of the schools that offers places to pupils on this scheme is in Edinburgh. It’s one of Scotland’s most famous private schools – Fettes.

    Quite a lot of famous politicians went to Fettes including – Iain Macleod.

    Iain Macleod was a One Nation Tory and wouldn’t he have been proud to see pupils of poor families at his old school – sent there by a One Nation Government.

    So am I. So I’m going to give more children that opportunity.

    We’re going to double the Assisted Places scheme.

    But I want to widen choice still further.

    So if parents want specialist schools, we should let them have them.

    And if they want religious schools, we should let them have them too.

    This isn’t a dogma. It isn’t elitist. It’s based on the belief that children are first and foremost the responsibility of parents: and they know what is best for their children.

    We also want excellence in education, so I believe we should let good schools expand.

    Bad schools should be closed.

    Of course, closing bad schools means a row. But it’s the right row to have and Gillian Shephard is prepared to have it.

    Not every child can benefit from the Assisted Places Scheme or private education.

    Real choice will come when every state school offers the highest standards – when every state school prizes discipline, when every state school puts learning before political correctness. Gillian is going to work with every good head and teacher to deliver that.

    Many parents believe they’ve found a way to higher standards already. They’ve chosen for their schools to become independent, self-governing schools: what we call grant maintained.

    These schools are in the state sector. Run by the Head and the Governors. They get their money from government to spend as they think fit.

    Their results have been outstanding.

    That’s why I want to enable all schools to become grant-maintained.

    But Labour want to destroy them – wipe out their freedoms and take away their budgets.

    These schools became self-governing after a ballot of parents. Parents chose independence. Labour want to wreck then without a ballot. Labour hate independence.

    So, parents at the next election – choice or no choice. That’s the choice.

    VE/VJ Day

    This year we have all remembered with gratitude the sacrifice our predecessors made for our forbears.

    VE Day and VJ Day were very special.

    Most of you would have attended some of the events or watched the remarkable television coverage.

    I was there. I found it immensely moving.

    The sense of pride was tangible.

    But Mr Chairman, unlike others, I didn’t hear people on VJ Day shouting out party political propaganda.

    For me, it was a day in which a free people paid tribute to those who kept them free.

    Back in June you will remember the huge commemoration which took place in Hyde Park.

    Let me tell you a story of that day.

    At the entrance to one stand was an elderly man trying to get in.

    He had no ticket – so the security guard was about to turn him away.

    But luck would have it, a brigadier was passing by. Not any old brigadier, but one of the organisers of VE Day. He saw something pinned to the chest of this elderly man.

    Not all of us would have known what it was. But the brigadier did.

    It was the highest award for gallantry in our armed forces: the Victoria Cross.

    The elderly man was immediately given a seat of honour on the platform.

    Later that day, I had the privilege of meeting him – and the other Victoria and George Cross holders.

    I learned that they receive a small annual payment.

    It was £100 a year. A figure set 40 years ago, before many years of inflation. It has never changed.

    It seemed to me that, in this year of all years, it should be changed;

    So to show that this country has not forgotten the bravest of the brave: it will be changed.

    From August this year that payment will be uprated to its original value. It will increase from one hundred pounds a year to one thousand three hundred pounds a year.

    Northern Ireland

    In the last year, life has changed in Northern Ireland.

    I want to make those changes permanent. To see the next generation there growing up in prosperity – and peace.

    Patience, determination and fairness have carried us a long way.

    No one has shown these qualities more consistently than Paddy Mayhew and Michael Ancram – Northern Ireland has been well served by them.

    But we’re not there yet. There are still some who, in one breath, say they’ve given up violence for good – and in the next warn that it could return. It needn’t, and it won’t, unless they themselves pick up the gun.

    But if it is to last, it must be a just peace. One that is fair to all sides.

    And a peace that is constructed away from the shadow of the gun.

    However long it takes, building this peace in this part of our United Kingdom will continue to stand at the top of our priorities.

    Britain in the World

    Mr Chairman, Britain has big interests in the world.

    We are the only nation at the hub of the European Union, the Commonwealth, NATO and the United Nations. We are a nuclear power and a member of the Permanent Five of the Security Council.

    Our armed forces are today serving in more than forty countries including Bosnia.

    I sent troops there in 1992. Not everyone approved but I believe it was right.

    They went to the Balkans for two reasons – to protect men, women and children from starvation, rape and genocide and to prevent a full scale war at the crossroads of Europe.

    They have succeeded superbly – often at great risk to themselves. We can be proud of what they have achieved.

    It now seems possible we may soon have an uneasy peace. I hope so.

    But our role will not end there.

    Help will be needed to monitor the peace and we will play our part in this.

    International influence creates international obligations – and we will meet them.

    The Constitution

    Mr Chairman, we can only continue to be a big player abroad if we remain one United Kingdom at home.

    We recognise that Scotland and Wales are Nations in their own right.

    Of course, if they insist they could ultimately go their own way. We could not properly stop them.

    At the moment there is a clamour for constitutional change as many see the Westminster Parliament as a long way away.

    Some say we would be more popular if we bent to this clamour: if in Wales we set up Labour’s expensive talking shop, or in Scotland we said:

    “OK. You want your own tax raising Parliament you can have it. Don’t blame us when it all goes wrong.”

    But that is not our way.

    We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    I will not trade easy votes today for constitutional chaos tomorrow.

    We are sensitive to people’s concerns in Scotland. So we are looking at more ways of giving people more say over decisions affecting their day to day lives.

    But it’s my duty to warn of the effect of Labour’s plans for the constitution.

    Labour are proposing changes to our Constitution for their own party political advantage.

    In Scotland they are running scared of the SNP – so they have promised to impose a tax raising Parliament in their first year.

    In Wales they are not so worried about Plaid Cymru so Wales would just get an Assembly.

    And in England they can’t make up their minds so there they might – or might not – impose regional assemblies.

    There is no demand for these in England. Labour only promise them in an attempt which fails to justify the over-representation of Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster.

    It is a straightforward gerrymandering and we might as well say so.

    In Scotland, the new Parliament would raise income taxes.

    I hope Scotland realises what this means.

    People in Scotland, uniquely, will pay higher income tax on the same income than people in England or Wales or Northern Ireland. To start with, a tartan tax of an extra 6 pounds a week for the average family.

    Let me ask you a question: if you were a businessman, wanting to invest and create jobs, where would you invest: in Scotland, where you’ll have to pay higher wages to compensate for higher taxes, or somewhere else? You know the answer to that.

    The Tartan Tax will do two things: it will pay for more bureaucrats and more politicians and it will begin the decline of Scottish prosperity. Neither of them are in the interests of Scotland.

    All that is only the start. Conflict with the Westminster parliament would be inevitable.

    And then – the siren voices of the separatists will foment mischief and demand an independent Scotland cut adrift from the UK.

    These are not distant problems. These are Labour’s plans for the first year of a Labour government.

    Mr Chairman, opinion polls tell us the Scottish people are not fond of the Government at the moment. But I’m fond of then and they are being deceived by Labour.

    Labour’s plans are an immediate threat to Scotland and a threat to the United Kingdom.

    We will continue to look for ways to improve the Government of Scotland. That is our duty.

    But we will resist these damaging plans with all our strength. That too, is our duty, and the Conservative and Unionist Party will fulfil it.

    Law and Order

    Mr Chairman, as I go round the country I talk to people about crime. What they want is to feel safe – at home and on the street.

    In the past two and a half years, recorded crime has fallen.

    Well and good. Now we must make sure that the fear of crime starts to fall, too.

    People want crime reduced and criminals caught and convicted. And so do I.

    So today, let me add to what Michael Howard told you yesterday.

    We’re going to step up the fight against crime. To hit it harder and harder and harder.

    Organised crime is big business on an international scale. And – at its centre – is drugs.

    When I see the sheer evil of the drugs trade I am devoid of sympathy for the men around the world who run it.

    They live lives of comfort, often of outward respectability, while they pour poison into the veins of millions.

    Today, no parent, however safe and prosperous their home, can be entirely easy in their mind that their children won’t be offered drugs.

    And that is true in some of our market towns as well as our big cities.

    Two weeks ago, here in Blackpool, a 17 year-old died having taken drugs.

    That boy’s whole future was snuffed out for profit.

    Let me tell you what we shall do.

    First, there can be no question of lifting our border controls. We are an island and we need them. Those controls are vital. They are not negotiable. And they are staying.

    Secondly, our tradition has always been to have local police forces.

    But local forces alone aren’t equipped for this sort of crime.

    So for the first time ever, we’re discussing with the police the establishment of a national squad. This will have one mission: to take on organised crime in this country and break it.

    The police will lead on this. They will have the support of the new National Criminal Intelligence Service, working with Customs, MI6 and GCHQ.

    But all our available skills are not yet involved in this battle.

    For many years the Security Service has protected us against espionage and terrorism.

    But they can’t help the police because it is illegal for them to do so.

    I think that’s absurd. And in an age when our children are more likely to be killed by a drug dealer than by an enemy missile, I think it’s indefensible.

    So this autumn, we will change the law. It’s time to let the Security Service into the battle for the public and against organised crime.

    Day by day, we are making more use of modern science against the criminal.

    We are already using Closed Circuit Television in public places across the country.

    This has been hugely successful. More cameras mean less crime.

    So over the next three years we will add 10,000 more cameras in town centres, shopping malls and public places in every part of the country. They will improve security for the shopkeeper and safety for the shoppers.

    But the most effective eyes are the policeman’s eyes.

    I want to make every street safe.

    Since 1979, we have recruited an extra 16,000 policemen – 500 in the last year

    That’s helpful. But not enough.

    I want to send an unmistakeable message to every criminal that there are going to be still more police on the streets.

    So let us tell Chief Constables now so they can plan ahead.

    So, Chief Constables, begin to plan. Because in the overall arithmetic of this year’s public expenditure settlement we have found the resources over the next three years to put, not 500 but an extra 5,000 police officers on the beat.

    Mr Chairman, I said we intended to intensify the fight against crime – and I mean it.

    Peroration

    Mr Chairman, after four terms, why a fifth?

    Because in a shifting world only we will build a safe future for our people and heal the scars of the past.

    Because we are building a more secure economy as the enterprise centre of Europe.

    Because we are reforming public service to make it more accountable to the public who pay for it.

    Because we stand for choice and excellence in education, and in the midst of the biggest revolution since Rab Butler.

    Because we will retain the old rock solid guarantee of the health service that care will be free at the point of delivery, and where improvement is necessary it won’t be treated as a sacred cow.

    Because defence and security of the realm and the safety of our streets are paramount concerns of our Party.

    We Conservatives are:

    – for the individual, not the state

    – for choice, not direction

    – for ownership, not dependence

    – for liberty, not control.

    These are the enduring things, the cornerstones of our beliefs. We have worked for them, cared for them, fought for them.

    We are building the greatest success for this nation that we have known in our lifetime.

    We will not surrender them to a light-weight alternative.

    We carry the scars of battle, yes, but they’re honourable scars. We know no other Party can win the battles for Britain that lie ahead.

    So when you go home – refreshed and uplifted, I hope, by our Conference – remember these things, and ask the people on the doorstep:-

    – Would taxes be higher or lower under Labour?

    – Would inflation be higher or lower under Labour?

    – Would there be more or less choice under Labour?

    – Would our defence be more secure under Labour?

    You and I only have to ask the question to know the answer.

    We stand for a wise and kindly way of life that is rooted in our history.

    Our hopes from our country are not tired.

    Our ambitions are not dimmed.

    Our message to our fellow country men is clear. Millions have still to make up their minds.

    The choice is theirs. Our Nation’s Future is at stake – and we stand ready to serve.

  • PMQT – 25 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

    Ms Hoey: Has the Prime Minister any understanding of the deep anger that will be felt in the country at the way in which the directors of the privatised National Grid have used tax avoidance measures to ensure that their wives will have hundreds of thousands of bonus shares? What message does that send to pensioners in my constituency who are struggling to make ends meet?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady may not be wholly aware of what has happened. I have made inquiries to clarify the position. I understand that the only share options granted by the National Grid have been granted to its own directors and staff; but, having exercised those options and purchased the shares, directors have then given them to their wives. As the hon. Lady may know, it is a fundamental principle that transfers of property between husband and wife are free of tax, as they have been for a long time.

    If the hon. Lady and the deputy leader of the Labour party wish to change the position, are they saying that they want to make transfers of property between husband and wife taxable? Are they saying that the independent taxation of men and women should be abolished? Are they saying that widows should no longer be able to inherit property from their husbands free of tax? [Hon Members: –“Answer”.] That is the inevitable principle that follows from the point put by the hon. Lady. Once again, Opposition Members are trying to use a particular issue for their own advantage without understanding the implications of what they say.

    Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Prime Minister has heard of the result of yesterday’s meeting in America between his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the leader of IRA- Sinn Fein. I am sure that he has noted what the leader of IRA-Sinn Fein said: that there can be no progress towards decommissioning until there is complete demilitarisation of everyone–that is, the surrender of arms by Army, police and those who have guns to protect themselves–and that all prisoners must be released. Are the Government prepared to negotiate with the leader of Sinn Fein on those terms?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend met the leader of Sinn Fein yesterday to make a point that was very important for both the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others in Northern Ireland: that the best contribution that Sinn Fein could make to the conference and to Northern Ireland’s prosperity would be to promote peace, and therefore to secure the decommissioning of the IRA’s arms and explosives. That remains the Government’s position.

    Until, in these exploratory talks, there have been practical movements forward in the decommissioning of arms, it will not be possible for Sinn Fein to move to full-scale political talks either with the Government or, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman’s party or any other political party in Northern Ireland. That is the point that we have made repeatedly to Sinn Fein, and it remains our position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our objective is to move towards taking the gun entirely out of the politics of Northern Ireland. In that, I believe that we have the support of all the mainstream political parties in Northern Ireland and all the people of Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Blair: To return to National Grid, is the Prime Minister aware– [Hon. Members:– “Oh.”] They wanted us to answer the point and now they do not want us to raise it. Is the Prime Minister aware that the issue is not independent taxation between men and women, but remuneration being paid by way of share options so as to avoid income tax? That is what is actually happening in this case. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that that abuse is wrong and is he prepared to put a stop to it?

    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I favour employee share options and I favour executive share options. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does too, because that is a direct quote from his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. There is no dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and I or between the two major parties about the desirability of share options.

    In this instance, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) has raised a point that has been the subject of publicity today. Having exercised the share options and purchased shares, a husband passed his own property–the shares –to his wife. The leader of the Labour party seems to be saying that if, having done something of which the leader of the Labour party approves– accepted share options–the husband then does what has been done for many years and passes them to his wife, that should now be taxable. That is quite unlike anything that has happened in the past. If that is Labour’s policy, let the Leader of the Opposition please make it clear.

    Mr. Blair: No, that is not the policy. The only reason why the directors transfer shares to their spouses is that the remuneration is paid by way of share options in order to avoid income tax. That is why they do it. That is the issue: it is not whether share options are wrong or right, it is whether they are taxed as income or as capital gains. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that, where remuneration is effectively given by way of share options to avoid income tax and only pay capital gains tax, he will put a stop to it?

    The Prime Minister: Capital gains are taxed at the marginal rate when the capital gain is realised. The right hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that he does not wish husbands to pass those rights on to their wives. The transfer of property between husbands and wives–be it shares, property or capital–is tax free.

    Although the right hon. Gentleman is now wriggling because his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor changed his position mid morning because he realised what he had said and what he had done, the truth is revealed yet again by what the right hon. Gentleman has said: Labour hates privatisation and it hates profit. It cannot stand share ownership. Old Labour lurks there as clearly as it ever did. Labour Members cannot stand the fact that some people receive share options and exercise share options as part of their employment remuneration.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister does not realise that the National Grid has admitted that it used share options to avoid paying income tax. Why does not the Prime Minister stop defending the greed of a privileged few and stand up for the vast majority of decent British people?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better decide whether he is really in favour of share options. The glaring divide between the shadow Chancellor and the leader of the Labour party becomes more apparent day by day. They may sit close together, but clearly they never speak.

    Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today’s announcement of further measures to target taxpayers’ money on making state schools more effective and improving standards? Will he confirm that the Government’s objective is to ensure that all parents are entitled to a good-quality, high-standard state education for their children, not only if they happen to live a couple of boroughs away from a convenient grant-maintained school?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that point. I believe that the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be widely welcomed up and down the country.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the deadlines in Sarajevo represent a critical moment for the authority of the United Nations and its commanders in Bosnia? Will he ensure that, if our commanders on the ground in Bosnia conclude that decisive action must be taken, they will receive the full and unswerving backing of not only the Government but the United Nations in New York?

    The Prime Minister: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view about the importance of the present situation. I am happy to tell him that we have already given that assurance to our commanders on the ground. We made that clear in New York last night and they are aware of our position. The United Nations has also reiterated its full support–by that I mean our commanders will have support for whatever action they may consider necessary in the light of the events of the past day or so.

    Let me add to that point in view of the present situation. We very much wish the United Nations protection forces to continue performing their role. They have saved many lives delivering aid and containing the fighting. I believe the reason for maintaining a force on the ground remains as compelling today as it has been in the past, but all the parties need to be aware that if they continue ground fighting and accelerate it, they may render it impossible for the United Nations protection forces satisfactorily to carry out the mandate that they have been given. I hope that point is fully understood. At present, General Smith and the United Nations forces are very much in our thoughts. They most assuredly have our total support.

     

    Official Visits

    Q2. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Southfleet, Kent.

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

    Mr. Dunn: What advice would the Prime Minister give the leadership of the trade union, Unison, which may be about to inflict a vicious national strike on the British people? The last time Unison inflicted a strike on the British people–

    Mr. Mackinlay: What has this to do with Kent?

    Mr. Dunn: People are concerned about it in Southfleet. The last time Unison inflicted a national strike on British people, hospitals were closed, schools were shut down, operations were cancelled and the dead were left unburied.

    The Prime Minister: I believe that any form of industrial action in the health service would be bound to harm patients. It is difficult to see how it could do anything else. My hon. Friend has provided a graphic reminder of what happened on a previous occasion. I am perfectly certain that no professional nurse would wish to pursue such action, and I very much hope that that will be the overwhelming view. I hope that the few people involved will set aside the language of trade union confrontation, look at the fair offer that has been made to them by the vast majority of NHS trusts up and down the country, accept it and put the issue behind us.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

    Mr. Illsley: From the Government’s overwhelming defeat in the local elections last month, it is clear that the electorate totally rejected their local government policies. In particular, people rejected the Government notion that Labour authorities are high taxing and high spending. Will the Government now abandon plans to cap the expenditure of local authorities this year?

    The Prime Minister: I have very great doubts about whether people have abandoned the notion that Labour means high taxes, both nationally and locally. If one looks band for band at local taxation last year, one finds that in band C, for example–I take the figures from memory, but I think that they are right–Labour councils taxed about £160 more than Conservative councils. That point will be understood increasingly as people examine their tax bills.

    Mr. Robathan: In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report on Islington’s social services? If so, he will have found that the Labour party in Islington put political correctness above the needs of the vulnerable and of the children in its care, and above common sense. Does he agree that, in the same way, the Labour party in general puts women-only shortlists and other forms of positive discrimination and political correctness above the interests of the nation–

    Madam Speaker: Order. What other parties do is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I have told the House time and time again that Ministers at the Dispatch Box answer for their policies, not for what other people do. Perhaps the Prime Minister can give some answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I hope that the House will remember in future that Ministers are to be questioned about their responsibilities, not about anything else.

    The Prime Minister: The substantive part of the question followed on nicely from the question asked by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) a moment ago. Like everyone in the House–I would hope–I read the reports about what apparently happened in Islington council and found them extremely disturbing. They show what happens when political correctness runs riot. I believe that tolerance, in that environment, becomes excess. It causes untold suffering for those in need of help. This was a sad example of what happens when the Labour party is in power. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central neglected to mention the activities that went on in Islington, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to my attention.

     

    Q4. Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

    Ms Quin: Does the Prime Minister recall his prediction at the 1991 Conservative party conference that Labour would introduce eight new taxes if it took office? How does that claim look now in the light of the 20 new taxes that he and the Government have introduced?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Lady should glance at the list of new taxes to which Opposition Front Benchers have committed themselves if they come to government– [Hon. Members:– “Rubbish.”] Opposition Members are right: most of the taxes that they propose are rubbish. Labour is now and always has been the party of high taxation at national and local levels, and while the Opposition continue to commit themselves to more spending on every occasion, they always will be the party of high taxation.

  • PMQT – 16 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Griffiths: As the vast majority of the British public want to see the accounts of political parties open to maximum public scrutiny, will the Prime Minister join Labour in calling for the Nolan committee to examine all aspects of party political funding? Or what has he got to hide?

    The Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, within the past 18 months the Home Affairs Select Committee conducted a full inquiry into these matters. Subsequent to that inquiry, the Conservative party has implemented in full the code of practice drawn up by the Committee. The Labour party has refused to do so.

    Mr. Lamont: Will the Prime Minister take an early opportunity to point out to the public that almost every country in Europe has had to put up taxes to deal with the effect on deficits of the recession? Will he also point out that, even after recent tax increases, the tax burden in this country in the 1990s will be lower than it was in the 1980s, just as it was lower in the 1980s than in the 1970s, including deficits? Will my right hon. Friend also point out that, thanks to Conservative Governments, this country has by a long way one of the lowest tax burdens in Europe?

    The Prime Minister rose — [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend is entirely right– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: I commend to hon. Members opposite the excellent speech that my right hon. Friend made on this matter on Friday last week. As a result of the recovery, and despite the tax changes that we were compelled by the recession to make, households will actually be about £250 a year better off on average after tax and inflation this year.

    Mr. Blair: Given the latest pay and perks scandal in the utilities at the weekend and today’s massive rise in electricity profits, does the Prime Minister recognise that the utilities have degenerated into an unseemly racket and that the sooner he orders a thorough overhaul of their system of regulation the better? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have no more barracking from sedentary positions by individual Back Benchers. They will be named the next time.

    The Prime Minister: Everyone wishes to see consumers protected. That is precisely why we have regulators to control prices and why, when necessary, the regulators have acted to control prices. Utility prices have fallen during the period of privatisation.

    Although I have not yet had the opportunity to consider in detail the proposals of the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have to say that artificial plans to control profits smack very much of old Labour, not new Labour. The determination of what the Opposition call “reasonable profits” seems to me to be impossible. Who determines their level? Who says what is reasonable? What happens when profits bounce back after a period in which there have been losses? Do they apply just to the utilities or to other industries? These are the sort of questions that we would have asked of the Labour party in the 1970s; now we discover that we must ask them of the Labour party in the 1990s as well.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm the following? Electricity prices in real terms for domestic households have risen since privatisation, as the House of Commons Library confirmed this morning; water charges have risen by more than 40 per cent. since privatisation; gas complaints are up by 150 per cent. in the past year– [Interruption.] He can cap rail fares only by promising an open-ended subsidy from the taxpayer to privatised operators. Why does he always stick up for the excess profits and the managers who make themselves into millionaires rather than the hard-pressed consumer, who is forced to use such monopoly services and is fed up with the way they are being run?

    The Prime Minister: That was very well prepared, but almost entirely inaccurate. The reality is that the nationalised industries once cost the taxpayer £50 million a week and the privatised industries now yield £50 million a week. The average price of domestic electricity to households has fallen by 8.5 per cent. in real terms over the past two years; the price of gas has fallen by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since privatisation; BT’s main prices have fallen by more than 35 per cent. in real terms since privatisation; Britain’s water is now among the cleanest in Europe– [Interruption.] When those industries were all nationalised, prices went up year after year after year. The Opposition would like to control and regulate from the centre; they are determined to go back to when prices went up and not down year after year after year.

    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday’s vote by the police, which showed that they do not wish routinely to carry arms? Does he feel, like me, that the best way in which to protect the police from those who carry arms is to increase the sentences that we can inflict on such people, and will he consider bringing back the death penalty for the murder of police officers?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly very strongly support the decision not to carry firearms taken by the police in their ballot yesterday. That is wholly in tradition with policing in this country. I believe that it is the right decision and I warmly congratulate the police on having reached it. In recent years, we have increased the penalties for a large number of offences. I shall not retail them all at this moment, but I will willingly set them out in a parliamentary answer if my hon. Friend wishes me to do so. As my hon. Friend knows, I personally do not favour the return of capital punishment.

    Mr. Ashdown: If the Conservative party has put its house in order on the question of funding, why will the Prime Minister not allow Lord Nolan to look into it? Does not the question of funding of all political parties go to the heart of the public’s concern about trust in our political system? Does the Prime Minister not realise that, while he got high marks for establishing the Nolan committee, he will get no marks if he now seeks to turn what he told us was to be the public’s bloodhound into the Prime Minister’s poodle?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone who has studied the membership of the Nolan committee or knows any of its members would remotely recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s description of it. As he knows, there are only two ways of funding political parties in a free democracy. One is by subscription or donation freely given, and it is right in an open society that donors, if they wish, should preserve anonymity. [Interruption.] The other way is to fund political parties out of taxpayers’ money. I do not favour that way and I hope that we shall not go in that direction. What is wrong about funding of political parties is when the funding of a party actually buys influence over its policy. [Interruption.] That is what is happening with the Opposition, where trade unions have 70 per cent. of the votes in Labour policy-making bodies, and even the proposal for dramatic reform would only diminish that to 50 per cent.

    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been signed there remains a serious threat of proliferation, and that the possession of a nuclear weapon is a measure of deterrence against those who would possess nuclear devices? Does he not find it absurd that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen say that they would hold Trident but would never use it? Does he think that that would deter anybody?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that there is a logical case for saying that one would scrap Trident–although I passionately disagree with that case, as I believe that Trident is necessary as a deterrent–but it is absolutely intellectually unsustainable to say that one would have Trident as a deterrent, but to tell those whom it is there to deter that one would never use it. If that is their position, the Opposition might as well take the money and pour it down the nearest drain.

     

    Q2. Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Griffiths: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there are now an extra 500,000 people, notably those on low incomes, paying tax, principally because of the cuts in the married person’s allowance last month, and that, after 16 years of Tory government, there are a record 26.2 million people paying income tax? Is the message not clear: “Tory Governments damage your wallet”?

    The Prime Minister: First I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, if we had retained the Labour tax regime, there would have been an extra 1 million people in tax today. As for his specific questions, there are two substantive reasons why more people are paying tax this year. One is wage drift upwards. The second is the number of people who were unemployed but who are now in work and paying taxes. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that drop in unemployment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Jenkin: Further to the notice that I have given my right hon. Friend, as we approach the 1996 intergovernmental conference in Europe, and more particularly as we approach the ‘reflections’ group meeting in the summer, will he undertake to publish the Government’s contribution to that group? Is it not essential that the IGC should address not stories about square strawberries and straight bananas, but the real public anxieties about growing European Union power–anxieties which the Leader of the Opposition apparently does not share, as he would give away the veto? Like one of his predecessors, the right hon. Gentleman may be fit to become a European Commissioner one day, but he is unfit to lead this nation.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of the matter that he proposed to raise. I certainly agree that the European Union needs to be more responsive to the views of its people, with less interference and less red tape. We shall enter the IGC with a positive agenda, providing for more intergovernmental co-operation in a Europe of nation states, including co-operation in foreign policy, in defence and in the international battle against crime.

    I believe that the European Union, both at the IGC and beyond, should give more consideration to Europe’s place in the world rather than to the internal politics of the nations currently within it. We shall also press for more subsidiarity, more action against fraud and mismanagement, and a strengthened role for national parliaments. We shall not surrender our veto or our opt-outs from the social chapter and the single currency. I will consider my hon. Friend’s request that we should publish our paper.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Wicks: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement of his Health Minister, Baroness Cumberlege, speaking to the Royal College of Nursing, that

    “community care clearly isn’t working”

    and, if so, what does he intend to do about it?

    The Prime Minister: I understand from my hon. and noble Friend–who is more familiar with the quotation than I am–that the hon. Gentleman has quoted the remark out of context.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a tax-raising legislative assembly in Edinburgh which fails to address the West Lothian question and the number of Members from Scotland in this House is bound to be unworkable and will be merely a stepping stone to separation?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be unworkable because some questions about it are unanswered and unanswerable. No one has yet explained why Scottish Members should be able to vote on English matters while English Members would not be able to vote on Scottish matters. There is silence from the Opposition on that. No one has yet explained why people who live in Scotland should pay more tax simply for the pleasure of being in Scotland. Again, there is silence from the Opposition. If the Opposition were serious about the constitution of Scotland, they would long ago have been able to answer a range of questions on the matter. Yet they still cannot answer them. Their policy is bad for Scotland, bad for the economy and bad for the United Kingdom.

  • PMQT – 25 April 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April.

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

    Mr. Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister join, I am sure, all Members in the House in condemning the use of the word “nigger” by the comedian Bernard Manning, and endorse the comments of the local chief constable that that was a vile, racist performance, and that he would rather that no one among his force went to further performances by Bernard Manning? Will the Prime Minister write to Bernard Manning and remind him that such views, in the year in which we commemorate the sacrifice that our parents made to defeat Nazism, are particularly offensive?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly think that everyone should avoid expressions that give offence to those who are on the receiving end of such expressions. That is true of Mr. Manning and everyone else.

    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the open recruitment of homosexuals into the armed forces, and the acceptance of homosexuality in the armed forces would devastate morale within our excellent service?

    The Prime Minister: I have sympathy with the point put to me by my hon. Friend. I know that it is a concern shared by the chiefs of staff.

    Mr. Blair: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to see the extraordinary spectacle of the victory parade by his Euro-rebels over the Government on the lunchtime news? Can the Prime Minister therefore tell us whether he has even secured the minimal guarantee from those rebels that, on a future vote of confidence– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Calm down–all of you.

    Mr. Blair: Has the Prime Minister secured even the minimal guarantee from the Euro-rebels that, on a future vote of confidence on Europe, they will support him?

    The Prime Minister: I can sense the concern in the right hon. Gentleman’s voice. Perhaps he would like to tell me whether he has received the support of the 50 MPs who defied his Front Bench over Maastricht; of the 40 who defied him over European finance; on a single currency, where the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was in dispute with the deputy leader of the Labour party; and on clause IV, which half his, I think he called them, infantile MEPs want to keep. He does not, and his deputy leader does one day and does not the next. These are party matters. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what his position is?

    Mr. Blair: There is one very big difference–I lead my party, he follows his. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair rose — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is using up very valuable time.

    Mr. Blair: So the short answer is that the right hon. Gentleman has received no guarantee whatever. So is it not clear therefore that, after all his tough talk at the beginning about no unity through appeasement, he has caved in, his party is still divided and the white flag flies over Downing street?

    The Prime Minister: I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman leading his hon. Friends below the Gangway. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a real difference. We have been leading in Europe. He will follow in Europe on every issue. He will follow Europe in undermining our veto, in renegotiating our rebate, in surrendering our opt-out, in signing up to the social chapter, in higher taxes, in more spending and in more red tape. His idea of the red flag is the white flag on every conceivable European issue. If he seriously thinks that he leads his party, he should look at the faces of his colleagues below the Gangway.

    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party has traditionally and rightly been loath to allow power to the state that could be used to limit personal freedom unduly, to harass or intrude on privacy? Does he accept that the alleged benefits of introducing identity cards would not justify the risks to civil liberties? Will he dismiss proposals for a national identity card, whether compulsory or so-called voluntary?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that on this issue I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that there are significant advantages which identity cards may offer to prevent crime and to prevent fraud. It is for that reason that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Secretary, intends to publish a Green Paper setting out the various options that are available. We believe that on such an issue it is only right that there should be full public consultation. No option at the moment is ruled in or ruled out until we have completed that consultation period. I believe that it is right to consult. When we have consulted, we will make a decision on whether to proceed and what nature of card we may then seek to introduce.

     

    Q2. Mr. Rendel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April.

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

    Mr. Rendel: Given that the level of balances held by county councils is already considerably lower than the level that the Government assume in their calculation of grants to those councils, how does the Prime Minister justify calls by himself and many of his hon. Friends that county councils should further run down their balances to make up for the Government’s education cuts?

    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to the House before, perhaps when the hon. Gentleman was not here, the levels of expenditure on education have risen, not fallen. Of course, in different counties different priority is given to education. Some education authorities– Conservative Brent, for example–have found it possible to increase their spending on education by 6 per cent. Other councils have done the same. It depends on the choices that councils themselves make. I regret that many Labour councils and many Liberal Democrat councils have chosen not to give the priority to education that I would have preferred.

    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend consider today the many changes that the Conservative party has brought about in education policy in the past 16 years, which have widened and diversified choice? Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Secretary of State for Education about whether it is time to move one stage further to a national funding formula for education? Is he aware that in Derbyshire the local education authority holds back £720 per pupil compared with £570 in Nottinghamshire, and £550 in Staffordshire? If that money went directly to the schools, there would be no need for any cuts in the number of teachers in our schools. Is it not time that we started to show up the money which LEAs spend in county hall rather than in the schools in our constituencies?

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many people in what he has just said. Many responsible education authorities are coping with this year’s settlement by getting their priorities right and by ensuring that the bulk of resources go to front-line services such as schools. Many Labour education authorities are not doing that. They seem to be in the lead in financing a messy bureaucracy. I do not know the position in Labour-controlled Derbyshire, but no doubt my hon. Friend does and was correct.

     

    Q3. Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April.

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

    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on 21 March that there were two administrators for every three teachers across the country? Where did he get those fictional figures, when the Department for Education and the Welsh Office have said that it is impossible to calculate a ratio of administrative staff to teachers? When outside experts have tried to calculate a ratio, they put it at about 1:8 rather than 2:3. Will he now apologise for misleading the House inadvertently with his spurious reference to that ratio, which was a feeble effort to divert attention from his miserly decision not to fund the teachers’ pay award?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman took a long time to be wrong. [Interruption] –Yes, I suggest that he has a look at the figures in “Social Trends”.

    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a new consensus in British politics, which is based very much on Conservative principles? Does not the the Leader of the Opposition pay the Government the greatest compliment by spending most of his time trying to convince the country that when the day comes when he has a policy of his own, it will be a Tory one? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if the people of this country were to support that new consensus, which was created by the Conservative party, the best thing that they could do is to vote Conservative and not for the vacuous, pale imitation on the Opposition Benches?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman both criticises our policies and copies our policies whenever he can. I am content for him to do that. I regard imitation as a very sincere form of flattery.

     

    Q4. Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April.

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

    Mr. Marshall: In response to a previous question, the Prime Minister referred to high taxation. In that context, will he inform the House how much extra taxation the average family in this country is paying compared with the amount paid in April 1992?

    The Prime Minister: I can tell the hon. Gentleman, and he will be pleased to know, that even after extra tax and inflation, households on average are expected to be about £250 better off this year. I can also tell him that most of the figures used by the Labour party about tax should be divided by two before one gets remotely near accuracy.

    Mr. Luff: Whatever the rights and wrongs of teaching children in classes of more than 30, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be repellent for teachers to pick on some children in such classes and expel them from lessons? Is not that an appalling abdication of responsibility for the education of our children?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that removing children from classrooms where there are more than 30 pupils will appeal to very many teachers. I know that some people have suggested it. I believe that the common sense of the vast majority of teachers will reject any such notion.

     

    Q5. Mr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 April.

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

    Mr. Berry: In recent debates on the Government’s Disability Discrimination Bill, they have suggested that citizens advice bureaux will be important in enforcing the Bill’s provisions. Is the Prime Minister aware that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has just said that it is in no position to do so? How on earth does he expect the provisions of that Bill to be enforced?

    The Prime Minister: The Bill contains a wide number of provisions. It also contains the provision for the National Disability Council to advise the Government on such issues and we will take whatever advice it chooses to give us on that issue.

    Mr. Gallie: Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent report from Scottish Nuclear today, which shows that the cost of generation has been reduced to 2.2p per kWh–without the nuclear levy enjoyed by Nuclear Electric? Does he feel that that suggests that, if the Government ever picked privatisation for the nuclear industry, Scottish Nuclear could do a magnificent job as a single entity?

    The Prime Minister: We are very close to the completion of the nuclear review and an announcement about its conclusions will be made and a White Paper published as soon as possible. We will present the conclusions to Parliament at that time. Privatisation of the two nuclear generators before the next election is an option that is actively under consideration and so is the future of the fossil fuel levy.

  • PMQT – 20 April 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

    Madam Speaker: Order. We must hear the question.

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 4 April 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th April 1995. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply. [Hon. Members:– “Oh.”] I am grateful to Opposition Members.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently on an official visit to the United States.

    Mr. Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware of the sad plight of about 3,000 haemophiliacs who have contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood used in their ordinary treatment? Do the Government accept the overwhelming moral responsibility that exists and the case for a hardship and compensation fund? When the Prime Minister returns from America, will the Leader of the House ask him to have a word with the Secretary of State for Health and tell her to stop resisting that claim and allow justice to be done?

    Mr. Newton: The straightforward answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is that of course I am aware of that tragic position. Indeed, I had some experience of a related one when I was Minister for Health and there was the problem of haemophiliacs with AIDS. I will, of course, do as the hon. Gentleman requests and bring his question to the attention of not only my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

    Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on Scotland’s continuing success in attracting inward investment. Might that in any way be prejudiced by Opposition parties’ policies with regard to devolution?

    Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that all the signs are that Scotland has just enjoyed another record year for inward investment. I understand that it is attracting inward investment projects at the rate of about 100 a year, examples being Motorola at East Kilbride and NEC at Livingston. One thing is certain: that inward investment is coming as a result of Conservative policies and would be put off by Labour policies.

    Mr. Prescott: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why, if the economy is now so strong that the Prime Minister can offer tax cuts in November 1995 and November 1996, taxes are going up again on Thursday?

    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman well knows that taxes have had to be increased as part of a number of difficult decisions to bring about recovery from recession and the sustained economic growth that is now going on. As my right hon. Friend said once again at the weekend, as those policies pay off we shall seek to reduce taxes as soon as it is prudent to do so. The one thing that everyone in the country knows is that a Labour Government never have, and never will, reduce taxation.

    Mr. Prescott: Is it not the case that the Government are taking £800 a year in new taxes now, so that at the next general election the Tories can bribe us with our own money? Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the British people now know that, when it comes to tax, you can never trust a Tory?

    Mr. Newton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on two facts. The first is that, on average, households are expected to be about £250 better off this year than last, even after tax and inflation, and the second, on which I hope he will reflect, is that, if we had maintained the tax regime that we inherited from the last Labour Government, more than 1 million more people would be paying tax next year.

    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that middle England is not a land that takes kindly to political correctness or positive discrimination? Will he give a firm assurance that under the Conservatives it will never have to submit to either?

    Mr. Newton: I think that I can safely give my hon. Friend that assurance in general terms, but I would want to look carefully at each specific proposition.

     

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

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Pearson: Now that the Prime Minister has promised tax cuts in November, will the Leader of the House say whether that is a real promise or the sort of promise that the Chancellor makes on a wet night in Dudley?

    Mr. Newton: It is a point that is reflected in the fact that one in five taxpayers now pays tax at the lower rate of 20p in the pound compared with the basic rate which stood at 33 per cent. when the Labour party was in office. That point is also reflected in the fact that last year’s increased allowances for pensioners took 190,000 people out of taxation– many of them, no doubt, in Dudley.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 56,000 asylum applications awaiting decision? Are not bogus asylum applications damaging to the prospects of honest and true immigrants as well as damaging to race relations? Will my right hon. Friend do something about it? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.

    Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already announced measures to speed up the processing of asylum applications to deal with the backlog. As a result, 7,000 more cases will be processed every year. My hon. Friend will be aware of, and no doubt welcome, the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear last weekend that there will be a new Bill in the autumn to tighten up the asylum rules further. I believe that that will be widely welcomed, as it is, as my hon. Friend said, in the interests of good race relations.

     

    Front-line Services, Sheffield

    Q4. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Sheffield to discuss funding of front-line services.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

    Mr. Michie: Two years ago, the Prime Minister did have plans, but never arrived. When the Leader of the House answers this supplementary question, will he debate not the past but the present and future in terms of funding in Sheffield? The funding in terms of Government grant is becoming so bad that it is affecting front-line services to such a degree that the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party in Sheffield support a redetermination bid. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to support that bid and to come to talk to the people of Sheffield–the carers, teachers and children–who are suffering under the present regime?

    Mr. Newton: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman, like many other Opposition Members, does not want to debate the past, and I will not do so–I shall come to the present. The latest figures for March 1994 show that there are, in Sheffield, nearly £8 million in council tax arrears, more than 1,200 vacant properties and unspent school balances of £5 million. Perhaps the Opposition should address those problems first.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Barron: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Barron: Has the Leader of the House seen the latest report of the National Federation of Housing Associations, which reveals that because of Government cuts this year, only 17,000 new homes will be built? Given that repossessions in Britain are still running at 1,000 per week, does he agree with me that the Prime Minister’s offer on Saturday of a White Paper on housing is totally inadequate for the needs of the country?

    Mr. Newton: I might pay more attention to the hon. Gentleman if his comments were a little more balanced–for example, if he had acknowledged that last year housing starts were up 13 per cent. and repossessions have fallen by more than a third since the peak in 1991. He might have added that the average mortgage is now down by £140 a month since 1990.

     

    Q6. Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Heald: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the Audit Commission report on the performance of local authorities, showing that Conservative authorities provide better services at lower costs, that eight out of the top 10 most debt-ridden councils are Labour and that, typically, a Conservative council has a council tax 40 per cent. lower than a Labour council? Does that not show that Britain is better off under the Tories?

    Mr. Newton: I sense some support for my hon. Friend and I certainly wish to extend my support to him. The report ties in the indicators in the Audit Commission report with the fact that for the average band C council tax payer, Conservative councils cost people nearly 40 per cent. less than Labour councils and 25 per cent. less than Liberal Democrat councils. The fact is that Conservative councils do cost less and provide better services.

    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister expect a vote of confidence in the Government in the Scottish local authority elections on Thursday?

    Mr. Newton: I envisage that in the Scottish local elections on Thursday people will focus on the fact that in Scotland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, Conservative councils cost them less and give them better value for money.

     

    Q7. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend consider joining me in congratulating the Federation of Small Businesses, which voted at its annual conference to come out of the European Community? Does he agree that most good economic ideas have their origins in small businesses?

    Mr. Newton: I fall short of expressing congratulation in quite the terms that my hon. Friend seeks, but I certainly did note the resolution of the Federation of Small Businesses in Torquay, not least because I happened to be in the west country that weekend and was asked one or two questions about it. We all understand the federation’s concerns, not least about what is sometimes seen as excessive interference and over-regulation. We need to continue to address those real concerns, both by our attitude to subsidiarity in Europe and by our policies on deregulation at home.

    Mr. Winnick: In view of the Government’s deep and continuing unpopularity, can the Leader of the House tell us how far the Prime Minister is safe from internal party intrigues to change the party leadership? Does he accept that the words of loyalty he will no doubt say were used by Cabinet Ministers in 1990? Look what happened to her–she was betrayed by her Cabinet colleagues and repeatedly stabbed in the back.

    Mr. Newton: I recall something else about 1990, which is that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the deep unpopularity of the Government two years before we won the last election.

     

    Q8. Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the continuing waste, bureaucracy and extravagance that mark so many Liberal and Labour local authorities? Is he aware that Suffolk county council, while protesting frugality, is spending some 30 per cent. more on its education bureaucracy than the surrounding counties–money that could be spent directly on schools and pupils?

    Mr. Newton: I was not aware of the specific figures from my neighbouring county of Suffolk. What my hon. Friend said will certainly strike a chord with many Conservative Members. The figures reflect the extremely large number of non-teaching staff compared with teaching staff, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has referred on a number of occasions.

    Mr. Simpson: Will the Leader of the House explain the compelling case for a cut in taxation at a time when the Government will not fully fund the pay awards that they make, or the services that they demand, in health and education?

    Mr. Newton: The compelling case is to strike an appropriate balance between those considerations and the considerations of enlarging choice and improving our economic prospects. The Government have constantly sought to do that and it is reflected in the improvement of our public services, in the strengthening of our economy and in paving the way to cut taxes when it is prudent to do so.

    Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House clearly understands that the butchers, the bakers and the candlestick makers are fed up with regulatory overkill. Will he take this opportunity to confirm to the House that he understands that, when Government make a law, that law impacts most heavily on those who get up in the morning and make something or do something–in other words, those people who create the wealth in our nation and upon whom the rest of society depends?

    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I repeat the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). There is no doubt that our emphasis on reducing unnecessary interference from Brussels through the subsidiarity theme and not least our emphasis on deregulatory measures at home–which we shall continue to drive forward–are of great importance to the business prosperity of this country.

  • PMQT – 21 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

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

    Mr. Hill: In his busy day, has the Prime Minister noticed that his plea for peace within the ranks has failed and that the Chancellor and Lord Tebbit are at each other’s throats again over Europe? How does he feel now that it is apparent that all sides of his party share the same view as the rest of the country–that he has no authority and is not up to the job?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about differing views in Europe, I suggest that he has a look around the Benches beside him. If he seriously thinks that the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), agrees with the Leader of the Opposition, or that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), he is living in a fantasy world.

    Mr. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most calls for more funding are really calls for higher taxation and that most calls for greater economic well-being are really calls for higher inflation? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, undertake to continue his policy of keeping a firm grip both on inflation and public expenditure and not to do what the Opposition always seem tempted to do–cheaply to buy people’s votes with their own money?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the necessity of holding down public expenditure, and equally right to point out that it is simply economically illiterate to object to taxation levels and at the same time to call for higher expenditure, as the Opposition so frequently do.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Education Secretary, who said this morning– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair rose —[ Interruption. ]

    Madam Speaker: Order; otherwise I shall have to name a Member on the Conservative Back Benches.

    Mr. Blair rose —[ Interruption. ]

    Madam Speaker: It is Jacques Arnold.

    Mr. Blair: I apologise to my hon. Friend’s dog.

    Does the Prime Minister agree with his Education Secretary who this morning admitted that in funding the teachers’ pay award some schools and authorities would face “considerable problems”?

    The Prime Minister: Of course we recognised from the outset that this year’s settlement is tough in education. We have never made any secret of that fact. We have made it clear that local authorities must choose their priorities. We believe that teachers in the classroom are a priority and should be a first priority among education authorities.

    Mr. Blair: But what does the Prime Minister say to schools and authorities that, as the Secretary of State for Education admits, do not have the reserves and balances to fund the award? If it is proven to the Prime Minister’s satisfaction that such schools and authorities exist–for example, in Tory Buckinghamshire–will he take action and intervene?

    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what I would say to such authorities. If any local authority is thinking of cutting the number of teachers in the classroom, I would ask it what savings it had made in non-teaching aspects of education. I would ask if it has two administrators for every three teachers, as happens across the country. I would ask what administrative savings it had made. If the answer is none, I would ask, “Why have you made no savings, and why are you singling out teachers in the classroom?”

    Mr. Blair: Is not the Prime Minister aware that five out of the six authorities with the lowest administration costs are Labour–and that all are facing cuts? The right hon. Gentleman talks about non-statutory funding. His Secretary of State for Education said what that means–nursery education, youth work and school transport. Is that an option? Why does not the Prime Minister listen to the voices of parents, governors and teachers, who speak for Britain when they say that if we fail to provide properly for our schools, we are not just letting down our children but betraying our country’s future?

    The Prime Minister: We have provided more adequately for education and for choice in education than the right hon. Gentleman would ever contemplate. If he wants to know what the priorities are, I suggest that he addresses authorities–most of which are run by Labour–about the 1 million surplus school places, which cost £250 million a year, about making use of the estimated £700 million in unspent balances held by schools and about cutting bureaucracy at county hall, where they have failed to take account of the responsibilities of schools and where for every three teachers there are two support staff. Those are the questions that the right hon. Gentleman should address to education authorities. If he thinks that there are no savings to be made, I suggest that he refers to the Audit Commission report, which made it clear that better management of pay bills would save £500 million–5 per cent. of the whole pay bill.

    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that regional assemblies for England would be confusing, expensive and divisive? Does he accept that people in Hertfordshire do not want to be governed from Norwich? When he exposed that policy, the Labour party fell into confusion and chaos. Will he say today that we are not going to do it?

    The Prime Minister: There certainly seems to be some confusion on the Opposition Benches about regional assemblies. Almost every statement about them that can be made has been made. As Labour examines its policy, it realises that it is the total nonsense that I pointed out some time ago.

    Mr. Prescott indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; clearly he does not understand that his party’s policy is nonsense. When Labour examines its policies for Scottish and Welsh assemblies in further depth, it will find precisely the same.

     

    Q2. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

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

    Mr. McKelvey: Has the Prime Minister no sense of shame at having dithered over obscene fat cat salaries, alienating low-paid workers in the health service, including nurses and midwives? Is not the right hon. Gentleman setting the scene for a summer of discontent throughout the NHS?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have funded the health service better than any previous Government. That is clearly shown by the number of people treated in the national health service, the wider range of services and the better treatment that is available.

     

    Q3. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact that this is national science, engineering and technology week, has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the encouraging report from engineering employers, which states that economic recovery is developing in a way that will increase national prosperity in the longer term? Is not that a tribute to Government economic policies, and is not this the right time for young people to go for a career in engineering?

    The Prime Minister: I agree about that, and about the need to encourage more young people into engineering and more people into learning skills of that sort. That is why we established the non-vocational qualifications some time ago. In engineering and manufacturing generally exports are growing and employment is increasing; that has not happened in manufacturing generally for many years.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

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

    Mr. Alton: I welcome the Government’s decision to provide £1 million for the clearing of anti-personnel mines in Cambodia. Is the Prime Minister aware, however, that there are 100 million anti-personnel mines strewn around the world, and that there have been 1 million casualties and fatalities, especially among children? Does he agree that the time is ripe for an international moratorium that would bring within its scope the area- denial mines that are still shipped out of this country? Will he not agree with the terms of the early-day motion, now supported by more than 100 hon. Members of all parties, urging the Government to give a moral lead?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the fact that he wished to raise a detailed question about land mines. We have neither produced nor exported anti-personnel mines for some years, and we have contributed generously to the demining programme. In July we announced an indefinite moratorium on exports from the United Kingdom of mines without a self-destruct mechanism. We shall be hoping to use the review in September of the UN weaponry convention to strengthen the protocol on the use of land mines and to ensure that its provisions gain universal support.

    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend support a measure to make it a statutory requirement that all local authorities declare in their published budgets what is and what is not a statutory requirement and a statutory area of expenditure?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend suggests an ingenious method of ensuring that local authorities’ priorities are met. I shall invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to examine it.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

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

    Mrs. Prentice: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Home Secretary who is right about the feelgood factor?

    The Prime Minister: The people who have most felt the feelgood factor thus far are the 600,000 people who are no longer on the unemployment register, as a result of the fall in unemployment. In terms of economic management, we are seeking to make sure that we come out of the recession of two years ago in a way that avoids laying the seeds of future difficulties, which were sown on many other occasions since the Second World War. Hence we have had to take long-term, difficult decisions; as a result we now have the best prospects of rising living standards, year after year, that we have had for many years. That will produce a very good feelgood factor.

    Mr. Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members share the qualms about land mines expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), but that none of us will accept the fact that Liberal Democrat county councillors are not funding education as they can–particularly in East Sussex, where they resisted and voted against a Conservative amendment to the budget that would have provided the necessary funds for education in the county?

    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the example to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, but the rather cavalier use of taxpayers’ money by Liberal Democrat authorities is no new phenomenon.

     

    Q6. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 March.

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not true, from what we have seen and heard, that there is no policy area apart from Northern Ireland about which the people of this country believe anything that you, Prime Minister, have to say? In education, the parents and teachers are against you. In health, the midwives have been moved to militancy. Is not the best thing that could happen to this Government who cannot agree among themselves that you should resign and that we should have an immediate election?

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the House and the Prime Minister correctly. Would he like to try again? He has another minute.

    Mr. Sutcliffe: I apologise, Madam Speaker, if I have not spoken in the language of the House, but I am expressing what I think the majority of British people feel.

    The Prime Minister: Had the hon. Gentleman been in the House longer, he would have heard remarks like that put to me before the last general election.

    Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend publish all the evidence, some of it garnered in response to hostile questions from Opposition Members, which shows beyond any doubt whatever that a reduction in the top rate of income tax has increased the proportion of tax paid as a total from the top 10 per cent., and that any proposal to increase the top rate of income tax will produce a shortfall in revenue which can then be obtained only from middle-income earners?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend sets out a matter that has been well understood for many years. I will certainly invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to lay that information out in the House of Commons Library. It might be very instructive for the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is giggling on the Front Bench because he does not understand it.

  • PMQT – 16 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 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.

    Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence of Labour councillors personally benefiting from fraud, corruption, nepotism and inefficiency is such that people should be informed about it before they vote in the local government elections?

    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that there are many cases of waste, inefficiency and malpractice in Labour councils; increasingly, one has seen that in auditors’ reports. It is right that the auditors should investigate and make those matters public.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm, as a matter of fact, that in a few weeks’ time two new tax rises will be introduced–the cutting of mortgage tax relief and of the married couples allowance–which will add about £250 a year to the average family’s tax bill?

    The Prime Minister: I will certainly confirm the tax changes to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I will also confirm for him that, as a result of the measures taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are now well into the most sustained recovery on the most secure basis that this country has seen for many years, with the economy growing at almost 4 per cent., exports at record levels, the current account in surplus, investment rising and unemployment now having fallen by 600,000–a set of economic circumstances that we have not seen for many years. That is largely due to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend took the right decisions at the right time.

    Mr. Blair: Are not those tax rises, on top of the existing ones, one reason why people feel so angry about this Government? Is not the truth that, with taxes up, mortgages up and living standards falling, all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done is confirm what the vast majority of the British people already knew: that unless you are one of the favoured few at the top, you are worse off under the Tories.

    The Prime Minister: Which taxes would the right hon. Gentleman cut? Which pieces of expenditure has the right hon. Gentleman opposed? How many times has the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) sought extra expenditure of one sort of another? When is he going to understand the most basic economic fact–that he cannot promote expenditure and call for tax reductions and expect to be taken seriously? We have taken the measures necessary for this country’s economy. That is why our economy is more effective, more efficient and more competitive than any other economy in western Europe.

    Mr. Blair: I will tell him what I understand, that– [Hon. Members: — “Oh.”] Since he asked me the question again, let me tell him what is wrong. What is wrong is to fight the election promising to cut taxes then raise them by 7p in the pound.

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about what is right for this country, why does he not for once acknowledge the changes that there have been in this economy? Why does he not for once acknowledge what once he used to say–that his plans for a minimum wage would cost jobs? Why does he not acknowledge what a large number of business men are now telling him across Europe–that his plans for the social chapter would cost jobs? Why does he not acknowledge that this country now has an economy that Labour could never have achieved if it had followed the advice of the shadow Chancellor, who on every conceivable occasion has guessed wrongly about what should happen with this economy?

     

    Q2. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate those parents who have set up an organisation called PASS to defend the right of parents to send their children to grant-maintained schools? Will he arrange for an application form to be sent to the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister: I fancy that the right hon. Gentleman does not need one, but his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who speaks on education from the Labour Front Bench most certainly does, for he would still destroy the chances for parents to send their children to grant-maintained schools, even though the vast majority of hon. Members in this House, including the right hon. Gentleman, know that that choice should be available to every parent.

    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister’s comments on waste and inefficiency, how does he justify an increase over the past four years of 36 per cent. in the amount of public money spent on Government entertainment? What would he have to say to a council which was forced to sack teachers and which responded by raising by more than a third the money that it spent on its own entertainment?

    The Prime Minister: I think what I would say to any council which was contemplating that sort of action concerning teachers would be: how many administrators in education is it looking at, why are there two administrators for every three teachers in education and why do county councils like the right hon. Gentleman’s seek to look at teachers before they look at other areas of savings?

    Mr. Faber: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity in the past couple of days to discuss Anglo-Belgian relationships with his counterpart the Prime Minister of Belgium, and in particular what must have been a disappointing visit for him to west London on Tuesday night? At what is undoubtedly a difficult time for British football, would my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chelsea football club on a stunning victory on Tuesday night, its fans on the good-natured manner in which the game was watched, and the Metropolitan police especially on the firm but sensitive way in which the game was policed?

    Madam Speaker: I should just inform the hon. Gentleman before the Prime Minister attempts to answer that question that, nice as it may seem, the Prime Minister has nothing whatsoever to do with the success of Chelsea football club.

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to pass credit for the success to the players. May I simply say that I am delighted at how well they did?

     

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

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

    Mr. Mullin: Did the Prime Minister read this morning’s comment by Lord McAlpine that a spell in opposition would be a good thing for the Tory party, and does he agree that this is one of the rare occasions on which the interests of the Tory party and of the nation coincide?

    The Prime Minister: I did see the comments in the New Statesman and Society . I understand that Lord McAlpine is promoting his book, which is a work of fiction.

     

    Q4. Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend share the pleasure of my constituents in Basildon at the first visit to this country of a President from the Philippines, Fidel Ramos? Will he tell the House whether any trade agreements have been reached as a result of the visit? Finally, will my right hon. Friend do all in his power to assist and encourage the President to try to alleviate the plight of street children and to take forward the social reform programme?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, I am delighted to welcome President Ramos to the United Kingdom. He will find a very warm welcome here and would clearly find one in Basildon also, were he able to visit it. I am not sure whether the President is here long enough to do so on this occasion, but when I meet him later on this afternoon I will be happy to pass on the invitation. I understand that it has been a successful trade visit and a number of contracts have been signed with substantial British companies.

    I know that President Ramos is achieving a great deal with his social reform programme and I know that the whole House would welcome all that can be done to help street children, both in the Philippines and elsewhere.

     

    Terrorism

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty’s Government have received from Sir Colin Figures and Sir Peter Marychurch concerning knowledge of an impending attack on airlines at Frankfurt airport in December 1988; and what response he has sent.

    The Prime Minister: We have received no such representations.

    Mr. Dalyell: In that case, could Sir Colin and Sir Peter be invited to shed light on the very specific jictels–Joint Intelligence Committee telegrams–giving clear information about the downing of an aircraft in October, November and December 1988? Could they shed light on the agreement reached by western intelligence with terrorist elements in the middle east about the downing of just one airliner, rather than 10 or 12, in what was described by Mohtashemi as “the rain of blood”, and also on what they know of statements by United States agencies about Major Charles McKee not being able to return to the United States alive?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that detailed question so that I might examine the matter before responding.

    As he knows, the Lockerbie investigation is the largest criminal investigation ever undertaken in this country. I have to reiterate to the House that the Lord Advocate has discovered credible evidence against two people only, and they remain the only two accused. If concrete new evidence were brought forward, it would of course be fully investigated. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman, of which he was kind enough to give me prior notice–that western intelligence agencies would enter into a deal with terrorist groups to allow the destruction of an aircraft–is utterly and completely unfounded. It did not happen and the hon. Gentleman can be assured upon that point.

     

    Engagements

    Madam Speaker: The next question is from Mr. Skinner.

    Mr. Skinner: Question 5.

    Hon. Members: Question 6.

    Mr. Skinner: All right; Question 6.

     

    Q6. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Skinner: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports today that if the Tory party loses more than 1,000 seats in the local government elections in May, which it undoubtedly will, senior Tory Members of Parliament are going to kick him out like a dog in the night? Last year, the Prime Minister said that he had got three bastards in the Cabinet: I do not think that he can count.

    The Prime Minister: As for counting, I shall answer the hon. Gentleman’s Question 5 and Question 6 at the same time.

    The substantive part of the hon. Gentleman’s question might well have been asked of me last year, the year before last, and the year before that. It almost certainly was, and it will very probably be asked of me next year, the year after and the year after that.

    Sir Graham Bright: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports in this morning’s newspapers suggesting that he is considering plans to change how state education is funded? Will he confirm to the House that that is not so?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I did see the report to which my hon. Friend refers and I can tell the House categorically that it is absolutely without foundation. I do not know whether it is incompetence or malice, but it is certainly inaccurate.

     

    Q7. Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister seen today’s statement by the rail regulator that decisions on sleepers and Motorail are a matter not for British Rail but for the Government? Will he therefore confirm today that there will be a full and formal consultation before any decisions are taken on those vital services?

    The Prime Minister: I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers to the Fort William sleeper. Representations on that can be made during consultation on the ScotRail public service requirement. In the meanwhile, British Rail will retain the assets.

    Madam Speaker: As we started late, I can allow one more question.

     

    Q8. Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two Conservative- controlled district councils in my constituency–Forest Heath and St. Edmundsbury–plan no increase in council tax this year? Is he aware that the only reason why my constituents will pay more council tax this year is because of Lib-Lab controlled Suffolk county council, despite it having used up some £16 million of reserves so carefully built up by the last Conservative administration?

    The Prime Minister: Lab councils are a very expensive luxury indeed and I am not surprised to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. Last year, Conservative councils cost around £131 less at band C than Labour councils, and this year the difference looks as though it may be even greater – probably as much as £160 less. I hope that the electorate will bear that in mind in May.

  • PMQT – 24 January 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

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

    Mr. Flynn: Was not top Tory John Maples right when he said that Tory Britain means the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor? Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that the orgy of unashamed greed of top salaries is justified? How does the Prime Minister explain that the wage of one boss of a privatised industry is worth the same amount of money as that received by 20 doctors or 100 nurses?

    The Prime Minister: I have set out my views on board pay before and have made it clear that I do not agree with excessive and unjustified increases. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would agree. If he feels that the matter has been badly handled, he might discuss it with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who declares an interest in a company that advises British Gas and North West Water.

    Mr. Rathbone: When my right hon. Friend is making plans for the Tory manifesto for a Conservative victory at the next general election, will he pay particular attention to policies that touch on and support the encouragement of the family?

    The Prime Minister: Yes. I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend’s suggestion. We are embarking on perhaps the widest examination of the policies that will be right, up to the next century and beyond it, that any party has undertaken for many years. I look forward to contributions from my hon. Friend and many others.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister says that excessive pay awards are a matter for shareholders, and as the Government are the 40 per cent. shareholder in National Power and PowerGen, why will he not intervene?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear from the outset that, having put the company in private hands, we are not going to retain control over detailed decisions within the company. Recently, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have been speaking about something that sounds much like the beginning of a pay policy.

    Ms Church: Yes.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady says yes. I am pleased to hear that she says yes. The right hon. Gentleman had better decide whether the new Labour believes in the free market or in controls and the politics of envy. The truth is that the language is new, but the prejudices are familiar.

    Mr. Blair: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what we believe in: public services run for the public and in the public interest. We can see whom the Tories represent. While they represent these excesses, the Labour party will speak up for the vast majority of ordinary people. People struggling to pay their bills and worried about their living standards are fed up with the same small group of people playing the boardroom equivalent of the national lottery and awarding themselves huge pay increases, hitting the jackpot week after week at the expense of the public.

    The Prime Minister: Well, now we see it: the right hon. Gentleman is becoming a slave to grievance politics. I shall tell him who is concerned about public services–the people who put the services that did not serve the public well in private hands. The result is that prices are falling, investment is rising and consumers are getting better service now, in the private sector, than before. The Labour party’s campaign shows just how unreconstructed and envious the Opposition still are. The right hon. Gentleman makes no reference to the improvements in services. All he is doing is milking prejudice and exposing the fact that the Labour party has not changed.

    Mr. Robert Banks: Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s most welcome reports confirming that the Samsung Heavy Industries Company from South Korea is to establish a manufacturing plant near Knaresborough in my constituency, ultimately providing up to 600 jobs? Does he agree that the United Kingdom beat off competition from eight European countries because our Government have managed the economy so well? We have an excellent infrastructure; more importantly, we have a brilliant work force in Yorkshire.

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that Samsung has decided to invest in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am only sorry that we did not hear the same sort of support for inward investment when NEC went to Livingston and Black and Decker went to Sedgefield. The fact is that more inward investment is coming to this country than to any other in Europe because of the policies that we have followed, and because we will not accept the social chapter. People can see that the economy of this country is doing better than any other major economy in Europe. That means jobs for people in this country–jobs that would be lost by the policies followed by the Labour party.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the life sentence handed out to Private Lee Clegg, although required by the law, is nevertheless shamefully inappropriate, and that this is the moment for him to be released under licence, and the law changed?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for Ministers to comment on the actions of the court.

    There are two points that I can make to the right hon. Gentleman about Private Clegg. The first is that there have been suggestions in recent days of fresh evidence that might cast doubt on Private Clegg’s conviction. If so, that evidence should be provided to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He will then consider it and decide whether it is sufficient to refer to the Court of Appeal.

    Secondly, after the recent decision, the question arises what should happen to Private Clegg now that his conviction has been upheld by the court. As the House will know, as for all life sentence prisoners there is a process to be gone through before a release date can be set. It will include consultations with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and it will take into account the nature of the offence. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that that process is undertaken both effectively and with due care.

    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when the Government banned veal crates and introduced the strictest regulations governing the transport of animals, and when they recently introduced welfare regulations covering the rearing of pigs, they did so hoping that Europe would soon follow? Will he persist in that policy?

    The Prime Minister: We certainly will persist in that policy. We need a European-wide level of legislation if we are truly interested in animal welfare. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pressed that issue in Brussels yesterday. He secured agreement yesterday to advance the review of European Union requirements, which was scheduled for 1997, and found that there was considerable sympathy for the aim of phasing out the veal crate. I believe that the writing is on the wall for that production system, and there is no one in Europe who can take more credit for that than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

     

    Q2. Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

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

    Mr. Battle: As the Prime Minister and his Government hold the golden shares in the privatised water companies, why is he allowing Yorkshire Water to force people to have compulsory, expensive water metering, so that families, pensioners and the disabled pay the highest price for their water while Sir Gordon Jones and his directors hoard thousands of shares to themselves and skim off some £829,000 in boardroom remuneration?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my first answer, he would have known the answer about the golden share. What the hon. Gentleman illustrates, yet again, is that, whenever they can, the Opposition wish decisions to be taken by Labour Members of Parliament. They are in no sense interested in the private sector. They are not interested in putting decisions out to the private sector. [Hon. Members:– “Sleaze.”] Whatever they may say, they want centralisation and nothing but. [Hon. Members:– “Sleaze.”] Those Opposition Members who are chanting may well be directing their chants to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), but they need not chant at me.

     

    Prime Ministerial Visits

    Q3. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Ruislip-Northwood Parliamentary constituency.

    The Prime Minister: I have not had the opportunity to do so.

    Mr. Wilkinson: Had my right hon. Friend been able to visit the Ruislip-Northwood constituency since 28 November 1994, he would have found strong support from local people, backed by their local Member of Parliament, for the view that RAF Northolt, which is frequently used by Her Majesty’s Ministers, should develop its services to the armed forces to the full. It welcomes the forthcoming arrival of the Queen’s flight, but local residents would not approve of any extension of civil movements to RAF Northolt beyond those already permitted.

    The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on one of the most effective pieces of coat-trailing that we have heard in the House for some time. I understand the points that he made and will draw them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

     

    Taxation

    Q4. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister what was the tax burden on an average income family in 1991; and what is the estimated burden on a similar family in 1995.

    The Prime Minister: The answer would depend on a number of factors, such as family size and expenditure pattern, which the hon. Gentleman does not specify, but I can tell him that real take-home pay after tax and inflation has risen by 4 per cent.–about £11 a week in today’s prices –since 1991 for a one-earner family on average earnings and is expected to rise further next year.

    Mr. Cohen: Despite the Prime Minister’s manifesto assertion, “I believe in low taxes,” since the previous general election an average family must pay an extra £15.50 a week in tax. Will he give the reason for that whacking increase, especially as public services have deteriorated or been privatised? Surely the Prime Minister should be referred to the Nolan committee for bringing manifesto commitments into disrepute.

    The Prime Minister: Were that to be so, after that question the hon. Gentleman would have to join me, for he will know that the Labour party proposes to introduce–in addition to existing taxes–a windfall tax, a payroll tax, a health tax, an entertainment tax and a development tax. That is on top of the intricate piece of accountancy by the Liberal Democrats, on which I congratulate them, which suggests that Labour party plans would already add 5p to the standard rate of income tax. While we head for 20p, the Labour party heads for 30p.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Legg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

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

    Mr. Legg: Will my right hon. Friend please assure those of my constituents whose children are at grammar and independent schools that he has no plans to abolish the assisted places scheme or charitable status, or to stop selection? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the Opposition wish to abolish such schools, many of their spokesmen have benefited from them?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. A large number of what I believe are called, in current Labour terminology, “sensible” parents have evacuated their children from Labour-controlled education authorities and sent them elsewhere, including the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms Harman), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Barking (Ms Hodge).

    Mr. MacShane: Cheap.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is cheap, but that is what they have done.

     

    Indonesia

    Q6. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Indonesia.

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

    Mr. Corbyn: As the Prime Minister has no plans to visit Indonesia, will he convey to the Indonesian Government the British people’s abhorrence of the illegal occupation of East Timor and the death of 200,000 East Timorese people at the hands of the Indonesian army? Will the right hon. Gentleman halt all British arms sales to Indonesia, which have been used to suppress and oppress the people there, and specifically ban the export of the Scorpion personnel carrier which can be used to kill and injure people in East Timor in order to maintain that illegal occupation?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not recognised the Indonesian annexation of East Timor. That has been our position for a long time and we continue to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to find a lasting solution to the problem. However, there is neither a European Union nor a United Nations embargo on arms sales to Indonesia; nor do I believe that one would be justified.

  • PMQT – 10 January 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Ms Corston: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable for the Government or for any individual Minister to hide behind Britain’s laudable ban of the veal crate system while turning a blind eye to the annual export of hundreds of thousands of calves, knowing full well that they will spend their short lives in wooden boxes in the dark?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done more than most people in this country to try to change the laws right across Europe to deal with veal. Both he and I would like to see less trade in live animals and more in carcase form. But, as the hon. Lady will know, there is a long tradition of Agriculture Ministers having farming interests, which they rightly stand back from when they are Agriculture Ministers. What the hon. Lady did not mention was that my right hon. Friend’s farm is managed on a day-to-day basis by a farm management company headed by a Labour Front-Bench spokesman in the House of Lords.

     

    Q2. Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members want to wish him and his family a very happy and prosperous new year? Is it the Conservative party that wants to put VAT on school fees, split up the United Kingdom with devolution plans, or nationalise utilities under clause IV, or is it the lot opposite, led by Bambi, with his 60 quid-a-week haircut, who sends his son to a grant-maintained school when his party want to abolish them? Is there anything more dishonourable than that? I do not think so. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I can tell, Madam Speaker, that this is going to be an uncontroversial Session of Parliament. My hon. Friend leads us in that direction. Clearly, the policy-making activities of the principal opposition party are running into some difficulties at the moment. I do not think that many people are quite sure who these days is forming Labour policy on education, health, energy and other subjects. The closer one examines Labour policy, the more it falls apart. My hon. Friend should not object to that; he should lie back and enjoy it.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that any attempt by the rail regulator under privatisation to cut through-ticketing, with the result that people may have to travel 50 miles to get a train ticket, would be utterly unacceptable, and will he, if necessary, intervene to stop such an attempt?

    The Prime Minister: As the Secretary of State for Transport said the other day, and as I am happy to reaffirm, we have repeatedly made clear our commitment to maintaining through-ticketing.

    Through-ticketing should continue to be available from a wide range of outlets, to meet passengers’ needs. The regulator, like other regulators, is by law independent, but the Secretary of State has powers to give him guidance under the Railways Act 1993. The regulator is bound to take account of such guidance, but at this stage, prior to the issue of a consultation document, the question of guidance is entirely premature.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister has no power to prevent the regulator from introducing such an arrangement–what he has described is merely guidance–will he undertake that if the regulator makes such proposals he will direct the franchising director not to offer a franchise to any of the 25 companies unless it offers a complete through-ticket service?

    The Prime Minister: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman, I am at least as committed to through-ticketing as he is. He is trying yet again to have it both ways. The Labour party complains routinely that the Government should have more powers over the regulator, but if we had such direct powers it would complain about Government interference, as it did during the rail strike.

    Mr. Blair: I shall tell the Government what we complain of–the railway system being sold off instead of being used as a proper public service. If the Prime Minister cannot guarantee through-ticketing, and if he is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a privatisation that people do not want, when the public rightly fear that it will be used to produce the same pay excesses as exist in other privatised utilities, why does he not accept, as this country does, that our party’s campaign to halt the privatisation is right, and that the railways should be retained as a proper integrated public service?

    The Prime Minister: If privatisation is as bad as the right hon. Gentleman says, why will he not commit himself to renationalisation of British Rail? After 50 years of nationalisation, is he really satisfied with the present rail service? Can he name any time at which the service was satisfactory? If not, why does he oppose changes that will make it satisfactory? The Labour party has opposed every privatisation. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what Labour said about other privatisations. It said that British Airways would be

    “the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all”.

    British Airways is the most efficient airline in the world. I have a stack of similar quotations for the right hon. Gentleman, about every privatisation. Privatisation works; we are privatising rail and there will be a better service.

    Mr. Dover: What hope can the Prime Minister give to the oppressed people of Chechnya, in view of the determination of President Dudayev and of the Chechnen people?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone doubts that a tragedy has been taking place in Chechnya in recent weeks. Chechnya is indisputably part of the Russian Federation, and the long-standing revolt that has taken place there under local leadership has posed serious problems. I share my hon. Friend’s implicit concern about the way in which the problem has been handled in recent weeks and about the bombardment that has led to so many civilian casualties. As with other allies, we have expressed our concerns directly to the Russian Government. Most recently, the Foreign Secretary saw the Russian ambassador this morning.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Beith: Under this Government, can any Cabinet Minister claim that he is responsible only for the policy of his Department and not for its operational failings, however many there are and however many have been preceded by warnings from those in a position to know that things are going wrong? Is not good government about running things properly? What will happen to Ministers who have proved not to have done that?

    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State concerned is responsible for the policy of a Department, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear in the illustration to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Operational matters fall into a different category, as has been the case for many years. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to recent gaol escapes, and he will know that during the past 20 or 30 years there have been a large number of incidents under Governments of both major parties, and also a Government involving the Liberal party. Such incidents have occurred without making necessary the resignation of the appropriate Secretary of State.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Townsend: Recalling that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself voted for the Second Reading of the War Crimes Act 1991, and noting that the funding for the special war crimes unit at New Scotland Yard is to be wound up at the end of March, will my right hon. Friend consider drawing stumps on the whole grisly business? It must be perfectly obvious that not a single person will ever be successfully prosecuted under that expensive Act.

    The Prime Minister: It was recognised from the outset that the police investigations into serious crimes which were committed a long time ago would be difficult. I understand that the police investigations will be completed by the end of March this year. The decision therefore on whether or not to prosecute will be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who will be advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I prefer to await that advice before saying more.

    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the matter of war crimes, we are talking about personal involvement in mass murder? As the House has repeatedly approved the principle in the War Crimes Act, will he confirm that if–but only if–there is sufficient evidence against individuals of complicity in that murder, they will be prosecuted no matter how long they have managed to evade justice?

    The Prime Minister: I think that that was implicit in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) a moment ago, when I made clear that a decision on whether or not to prosecute will not be a political decision. The decision will be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General upon the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

     

    Q5. Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a full range of educational opportunity is of the utmost importance to the citizens of this country? Is not it clear from the utterances of the past few days that the old, nasty Labour party is waiting to leap out, given half a chance?

    The Prime Minister: I am not altogether sure that it has not already leapt out during the past few days. We have seen the quickest U-turn in history about a tax on school fees, the education spokesman unfortunately not being told what the education policies really are; and Opposition spokesmen in open disagreement about a graduate tax and a range of other totally and utterly vindictive education policies. Those policies will show everyone where the Labour party stands on equality of choice, opportunity and freedom.

     

    Q6. Mr. William O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. O’Brien: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern that has been expressed by many fire service authorities about reductions in their expenditure, which may bring about a danger to property and to life? May I warn him of the situation in West Yorkshire? There has been a £3.2 million cut in expenditure, which could mean a reduction of 116 firefighters in West Yorkshire. Will the Prime Minister take action to ensure that we have continuity of service which will help in the protection of property and life in West Yorkshire in particular, and across the country in general?

    The Prime Minister: Of course the fire service is immensely important. Of course we will make a judgement that we believe will ensure that it can be adequately available to all people who are likely to need it. I am not immediately familiar with the particular circumstances of West Yorkshire. It would be surprising were I to be so. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend to look particularly at that in the light of what the hon. Gentleman says.

    Mr. Kynoch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal for a Scottish Parliament put forward by the Labour party must inevitably lead to higher taxes and costs for businesses, particularly in Scotland? Does he further agree that if that is so, it will inevitably be the first stage on the slippery slope towards the break-up of the United Kingdom–something which the Labour party seems to be intent on achieving?

    The Prime Minister: I fully understand the many people in Scotland and, indeed, in Wales, who believe that a tax-raising assembly may be of assistance to them. I passionately believe, in their interests, that that is a mistaken judgement. I do not believe that the degree of investment that has gone into Scotland and Wales would continue if those investing there had the unique advantage of being more highly taxed than people in other parts of the United Kingdom. I see a great danger of businesses uprooting themselves and moving away from Scotland.

    I have seen no answers yet to the West Lothian question, which the Leader of the Opposition apparently failed to understand when he was asked about it at a press conference yesterday. I have no doubt that the sort of devolution proposed by the Labour party would do immense damage, first to the people of Scotland, secondly to the people of Wales–although they would apparently have a lesser form of devolution–and above all to everyone throughout the United Kingdom.