The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Unemployment

  • PMQT – 18 March 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 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 meetings later today.

    Mr. Hughes: The Prime Minister yesterday made the uniquely personal decision not only to have a general election on 1 May and to dissolve Parliament on 8 April but that Parliament should be prorogued and sent away this Friday. [Interruption.] Is it not obvious that one of the reasons for that decision and for the unprecedented gap between prorogation and dissolution is that–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is so time-consuming. Come on, Mr. Hughes: spit it out.

    Mr. Hughes rose–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. There is no point in waiting for silence: the hon. Gentleman will not get silence. Produce your voice, Mr. Hughes.

    Mr. Hughes: One of the reasons for that decision is that the Prime Minister knows that the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on cash for questions will be ready on Monday or Tuesday. That report will therefore not be seen by hon. Members in this Parliament and will be hidden until after the general election.

    The Prime Minister: One of the reasons for making the announcement on Monday and arranging for Parliament to be prorogued on Friday was to give the hon. Gentleman time to finish his question. As for Sir Gordon’s report, I have no knowledge when it will be presented.

    Sir Cranley Onslow: Following his successful visit this morning to the headquarters of the McLaren formula 1 team in my constituency, does my right hon. Friend agree that what counts is not who is ahead at the first corner, but who has the skill, expertise, stamina and nerve to see the race right through to the winning post?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The purpose of going to see the McLaren team was rather wider than that. I wanted to draw attention to a tremendous British success story, of which there are many. McLaren and the British motor industry have been a huge success. Of the 20-odd cars that lined up at Melbourne for the grand prix won by David Coulthard, 20 would have been built in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that a situation where two thirds of health authorities and one third of hospital trusts are in deficit to the tune of £300 million is grave, and potentially disastrous for many parts of the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: I find it odd for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about funding in the health service, since he has declined to increase funding, whereas we have given a commitment to do so. In any event, the figures that he uses are blown out of all proportion. The forecast deficit is a relatively small fraction of the national health service budget and, of course, in less than two weeks’ time, funding for the national health service will rise by £1.6 billion, a multiple of the deficit to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

    Mr. Blair: Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities have deficits this year that will not be met by real-terms growth next year? To give one example, in north Essex, the deficit is £10 million and the real-terms growth that he is promising is only £9 million. He is not keeping the promise that he says he is making. He may believe that this is a matter of no account whatever, but is he aware that non-emergency surgery is being cancelled up and down the country, that accident and emergency departments are closing, that waiting lists are up and that there are bed and staff shortages in many parts of the national health service? Is that not a real tragedy, and disgraceful handling of the NHS?

    The Prime Minister: Some time ago, the answer to the question whether the NHS was working was set out by the shadow Foreign Secretary as whether more people were treated, and treated well. Since then, an extra 1 million people are being treated, and treated well, in the NHS. The number of consultants in accident and emergency departments has risen by 40 per cent. over the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman does not mention that. He does not mention the fact that we have committed increased resources over and above inflation to the national health service every year since 1979, and will do so throughout the period of the next Parliament. That is a record that would not have been met by any previous Government, and cannot be met by any other Government, because they would not have delivered the growth in the economy that we have achieved.

    Mr. Blair: The contrast is between the Prime Minister’s complacency and what people know is happening in the national health service the length and breadth of this country. Is it not the case that in, the past six years, there has been an increase in administration costs of more than £1.5 billion a year, with 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses? Is not the truth that the real challenge of the national health service is how to get money out of invoices, contractors, managers, company cars and pen-pushers and into front-line patient care so that we can rebuild the national health service that the Labour party created?

    The Prime Minister: There are elements of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say with which I would agree. That is why we support compulsory competitive tendering, which he does not support; that is why we cut a whole tier of management that he voted to keep; that is why we have cut management costs by 10 per cent., £340 million, in the past two years. He cannot do that.

    No one is being complacent about the need to improve the health service: that is why we are providing more resources; that is why I mentioned the extra doctors in accident and emergency; that is why 1.5 million more patients are being treated, with more than 10 million more in-patients every year, 3.5 million day cases a year and 14 million out-patients a year. Health service hospitals are now dealing with 75,000 patients every day of the year–£730 for every man, woman and child in the country, very nearly double the amount when his party left office. The Labour party may have set up the health service, but we have built it up.

    Mr. Sykes: When my right hon. Friend comes to choose his new Cabinet on 2 May–[Interruption.] Listen to the page three boys shriek, Madam Speaker. I remember when they were shrieking in Sheffield the week before the last general election. I should like to hear them shriek after this election, every single one of them. What would my right hon. Friend say if all that he had to choose from after the election was a group of failed teachers, a bunch of ex-trade union officials, one television director and a bar steward? That is all that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has to choose from.

    The Prime Minister: I think that it would be a kindness to protect the right hon. Gentleman from ever having to make such a choice. Who is meant by the bar steward, I cannot imagine.

     

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

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

    Mr. Wareing: How did the Prime Minister have the audacity at the weekend to tell Tory central council that his type of Conservatism aimed to help the struggling classes–the have-nots? In 18 years of Tory rule, what did his Tory party ever do for the homeless, the sick and the disabled? The Prime Minister is not only past his sell-by date, he is well beyond his use-by date. It is time he went.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is unusually animated on this occasion, for reasons that I do not understand. I suggest that he asks the millions of council tenants who would never have become home owners but for the activities of the Conservative Government or the millions of people who now have savings, shares and pensions that are owned by them rather than held by a Labour Government, as they were in the past, on their behalf. We believe that, in the late 1990s, people should have the right to personal ownership for themselves and their families, and that is what we are building. We apply that to everyone, not just middle-income earners such as the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. French: Did my right hon. Friend see the reports at the weekend that 40,000 people took to the streets of Paris to protest against the rising tide of European unemployment? Can he explain to the House why the same thing has not happened here and what will be the quickest way of making it happen here?

    The Prime Minister: I saw that, and I have also seen the trend in unemployment in many countries across Europe. The Labour party is keen that we should sign up to a 48-hour week, the minimum wage and the social chapter. Perhaps Labour Members should hear what the United States Chamber of Commerce had to say about the 48-hour week. It has just told the Irish Government:

    “It is no exaggeration to say”

    that it would be

    “the single most negative change in the last 20 years.”

    We intend to continue to put people back to work, as we have done in spectacular fashion in the past 18 months. Policies such as the social chapter, the minimum wage and the 48-hour week–however glib they may sound–are a recipe for putting people out of work if they are in work and, if they are out of work, making sure that they stay out of work for a long time ahead. That is the poison pill of the Opposition’s policy.

     

    Casualty Units (London)

    Q3. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to a London NHS hospital to discuss the operation of casualty units.

    The Prime Minister: We have made an extensive investment in recent years in London’s accident and emergency services as part of a £400 million capital investment to provide the highest-quality and up-to-date facilities. I hope to have the opportunity to see some of them before too long.

    Mr. Corbyn: When the Prime Minister finally gets around to visiting a casualty unit in a London hospital, what answer will he give to staff who have seen one in seven of all the acute beds in London lost, 12 of the 46 casualty units closed, huge waiting lists, people waiting on trolleys, loss of morale among staff and the recent resignation of the consultant in charge of the casualty unit at Queen Mary’s University hospital, Roehampton, who left because he could no longer run it within the budget provided and did not feel that he was giving people a decent service? Is that not the reason why nobody trusts him and his Government on the future of the national health service and will accordingly vote him out?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the first advice that I would give them is not to vote Labour, because they are getting more money from this Government than they would from any putative Labour Government. I would tell them that the number of consultants in A and E departments has risen dramatically by 40 per cent. I would tell them that the number of nurses appointed had risen by 21 per cent. I would tell them that more patients are being treated. I would tell them that the hon. Gentleman is living proof that old Labour lives, because, while the Labour Front Benchers are saying that they will not raise taxes, he is saying:

    “What . . . many”–

    including the hon. Gentleman–

    “have been talking about is the need to raise taxation for the above average income people in order to pay for the rest. I see a moral justification for that and I think it is the right thing to do.”

    That may be what he tells the consultants, but it is not what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) tells the consultants.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Party Rally – 22 February 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Party Rally, held in Birmingham on Saturday 22nd February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Introduction

    I am delighted to be here in Birmingham today.

    Birmingham is one of the great industrial cities of the world. It’s a superb shop window for the United Kingdom.

    Each year, the G7 group of industrial nations meets to discuss policy. In recent years, they’ve been joined by Russia. Next year, the United Kingdom will hold the presidency of the G7 taking over from the United States.

    I’ve decided that Britain will host next year’s G7 summit here in Birmingham. The great economic nations of the world will meet in one of the great industrial cities of the world.

    Between now and then, we must achieve something never done before – a fifth successive election victory.

    The question we’ll face is simple: “After 18 years, why 5 more?”

    Well the answer to that is easy: it’s because on all the main issues we’re right and – as usual – Labour is wrong.

    After the election the government will inherit the soundest economy Britain has known for generations.

    We built it and I intend we shall inherit it.

    The longest consistent fall in unemployment since Ted Heath was Prime Minister. The longest period of low inflation since Mr Churchill was Prime Minister. The lowest basic rate of income tax since Mr Baldwin was Prime Minister. The lowest level of strikes since – well, since Mr Gladstone was Prime Minister. Britain is becoming the economic success story of Europe.

    That’s a fact. You can’t hide it.

    These days Britain’s economic success is so obvious – even Labour daren’t deny it.

    So they claim it would be safe with them.

    Well, you have to admire their nerve; they opposed our spending plans, tax changes, privatisations, deregulation – they opposed every single policy that has delivered success.

    And then they claim they can carry forward the success of these policies.

    They also claim they can be trusted with the unity of Britain when their priority is to break it up into smaller parts.

    And they say they can be trusted on Europe, when their policy is to copy its mistakes.

    On three main election battlegrounds – the economy, Europe, the Constitution – Labour are wrong, wrong and wrong again.

    The Foot-in-the-Door Salesmen

    To understand what New Labour is all about, you need to put yourselves in Labour’s shoes. When you’ve been wrong all your life what do you do?

    Imagine the PR men’s advice.

    “Ditch your past. Don’t say what you’d do. Just say what you’re against. Avoid details. Dream up gimmicks for headlines. Copy Tory language. And – above all – don’t forget to smile”.

    New Labour is one great marketing scam. They only say what they are told the customer would like to hear. The exact characteristic of the foot-in-the-door salesman.

    Nothing is quite what it seems. It depends on who they’re speaking to.

    They are for grammar schools in the Wirral, but against them at the Party Conference. They are for lower taxes in The Times. But in favour of more spending in The Guardian. They are tough on crime in The Daily Mail. But soft on crime in the House of Commons. Put it altogether, and what do you get?

    The world’s first:

    Federalist – Nationalist,

    Unilateralist – Militarist,

    tax-cutting, more spending,

    grammar school loving, grammar school hating,

    socialist, non-socialist party.

    There’s an old story of a seasoned politician who was once asked what time it was by a voter.

    “What time would you like it to be?” he replied. That, in a nutshell, is New Labour policy.

    If it would win a vote, please a newspaper editor, satisfy a pressure group, Labour would say anything.

    If it would win two votes, they’d believe anything.

    And if it would win three votes, they’d do anything.

    They’re prepared to disregard the views of a lifetime in the briefing of a lunchtime.

    As day succeeds day, the fraud that is New Labour becomes more transparent.

    You can’t take at face value a word that Labour say. That’s why they’re so dangerous.

    The Labour Leader claims he and his Party have changed.

    Well the oratory has changed.

    But have Labour really changed?

    New Labour runs Liverpool – the council with the highest Council Tax. No change there.

    New Labour runs Sheffield – the council with the largest number of empty homes. No change there.

    And, of course, New Labour runs Islington, the council with the worst education results in England. No change there.

    Mr Blair says – and I quote, “I don’t think the character of any party becomes clear until you’re in power”.

    Let’s take his word for it. In all these councils New Labour are in power.

    And what do we see?

    New Labour – same old story.

    One thing is clear, locally or nationally, you can’t trust Labour with Britain’s future.

    Why Five More Years

    But why does Britain need five more years of Conservative Government?

    Not just to protect what we’ve achieved but because there’s much to be done.

    In the 80s and early 90s we curbed inflation, extended private ownership, began to reform our schools and hospitals, toughened up the law.

    We should be confident and proud of what we’ve done.

    In the Tory years, the quality of life has been transformed.

    No other Party would have attempted it – let alone achieved it.

    But the Conservative reforms aren’t over – not by a long chalk.

    Now we must carry them forward.

    What is it people are still concerned about?

    Where are the areas that still need reform?

    They’re the areas where the state still has too much control.

    Where the consumer is swamped by bureaucracy and the individual is forgotten.

    Education

    Take education.

    I believe parents have a simple wish: to know that when they send their children to school, that school – paid for by their taxes – will give their children a decent education.

    They should be able to count on that.

    After years of reform, our Manifesto will give them a Guarantee of Standards. The first pillar will be tests.

    In the next Parliament we’ll test children at 7, 11 and 14.

    We’ll publish the results so that parents can see how their children are progressing, and teachers can discover how much their pupils have learnt.

    And we’ll change the way tests are marked, so children get scores out of 100. I think you’ll agree that’s common sense.

    It’s also common sense that every child is different.

    So we will go on creating a range of schools, breaking up the drab slab of a solely comprehensive system.

    More grant-maintained schools.

    More specialist schools.

    And, yes, more grammar schools.

    If that’s what parents like, that’s what parents will get. Labour can’t bear any of this.

    They wriggle, they writhe. They twist, they turn.

    Never mind watching their lips – watch the agony on their faces as they perform their lingual gymnastics, trying to hide their hatred for choice and their dislike of diversity.

    Grant-maintained schools, grammar schools, assisted places – we Conservatives believe in extending choice, not opposing it. It’s the basis of our philosophy.

    And how Labour detest it.

    But choice is meaningless unless it’s a choice of good schools.

    A choice of bad schools is no choice at all and, tragically, in some Labour education authorities, that’s all you get.

    We can already take over schools that are failing their children, but sometimes the problem isn’t just with the school – it’s with the education authority itself.

    So where education authorities are failing, we’ll create new powers to take them over to drive up standards.

    Labour will say, “But you have had 18 years to sort out education. Why has it taken so long?”

    That’s rich, coming from them. Who’s opposed all our reforms? Labour. And here’s a fact for the doorstep.

    The twenty education authorities with the worst education results are, without exception, traditional Labour authorities.

    It’s their attitudes and their schools that have been failing our children.

    So, after the election, I intend to ask the Government’s watchdog on standards – OFSTED – to examine, in turn, every single one of those failing education authorities.

    We’ll improve them if we can, and replace them if we can’t.

    We’re going to join the parents’ revolt against Labour education.

    And if you don’t think there’s a revolt around ask them in Islington.

    43 per cent of Islington’s parents agree.

    They send their children to secondary schools outside the borough.

    Some of them are rather well known parents.

    43 per cent.

    Parents running from councils like Islington.

    Socialist-run councils – with Socialists running away from them, as fast as they can.

    The People versus the Planners

    That’s socialists for you.

    Well-intentioned, but in love with controlling things.

    But just look at our inner cities, choked by the dead hand of socialist planning.

    We’ve brought in private investment and enterprise. And that public-private partnership is transforming what were once no-go areas for jobs and business.

    But the toughest challenge still remains: large housing estates, soulless blocks where the only sense of community was snuffed out long ago, that have become deserts of despair.

    Parties of every colour built them, thinking they were the right way ahead.

    But they’ve become places where poor education, drugs, crime have created a vicious downward spiral.

    Where people live dependent on the state, but are let down by local councils who own their homes.

    Where the worst poverty is poverty of hope.

    These estates are concrete proof that the old way – of hoping the state and councils can provide for all our needs – has failed.

    These people deserve the chance to rebuild their communities and their lives.

    Ours is a fresh approach, giving tenants the opportunity to vote to transfer their homes to new landlords.

    This is People Power – giving people the chance to control their own lives.

    To create a new community.

    It isn’t just bricks and mortar that matter. It’s training and jobs, raising education standards, tackling crime.

    It’s the community itself.

    Our commitment is to transform the worst estates across the whole of the country and the lives of those who live on them.

    We won’t solve it in a year – or even a Parliament.

    But it can be done and will be done – by the next Conservative Government.

    Just this week, we announced that tenants on 40 housing estates stand to benefit from millions of pounds to help the private sector transform 22,000 homes.

    22,000 homes.

    22,000 families.

    I bet you didn’t read about that in your newspapers.

    It probably didn’t merit a headline in some.

    But that’s the reality of life in Conservative Britain.

    As Britain grows stronger, more and more people are beginning to feel the warmth of prosperity touch their lives, whoever they are, wherever they live.

    That’s why Labour have to knock it.

    A week doesn’t pass without them kicking their favourite political football – the National Health Service.

    Just look at the service they attack.

    More patients being treated than ever before.

    Shorter waiting times.

    Better treatment.

    Why is our health service such a success?

    Not just because we’re spending more on it, though we are.

    But because we’re giving the money to the hospitals and doctors themselves who know best how to use it.

    Under Labour, bureaucracy would come back at the stroke of a pen.

    They’d strip hospitals and family doctors of their freedoms and smother them with new layers of bureaucracy.

    Our modern health service would be thrown into turmoil as Labour pushed it back to its bad old ways.

    That’s not the way we should go.

    We’re going to give more freedom to doctors and nurses. They’ll be able to offer more care in surgeries and nearer home.

    And – where they want to – create a new generation of cottage hospitals, so patients can be treated by professionals they know in their own community.

    And the same applies to our social services.

    We’re going to end the politically correct regulations, which stopped couples who want to adopt children from doing so.

    Regulations like this might sound petty. But to a couple who long to raise a family they can, quite literally, stand in the way of making a lifetime’s dreams come true. That’s the heart of the matter.

    Politically correct beliefs that prevent this don’t fit into the British way of life.

    The Constitution

    Britain’s progress – our prosperity, widening choice, opportunity – depends on one thing: stability.

    Labour’s plans for Britain would rip up our nation’s fabric up by the roots. “The most radical” constitutional change our country has ever seen, they boast.

    A tax raising parliament in Scotland.

    An assembly in Wales.

    A splattering of regional assemblies across England.

    And a referendum on changing the voting system to PR.

    Why in the name of sanity do they want to start cutting up this country of ours? Why risk Britain’s success?

    Devolution is the ransom Labour would pay to buy off the voices of separation. But it wouldn’t buy them off – it would just build up their appetite.

    Then there’s PR. That’s the price they’d pay for the support of the Liberal Democrats. Why else does Mr Blair want a referendum on PR? He says he’s against PR and against referendums.

    The constitution, the Union, British history – they are all pawns to New Labour.

    No price is too high.

    Nothing too sacred.

    Labour are after votes – at any price.

    “What’s the point of history? What relevance has that to the future” they say. “New Labour, no history”.

    Well, Mr Chairman – let’s make New Labour old history.

    We treasure the stability and security of our Constitution.

    Careful reform that builds for tomorrow – yes. Reckless change – no.

    The Labour leader hasn’t the first idea how his plans would work. He’s like a weak contestant on Mastermind.

    “Name?” “Tony Blair.”

    “Occupation?” “Demolition specialist.”

    “Subject?” “British Constitution.”

    Would Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster be able to vote on matters affecting England, but not Scotland?

    “Pass.”

    If someone from Birmingham was employed by a Scottish company, would they pay the tartan tax?

    “Pass.”

    Why should Scotland get a tax-raising parliament, but Wales only an assembly. What have the Scottish done to deserve such a fate? Why not trust the Welsh?

    “Pass.”

    Would regional assemblies duplicate the power of local government and Westminster?

    “Pass.”

    And so it goes on, and so on, and so on.

    “At the end of that round, Mr Blair, you were asked twenty questions – and you passed on them all”.

    Labour haven’t begun to think through the implications of their plans. And yet this would be their priority for government.

    The last Labour Government fell, tied up in knots of devolution.

    It was a complete failure. That’s where Old Labour stopped. And this is where New Labour would begin.

    That’s not a route map for Britain’s tomorrow. It’s a masterplan for disaster. And it’s deadly.

    Europe

    And if devolution wasn’t enough, there’s Europe.

    Here Labour would damage both our economy and our constitution.

    They want us to follow the European way of doing things – the European Social Model.

    It’s that old-fashioned approach: you pretend governments can protect jobs by imposing regulations and burdens on business.

    All Labour have done is dress it up in new words: stakeholding. Social justice, social partnership.

    New words to try to camouflage reality.

    But they can’t.

    Over 4 million Germans, over 3 million French and about 3 million Italians know that. They’re all unemployed.

    That’s over 10 million people in Europe without a stake in a job.

    Where’s the social justice in that?

    They have a message that Labour should listen to.

    “Give us our jobs back.”

    And unless we want to lose jobs in the same way, Britons should listen too.

    Labour tells us we shouldn’t be isolated in Europe.

    Translated, that means “You may be getting back to work in Britain, but really you should be joining your European colleagues on the dole”.

    By signing the Social Chapter and inflicting a minimum wage, Labour would conscript British youngsters into the growing army of the European unemployed.

    That’s the message: if you want to get people into jobs don’t give one to a Labour MP.

    And that’s only part of the picture.

    Labour wish to undermine our veto and hand more power to the European Union.

    They’re prepared to ransack the Westminster Parliament of its power.

    Some would go to Edinburgh; some to Cardiff; some to the regions; and some to Europe. Parliament could keep what’s left.

    A United Kingdom reduced to regions, each competing one against another, with no one voice, no common cause, no national purpose.

    A Europe of the Regions, the Europe so beloved of Robin Cook.

    This surely cannot be the future for us.

    To consign it to the long list of failed, discredited policies New Labour, Old Labour, any old Labour have to their name.

    We don’t take this position because focus groups say so. Nor out of party political advantage.

    We do so because we believe what Labour is proposing threatens this United Kingdom of ours with change on an unprecedented scale.

    Peroration

    We should be more confident as a nation about what we’ve done, what we are, what we stand for.

    If I had one wish, it would be that we could see ourselves as others see us.

    As one of the most secure democracies in the world. An outstanding success story. A nation enjoying a renaissance in enterprise.

    Behind us lie 18 years of building the foundations for rising prosperity.

    When we came to power in 1979, Britain was derided as the sick man of Europe. Today we are admired as the success story of Europe.

    The spirit of hope is around and growing by the day.

    We must build on that and broaden the smile across the face of Britain. We have a tale to tell that cannot be denied.

    Let’s not put it at risk.

    The polling booth is not a casino. Not a place to gamble with Britain’s future. It’s the opportunity to secure our future.

    An opportunity we Conservatives have created, and only we can build on.

  • PMQT – 13 February 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the reported comments of European Union Competition Commissioner Karel van Miert on the respective levels of state subsidy within the European Union? Did my right hon. Friend note that the United Kingdom has the lowest level of state subsidy per worker within the European Union and that the Federal Republic of Germany has the highest annual disbursement per year of any EU country? Is it not noteworthy that the UK now has the lowest unemployment for six years and that it is falling, whereas the federal republic has the highest unemployment for 64 years and it is rising? What deductions does my right hon. Friend make from those figures?

    The Prime Minister: I have not yet seen the detail of what Commissioner van Miert said, but the conclusion, from what my hon. Friend says, is surely obvious. The fact is that state subsidies cannot hide the effect of high social costs. They add to the levels of taxation and, in so doing, they damage competitiveness and employment prospects. That is precisely what we have seen across continental Europe. It is a problem that we have avoided in the UK, which is why our unemployment is so much lower.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm the following: first, that since last June when he promised that the beef ban would be lifted by last November, no part of the beef ban has been lifted; secondly, that under the selective slaughter scheme, not a single animal has yet been slaughtered; thirdly, that no formal proposal has yet even been put to the European Commission about lifting the ban from the BSE-free certified herds in Scotland, Northern Ireland and elsewhere; and, fourthly, that the cost of the BSE fiasco is now estimated at £3.3 billion and is currently running at £4 million a day?

    The Prime Minister: If I may take the last point first, which deals with cost, I think that the right hon. Gentleman should be more careful about what he says about that. If he recalls, it was the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) who first tried to stoke up the health scare about British beef right across Europe, despite the fact that British beef is safer than continental beef, and it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) who supported the unjustified beef ban. I find the right hon. Gentleman’s behaviour throughout the entire crisis absolutely astonishing. His behaviour would discredit a student debating society. Not once has he put the interests of the British beef industry in front of making petty party political points for his own party interests.

    Mr. Blair: Four specific questions, not one specific answer–that is about par for the course. I remind the Prime Minister that he was not obliged to stand at the Dispatch Box last June and promise that he would lift the beef ban by last November, but he made the promise. He broke the promise–like so many of his promises. He made the promise, not because he thought he could deliver on it, but because, as usual, he was in a tight spot and wanted to get out of it. Let me just put one of those specific questions and allow him to answer it: is the Minister of Agriculture right when he says that the cost is now £3.3 billion, or, as he put it, the equivalent of 2p on the standard rate of income tax? Is he right, or is he wrong?

    The Prime Minister: The cost is of that order. That is correct, and a substantial part of the reason for that is the health scares created by Opposition Members. Throughout the whole affair, the Government have been entirely open with the British nation, and the Labour party has repeatedly tried to stoke up health fears at home and abroad. If the Labour leader was really interested in restoring the British beef industry, he would be working with us to promote it, not undermining our position in the European Union just as we present plans on certified herds to the European Commission. But he is not interested in getting the ban lifted at all; he is interested in his own petty points.

    Mr. Blair: Rightly has it been said that BSE also stands for “blame somebody else”. The Prime Minister would do a lot more credit to his office if, just for once, when his Government make a mistake, he would accept responsibility for it. That he will not do so is one part of the reason why that fiasco will stand as a symbol of the incompetence of the most incompetent Government in living memory.

    The Prime Minister: Even at this stage, the right hon. Gentleman takes the position of those who would do down the British beef industry. Before he does more damage to the British beef industry, he should reflect upon the damage that he has already done to it. It is British farmers and taxpayers who have helped pay the price for his posturing over the past few months. The bitter harvest has been reaped, partly because of the Labour party’s domestic self-interest.

    Mr. Elletson: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent reports in the West Lancashire Evening Gazette and The Express about a little girl of 11 in my constituency who has been addicted to heroin since the age of nine? Will he order an urgent inquiry into how Lancashire social services failed to notice that that little girl was in danger, despite the fact that eight members of her immediate family, including her granny, have been convicted of offences relating to the supply of heroin? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case is an horrific example of the growing threat to children from drugs, and will he reassure my constituents and the country that the Government continue to make the war against drugs a top priority?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer that assurance to my hon. Friend and the House. My hon. Friend highlights a truly tragic case, as he set it out. Although I am not familiar with all the details of the case, I was aware of it, and I understand that the director of social services in Lancashire is now reviewing the department’s action, and that a report will be sent to the Department of Health’s social services inspectorate, where we will examine it with great speed and great care. It is essential that, when a child needs protection, it receives protection from all the agencies concerned. On the evidence at present available–I emphasise that–it seems as though that may not have happened in that case.

    On the more general question of drugs, as my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are deeply concerned about the problem of drugs and young people in particular. That is why the Home Office is currently supporting more than 1,500 locally based schemes on drug protection.

    Mr. Ashdown: Surely the real issue is no longer the price that farmers have paid for one incompetent Minister, but the price that the country is paying for the whole squabbling herd of them. We are seeing rising inflation, the usual pre-arranged pre-election boost followed by the familiar post-election bust, sacked teachers, the health service plunged into crisis daily, and increasing class sizes. When will the Prime Minister realise that he has only one function left to perform that is of any interest to anyone: naming the day? When will he get on with it?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to examine more carefully the litany that he recites. We have set an inflation target, which we shall meet, and which the right hon. Gentleman could only dream about. The average level of inflation under the last Lib-Lab Government was more than 15 per cent.–no wonder the shadow Chancellor dare not set an inflation target and tell the country what it is. He promises taxes, but he does not say who will pay them. He cannot tell us whether he would set an inflation target or what it would be. The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not seen today’s annual economic report from the European Commission, which argues that we will meet our inflation target.

    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Has my right hon. Friend carried out studies to establish how much a reduction in value added tax on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. would be outweighed by the impact on prices of a windfall tax on energy suppliers, which would possibly leave consumers worse off?

    The Prime Minister: I would be very happy to carry out such an inquiry, if we were told who would bear the windfall tax and at what rate it would be levied. We are now told that the windfall tax is legal, but, despite the fact that Labour Front Benchers claim to be in favour of freedom of information, they will not release the information on which that assertion is based. I invite them to do so. I also invite the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to tell us who would pay the windfall tax and at what rate it would be levied. He could then tell the consumers of electricity, gas and oil precisely what that would do to their bills.

     

    Q2. Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will the Prime Minister comment on the statement by the Employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who admitted that only about half of the figures showing a fall in unemployment are genuine? Which half of those figures should we believe? As, at long last, a Minister has told us half the truth, will the Prime Minister inform us when just one Minister will tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said no such thing, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Opposition Members cannot bear the fact that unemployment is falling rapidly in this country, and has been falling for three years. There are now more people in work in each and every region.

    Mr. Janner: Four million unemployed.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not a single shred of evidence to support his claim. That is fiddling the figures on a scale that not even the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would contemplate. Unemployment is falling and people are in work. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) should recognise that fact. There has been a dramatic fall in unemployment in his constituency. He should talk to his constituents who are now in work and who would lose their jobs under the policies that Opposition Front Benchers advocate.

     

    Q4. Mr. Day: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. Day: Bearing it in mind that the new consensus in British politics seems to be based on the successful policies of 18 years of Conservative government, and given the fact that the Opposition have spent the past two years denying the previous 16 years and are now espousing all the policies that they voted against in the past, will my right hon. Friend inform the House and the country why the electorate should consider voting for the pale pink imitation opposite, when it has the real thing in the person of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. After 18 years of Conservative government, we have low taxes, low inflation, more jobs and tumbling unemployment. The Labour party may adopt our rhetoric, but Labour Members do not believe what they say, and neither should anybody else.

     

    Q5. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, once he has had the guts to go to the country, for the first time in his political life he will be sitting on the Opposition Benches? I have been keeping this seat warm for him. After the election, at least half a dozen Tory ex-Ministers will put the knife into him, because they want his job. Then he will have the galling experience of having to vote for one of those Tory bastards. Which one will it be?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman comprehensively removes the thought that one mellows as one grows older. A report earlier this week said that people do not get cantankerous as they grow older; they are born that way. Remarks like the one that the hon. Gentleman has just made were repeatedly put to me before the last general election. He is still sitting there; I am still sitting here. I look forward to congratulating him on his 70th birthday, and he will still be there if he holds his seat.

  • PMQT – 4 February 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister give a clear, unequivocal commitment that he will allow the Wirral, South by-election to proceed?

    The Prime Minister: The Wirral, South by-election is proceeding.

     

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

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

    Mr. Rowe: The Lib-Lab coalition that runs Kent county council has said that it requires a grant increase of no less than 10 per cent. merely to stand still. Does the Prime Minister know of any other councils that are making a similarly absurd demand?

    The Prime Minister: I do not yet know what other absurd demands may come, but I have no doubt that the natural appetite for spending of so many Labour and Liberal-controlled local authorities will mean that there are quite a number of substantially above inflation demands for increased council tax. When the shadow Chancellor talks about Labour’s plans for public spending, he clearly does not talk for the Labour local councils, which spend and spend and must then tax and tax.

    Mr. Blair: In respect of the Ofsted report, does the Prime Minister agree that the inspectors found much to praise and many competent and hard-working teachers, but that they also found severe problems in literacy, numeracy and, in particular, with a significant minority of head teachers? Given the central importance of leadership by a head in a school, does he agree that it is sensible at least to consider making the new national competence qualification a requirement for all new and aspiring head teachers, so that, over time, this weakness can be remedied to the benefit of our children?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Undoubtedly there has been an improvement in the past year–that is clear from Mr. Woodhead’s report, and I am delighted to see that. It shows that the quality of teaching is satisfactory or better in the majority of schools, and I am pleased about that. I particularly congratulate those schools singled out for special praise by the chief inspector on the basis of the inspection evidence. I believe that they will provide a real example.

    As the right hon. Gentleman said, the professional qualification for headship will be available nationally from September. It will equip aspiring heads with the skills necessary to lead and manage a school and it may, over time, be desirable to make it a requirement. I would like to see how it works in the short term, but I certainly would not rule that out.

    Mr. Gale: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my desire that transport safety standards across and under the channel should improve. Does he agree, however, that proposals from Brussels to make cross-channel ferries list the names and addresses of every man, woman and child travelling backwards and forwards on day trips is a bureaucratic nonsense and wholly unnecessary? Will he resist it, please?

    The Prime Minister: I agree, both about taking whatever action is necessary to assure safety and about ensuring that action is not taken that will not help on safety grounds but will simply add to costs, the price of tickets and bureaucracy.

     

    Q3. Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Janner: Has the Prime Minister seen the findings of the Employment Policy Institute, which show that some 4 million people in this country are seeking work? In those circumstances, will he use his speech in Brussels tonight to explain to our European partners why the Government’s so-called unemployment figures are rigged, inaccurate and deliberately misleading, and that the only people in this country who deserve to be unemployed are the clapped-out, stale and fag-end Government?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman gives me the opportunity to tell the House that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 39 per cent. In due course, perhaps, the Labour candidate will add one to the figure at the general election. In reality, unemployment in this country is 6.7 per cent. and falling, compared with more than 4 million in Germany, 3 million in France and nearly 3 million in Italy. Indeed, 18.5 million people are unemployed in the European Union, and we have created more jobs in this country in recent years than the rest of the European Union added together. I shall send the hon. and learned Gentleman a copy of the speech that I shall make this evening, so that in future he may be better informed.

    Mr. MacGregor: As rail privatisation completes its final stages, does the Prime Minister agree that it already demonstrates substantial benefits for both passengers and taxpayers? Is not its success one of the main reasons why the Labour party, which bitterly opposed rail privatisation through all its parliamentary stages, as it did with nearly every other privatisation, is all at sea over its policy?

    The Prime Minister: It is undoubtedly the case that the Labour party has not supported a single privatisation until it has proved to be a success, at which point it pays lip service to it. Under Labour, none of the privatisations would have taken place. It certainly bitterly attacked rail privatisation, which has now increased investment, increased rolling stock, improved services, provided extra service and saved the taxpayer a substantial amount. [Interruption.] It is, in short, a success, and no doubt that is why the Labour party wishes to shout it down.

     

    Q4. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. MacShane: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Chancellor is proposing so to increase air passenger duty that a family of four will pay an extra £80 on a family holiday? How does he justify that increased tax on children and family holidays?

    The Prime Minister: It will be interesting to see which of Labour’s expenditure proposals it will ditch to keep within the spending and tax plans that the shadow Chancellor has apparently endorsed. Is it not remarkable that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has had from the shadow Chancellor the most remarkable endorsement of his economic policy that any Chancellor has ever received? On every single tax and spending decision, this year and next, the shadow Chancellor agrees that my right hon. and learned Friend is infallible.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is no such thing as a stable currency, except for relatively short periods, and that any political party that sought to base its policies on such a misconception would merely demonstrate its complete ignorance of the way in which foreign exchange markets operate in practice?

    The Prime Minister: With the growth in importance of exchange markets and the growth in currency passing daily across exchange markets, my hon. Friend’s point is undeniable.

     

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

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

    Mr. Loyden: On several occasions, and again today, the Prime Minister has told the House that the economic policies pursued by his Government have been responsible for inward investment and job creation in Britain. How does he square that claim with the fact that 1,300 jobs at Ford on Merseyside, as well as many others, are threatened? Is it not time that the Prime Minister woke up to the fact that jobs are being lost daily throughout the country? As far as I know–I have checked with the Library–Merseyside is still part of Britain.

    The Prime Minister: It is Conservative policy to keep every part of the United Kingdom within the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not support policies that might force an important part of the United Kingdom out of the United Kingdom.

    Of course I am concerned about the implications of the job losses at Ford as a result of the rationalisation of its business in the United Kingdom and abroad. However, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that, despite those job losses, unemployment has fallen by 130,000 in the past two months.

    Mr. Skinner: Fiddled figures, and 4 million out of work.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) seeks to deny the reality of falling unemployment. He lives in his own dream world, where he may best be left. The reality is that unemployment is falling throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) will know that people from areas such as Merseyside, where Ford has withdrawn its jobs, have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to see what assistance may be provided.

    Mr. William Powell: Will my right hon. Friend make available three days of Government time next week to give the whole House the opportunity to discuss a Government motion congratulating the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on his candour in admitting that the Opposition have ample scope for huge tax increases? Such a debate would also allow the House to discuss Opposition Members’ widespread hopes and expectations that there will be a £30 billion increase in public expenditure, even though that is denied by Labour Front Benchers. Does my right hon. Friend believe that we should discuss the Opposition’s extraordinary agreement to Government economic targets as laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I can immediately offer three days for debate, but we would certainly require three days to explain the distinction between the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West and those of the shadow Chancellor. It was an outburst of candour from the hon. Member for Oldham, West and also from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, who presumably has some idea of Labour’s tax and spending policies. I cannot promise a three-day debate, but I can promise to mention that point on every necessary occasion.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hain: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his assurance to the chairman of the Japanese equivalent of the CBI that he supports a single currency and would take Britain into it, with his assurance to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that he opposes a single currency and would block British entry? Which of those views–personally expressed by him–is correct, or are they both “infallible”?

    The Prime Minister: No, they are both incorrect.

     

    Q7. Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate a firm in my constituency, Technic Holdings, which is now the world leader in manufacturing tyre re-treads? [Laughter.] Will he note the laughter from Opposition Members about a firm that has increased its work force from four to 450 in nine years, and that uses 70 men to produce the tyres that 300 men are needed to produce in its German competitor, which it has now seen off? Its managing director and chairman have given three reasons for its success: first, the excellence of its workers; secondly, the enterprise culture created by the Government; and, thirdly, the throttling effect of Euro-legislation and German state taxes.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend illustrates clearly where the new jobs are coming from. No doubt the hon. Member for Bolsover would say that those fresh jobs created in my hon. and learned Friend’s constituency were fiddled jobs, but they are real jobs. They are jobs that would not have been created but for the Government’s policies.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Anniversary of Indian and Pakistan Independence – 18 January 1997

    Below is Mr Major’s speech at a rally to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Independence of India and Pakistan. The speech was given at The Commonwealth Institute on 18th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Britain – The Best Place in The World

    I’ve just returned from a long visit with British businessmen to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    Everywhere I went the welcome for Britain was very warm.

    Today, many people with an affection for those nations are gathered here.

    What brings us together?

    The same beliefs, the same hopes – to see Britain prosperous, stable, secure.

    A tolerant, civil nation, where everyone has the opportunity to make a success of life.

    We don’t wish to see people boxed into compartments or pigeonholed to fit into plans, according to their colour or sex or wealth. That isn’t the kind of society I care for. It isn’t the kind of society we’re building.

    We should relish the fact that every person is unique, with their own talents and abilities. Diversity is a strength and we should play to it, so that everyone can make the most of their skills.

    Some will do better than others – that’s a fact of life. Some will need help – and a Conservative Government will be there to help them. That’s a fact of life too. But all should have the same opportunities and choices.

    My aim is to make Britain the best place in the world to live.

    Is that a pipe-dream? We aren’t the same size as some countries and don’t have the raw materials or climate of others.

    But we do have something quite unique. We have our history. Our instincts. Our national character. We have, above all, the British people.

    And thanks to their hard work, Britain is in an enviable economic position.

    We’re enjoying growing prosperity – and, as we look forward, we can expect hard work to be rewarded with higher living standards, year in year out.

    The present prospects are very bright.

    And stability and prosperity are already giving even more people the opportunity to get ahead in life, the chance to realise their dreams and ambitions. Ahead of us is opportunity for all – irrespective of background.

    All of us here today share values that are instinctively Conservative. Some of you – or your parents or grand parents – have risked everything by leaving your country of birth and settling here. Your livelihood depended on your enterprise, your determination to come to Britain to give you and your families a better life.

    If you say to a gathering of British citizens whose fathers or grandfathers came from Asia or the Caribbean, “Look, we’ve all done a lot better than we ever expected, and life together is a happier experience than anyone would have supposed thirty years back”, you are bound to be accused of complacency.

    But I am going to say that.

    I believe the general record since the sixties is a good one – a record of living together, getting along with one another, of general decency. It utterly contradicts the fears which were so widespread in the late 1950s and 1960s.

    Many decent people feared racial tension – that there’d be riots, killings and endemic hatred, a trench war between dark and light-skinned peoples.

    The press was heavy with speculative articles about the rage pent up and waiting for explosion, the backlash which was so certain to come. Commentators deplored racism while waiting excitedly upon events.

    But the great trench war between the races never happened.

    Why is it those fears were so wrong?

    I believe it was thanks to the fundamental goodwill and decency of the British people. And politicians recognised that and built on it.

    Plenty of perfectly decent people were unsure about whether actual formal legislation on racial equality, the actual out-lawing of the colour bar, was a wise move.

    They feared the backlash and doubted the possibility of making good by law. That’s a respectable point of view, but also quite wrong. Public goodwill and decency existed Out there in the country, but had to be given a lead. If freedom includes freedom to run a colour bar, and bureaucracy forbids colour bars as evil, then that bureaucracy is right and that freedom is wrong.

    Politicians agreed on how to tackle the problems. We had fine leadership on the race issue from many in all parties.

    The best expression of the consensus is – not surprisingly to me – in the words of lain Macleod. Listen to what he told a Conservative Conference:

    “I believe quite simply in the brotherhood of man – men of all races, of all colours, of all creeds. I think it is this that must be in the centre of our thinking. .”

    Macleod went on:

    “And this is coming. There are foolish men who will deny it, but they will be swept away…”

    And they were swept away – not by legislation alone but by the British people. It was the British character that won the day. Civil, decent and tolerant.

    Society is an unimaginably complex thing made up of little threads and small actions. It works through a blurring of sharp edges, a million acts and omissions. And the acts and omissions of most people in recent decades are ones which imply acceptance and tolerance.

    Yes, tolerance. Tolerance is the real test of civilisation. Most of the relationships between people turn upon tolerance. It’s tolerance that confounded the forecasters of doomsday.

    “Oh,” says smart, knowing opinion. “Is that all? Tolerance? What a banal commonplace, little thing.” Yes, indeed. It is so banal, so commonplace this tolerance, that it is Alpha and Omega. It is so little a thing that if it disappears, men die.

    If you disbelieve me look at Srebrenica. That’s a warning of what happens when people no longer tolerate other religions or values or races. Tolerance had disappeared. Civility vanished.

    Civility goes far beyond politeness. It’s a breakwater against first thoughts and worst instincts. It inhibits anger, pulls away from prejudice. Civil people acknowledge other people – they respect their cultures and traditions.

    To take a concrete example, I think most civil people would share my concern about an approach some have to Islam.

    If you were to play the game of word association – you know, think of a word, then follow with the first next word you associate it with – I fear that I know what would too often follow the word “Islamic”.

    It would be “fundamentalism”.

    Now where all extremism or militancies do occur – Christian, Moslem or Political – I am going to be against them.

    But “Islamic fundamentalism” – how glibly it trips off the tongue. It comes out for all the world as if there were no other things which go with “Islamic”.

    But there are. And we must resist the temptation to judge a race or religion by its least worthy members.

    Because what is salient about Muslims – just as it is about Sikhs and Hindus – in Britain is that they respect the law, secular and religious, that they cherish the family and bring children up by earnest moral standards, that they are good citizens.

    They were attracted to Britain by our values – values that have brought people here for centuries. The Flemings, Huguenots, Jews.

    There’s a new, twentieth century word to describe our kind of society. Multi-cultural. I prefer a different word – cosmopolitan. Our trading history has, in every sense, broadened our horizons and outlook. They brought with them skills, enterprise, innovation.

    Their background did not stand in the way of success. They melded into the landscape of British society – and long may that continue.

    Today, neither race, nor colour, nor religion, nor background must stand in our way.

    If the man in the same office, cursing the same computer when it goes down, following the same football team, grumbling about the same café menu, has a different complexion, then it’s just about the only thing different about him. His job, his family, his hopes, his fears, his allegiances, his experiences are often otherwise all the same.

    Life is lived, people join, people belong.

    Darkness, lightness – that’s a difference losing significance with every day crossed off the calendar.

    A quick glimpse at Britain today and you cannot miss the tremendous contribution the ethnic community makes to our country. From footballers to lawyers, businessmen to pop stars, newsreaders to doctors – they’re all adding to and sharing in Britain’s success.

    And their success has come from hard work, enterprise, innovation. Making the most out of opportunities that come their way. That’s the kind of nation we Conservatives believe in and are creating.

    The Challenge Ahead

    I don’t wish to paint a picture of utopia. There is much still to be done. I don’t pretend that the prospects for the young black man in Brixton is yet as open to talent as it is to the young white man in the Home Counties. It clearly isn’t.

    But we must try and make it so.

    Jobs, crime, education – these aren’t purely racial issues – and no purely racially based solution would solve them. But many of these problems do bear disproportionately on ethnic minorities; unemployment rates are significantly worse for all ethnic minority teenagers. And black households are twice as likely to be burgled as white households.

    The institutional barriers of racism and prejudices that stood in people’s way might have begun to crumble. But we still have more to do to entrench and broaden opportunity.

    Politically correct policies won’t achieve this. No man or woman wants to succeed because of their colour. They wish to succeed on merit.

    Few things would inflame racial tension more than trying to bias systems in favour of one colour – a reverse discrimination that fuels resentment. An artificial bias would damage the harmony we treasure. Equality under the law – yes; equality of opportunity and reward – yes. These promote harmony.

    Policy must be colour blind – it must just tackle disadvantage. Faced by British citizens, whatever their background might be.

    Education

    But how do you achieve equality of opportunity?

    It begins with education.

    Over the last few years we’ve opened up our schools so parents – and taxpayers – can see how well they’re performing. That hasn’t always made comfortable reading. Too often bad schools are found where we need good schools the most – in areas where education is a lifeline of hope.

    Ironically, the councils whose schools score the poorest results are Labour controlled – the party that says education is their ‘priority’. In many of their areas it’s so bad it needs to be made a priority. Their politicians make the most of our reforms, enjoying the choice we’ve given them, but seek to deny it to other parents, leaving them to suffer the shoddy teaching their children have left behind. Equality of opportunity rings hollow coming from their lips.

    We’re helping those children who suffer from such education with practical policies. Testing children on the basic skills, and giving parents the results. Inspecting schools on a regular basis. And, when it’s really necessary, closing down failing schools.

    If young people aren’t able to read, write and add up from an early age, their chances of getting a rewarding job suffer a crippling blow.

    That’s why literacy is so crucial.

    We’re setting up literacy centres to pinpoint our efforts on those who need help most. On top of the tens of millions of pounds we’re already spending to help pupils who don’t have English as their first language, this will be another lever to raise standards.

    But that isn’t enough – we need to promote success and give excellence the freedom to flourish.

    Not every child is the same and they shouldn’t be forced to fit into a rigid education system.

    Every parent wants their child to be given the best education – and they’re the ones who know those children the best.

    So they should be in the driving seat of deciding what kind of education their children receive.

    Specialist schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and – yes, if parents want them – grammar schools. This is the choice we’re opening up.

    Creating a system that gives children an education that opens up a world of enjoyment, pleasure and potential. An education that prepares them for today’s modem hi-tech workplace, where getting a job becomes more competitive by the day.

    Jobs

    Almost alone in Europe, we’re enjoying falling unemployment. Britain is bucking the trend in spectacular fashion.

    This month, unemployment fell by 45,000 – down to its lowest rate for nearly six years.

    Over the last four years, Britain has created 900,000 extra jobs – more than France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.

    Put it another way, since 1992 we’ve created the equivalent of two jobs every working minute – over 100 jobs every working hour.

    We’ve given people the tools – lower taxes, stable prices, a competitive edge – and they’ve created more jobs. Without the costly burdens of red tape and regulation that are weighing down European companies, British enterprise is winning the day.

    I know how tempting some of the policies of our political opponents might sound. New rights, new conditions, new minimum wages. But forcing employers to pay more to employ people means they won’t be able to take on new workers – but might end up sacking existing ones.

    And who will suffer? The young, the unemployed.

    Youth unemployment is 29% in France and 43% in Spain. That’s not a coincidence. Both countries have a minimum wage.

    Unemployment is not the kind of future I want for our young people – and it’s them I’m thinking of when I say ‘no’ to the minimum wage and Social Chapter. Why copy the mistakes other countries are making when things are going so well here?

    Unemployment is falling right across Britain – in every region, including the traditional employment wilderness of Northern Ireland – it’s now below 10%. That hasn’t happened for over 17 years. Some people used to point at certain areas and say they were no-go areas for new jobs. We’ve shown that doesn’t have to be so.

    Like the inner cities, where people need opportunities the most, but where it’s hardest to get a foot on the ladder.

    I was a councillor in an inner city once. I saw the problems people faced.

    And all too often socialist thinking made matters worse. It was well-intentioned – but wrong. Generations of wrong-headed policies in the inner cities drove away jobs with punitive business rates.

    The ambitious and the enterprising were driven from the inner cities by municipal controls and union driven services.

    Bad local government policy shut out new business with political correctness and impossible demands and self serving red tape. And the minority groups in our country often suffered most from this policy failure.

    But now look what’s happening.

    Bricks and mortar, jobs and hope are flooding back.

    Government-backed projects should create or preserve 600,000 new jobs, improve or complete more than a quarter of a million homes, and help over 92,000 businesses start up. Altogether, some £4 billion will be available over the next three years for local re-generation.

    Concrete proof that freeing enterprise, trusting private business, attracting investment spells new jobs, new opportunities, new hope.

    There’s more to do.

    Bring in more private capital. Break up monolithic council estates. Encourage more home ownership. Create more jobs. Build houses on a human scale.

    It’s a massive task. One I care about. But it can be done and we will bring in plans to do it.

    The people Labour have deserted, we’re helping – not with soundbites and smiles, but sound policies and substance. Labour’s heartlands reinvigorated by Conservative policies.

    Law and Order

    These policies aim not just to make people better off, but feel more secure.

    Safe streets and secure homes should not be a priority only for those in the leafy suburbs. Living free from fear is something every person should be able to enjoy. 5,000 more police constables by 1999, 10,000 more closed circuit televisions, tougher sentences for persistent offenders – these are practical policies to fight crime that has blighted too many communities.

    I spoke earlier about tolerance and civility. Sadly, there’s a small minority who do not share those values. They incite racial hatred and violence.

    That’s why we’ve given the police greater powers to deal with racially inflammatory material.

    But all too often, it’s verbal abuse that causes distress. Continuous snide, offensive language, designed to hurt. So we’ve strengthened the penalties available for intentional harassment and our new proposals will make the law stronger still.

    I’ve never been a victim of racial discrimination, but any decent person would agree that those kind of acts are utterly repugnant in a civilised nation like Britain. They have no place in our country – and never in our Party.

    The Conservative Party/Peroration

    The Party I joined is one that governed for the whole nation – because it represented the whole nation. You can’t tie a label to the Conservative Party. To me, that’s part of its attraction.

    We should remind people more often that the Conservative Party is an inclusive party – open to all.

    Its roots are sunk deep across the country. It must always be so.

    We have always had an alliance with people from all walks of life. That must always be so too.

    So to those of you here today and many beyond, I say that if you share our beliefs you are welcome.

    If you share our love of country, you have a place in our Party – in our associations, in our councils, in our Parliament.

    As an inclusive Party, we seek to build an inclusive Britain.

    We know how far we’ve come. We know what still needs to be done. We know how to do it.

    And if the work can be finished, we can then truly say “Britain is the best place in the world to live”.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 14 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made during an interview in Lahore on 14th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he didn’t just call a General Election now].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    People won’t have to wait too long, will they? There is an election coming soon and I will have the election when I think it is appropriate to have it.

    As far as being run ragged is concerned, if the Opposition are so energetic they might actually sort out their policies, that would be rather agreeable and then we could have an election about policy which would be a very good idea.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was at a disadvantage because he didn’t have a Parliamentary majority going into a General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a great advantage to go into an election with the best economy in western Europe and we took the measures in the early part of this parliament to try and produce the best economy in western Europe and that is precisely what we have produced. We have now got very low inflation, we have got unemployment falling very dramatically over the last three years, we have got interest rates at a relatively low level, we have got very high growth and you seen the reputation that Britain has abroad and the strength of its commerce and industry.

    We have achieved that because of many things that made us unpopular, things that were bitterly opposed by the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, but you can now see that they are working and I think it is right to let people see that they are working in the last few months of this parliament so they can make a mature judgement. They may say, “We didn’t like what the Tories did, it was very uncomfortable!” – and some if it was, I concede that – but people can now increasingly see why we did it and as the economy gets better, they can see the fruits of having done it and I think it is right to wait for those and I’ll call the election when I’m ready.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if people would really change their minds that swiftly].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They changed their minds pretty swiftly in the last General Election campaign and I suspect that they will on this particular occasion. People are going to focus on this when they actually have to ask themselves the fundamental question, “Things are now going well, are they not?” to which the answer is “Yes, do we wish to risk that and perhaps throw it away with a leap into the dark?”. I think they will answer to that question “No!” and that question becomes sharper as we get nearer to the election and it becomes very sharp indeed once the election campaign proper really begins.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was ready to go to the country if a Parliamentary occurrence demanded it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Conservative Party is ready for the election whenever it comes. We would prefer to have the election a little later, I suspect that we will have it a little later because we wish to see the effect of our policies flow through, but if you mean are we organisationally ready for whenever I wish to call the election, the answer is yes.

  • Mr Major’s Message to Conservative Party Association Chairmen – 29 December 1996

    Below is the text of the New Year message sent by Mr Major to the Conservative Party Association Chairmen on Sunday 29th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    1997 will be a watershed year for Britain.

    At the election, people will face a choice. A choice of two futures.

    They can choose a future where prices and mortgage rates are firmly under control. They can choose a future that looks rosy, with the best economic conditions this country has seen for a century, created by millions of hard-working people and the government, together. And they can choose a future where British interests will be fought for in Europe.

    Or they can risk a future with an untried, inexperienced, unrealistic alternative. We will win that election, because on all three counts it is too risky to trust Labour with Britain’s future.

    I know how hard the British people have had to work to make life better in this country. As a result we have made real gains – more spending money, more jobs and record investment. But I know, too, how easy it would be to lose those hard-won gains.

    We will safeguard the stability and lasting prosperity of British families with a clear and reliable agenda for those who work hard. Here are my five economic pledges for stability and prosperity:

    Tax : Having cut the basic rate of tax from 33p to 23p, we aim to get it down to 20p. Labour has £30 billion spending pledges but will not say where the money will come from.

    Prices : We keep inflation firmly under control. Labour has no plan for controlling prices and no inflation targets.

    Mortgages : By keeping inflation and interest rates low, we will ensure that the repayment on people’s homes – their biggest monthly outlay – remains affordable. Labour cannot be trusted to protect people’s mortgages.

    Jobs : We will continue to help businesses create more jobs, particularly for the young. Labour would destroy jobs with the minimum wage and Social Chapter.

    Britain : We will fight for a Europe of globally competitive nation states, not a federal Europe. Labour would undermine our right to say “no” to policies that would harm our country, and sign up to the job-destroying Social Chapter.

    Only Conservatives can deliver and build on Britain’s stability and prosperity. The evidence is all around us. A hard-working family on average earnings is £1,100 a year better off than at the last election, after taking tax and inflation into account.

    Over the next five years, Conservatives will fight to build on the higher standards in our schools, to build on the better treatment in our hospitals, and to build on the increase in police numbers on the streets. We have built a platform for lasting prosperity in a tough and competitive world.

    Having come this far, people are now going to ask themselves if they are prepared to put their security and Britain’s success at risk.

    Every previous Labour government has mishandled the economy and every person has paid the price through higher taxes, mortgages, prices and fewer jobs. If a new Labour government acted as Labour has always done, we would all suffer.

    Labour’s aims are unachievable. They have made £30 billion of spending pledges, so everyone knows they will either put up taxes or run up the nation’s debt. They say they’d help the unemployed – but we all know that a minimum wage would price people out of jobs. They say they are on the side of the people, but they are determined to make them pay more for gas, electricity, water and telephones and reduce the value of their shares and pensions, by imposing a windfall tax on business.

    The real danger lies in the fact that Labour won’t say where the money is coming from. After seventeen years in opposition, they still won’t tell us how they would raise the money to achieve what they promise. This is an unbelievable stance for a party wanting the responsibility of government. It is not surprising that their deputy leader, John Prescott, says that it would be “stupid” to tell the people what their tax plans are.

    But this election will decide more than just how Britain is run. Our great country faces two futures.

    At the European Inter-governmental Conference in Amsterdam next year, the British Prime Minister will have to negotiate about the future of Europe.

    I have one overriding principle in my policy towards Europe: to put the British interest first. That is the best policy for Britain and our party. I want Britain to play a full part in building a Europe of nation states. Our agenda is to help make Europe more competitive, so all hard-working people will benefit.

    But I will firmly resist any policies that would damage Britain’s prosperity, or result in a significant shift of power to Brussels. As I have said before, if Europe goes federal, Britain will not follow.

    But there is another future.

    Imagine if Tony Blair represented Britain in Amsterdam. He says he would never be isolated in Europe, so he would just follow the crowd. He would sign up to the job-destroying Social Chapter. He would undermine our veto – our right to say “no” – in many crucial areas.

    While destroying Britain’s influence abroad, Tony Blair’s policies would dismantle Britain at home. He clings to the wreckage of a discredited policy – devolution. He says it is a priority for government, but it would undermine the United Kingdom. He would give Scotland a tax-raising parliament, Wales an assembly and England a series of regional assemblies. No-one can know the damage this would do to our country.

    Two futures. A united and successful Britain, holding its head up high in the world – as the respected Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development has just confirmed. Or a country weakened abroad and divided at home.

    Stability and prosperity, or a leap into the unknown. That is the choice.

    When people ask, “But isn’t it time for a change?” tell them that there is a stark choice. Do people want to see the achievements of 17 years, and the brightest of prospects for generations, handed over to a party that is inexperienced and will say anything to win power? We get the basics right, Labour will get them hopelessly wrong.

    It is not in my nature to walk away from a fight. I am not going to do so now. I look forward to your help in winning a fifth term in office.
    Happy New Year.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Carrickfergus – 18 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at Ryobi in Carrickfergus, held on 18th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well John, thank you very much indeed and thank you for the invitation to be here at Ryobi today and to have the opportunity of turning on the natural gas. It was a very easy prospect for me simply to turn it on, very low tech, my operation was very low tech in a very high tech enterprise, but I was very privileged to be here and delighted to see what has actually happened.

    In a sense I can scarcely believe it has happened. I remember discussing the prospect of natural gas coming to Northern Ireland, must be at least 10 years ago and there seemed at that stage so many obstacles to overcome, so many difficulties before we could see whether it was a commercial proposition, whether the inter-connector could be done, whether British Gas could deliver and actually make sure that it happened. But they have and I am delighted to congratulate British Gas on that and Phoenix as well for their work here in Northern Ireland.

    As I say at least we have added another dimension to the increasing competitiveness that I think is Northern Ireland’s industrial future. The prospect of natural gas is very welcome, it adds to the competitiveness of Northern Ireland, it adds to the options and choice of industry and commerce in Northern Ireland at a time when there is every sign that that is going to expand. All of this self-evidently isn’t going to happen overnight. I dare say it will be some years before all of the options of the present licensing position to have natural gas in Northern Ireland are themselves exercised. But I would be very surprised indeed if there isn’t a tremendous expansion of demand and if that growth of energy supply and growth of choice in energy supply, and growth of competitiveness in energy supply doesn’t add to the competitiveness of industry here in Northern Ireland and I think that is very welcome.

    And it comes, if I can touch upon another matter, on a day where we can see the increasing competitiveness. We had this morning some extremely good news for Northern Ireland, the unemployment figures in Northern Ireland have fallen by a record amount in the figures released this morning. For the first time I think in the last 15 or maybe 16 years, unemployment in Northern Ireland has now at last come down below 10%, it’s fallen by very nearly 1% in the figures over the last month and there’s every sign of a sustained fall in unemployment, not just here in Northern Ireland where it has long been overdue, but also across the United Kingdom. And I am very optimistic about the industrial and commercial future both here in Northern Ireland and right the way across the United Kingdom as well. Not just because of the fall in unemployment, not just because of the arrival of natural gas, welcome though that is, but also because the economic prospects that we have across the United Kingdom at the moment are probably better than we had, we have better prospects at the moment that any people can remember for a very long time indeed.

    We have had in the last day or so independent corroboration of that, the independent OECD reports suggest not only that we will have had the largest growth across Europe in the last two years but that we will have the largest growth across Europe this year, next year and the year after next and they make no forecast for beyond that. But that will mean for four or five years the United Kingdom will have lead the growth pattern across Europe and you see the impact of that in the extent to which people are getting back into employment, investment is increasing and developments like natural gas coming to Northern Ireland are themselves being carried forward. So it is out of the amalgamation of a whole series of individual events that prosperity itself blossoms and I think that is what we are seeing.

    If I could briefly touch on another element in Northern Ireland. For 17 months in Northern Ireland we have had a ceasefire. And I think in that 17 months people began to sense what the economic prospects for Northern Ireland could be if that ceasefire was turned into a permanent settlement. There was no doubt in the change in the inward investment figures, no doubt about the change in the everyday way of life, no doubt about the change in commercial and economic prosperity, investment and hope during that period. And so there is a very glittering prize, not just with the investments we have seen this morning, not just with the fall in unemployment, not just with the prospects of economic growth outstripping the rest of Europe, but if Northern Ireland can add the final glittering prize to that in the period that lies ahead then I believe we will see an outbreak and growth of prosperity in Northern Ireland on a scale at the moment that few people had perhaps imagined. That is something I would dearly love to see, at a time when the process has run into a sticky patch as we come up to Christmas perhaps is a good time for hope and optimism and I believe there is every reason for us to look forward optimistically and with hope for the future that there will be in Northern Ireland.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Dungannon – 18 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at Bush Primary School in Dungannon, held on 18th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just wanted to say this morning how pleased I am to be here in Northern Ireland this morning and how much I’ve enjoyed the visit to the Bush School. I’m sorry we didn’t have time to finish the school play, it was just getting to the tense part but I’m reliably informed that it ends happily. I have, this morning, three places of extremely good news for every part of the United Kingdom. The unemployment figures announced a few minutes ago show the largest drop in unemployment since records were first kept, 25 years ago. We’ve seen today unemployment drop by just under 96,000 and we’ve seen that drop reflected right the way across the United Kingdom in terms of male unemployment, that has fallen, female employment has fallen and it has fallen in every region across the United Kingdom. This fall this morning doesn’t just take unemployment below 2 million, it takes it down to over 1.9 million, a very long way below 2 million, and it’s extremely good news for very many people.

    The other two pieces of good news I think, perhaps, help explain the drop in unemployment. The first is the report of the OECD into the economy across the United Kingdom. The OECD independent forecast not only notes that we’ve had the largest growth in the United Kingdom of anywhere in Europe last year and this year, but forecasts that we will have the largest growth across Europe next year and the year after that and that we will do that by maintaining very low inflation.

    The third piece of good news is the growth in retail sales showing yet again that the economy at the moment is extremely buoyant, so what we can see as we come to Christmas 1996 is perhaps the best economic prospects that we’ve seen across the United Kingdom for a very long time. I don’t think many people will remember when the prospects were quite as rosy as they were at present and we now have to make sure that those rosy prospects are turned into future realities and I have every intention of ensuring that we do. Here in Northern Ireland we’ve seen today’s unemployment figures take unemployment down below 10 per cent for the first time, I think, in about 15 or 16 years and that is a trend, I think that looks as though it’s going to continue, so extremely good news for very many people.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can I just ask you if you’re still committed to the peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m totally committed to the peace process and I will remain committed to the peace process for as long as I remain in politics, which I expect to be a very long time.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, are you disappointed with all this good news you’re telling us about doesn’t extend to good news about real progress in the peace process which you might have expected coming back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would have liked to have had more progress. I’ve said from the outset of this that it would often be two steps forward and one step back and I’m afraid over the last few weeks we’ve been in the one step back mould. I very much regret that but I think if we take the long view and see the changes that have occurred over the last few years, the change not just in terms of tangible progress but the changes in the terms of debate, the way in which the debate is expressed, I think we can see that over the longer run a lot of progress has been made and I believe that more progress can be made and will be made. The principal reason I’m confident about that is what I see every time I come to Northern Ireland. I come to Northern Ireland and I see people, whichever side they may instinctively support, who wish to see progress. I don’t believe people can stand in the way of that progress, it may be slow, it may be painful, but progress I’m confident there will be.

    QUESTION:

    What words of hope would you offer to the people of Northern Ireland for 1997? 1996 started off looking very good, ‘97 doesn’t look so good?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I hope from where we are that we will be able to move forward. As I said a moment ago there’s a pause in the move forward but I don’t think this pause will last for good, providing everybody who speaks about their will to have peace means that they say, then there’s no reason why we can’t make progress. We have always known there’d be some very difficult hurdles to overcome but we know those hurdles would come at irregular intervals in the process, we have now hit a hurdle, but I think it is a hurdle we will be able to overcome, we’ve done so in the past, I have every intention of trying to do so again.

  • PMQT – 21 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the report in today’s issue of The Independent which states that, yesterday, three members of the IRA’s Army council were brought to the House of Commons by Labour Members? Is he aware that one of them was allowed to wander around for 20 minutes unaccompanied? Will he please instigate an immediate investigation?

    The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has written to Madam Speaker about the incident. My understanding is that those representatives of Sinn Fein were invited to the House to meet a number of hon. Members, that no prior notification about the meeting was given and that the representatives were, from time to time, left unattended. I do not know what the outcome of the inquiry will be, but I think that it is stunning naivety on the part of any hon. Member not to realise the connection between Sinn Fein and the IRA.

    Mr. Blair: In view of the extraordinary importance of the European reports on a single currency–matters that may be decided by Ministers in December–does the Prime Minister not agree, on reflection, that it would be monstrous to deny hon. Members a chance to debate the reports in full on the Floor of the House, especially as that was the unanimous view of the Select Committee on European Legislation? Does he not agree that a general debate on European matters prior to the Dublin summit is no adequate substitute?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right about the last point. There was detailed scrutiny in the Standing Committee, and in due course we shall table the appropriate motion. No final decisions are made at the meeting of Finance Ministers; that will be a matter, if appropriate, for the European summit in Dublin. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, and as my right hon. Friend the Lord President has made clear, the House invariably has an opportunity to have a full debate before such a summit, and there will be a full debate–in which this matter will be relevant–before the Dublin European summit.

    Mr. Blair: Those explanations were specifically and unanimously rejected by the Select Committee. May I point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has actually written that decisions may be made over the next few weeks? In any event, surely we would be failing in our duty if we did not debate these matters properly in the House. Would the Prime Minister not be a good deal more honest if he simply stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he was afraid to let the Chancellor of the Exchequer stand and debate the issues? That speaks volumes about the disarray of his Government.

    The Prime Minister: Anyone who thinks that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is not willing, able and confident to debate with the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone, on any subject at any time simply does not know my right hon. and learned Friend. I repeat the point that I made to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago: no decisions will be made at the Economic and Finance Council meeting. The matter will come forward to the Heads of Government meeting in Dublin. If decisions are to be taken, they will be taken there, and not even that is certain. In any event, this issue and other issues will be the subject of a full debate before Dublin.

    Mr. Blair: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is in contradiction to the letter from the Chancellor to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, but if the Chancellor is indeed happy and prepared to debate these issues, let us have the debate. There can be no possible reason for not debating these questions. How can the Prime Minister be trusted with Britain’s future in Europe when the internal party management of the Conservative party–because that is what it is about–always takes precedence over the interests of Britain or even, as here, British democracy? If he is not afraid of the debate, let him call one.

    The Prime Minister: This is the right hon. Gentleman who once wanted to leave the European Union. This is the right hon. Gentleman who said, “I will never be isolated in Europe.” If he is never prepared to be isolated in Europe, he could not possibly defend the British interest in Europe. We are prepared to be isolated where necessary. We do defend the British interest. It will be debated in the House and I will defend the British interest at Dublin.

    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yesterday in European Standing Committee B, which I attended, there was no proper scrutiny of these important regulations, which affect the powers of the House. We were discussing the so-called stability pact, whereby important decisions about the British economy would be transferred from Britain to Frankfurt and Brussels. As my right hon. Friend himself has not made up his mind about whether Britain should join the single European currency, why should the House agree now to these regulations?

    The Prime Minister: These regulations, were they to be approved in due course, would apply only to those countries that enter into a single currency–[Hon. Members: “No.”] Yes. It is no good saying, “No.” That is the fact of the matter. Whether Britain enters a single currency will certainly be determined in the House and it would then be determined in a full referendum of this country.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister is simply running away on this issue and the whole country knows it.

    The Audit Commission said today that we are now less effective on tackling youth crime than we were 10 years ago, that, of the 7 million youth crimes committed in Britain every year, only about one in 10 reach court and that the Government’s programmes are ineffective, inefficient and wasteful. Given the fact that the Government have been in power for 17 years, whom do they blame for that?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman would do well to read the Audit Commission report in full. He will find that it endorses our strategy for intervening early with young people who might offend. I look forward to his support for the Green Paper, which he knows is coming forward. I hope that he will consider it. I hope that he will support it and I hope that he will, for once, have some proactive and worthwhile ideas to contribute to the debate.

    Dame Jill Knight: Since today’s press shows that Labour’s answer to the question, “When is a pledge not a pledge?” is “When it is a commitment,” will my right hon. Friend assure the House–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will be heard. I want to hear her question. She is usually in order and I bet that she is going to be in order now.

    Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend give the House and its Members the pledge that he will continue to speak clearly and without ambiguity as to his plans for this country?

    The Prime Minister: I find it extraordinary that 89 spending promises suddenly disappear, apparently overnight. The Opposition claim that what we said yesterday was untrue–I think “lies” was the word that they used–but, as we were quoting what they said, I wonder who the deceivers really were.

     

    Q2. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Banks: Does the Prime Minister recall his promise–indeed, his pledge–to construct a classless society in this country? If he really meant that, why is he so set against the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to scrap the right of hereditary dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and lords to speak and vote in the House of Lords? Could it just be that the boy from Brixton, whom I remember, has got a feeling to make himself into a nob after he leaves here? Does he really want to be remembered as the nob from Brixton?

    The Prime Minister: I hope that the future Lord Banks will reconsider what he has said about that matter. My remarks about a classless society were about equality of opportunity, and not about the grey uniformity that the hon. Gentleman would wish to see in this country.

     

    Q3. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Lidington: May I ask my right hon. Friend to order an urgent Government study into the recent report from Goldman Sachs which suggested that every household in Aylesbury would pay an additional £70 a year for its electricity alone if a windfall tax on the utilities were introduced? Those households would also face higher charges for gas and water and for the use of the telephone. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that such a tax would hit hardest at pensioners and people on low incomes–all those whom the Labour party pretends that it cares about?

    The Prime Minister: It may be that we will find, yet again, that the windfall tax is another promise that is not. Perhaps we will find that out this afternoon.

    What we do not know about the windfall tax is substantially more than what we know about it. We do not know who will pay it; what rate it would be levied at; and whom it would impact upon. We do not know why some utility chairmen think that they would not have to pay it. We do not know how much it would provide for the promises, mounting up to £30 billion, that the Labour party has made. I hope that we will get some of those answers this afternoon, but I doubt it.

     

    Q4. Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. McAllion: Although I regret the Prime Minister’s decision to duck a debate on the single currency, I warmly welcome his courageous decision to sponsor this afternoon’s debate on the privatised utilities and the Tory party’s links with the bosses of those companies that have made obscene profits on the backs of the rest of us. Can he confirm that many of those companies have made large donations to the Tory party and have provided top jobs for ex-Tory Ministers? This afternoon’s debate will allow the House to expose the Tories for what they really are–the political wing of the privatised utilities.

    The Prime Minister: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise the question of the Leader of the Opposition’s secret fund. I wonder whether we will hear which business men fund it; we certainly have not heard that yet. We were told by the Opposition spokesman that the fund has been set up as a blind trust to ensure that there is no linkage between donations and political influence. There were no names given, and nothing about the openness that the Opposition promised us some time ago. Because of a newspaper examination, all we have is the fact that the fund exists, and I hear that the deputy Leader of the Opposition has a research fund as well.

    One minute, the Opposition attack share options; the next, they accept money from the millionaires who benefited from them. They attack successful business men and then host fund-raising dinners for those successful business men. They then call for openness in funding, but have a secret fund themselves. I wonder what the parliamentary word is for that behaviour.

     

    Q5. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Barnet council recently voted to have its refuse collection done by the direct labour department despite the fact that an outside tender would have saved £500,000 over the length of the contract? Does he agree that that shows that Labour and Liberal councillors are more interested in jobs for the boys than in value for money for the ratepayers? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take action to see that Barnet ratepayers are protected against dogmatic socialist policy?

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard what my hon. Friend had to say. It is no secret that the Labour party is hostile to competitive tendering, even though it saves money for the council tax payer–a fact which is an irrelevance to Labour. As the deputy leader of the Labour party once said,

    “Society should tolerate relative inefficiency in labour intensive sectors”.

    In other words: jobs for the boys, not savings for the council tax payer.

     

    Q6. Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.

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

    Mr. Hain: How much will the Prime Minister’s proposal to abolish capital gains tax and inheritance tax cost the average taxpayer? Will he tell us whether that is a pledge, a policy, an aim, an aspiration–or merely another Tory tax lie?

    The Prime Minister: As I have frequently told the House, we are pledged to abolish, as affordable, capital gains tax. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. Such action will create jobs and stimulate employment, which is what I am determined to achieve in this country. The hon. Gentleman might like to create unemployment with extra social costs, but I wish to price people back into jobs by generating investment.