The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Unemployment

  • Mr Major’s Lincoln Breakfast Speech on the Economy – 1 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to business people in Lincoln before breakfast on Thursday 1st June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [parts of original recording were of poor quality]

    What I would like to do over the next hour and a half or so is just talk a little about where we are in terms of economic recovery, what is happening in terms of industrial, commercial and economic policy and the prospects that lie immediately ahead of us in the next two or three years and perhaps a bit longer.

    Let me firstly just trace back over some of the difficulties that we have had and try and explain to you where we are and why we are precisely where we are at the moment.

    I don’t think that anyone would dispute the fact that the recession lasted longer across the whole of western Europe than we thought it would and was sharper and harsher than we thought it would be and it was a different sort of recession than many people had seen before. We have long been accustomed in western Europe to recessions extending particularly to the manufacturing industry. This recession was a “white collar recession” in a way we had not seen before and it was for that reason in many ways more difficult to understand and more difficult to deal with.

    Essentially, the problem arose on the back of so many people investing so much in the housing market. I recall the rather crazy situation that existed in the housing market towards the end of the 1980s [indistinct] house prices went spiralling upwards and it was always likely that that was going to stop at some stage [indistinct] by the time it stopped an awful lot of people had committed themselves [indistinct] with mortgages that were a good deal bigger than ideally they would have had but inflation began to take hold, interest rates began to rise, mortgage costs began to rise, house prices stopped rising and fell and the negative equity trap which has done so much to damage confidence [indistinct] began to hit them. Because of our very high levels of owner-occupation and our particular affinity for home ownership in the United Kingdom, it hit many people rather hard at first.

    What about the economy generally? We came out of recession technically and the economy began growing again almost three years ago. As we have seen in recessions in the past, when you come out of recession it isn’t immediately apparent and people will say two or three years after the recession, technical as it is, that they don’t think it is finished and it is still going on. But yet for three successive years we have had growth. We had growth of over 4% last year, we will have growth probably of over 3% this year and if the forecasts are correct, growth of over 3% next year so for three successive years we will have had growth well above the trend average in the United Kingdom, well above that of any of our European partners probably and for the first time probably in the lifetime of most of the people sitting round the table we will have had a three-year period in which the growth of the economy has exceeded inflation. That isn’t typical if one looks at the performance of the British economy since the Second World War.

    So we have certain factors which for our economy are unusual at the moment. We have growth significantly above trend, we have inflation well below the European average, we have unemployment well below the European average, indeed, only one western European country has unemployment below us, only one country of any significant size and all the others have unemployment higher than ours. No other country in western Europe is seeing unemployment falling as regularly as we have and no other country in western Europe has also seen such a growth in exports or such an increase in investment.

    If you put those things together, it does begin to produce an economic scenario, provided we can build on it, that we haven’t seen for a very long time. I will tick the points off:

    Inflation: very low, below the average.

    Unemployment: falling.

    Investment: still continuing steadily

    Exports: growing at record levels; nine times in the last fourteen months we have hit new export levels.

    Competitiveness: growing.

    Those are a combination of circumstances we haven’t seen for a very long time. We are still attracting in the United Kingdom around 14% of all the external investment that comes into the whole of western Europe and we are doing so for the sort of reasons that were evident in the OECD report just the other day that our supply side and economic measures are more effective and more efficient than elsewhere in Europe, that we have fewer employment on-costs than most of our European partners and that don’t find ourselves tied to many of the social and other employment costs that so many of our European partners do.

    Those are great advantages. It is for those reasons that Jacques Delors I recall said something of great wisdom on this particular occasion when he said that without the Social Chapter we would become a paradise for investors and he was speaking relatively on western Europe and on this occasion I think he was correct and I think increasingly that [indistinct].

    Those are the economic circumstances that we have. They are as clement as we have had for a very long time. We look as though we are heading for a classic economic recovery. When we came out of recession in the early 1980s, we immediately had a great boom in wages, indeed right the way through the 1980/82 recession wage increases never fell below 7.5% even in the depths of the recession when unemployment was rising, the pound was at extraordinary levels and all sorts of other major [indistinct] happened and that has always led to an uncompetitive [indistinct].

    Three years after this recession technically ended, we have wage rises running at about 3.5%. That may not mean a great deal of what people these days loosely call the “feel good factor” – and indeed it means [indistinct] — than they otherwise would have been – but it does mean that our industry and commerce are infinitely more efficient, effective and competitive than otherwise they would have been.

    When people say to me: “Where is the feel good factor?”, I think I would see it this way: The feel good factor in the last two years has been wrapped up in increased competitiveness and increased jobs and the people who are benefiting from it are 600,000 people who were on the unemployment register two years ago and who are now in work. It hasn’t been dissipated across the country at large with great increases to everybody; it has wrapped up in fresh interests, fresh jobs and 600,000 have benefited from that and are back in work whereas elsewhere in Europe they are either increasingly becoming unemployed or staying unemployed.

    So that is the background about which I thought we might talk over breakfast. I thought we might talk about future policy, particularly for small and medium-sized firms and what the prospects might be for us in the years ahead.

    In simple summary: unless we throw away the gains that have been so far made, the prospects for continued growth with low inflation and the sort of stable environment that you need as businessmen and employers are extremely good unless we are silly and throw it away and I have no intention of doing that.

  • PMQT – 18 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the reduction in unemployment announced yesterday? Is he aware that it is the 24th reduction in the monthly rate to be announced since the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said that unemployment would rise month after month after month? How does Britain’s unemployment rate compare with those in France and Spain, the Governments of which have adopted the policies recommended by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to welcome the fall in unemployment and, of course, the growth in employment, particularly in manufacturing. Unemployment has now fallen by well over 600,000 since 1992 and by nearly 19,000 in the past month–the 20th successive monthly fall. As my hon. Friend intimated, the unemployment rate is substantially higher in Spain and France. In France it is around 12.75 per cent. and in Spain around 20 per cent. It is no accident that they have policies like the minimum wage, the social chapter and other policies that damage employment.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has indicated that he accepts the broad thrust of Nolan. Does he accept the recommendation that Members of Parliament with consultancies should disclose the agreement under which they are paid and how much they are paid?

    The Prime Minister: I established the Nolan committee because I am determined to see higher standards in public life. I believe that that is important. It is important not only that we ensure high standards but that the people of this country see for themselves that this House adopts high standards.

    On the specific point which the right hon. Gentleman puts to me, we must wait to see what the House has to say about that. That is the purpose of the debate this afternoon. We wish to hear the views of the House and take those into account before we reach final decisions on those matters.

    On matters related to the Government, we made it clear that we broadly accept those recommendations, and my right hon. Friends will elaborate on that this afternoon.

    Mr. Blair: What is the Prime Minister’s own view about that recommendation?

    The Prime Minister: The Government will have to table motions on the Order Paper. Not least as a courtesy to the House, we should listen to the views of the House.

    Mr. Blair: Of course. But is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the debate may lead him to overrule the independent recommendation of his own committee? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say whether he supports the disclosure of payments to Members of Parliament, and as he is refusing point blank to allow the committee to investigate payments to political parties, may I tell him that his support for Nolan will ring more than a little hollow?

    The Prime Minister: As far as political parties are concerned, I repeat the point that I made earlier this week. When the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party meet those points set out by the Select Committee on Members’ Interests, a Committee of the House, then, perhaps, they might be in a position to lecture other people on political parties.

    As for matters relating to Back-Bench Members, I repeat the point that I made a moment ago. It is right to listen to the views of the House before reaching a conclusion on the House. If, after such a brief period of Front-Bench authority, the right hon. Gentleman is so arrogant that he no longer wishes to hear the views of the House, he will live to regret that.

    Mr. Cash: Given my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for consultation with regard to Government policies and given that the European Commission and Mr. Santer have just published the Commission’s White Paper regarding the future of Europe in so far as it affects the intergovernmental conference, can my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance to the House that in good time and as soon as possible–before the summer recess– we can have a White Paper on European policy as it affects the United Kingdom in relation to that intergovernmental conference?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House on a number of occasions that we are now examining in detail, in Cabinet sub-committees, the British position as to how we will approach the intergovernmental conference. When we have concluded that detailed consideration, it will, of course, be a matter for discussion in the House. That was the case before the Maastricht treaty and it will be the case before the next intergovernmental conference.

     

    Q2. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Winnick: In view of the latest developments on sleaze in the House, is it not now clear that the recommendations of the Nolan committee are the very minimum that need to be put into effect as quickly as possible in aid of the reputation of the House of Commons? Does the Prime Minister accept–perhaps he does not–that Members of Parliament are not elected to be hired as paid lobbyists or consultants and that it is about time the practice was put to an end?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, the House will have the opportunity to debate the Nolan committee this afternoon. As I said to the House a few moments ago, and as I have said on previous occasions, I set up the Nolan committee because I am determined that the House not only has the highest standards, but is seen to have those standards. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the highest standards in politics as a whole, I hope that he will also support the suggestion that the Nolan committee should subsequently look at the position in local government. I hope that he will support that. Since the Opposition are so keen on openness in local government, perhaps the leader of the Labour party will hold in public those inquiries into Labour party activities that he is now holding in private.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a minimum wage, whatever the level, would destroy jobs? Does he have any intention of proposing such a policy, not setting a level before the next election and wanting to pass the buck to a union-packed quango, as the Labour party proposes?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I can confirm that a minimum wage would destroy jobs. The House has that on the excellent authority of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who said on one memorable occasion, “Any silly fool knows that.” There is no doubt about it, so of course I can confirm that. For the Labour party these days, a quango a day keeps policy away, because it has announced three so far this week. [Interruption.] Yes, a new quango on Monday, a new quango on Tuesday and a new quango on Wednesday. We await today’s developments with some interest.

     

    Q4. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Jones: Given that the Prime Minister’s objection to publicising the source of Tory party income is that he would not like to expose anonymous donors, what is to stop him publishing the list of non-anonymous donors and also the list of donations and their amounts?

    The Prime Minister: I sometimes wonder whether some Opposition Members understand the importance of privacy in any way on any occasion. In a free and open society, people have the right to donate anonymously if they wish. What is potentially corrupt is when donations buy favours or determine policy. That emphatically does not happen in my party. It emphatically does happen in the Labour party as a part of its constitution.

     

    Q5. Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Sir John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my Devon constituency area, unemployment has dropped by more than 20 per cent. since 1992, that crime figures have decreased by 10 per cent. this year and last year, that a new hospital costing more than £50 million is nearing completion and that hospital waiting lists have been reduced to a maximum of nine months? Does not all that, combined with the growing economy, show that Conservative policies are working well in the west country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers again to the minimum wage, with good reason. There is no doubt that the minimum wage costs jobs. I now see that the Labour party proposes to keep the minimum wage, but not set the level of the minimum wage until after the general election. That will be devolved to someone else.

    The House might recall the deputy leader of the Labour party saying– [Interruption.] I do not know why they laugh at the deputy leader of the Labour party. We are rather fond of him. He said:

    “Some party colleagues have advocated a minimum wage without having the courage of their convictions to state an amount that would make the original commitment meaningful”.

    I wonder who the right hon. Gentleman might have had in mind.

    Mr. John Evans: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of acknowledging that what has fallen in this country is the number of unemployed benefit claimants, that the number of people in this country who are without a job remains as great as ever, and that it is impossible to compare unemployment statistics in Britain, France, Spain or any other European country, because they use entirely different methods of counting?

    The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman would not like the Government to have any credit for anything, even the fall in unemployment, but the fact is that not only has unemployment fallen more dramatically in this country than in any other country in western Europe–far more dramatically than any Opposition Member proposed when the Opposition were talking about unemployment increasing to 5 million–but the number in work has increased.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q6. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Cirencester and Tewkesbury.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If my right hon. Friend were to visit my constituency, he would discover that a large majority of people would prefer a Europe of nation states rather than a European super-state. Will he therefore undertake, at the intergovernmental conference next year, to resist vigorously giving up our opt-outs and the restriction of our veto, which both the President of the European Commission and the Labour party would like to give up?

    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is for national Governments, not the European Commission, to take decisions on Europe’s future at the intergovernmental conference. We will certainly maintain the national veto and we will certainly not accept any attempt to end the opt-outs that I negotiated in the Maastricht treaty.

    I look to see the European Union succeed, but on the basis of close co- operation between independent sovereign states. I do not believe that, in the long term, the European Union could or would succeed on any other basis. I believe that the proposition for a substantial amount of further centralisation in Europe would do great damage to Europe. It would split it asunder and it should be resisted.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Hughes: In this 50th anniversary year of VE day and VJ day and in view of the widespread support across the House, will the Prime Minister meet soon with a deputation from the Royal British Legion to hear the case as to how, at very little cost to the public purse, the four remaining injustices for war widows or service people may be corrected this year? War widows and service people often lose housing benefit or council tax; they may be ineligible for legal aid to pursue claims for injury; they may be unable to hold on to their pensions if they remarry following the death of their spouses who were killed in active service in the past 20 years; and, if they marry someone subsequent to that person’s war service, they cannot inherit their spouse’s pension.

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the extent to which we have taken care over the years to ensure that war widows and others who faced particular difficulty during the war are treated fairly. In 1979, the Conservative Government corrected many of the anomalies that the previous Government had left untouched for a very long time. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of those four points, I shall examine them.

  • PMQT – 9 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th May 1995. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in Moscow on an official visit as part of the VE day commemorations.

    Mr. Jones: Does the Leader of the House have any sympathy for a perplexed and lonely young man, Mr. John Richards, the last remaining Tory councillor in Cardiff, who only eight years ago was part of a ruling group with more than 30 colleagues? While Mr. Richards looks around and tries to find out what has happened to his colleagues, how does the Leader of the House explain that calamity? Does he think that– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Jones: Does he think that on Thursday, the electorate showed that they have the same opinion of the Government as Will Carling has of the Rugby Football Union?

    Mr. Newton: My sympathy is with the people of Cardiff for what is about to be inflicted on them.

    Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind the commemorative theme of the past few days, and in anticipation of the Government’s meeting tomorrow with Sinn Fein, will my right hon. Friend reassert that the Government will not bow to the IRA, will never surrender to IRA tyranny and will never seek appeasement with the evil of the IRA, but will remain resolute and resist all that Sinn Fein-IRA has stood for over the years?

    Mr. Newton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. As he will know, it has repeatedly been made clear that we were not prepared to agree to Ministers joining the exploratory talks with Sinn Fein until it accepted that position and the need for a serious dialogue about decommissioning.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Thursday’s local elections were a disaster for the Tories and a triumph for Labour? Does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), that the Government should stop lecturing and start listening to the British people, beginning tomorrow with the London hospital debate?

    Mr. Newton: The best thing that I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I have been studying with interest a report in The Guardian of 6 May under the heading,

    “Record haul of seats for reborn left”,

    which is followed by a quotation by the then Leader of the Opposition claiming that it shows the result of the next general election. That was in 1990.

    Mr. Prescott: The House will note that the right hon. Gentleman avoided the question on the London hospitals. Is not the simple truth that, 50 years ago, the Tories voted against the creation of Labour’s national health service and that, in the past five years, they have closed more than 300 hospitals and will vote tomorrow to close some more? Is not that why one can never trust the Tories when they say that the national health service is safe in their hands?

    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will set out very clearly in tomorrow’s debate a policy, the purpose of which is to create a modern pattern of hospital and primary care provision in London. That is what it will do. As to capital schemes, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, since 1980, more than 800 schemes, each worth £1 million or more, have been completed. That is roughly one a week. At present, there are more than 300 such schemes at the planning, design or construction stage, and that is the biggest sustained hospital and health service development programme in our history.

     

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

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the imposition of a national minimum wage would destroy jobs? Is it not an act of political cowardice to talk about bringing in a minimum wage while not having the courage to specify its level?

    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who acknowledged that a minimum wage would destroy jobs. Although that has been acknowledged, no figure has been given. All we know is that jobs would be destroyed, and it is time that the Opposition told us how many.

    Sir David Steel: The Leader of the House is a regular tourist in Scotland. Therefore, will he welcome as much as we do this morning’s decision by the Court of Session in Edinburgh that British Rail cannot axe its services at the end of May without going through the full consultation procedure? Will he make sure that Government money is there to maintain those services?

    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman rather exaggerates my activities as a tourist in Scotland, although I recall meeting him at a fete in his constituency a couple of years ago. I understand that an application for judicial review has been heard and that the court has ruled that British Rail may not withdraw the service until the statutory closure procedure has been completed. It is for the British Railways Board and ScotRail to consider what action to take in the light of the full written judgement, and it would not be right for me to comment further at this stage.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending thanks to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother for her role 50 years ago in supporting King George during the dark and difficult days of the war? Will he also join me in warmly thanking her for her tremendous support and activity during the VE celebrations over the weekend?

    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend speaks for the whole House. Over the weekend there has been an outstandingly successful series of events of remembrance, reconciliation and hope for the future. They reminded us of the contribution that was made by our service men and service women and many civilians to the effort of 50 years ago. As my hon. Friend says, it has reminded us not least of the contribution that was made by the late King and Her Majesty the Queen Mother during the war and by Her Majesty the Queen over so many years since then.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Wilson: Since the threat to overnight rail services between Scotland and England arises directly from Government policies, many of us think that it is precisely for the Leader of the House to answer in respect of what happened in the Court of Session this morning. What does it tell us about this Government that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Transport were both prepared to conspire in a deceit that has been found to be illegal as well as immoral?

    Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the letter and the spirit of today’s judgment will be respected by the Government? Does he accept that this excellent decision will give fresh heart to campaigners throughout the country, who see similar threats to their vulnerable services in what the Government are doing to the railway industry?

    Mr. Newton: As I have already said, it is now obviously right for the terms of the judgment to be properly and carefully considered, but I also remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision to withdraw this service was a commercial matter for British Rail, and that representations, of a kind to which he will no doubt wish to contribute, about all sleeper services can be made when the Franchising Director consults on the passenger service requirement later this month.

    Mr. Streeter: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the French people, who on Sunday rejected socialism and elected a right-wing President? Does not that show– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard.

    Mr. Streeter: On Sunday, the French people rejected socialism and elected a right-wing President. Does not that show that all over Europe people recognise that, while left-wing politicians offer sound bites, Conservative policies work?

    Mr. Newton: I certainly wish to welcome the election of the new President, and I think everyone would wish to send him this country’s good wishes in his new job. My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the factors in that election will have been the extent to which socialist policies are coming under criticism throughout Europe. Indeed, the French Employers’ Federation has said:

    “the excessive level and poor structure of taxes on business add to production costs, slowing down investment and job creation.” It is exactly the policies that have now been rejected in France that right hon. and hon. Labour Members would now want to impose on Britain.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Leader of the House aware that, following last Thursday’s meltdown of Tory support in the south-west, particularly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), 55 out of 60 councillors on Plymouth city council are Labour members, and the only bodies that the Conservatives control in the region are the quangos? Is not the message from last Thursday’s elections that there is now an unbridgeable gap between the electorate and the Government? The only way in which that can be bridged is by having a general election.

    Mr. Newton: Earlier, I extended my sympathy to the people of Cardiff; I will now extend my sympathy to the people of Plymouth.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q6. Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Swindon.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that companies in Swindon and elsewhere would rather stick with a Government who have firmly rejected the concept of a national minimum wage than run the risk of supporting a party that might introduce a national minimum wage at a level so low that it would be meaningless, or at a level that would imperil employment and run the risk of reducing companies’ investment in training?

    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that the people of Swindon and, no doubt, the people of every town in the country would not wish to go down a path that will undermine employment, heap new costs on business, undermine the economic recovery, undermine our capacity to attract overseas investment, and undermine our ability to defend Britain’s interests in Europe.

    Mr. Pike: As the Leader of the House’s job includes presentation of Government policy to the people of Swindon– [Interruption.] Ah, I know, Madam Speaker–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) widened the question, but I do not want questioning to go too wide.

    Mr. Pike: As it is the right hon. Gentleman’s job to present Government policy, does he accept that either his presentation has failed or the policy has failed? Will he tell the people of Swindon what change of policy he now proposes–or does he intend to go?

    Mr. Newton: I would tell the people of Swindon–and, indeed, those represented by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)–that, when unemployment is falling by 1,000 a day, when we are enjoying the most sustained period of low inflation for more than 30 years, when export volumes have risen by 12.5 per cent. in a year and when for two successive years ours has been the fastest-growing major European Union economy, one thing is certain: the policies are succeeding.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the VE day commemorations throughout the country at the weekend were extremely moving? Does he also agree that we have had 50 years of peace in Europe because this country has maintained strong defences, and has refused to listen to the voices of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament members and sympathisers in the Labour party?

    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. As I said earlier, the celebrations themselves were an outstanding and impressive success; and there is no doubt that the fact that we were able to have them rests on the firmness of this country’s defence policy over the years–a policy that has frequently not been supported by the Labour party.

  • PMQT – 18 April 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Mandelson: Will the Prime Minister endorse Labour’s condemnation of the minority of militants who behaved so badly at the National Union of Teachers conference in Blackpool last weekend? Does he agree that the best way to isolate those individuals is for the Government to start listening to what governors, teachers and, above all, parents across the country are saying–that it is madness to trade cuts in the education of our children this year for tax cuts next year?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly share in the condemnation of the behaviour that we have seen at the National Union of Teachers conference in the past few days. Millions of parents would have been concerned about the behaviour that they saw. It was, frankly, disgraceful. It was loutish. If I may say so, Labour’s Front-Bench education spokesman was appallingly treated by those militants. I am happy to share in the hon. Gentleman’s thorough condemnation of the behaviour of that minority of teachers. I also very much regret the fact that their conference has decided today to ballot on strike action, against the advice of their executive committee. I strongly hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that teachers will decide that their job is to be in the classroom teaching their pupils, not outside teaching bad habits to their pupils.

     

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

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

    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive boost that he gave to British prestige by his decision to use Concorde for his recent visit to meet President Clinton in Washington? Will he take this opportunity to declare his pride in travelling in that magnificent advertisement for British technology?

    The Prime Minister: Although the technology is now 25 years out of date, it is a magnificent aircraft, it is unequalled across the world and I congratulate all those with the wisdom to travel in it. Mr. Blair rose — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: I see that the recess has not improved Conservative Members, Madam Speaker.

    On education, I agree that strike action would be wrong and misguided, but the Prime Minister’s Secretary of State for Education admitted last week that, as a result of the Government’s refusal to fund the teachers’ pay award, some schools would face hard choices and might be unable to absorb the pressures put upon them. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to those schools?

    The Prime Minister: The fact is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that this Government have consistently made education a priority, benefiting parents, pupils and teachers. We have given parents more choice over their children’s education and more information about how they are progressing. Even this year, with the funding levels about which the right hon. Gentleman complains, we are spending record amounts on education, as he will know. We are spending almost half as much again per pupil as when we first took office. We are on top of inflation and we now spend more per secondary pupil than Germany and Japan and more per primary pupil than Germany, France and most of the European Union. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are dealing fairly with education now, as we have in the past.

    Mr. Blair: I do not. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that the pupil-teacher ratio has worsened under his premiership. The actions of a few extremists in the teaching union should not obscure the hard work and professionalism of the vast majority of teachers; nor should it allow the Government to escape their responsibility for their own brand of extremism, which is forcing education cuts on schools the length and breadth of the country.

    The Prime Minister: Our extremism has been to give people more choice and more information, to put far more of our young people into further and higher education than ever before, to increase spending on pupils by 50 per cent. and spending on school books by 50 per cent. over and above inflation, and to increase some areas of ancillary spending by more than 130 per cent. since we have been in government. If that is extremism in education, it is extremism that every other budget in Whitehall would have been happy to have.

     

    European Legislation

    Q3. Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to monitor the implementation by other EC countries of European Community legislation passed by their legislatures.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend–no, I do not. My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade– [Interruption.] I see that the recess has not improved Opposition Members, either, Madam Speaker.

    My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his Department work actively on behalf of British firms. We remain ready to intervene when we feel that other member states have failed to fulfil their obligations and to take the Commission to court if we believe that it has failed in its responsibility to monitor implementation and enforcement of European Community legislation.

    Mr. Steen: Since the European Community has a poor and inconsistent track record of enforcing directives and regulations, will the Prime Minister consider employing some of our own people in our embassies to do a little detective work to find out whether other countries gold plate and over-zealously interpret regulations as we do, at a cost to the consumer, our industry and our people? As deregulation is a cornerstone of this Government’s policy–one that I wholly support–will he take a look at the activities of the Deregulation Committee, whose first deregulation proposal was on greyhound racing?

    The Prime Minister: On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, we have successfully pressed the Commission to increase its efforts to improve member states’ compliance with Community law. I assure my hon. Friend that our embassies already actively monitor the position so that action can be taken quickly when shortcomings are identified. The single market compliance unit in the Department of Trade and Industry also helps firms disadvantaged by other member states’ failure to implement.

    The greyhound racing proposal is one of a large number. On the same day as it was put forward, we also started consultation on proposals to give friendly societies and credit unions more flexibility and to streamline procedures under the Building Act 1984. We shall continue to pursue deregulation.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Wray: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Wray: Does the Prime Minister agree that my constituency has the worst unemployment figures, health record and infant mortality rate in Britain? Why is it costing £34 million to keep my constituents unemployed? Does not the Prime Minister agree that he and the Government have been a failure? When will he do something? Should he not resign?

    The Prime Minister: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman about unemployment in particular. Although he may not have noticed it in his constituency, during the period when I have been Prime Minister, unemployment in Glasgow, Provan has dropped by 28 per cent.

    Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Royal Navy will maintain its policy, which goes back some centuries, of curbing Spain’s maritime pretensions, and that the Royal Navy will go to the assistance of any British fishing boat that is prevented from going about its legal business by Spanish action?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that for my hon. Friend. We believe in strict enforcement, and the fisheries protection vessels of the Royal Navy will ensure that rules and agreements are respected.

     

    Q5. Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Turner: Will the Prime Minister confirm that almost 800 candidates in the forthcoming elections are calling themselves Conservatives? Does he agree that it is understandable that they do not want to knock on doors as Conservatives in those elections? Will he confirm the rumour that he intends to stand as an independent in Huntingdon at the next general election?

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that that question was very carefully thought out, but I fear that there was a little problem in delivery at the beginning. I think that I know what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. He might have had in mind some Labour councils: for example, in Berwick Labour is fielding four candidates out of 28; in Craven, three out of 12; in Forest Heath, 17 out of 25. There are a large number of other illustrations that I might give the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps they have their concerns about Labour policy.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my opinion, his personal beliefs and instincts command the overwhelming support of the people of this country on such issues as the economy and taxation, the national health service, education and the European Community, including fishing? Will he assure me and the country today that his personal instincts will be translated into Government action and policy during the next 12 months?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am happy to give him that assurance. We have a very clear agenda of core beliefs: prosperity for all, extending opportunities, common-sense, decent values, first-class public services, the lowest credible level of taxation, pride in our nation and protection of our interests, both at home and abroad. I assure my hon. Friend that that is our programme, not just for the next year but for the rest of this Parliament and the next Parliament.

     

    Q7. Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Pike: Does the Prime Minister recognise that many former employees of the Bellings Group, which went bankrupt three years ago, lost a great deal as a result of abuses and fraud relating to that company’s pension fund? Will he give an undertaking to those former employees that they will receive at least equal treatment to that given to members of the Maxwell pension fund?

    The Prime Minister: The scale of the Maxwell crisis and the large number of parties involved justified the exceptional action taken at that time by the Government. I do not think that we can necessarily adopt that model for general application. I understand that the independent trustee appointed to the Bellings pension fund is still continuing to pursue the recovery of assets missing from that fund. I think that we should better await the outcome of that investigation.

     

    Q8. Mr. Marlow: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the single most important factor affecting our children’s education is whether our teachers, as a body, wish to be looked upon as a respected, ethical profession or a primeval Scargillite rump?

    The Prime Minister: I am entirely happy to agree with my hon. Friend upon that proposition. Although a minority of teachers have let down the profession in which they serve, I believe that the majority of teachers will strongly disagree with their behaviour. I hope that they will show their disagreement within their teacher unions, as well as publicly.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Conservative Central Council – 1 April 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Conservative Central Council Meeting at the International Convention Centre at Birmingham, on Saturday 1st April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We’ve had a great Conference here in Birmingham. Our first, but not our last.

    This Central Council has often in the past been a platform for a change in our fortunes.

    Three years ago – it was from a Central Council – we set out and won a general election many believed we would lose.

    I believed we would win – and so we did – in three weeks, with a recession at our throat.

    Now we have two years, with a strong recovery at our side.

    So let me tell you something loud and clear right at the start. I believe we will win again.

    I have no time for faint hearts.

    The next election is there to be won. By the party with the verve and tenacity to reach out to people and catch their imagination.

    We did it before. We can do it again.

    And I expect every single person in our Party to want it, and work for it, as hard as I will.

    To those who say look at the polls, I simply say this: it is possible to look at the polls too much and your principles too little.

    I have a way in life. I learned it as a boy. I offer it to you. Stick to your principles. Stick to your guns. However rough the going may be, just keep going.

    So today I’m going to tell you how we’re going to win back the faith and trust of the British people.

    Let me take you back to five years ago when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let me tell you what was on my mind. I looked back on 50 years of a boom and bust economy. Good years. Followed by bad years. If the good years coincided with elections, you won. If they didn’t, you lost.

    Over generations, we slipped back economically as a country. I grew up in that period. Even from the back streets of Brixton I found it depressing. And I was determined to try and change it. To help our economy to grow and to beat other countries.

    For the truth is that without growth every year, no Government will be able to improve education and health, increase pensions, provide care in the community, better law and order or anything else.

    But I want those improvements.

    So I need long-term growth. A stronger, more prosperous country. That’s why we’ve had to do things that have disappointed our supporters and seemed against our natural instincts.

    You know what I mean. We are the Party of low taxes. But we had to put them up. Now the economy is growing again and we can look forward to bringing them down.

    We are the Party of law and order. But crime continued to rise. So we put through controversial measures to tackle it. Now recorded crime is beginning to fall – the largest fall for 40 years.

    We’re the Party of personal well-being. Yet, on our watch, unemployment rose to nearly 3 million. But we kept our nerve. We pursued the right policies. Now it has fallen 600,000; down 1,000 a day. It is now among the lowest of the large nations of Western Europe. It is falling fastest, too. And I believe it will fall far further.

    So times are changing. And so will the political climate. The country has been through a difficult period. No doubt we’ve made mistakes. But we have learned from them. We have weathered the storm. And now we are poised to return to our natural agenda from a position of strength. Unrestrained by the iron bands of recession, the country can look forward with confidence.

    – the economy grew last year by over 4 per cent;

    – we expect it to grow by at least 3 per cent this year and next;

    – prices are rising at the slowest rate most people can remember;

    – exports have risen at record levels as we win markets across the world;

    – manufacturing expanding again – and so, too, employment in it.

    In all we’ve done we have been playing for the long-term. My target is growth every year; higher living standards every year; manufacturing growing every year; public services improving every year – and to do that without fear of inflation.

    No one has achieved that before. It’s meant saying ‘no’ to short-term options. ‘No’ to fashionable ideas. ‘Wait’ for the tax cuts we all wish to see.

    It did hurt. I said it would. I told people in 1989 – “if it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working.” But now it is working. And the reality is – if we stick to present policies we will improve life for everyone and double living standards within 25 years.

    The prize at stake is that, after the next election, the Government in office will inherit the soundest, most secure economy of any Government since the 1st World War. It will be able to address its social and political agenda more freely than any predecessor.

    Mr Chairman, I want that Government to be a Conservative Government.

    It is a massive achievement. We can be proud of it. So let’s use every day and every hour and every minute of the next two years to tell people of the great future that lies ahead and once again earn their trust and support.

    That’s the fight ahead of us. I relish it. It is a fight we can win.

    Our work is long-term – but already it’s changing our country for the better.

    And while we’ve been doing this, where have Labour been? In the lobbies – in the TV studios – in the streets – against us, that’s where they’ve been.

    Now they say they’ve changed. They say they’re changing everything they’ve always stood for. They claim to be entering our world.

    If they want to fight us on that ground, I look forward to it. They’ve been squatting here a few months. We’ve been living here for centuries.

    Ours isn’t an off-the peg philosophy. We’re not trying out someone else’s ideas for size. We’re not putting on blue in this year’s spring fashion show because “red’s out”.

    Our policies flow from core convictions, gut instincts, beliefs and ideals we’ve all grown up with.

    In these debates we are in copperbottomed, mainstream Conservative home territory. And no slick, sloganising, snake-oil salesmen from the Labour Party are going to take it from us.

    Labour today is just one more synthetic PR campaign. The workers are out. The minders are in.

    Their ideas are picked up from opinion polls, techniques derived from advertisements, language copied from us.

    Nothing is original. All is derivative.

    And if there’s one thing we’ve learned lately, it is that trading in derivatives is a risky business.

    Let me illustrate Labour’s technique for you.

    Last week the Leader of the Labour Party said Conservatives don’t understand duty, nor do they act upon it.

    Frankly, for that comment, he deserved to be laughed at from Lands End to John O’ Groats.

    Duty, responsibility, self-responsibility are the core of the Conservative instinct.

    Perhaps, Mr Blair simply intended a casual political kick. After all, it’s the sort of scatter-gun, all purpose abuse that is the daily language of new Labour.

    The technique is old and effective – throw mud until it sticks.

    Well, I know this Tory Party.

    I grew up in it.

    I am of it – from the grass roots upwards.

    And I know we’re none of the things Labour claim and we never have been. Duty and responsibility are instinctive to Conservatives as a Party, and as people.

    Ask the huge number of Conservatives who run Voluntary Service, Meals on Wheels, Citizen’s Advice Bureaux, Red Cross shops, and a hundred thousand charities up and down the land.

    I will tell you who attack duty and responsibility. Those politicians who claim the state is responsible for everything and everyone.

    Those who believe the welfare state should cope with everything.

    Those who promise that whatever the problem is. the Government can cure it.

    And we know who those politicians are. And they’re not in the Conservative Party. They’re in the Labour Party.

    Mr Chairman, we Conservatives have not changed our fundamental values for 250 years. Our ambitions and hopes have moved forward. But our values have been constant.

    In 1979 we promised to get Britain off its knees and on its feet. To end hyperinflation, curb old style Union power, turn round loss-making nationalised industry, and begin to spread choke and ownership to everyone.

    We’ve done that. Now we must turn to the future.

    Some months ago I set in hand a massive exercise to build the next phase of Conservatism – a new agenda, not just for the next Election, but clear through into the next century.

    This work is in its early stages – but today let me restate some of the core values we stand for and lift the veil on some of the ideas we’re developing.

    First, that most fundamental of Tory instincts, the pursuit of prosperity and security for all.

    Prosperity begets security. But prosperity doesn’t drop as the gentle rain from heaven. It has to be earned.

    Our industry has to be competitive. Britain must mean business. Britain must believe, in business. Britain must reward hard work. And must welcome the healthy profits of success.

    I’ll tell you when we’ll know for certain that prosperity will grow in this country. When our leading companies are world beaters. When our exports are booming. And when Britain is a magnet for foreign investment. That’s when we’ll create new jobs and lasting wealth.

    Mr Chairman, I have news for you – that time is here. That time is now. Billion after billion of dollars, yen and marks poured into Britain by foreign investors. They’re not here for our weather. They’re here for our prospects.

    Toyota, Nissan, NEC, Samsung. Record inward investment. Attracted here not by sound bites, but by sound Tory policy.

    Mr Chairman, we’re here today in Birmingham, the heart of one of the great manufacturing regions of Europe. And I have good news for Birmingham. After decades of decline manufacturing is growing and expanding.

    Despite automation the number of jobs in manufacturing is growing as well.

    And something is happening today that I didn’t expect to see for years: Britain now has a current account surplus with Japan – and we’re selling them our cars, our televisions, our motorcycles and our cameras. Made in Britain. Sold in Japan.

    This is Britain as she was – making and selling goods of high quality to all parts of the world.

    And this is Britain as I want to see her.

    Our prosperity must be built on things we make as well as services we sell.

    We’re looking at how to improve services to industry. To see what more Government can do to help.

    Many of the things we sell will be made by small businesses. That is where the future jobs will come.

    So we’re looking at still more ways to encourage them.

    We’ll be making deeper cuts in regulation and red tape. And let no-one, anywhere, be in any doubt – we will resist pointless regulation in Europe.

    And that includes the Social Chapter of which Labour are so fond.

    There’s a world of new technology out there. We have to provide industry with the modern skills they need.

    Britain must be a world leader in the new industries of media and information technology. So we will soon announce new measures to ensure it is.

    Britain must have the best qualified workforce in Europe.

    By the year 2000 we are aiming for over 80 per cent of our young people to have 5 or more good GCSEs or their vocational equivalent.

    We want to make sure all our school leavers are good enough to get a job.

    We’ve made giant strides forward. Creating 41 new universities; bringing in tough new vocational qualifications to enhance skills and test the mind. We’ve set a long-term target of one child in 3 going into higher education. And, let me tell you today – we’ve hit it five years early.

    These changes will accelerate. They are the building blocks for prosperity. The humdrum, everyday policies that improve lives and build the security we seek.

    Mr Chairman, the second thing we stand for is a nation of opportunity.

    For the right to own and the power to choose.

    Ownership is the very core of Conservatism. We believe in a capital-owning democracy. Where people can do what they wish with more of the money they earn.

    We believe in a fair reward for hard work. And we’re going to carry those principles into the future.

    So let me tell you again today. We’re committed to continue cutting rates of income tax in the future – moving towards our long-term target of 20% as the standard rate. For us, the tax debate is how soon we can bring it down and by how much. Labour’s debate is about how much they should put it up.

    We Conservatives believe in thrift, with individuals encouraged to build up tax-free savings. That’s why we introduced tax-free TESSAs and PEPs. We want people to have the security and independence savings provide. And we want to do more to encourage them.

    I also hold dear the belief that people should be able to hand on security to their children, cascading wealth down the generations. Over the last decade we’ve doubled the threshold at which inheritance tax becomes payable. It’s been difficult to go further in the last two or three difficult years. But I’m committed to doing so as soon as we can afford it.

    I also want to provide more opportunity for people to help others. The talents and experience of pensioners are too often wasted at the moment. They should be used in ways that fulfil their lives and benefit the rest of us. It is high time that retirement was recognised as the opening up of new opportunity, not a drawing down of blinds.

    All of that also means building on that explosion of giving, and working and helping others that has marked the last twenty years. Do you know that 17 million people volunteer every year – 2 million more than 15 years ago? And the Labour Party insult them by prattling on about loss of community. Comments like that belittle those who give so much.

    But while they’ve been prattling, we’ve been planning.

    So in June we will announce a comprehensive programme for voluntary service. It will cover all ages. It will be the most far-reaching imitative ever. Not a centralised plan to compete with private effort – but one that will reach into the wellsprings of goodwill that are found in literally every street of our land.

    Nowhere is Conservative belief in opportunity and choice more important than in housing. The Right to Buy is not a chapter of history. It’s not yesterday; it’s today. 70,000 families a year are still becoming homeowners as a result of Right to Buy and similar schemes.

    But there’s always more to do. Too many people are still trapped in grey, impersonal housing estates. Shortly we’ll bring forward a Housing White Paper. It will show how we could offer a choice of decent housing for everybody – and extend home ownership still wider.

    On education, while I know this year’s settlement has been tight, I can assure you – education will be at the top of our priorities as the economy delivers further growth.

    I also want to see more Grant-maintained schools to underpin choice and opportunity – and this week Gillian Shephard announced we’re giving them new powers to borrow and build for the future.

    And, because opportunities start with the young, we will shortly also publish plans to fulfil our pledge to expand nursery education for all children aged four.

    These are practical steps to give people more control over their lives. Taken together, they amount to a massive and irreversible shift of power and choice from the state to individuals and their families.

    Mr Chairman, the third pillar of our beliefs is that we stand foursquare for decent commonsense values. That’s true across the board – but I want to concentrate today on the fight against crime.

    When I became Prime Minister I took the view that it was time to understand a little less and condemn a little more. By that I meant that we shouldn’t explain away why people commit crime. We should just say bluntly: “it’s wrong”.

    Michael Howard has been acting on this – toughening penalties, bringing in new ways to prevent crime, phasing out soft options like cautioning young offenders time and time again. I believe Michael deserves enormous credit for what he has achieved in the teeth of constant abuse every inch of the way.

    He deserves 100 per cent support from all of us – and he’ll certainly get it from me.

    Too much of that abuse has come from Labour. They know they have to talk about law and order. But talk is all they do. They talk tough and act soft. Time and again they have voted against our plans to prevent and punish crime.

    Mr Chairman, we stand for commonsense justice – delivered fairly but quickly. And frankly, I believe the administration of justice is often too slow, too complex and too costly. I’d like to change that.

    So we’ve asked a leading judge to look into court procedures in civil cases, to bring faster and less costly judgments.

    And we are also out to streamline criminal justice. That must include a change to the rules on disclosure. These place a very heavy burden on the prosecution and police, going beyond the balance that justice demands. Informants and witnesses can be put at risk. The police believe these rules should be changed – and we agree with them.

    I expect some of you know victims or witnesses who have felt shabbily treated on a visit to court – as if they came last, rather than first, in the order of priorities. So we’ll soon be sending out new standards for better treatment of victims and witnesses. It’s a terrifying experience to be a victim. And often frightening to be a witness as well. We should remember and respect those fears.

    In the war on crime we’re applying new technology. We’re introducing more and more closed-circuit television to help cut crime and delinquency in our city centres. Some people didn’t like it. But it’s been immensely successful. So we’ll now be working with business on comprehensive crime prevention measures in even more places.

    This month we’re giving police wider powers to take DNA samples to help catch criminals. We will build up a national DNA database – making life safer for the citizen and whole lot tougher for the criminal. It will be the first national DNA database in the world. And we’re moving at the same time towards a national fingerprint register too. This is using technology to catch crime. And in the battle against crime, it is right to use all the science at our disposal.

    Thousands of people want to help our police. So we are having a national call for volunteers to increase the number of special constables up towards 30,000. And those constables will be out on the beat.

    Mr Chairman, we are an open-hearted country to people in difficulties – and I hope we always will be. But we can’t afford to accept abuse of our asylum laws. And so this autumn there will be a new Bill to tighten the asylum rules.

    We are reforming the probation service – so that we’re able to bring in people of quality from all backgrounds.

    And we will be experimenting with tougher new penalties for young offenders. It is right to have an alternative to prison. But I don’t believe it should be a gentle Saturday afternoon stroll.

    And, yes, we must sort out problems that have arisen in some prisons. I was as angry as anyone to read of prison officers shopping for inmates. I am not against decent treatment. But I believe privileges should be earned – and stopped if behaviour is bad, So I can tell you today that from this summer a regime of sanctions as well as reward will begin to be seen in our prisons.

    We are ready to look at anything which will deter crime and make it more likely that we will catch criminals. That’s why I can also confirm that we will soon publish a Green Paper to canvass public views on possible ways to bring in identity cards. And I hope in the debate that will follow you will make your voice heard.

    Fourthly, Mr Chairman, just as we stand against crime, we stand for first class public services. Back in 1990 I set out to sweep away those old patronising couldn’t-care-less attitudes. Our people deserve better. I want Britain’s public services to be the best in the world.

    So we began a 10-year programme of change – performance standards, league tables, market testing, independent inspection, improved compensation, and proper attention to customer needs. An information revolution for the public. We’ve moved from a world in which bureaucracy wouldn’t even give you their names to one where the results of every school, every railway line, every police force, every council are published for all to see. It’s a programme that’s proving steadily more and more successful – and it’s growing day by day. We call it the Citizen’s Charter.

    Of course, services like health and education will always be provided in the public sector. But others need not. That’s why Britain led the world in denationalisation – moving lacklustre and loss-making public companies into the private sector.

    Privatisation has been a huge success. Perhaps that’s why it’s under such vicious attack from Labour. Prices have come down dramatically – phone bills, gas bills, electricity bills, they’re down again this week.

    Privatisation has worked wonders. And I don’t have a shred of doubt privatising British Rail will be a success. Nationalised British Rail has not delivered the service it should. It can and will be done better in the private sector.

    Labour talk of reversing the public sector changes we’ve made. They would throw hospitals, railways and schools back into turmoil.

    Dogma might win – but patients, passengers and pupils would all lose out.

    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Mr Chairman, we stand for the nation – our United Kingdom. We are proud of its institutions, proud of its place in the world.

    We will do everything necessary to defend our nation. In the 1980s Conservative Governments stood firm against communism. The result? The cold war was won – among the greatest triumphs for freedom, free enterprise, for our ideals in all our history. 400 million people free of repression. It wasn’t Labour – old, new, borrowed or blue – that led the way down that long hard road. It was we, the Conservatives. And never let it be forgotten.

    Today Britain is a leader right across the world – at the UN, in the G7, in NATO and in Europe.

    We treasure our links with the Commonwealth – so strengthened by the return of South Africa. It’s wonderful to have her back – in the Commonwealth – where she belongs.

    Our influence in Asia and the Middle East is creating new opportunities for exports and trade.

    And we for our part – 50 years on from the end of the war – will never forget those unique and lasting ties we have to the United States.

    Britain has a world identity. But we also have a special place in moulding the future of Europe. You know well where I stand. In this dangerous and changing world this great alliance serves our vital national interest.

    Yes, we benefit from Europe – but we also want to shape Europe. A Europe of nation states, built on co-operation, not intervention. A Conservative Government will never let Britain lose her national identity, her eccentricities, her uniqueness that we love. A nation state is what we are – and a nation state is what we shall remain.

    And there’s another side to our nation. We love our traditions of sport, the arts, and our national heritage. But always in the past it was difficult for those causes to compete with the great claims on national resources like health, education and defence. That’s why I set up the national lottery – to provide more resources for these causes than they’ve ever had before. A little flutter. A chance to dream. And real benefit for the country.

    Mr Chairman, I care about the integrity of our country at home as passionately as I do for its interest abroad. So that is why we’ll work to expose the fantastic folly of Labour’s plans for a tax-raising Parliament in Scotland. Those ill thought out ideas would take us towards the break-up of the most successful partnership in our history.

    It would destroy jobs in Scotland, saddle all Scots with a Tartan Tax and damage our influence abroad. The nation we believe in is a United Kingdom – not half or a third or a quarter of one. We will continue to fight Labour on this, tooth and nail.

    Mr Chairman, there is another part of our United Kingdom that is particularly close to my heart. I will continue day and night to do what I judge to be right to bring long-term peace to the brave people of Northern Ireland.

    Mr Chairman, we have much to be proud of, we Conservatives. But we have much more still to achieve. Today I have shared with you just a few of the new ideas on which we are working. The work of government moves on – and, as it does, we are shaping the next phase of Conservatism.

    We have to remind people that the essential things we stand for are, as always, the things they believe in too.

    The pillars of Conservatism are as strong as ever:

    – to deliver a strong economy and competitive industry, built on a genuine belief in private enterprise – that is the basis for future prosperity and security;

    – to create a society where individual initiative, hard work, and thrift are recognised and rewarded. An open door society in which ever more people enjoy the right to own and the power to choose;

    – to maintain order and decency, respect for self and respect for others, reinforced by lasting respect for the law;

    – to ensure that Britain has the best quality public services – the best schools, the best hospitals – that British skill can create;

    – and finally, to ensure that Britain has a Government that will keep our country secure abroad and safe at home, a Government which puts the long-term interest of our nation first.

    Mr Chairman, those are the things we stand for. The things we are working for. They are why Britain needs a Conservative Government to lead this country into the next millennium.

    Yes, we have a tough fight on our hands. But I have never run away from any fight in my life. And this is one more battle that, with your help, I intend to win.

  • PMQT – 21 March 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair rose —[ Interruption. ]

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

    Mr. Blair rose —[ Interruption. ]

    Madam Speaker: It is Jacques Arnold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Prescott indicated dissent.

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 9 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Will the Prime Minister join me, and I am sure the whole House, in sending our deepest condolences to the family of Mr. Malcolm Murray, who died in Leeds general infirmary yesterday? Does he share the anger that we feel at the fact that he was in Leeds general infirmary because he had to be flown by helicopter some 200 miles after a fruitless search for an intensive care bed in London? Does not that demonstrate conclusively that the bed closure programme that the Government are pursuing in London has gone too far? Is he aware that he can do something immediately by instructing his Secretary of State for Health to accept the recommendation of the South-East London health authority that Guy’s hospital must not close?

    The Prime Minister: This is certainly a tragic incident and I share the view that the hon. Gentleman expressed about that. I believe that the whole House will join me in extending my deepest sympathy to Mr. Murray’s family upon his death. This is a serious case and the South Thames region has set up an urgent investigation, the outcome of which we must await. The full facts of the case are not yet in front of me, but I understand that Mr. Murray required a highly specialised form of treatment with which Leeds was particularly able to help– [Interruption.] –a highly specialised form of treatment, and that was the medical decision that was taken. Beyond that, we will have to wait for the result of the inquiry.

    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that inflation is virtually non-existent and that unemployment stands at 12.5 per cent.? That has been necessary in order to confirm France’s status as an economic vassal state of Germany. Is it not therefore a cause for congratulation for our Government that we were not obliged to take the same course of action this week? Should we not make more of the fact that both the Opposition parties are committed to such a ruinous policy?

    The Prime Minister: There is, indeed, a great deal of exchange rate turbulence, which has reflected itself in the interest rate increase in France, to which my hon. Friend refers. As I have told the House before, there has been a pretty massive flight into deutschmarks as a result of an unsettled international situation. That is the principal underlying reason that has led to such difficulties for the franc. As I told the House some time ago, I see no prospect of the United Kingdom returning to the exchange rate mechanism for some time. I have made that point perfectly clear. The fundamentals of the British economy are such that I am delighted that we are not suffering precisely the difficulty that France has.

    Mr. Blair: Is it true that, when Ministers proceeded with the sale of electricity shares on Monday, they already knew that the electricity regulator was actively considering announcing a cut in prices?

    The Prime Minister: There have been some distorted versions of what has happened, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set out precisely what the circumstances are.

    The fact is that Professor Littlechild did not decide to undertake his review until Monday afternoon, after trading had begun in shares in PowerGen and National Power. But, although the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry were aware that he was considering the possibility, he had not notified them even on Monday morning–when stock exchange trading began–that he had made any decision to go ahead.

    I should also tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury took independent financial and legal advice at the end of last week on whether, in the light of the possible uncertainty, the share sale prospectus was still accurate. The legal and financial advice that it received was that, even if the issue of price controls for the regional electricity companies was reopened, that was not material to the share sale of the generating companies. [Hon. Members:– “Rubbish.”] That is the legal advice that hon. Members say is rubbish. As for the generating companies, they are subject to a wholly different basis of regulation. It was in the light of that legal and financial advice that the Treasury decided to proceed.

    Mr. Blair: That may have been the legal advice, but may I ask the Prime Minister about the duty of his Government? Will he confirm that the Government knew that the regulator was actively considering making such an announcement? That is the first point. Secondly, if they did know, does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose the information to prospective investors?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say just now, that was precisely the point of seeking the legal advice: to determine whether the prospectus was right. The right hon. Gentleman himself is a distinguished lawyer– [Interruption.] I suspect that, if the Government had sought legal advice on an issue of this sort and then not taken the legal advice that they had been given, the right hon. Gentleman would have been at the Dispatch Box asking why we had not taken the legal advice that we had legitimately sought and received.

    Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for his compliment about my being a lawyer, but surely the point– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I expect better behaviour from Ministers.

    Mr. Blair: I cannot say that we do, Madam Speaker.

    The question relates not to the legal advice, but to the responsibility of the Government. Does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose that information? Never mind whether the Government were legally entitled to it; does he not think that it would have been better to disclose it? Or is the short truth that a privatisation programme already damaged by boardroom excess and customer complaints is now tarnished by at best incompetence and at worst double dealing by Government?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has now asked the same question three times. I answered his third question with my first answer, and I made the position clear in my second answer. Other than to get in his ritual soundbite, I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman has asked his question a third time. The fact is, as I have said, that the Government were aware that the regulator was considering the possibility at some stage in the future. He had not notified the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, even on Monday morning, of whether he had determined to proceed, and whether he had determined what his statement would be. That is the purpose of ensuring that the prospectus is right; that is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took legal advice. On the basis that it was right to proceed–that the prospectus was accurate –my right hon. and learned Friend proceeded. If he had not, the right hon. Gentleman would have been standing there asking why the sale did not proceed and why the Government did not take the legal advice that they had sought in order to do so.

    Mr. Michael Spicer: On the question of exchange rate turbulence, does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent rise in the deutschmark against the pound is good for British exporters to Germany and bad for German exporters to Britain? Would it not be a bad thing if we were ever again to shadow the deutschmark?

    The Prime Minister: We are not shadowing the deutschmark and I do not anticipate that we will. At the moment the performance of British exports makes it clear that both British industry and the British currency are performing well.

    Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister not cut the legal waffle? The real question is not what is legally possible: it is what is right. Is the Prime Minister proud that his Government had to hoodwink the public to get them to buy their electricity shares?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not a distinguished lawyer. If he lets fly like that I hope that he is never sitting down where he has to take a cool, calm decision of what is in the national interest. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to read the three answers that I gave to the right hon. Member for Sedgefied (Mr. Blair). Perhaps upon several readings of them he will know the answer to his question.

    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that devolving power to schools and hospitals has led to improved educational standards and more patients being treated? Would the imposition of an unnecessary layer of regional government harm that success?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that it most certainly would. There are forms of devolution that I favour, most notably devolution down to the family and to the local community so that they can make their own decisions. We are certainly not committed to regional assemblies. There seems to be some confusion among the Opposition as to whether they are. On Sunday the right hon. Member for Sedgefield ( Mr. Blair) said:

    “We are not committed to regional assemblies.”

    The deputy leader of the Labour party said:

    “No, I don’t say that is the position.”

    There seems to be some confusion about that on the Opposition Benches.

     

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

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

    Mr. Burden: When the number of full-time employees in the civil service has fallen by 29,000 in the past five years and the number on temporary contracts has grown by 82 per cent. in the same period, why are managers in the Employment Service being encouraged to sack temporary workers rather than let them have employment rights? Does the Prime Minister not realise that constant job insecurity is one of the biggest factors preventing any kind of feel good factor?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman took a wider view rather than being concerned with the point that he mentions, he would also have mentioned the dramatic fall in unemployment in every region of the United Kingdom. Self-evidently, work loads in Departments fluctuate, and by limiting periods of casual employment Departments are obliged to fill permanent vacancies with permanent staff, as they should. That is what is happening in the Department of Employment.

     

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

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

    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider those seven schools in west Norfolk that have become grant- maintained? If he visits those schools he will find high morale and excellent motivation and commitment. Is it any wonder that more and more Members on the Labour Front Bench want to send their children to grant- maintained schools, and is it any wonder that the public find that grossly hypocritical?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that there are seven grant-maintained schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I hope that there will be more in every constituency in the future. Education is an important ladder that helps people to raise themselves to a higher standard of living. Grant-maintained schools offer a wide choice, which I commend to everyone and congratulate everybody on taking. I trust that everybody will ensure that it is open to all who wish to have it.

    Mr. Enright: In spite of the headlong rush into vegetarianism, does the Prime Minister agree with Bob Reid, the former chairman of British Rail, that he would rather put money into a butcher’s shop than into rail privatisation?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman should have heard what else Sir Bob said. He also said:

    “I do believe that privatisation is right.”

    The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that.

     

    Q4. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Lidington: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend’s efforts to secure peace in Northern Ireland, does he agree that, until terrorism has been eradicated, it is right that we should continue to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to secure the protection of our fellow citizens in every part of the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: I do agree with that. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday, we shall retain the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 as long as the powers are needed for the protection of the public in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. I should add that we have accepted independent advice that all of the powers in the Act continue to be necessary and justified. My right hon. and learned Friend made that clear to the House yesterday.

  • PMQT – 2 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Maclennan: As the Prime Minister failed last night to persuade his campaign manager–the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of Maastricht–on Europe, how can he hope to persuade anyone else? Will the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) be joining those without a Whip, or will they join him within the ranks of the anti- Europeans in the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister: What has piqued the hon. Gentleman is that I managed to persuade a sufficient number of people into my Lobby to win the vote.

    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Lloyds bank survey of the north of England which shows that one third of all businesses in the region expect to take on additional staff in the next three months? Is he also aware that there has been a 13 per cent. drop in unemployment in the neighbouring constituency of Sedgefield? Why do we never hear any of that from the Member who represents that constituency?

    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to hear about the drop in unemployment in Sedgefield, although I thought that it had fallen by 16 per cent. I am delighted to see unemployment dropping throughout the United Kingdom, and we intend to pursue policies which ensure that it will continue to drop.

    Mr. Blair: In the light of yet another report today on an excessive pay package in a privatised monopoly and of his own threat on Tuesday to legislate, will the right hon. Gentleman back an amendment to the Gas Bill a week on Monday that would give the regulator the power to cut prices where pay deals are excessive? Would that not send the clearest possible signal to the utilities that the game is up?

    The Prime Minister: I set out the position clearly to the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday, and he should know that the role of the regulator is to protect the interests of the consumer. I do not propose to extend that role. The regulators are introducing competition and bearing down on prices. As to the underlying premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I set out that we shall wait and see the report from Sir Richard Greenbury and his colleagues. We shall then take action upon that, including legislative back-up if that is required.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister not know that the Greenbury committee has said that it will not propose any legislation and its report will not be out for months? Furthermore, its main recommendations will not affect the abuses in the privatised monopolies. The anger is now, the abuses are now: why will he not act now to put an end to the abuses?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s assertions are, frankly, wrong. I made clear the other day the subjects that I believe need addressing–the need for complete and open disclosure over remuneration and the need to ensure that bonuses and share options are firmly based on company performance. Those subjects need consideration. When we have recommendations that cover those, we shall consider them, and I have made it clear that, if necessary, we shall provide legislative back-up. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that it is both necessary and desirable to wait until we have that report and that information so that we can consider what action is necessary.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the debate on Europe and the single currency yesterday? In columns 1053 and 1056 of Hansard , the leader of a political party dealt with interventions by one of my right hon. Friends, first, by saying that he would give way, but not doing so, and, secondly, by accusing him of inconsistency? Is there not a lesson in that on how to get people to vote on our side by treating them with less courtesy than the Labour party? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: We had an excitable day yesterday and perhaps we can have a little more calm today, Madam Speaker. The debate yesterday was very revealing in a number of respects. It was revealing because of what the leader of the Liberal party had to say, and it was also very revealing because a number of Labour Members flatly contradicted assertions in the speech by the leader of the Labour party. He was open enough to admit that his party was split and his party was generous enough to show precisely that in the speeches that Labour Members subsequently made.

     

    Secretary of State for Wales

    Q2. Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will remove the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) from his post of Secretary of State for Wales.

    The Prime Minister: No.

    Mr. Wigley: Surprise, surprise. Is the Prime Minister aware that, when the post of Secretary of State for Wales was first created, the idea was to have one member of the Cabinet from Wales, to speak up from personal experience of the needs and the aspirations of the people of Wales? The present incumbent is clearly incapable of doing that. Given the opinion poll this week, which has shown yet again that there is a 2:1 majority in favour of the powers of the Welsh Office being answerable to a Parliament in Wales rather than to a Governor General, will the Prime Minister stop having such an intransigent attitude to the question and allow the people of Wales to have at least some semblance of national democracy?

    The Prime Minister: I do not regard my position as the hon. Gentleman described it and would describe it quite differently. He is aware of my views of the possible difficulties with a Welsh Assembly. I do not believe that it is in the interests of Wales. To be frank, generally if the answer to the question is more politicians, then it is the wrong question. As to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, during his period in office, Wales has benefited from a steady stream of inward investment from the United States and the Pacific rim, and there has been a considerable improvement in the quality of life and the standard of living throughout Wales. Those are the policies that are necessary for the future. An extra tier of government, which would suck a great deal of authority from local councils in Wales, is not the way forward.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q3. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Blaby.

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

    Mr. Robathan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent visit to Enderby in my constituency by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), at which he discussed devolution with the Blaby constituency Labour party– all 25 of them? When my right hon. Friend visits Blaby, which I hope that he will do very soon, will he also discuss devolution, for he will discover that the overwhelming majority of my constituents, many of whom were born in Scotland or Wales, value the integrity of the United Kingdom, oppose devolution and have no interest in a ridiculous regional assembly based in Birmingham or elsewhere?

    The Prime Minister: Where there is a proper system of local government, I believe that devolution to an extra tier of government is an unwise way to proceed. There is one form of devolution that I strongly favour, which is devolution straight down to individuals: to let families make their own choice; and to let people have more control over schools, hospitals and local decisions. That is the form of devolution that we favour, not devolution to an extra tier of bureaucrats and politicians.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Etherington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Etherington: Will the Prime Minister attend the House tomorrow to vote in favour of the admirable Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)? More importantly, will he give an undertaking to the House that he will endeavour to ensure that parliamentary time is made available so that the will of the vast majority of people, who want the barbarism of blood sports abolished, can be brought to fruition?

    The Prime Minister: That has traditionally been the responsibility of individual Members and their consciences. I shall not be here to support the hon. Gentleman.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lancashire county council put £7 million of council tax money into a special contingency reserve to pay a 2.2 per cent. rise in teachers’ salaries? Unfortunately, it has not handed over that money to the schools to pay those salaries. Does he sympathise with those in the schools, who feel very angry about that and therefore want to go grant-maintained?

    The Prime Minister: A large number of schools have gone grant- maintained because they believe that they can better look after their own interests than if they are retained in the control of the local education authority. I hope and believe that many more will do so in the future, not least for the reasons that my hon. Friend set out. I do not think that anyone can be unaware of the campaign that is being waged at the moment by some education authorities. I noticed the press release produced by the Opposition this morning. If they had looked at the facts of what is to happen to the standard spending assessments of the education authorities that they quote, they might have produced a more straightforward and honest press release.

     

    Q5. Mr. Timms: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Timms: The Prime Minister will recall that, in 1991, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that the channel tunnel rail link would be routed through east London to promote urban regeneration specifically within east London. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to that objective for the rail link?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm the importance of the rail link and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to let the hon. Gentleman have as much information as is currently available.

     

    Q6. Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Evennett: Now that the distraction of yesterday’s debate is behind us, does my right hon. Friend agree that he should turn his attention to the economic development that has been so successful in recent years, with falling unemployment, low inflation and record exports? Does he agree that the Government’s policies are dealing with the real issues that affect the lives of our citizens and that the Opposition have no policies whatever on the economy?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to commend the economic recovery, which is very strong and widespread, and shows signs of being the best economic recovery that we have seen in this country for very many years. I intend to continue to give my full attention to that economic recovery. I wish to ensure that we continue to have growth and falling unemployment, and that we continue to see the levels of investment and growth, particularly in the manufacturing industry, that we have seen of late. Only a continuation of those policies will, over a long period, improve the living standards of the British nation, which is what I wish.

     

    Q7. Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Fatchett: May I refer back to the issue of top people’s pay increases, which was discussed earlier? The Prime Minister has argued that he will leave all of that to the Greenbury committee and its report. Is it right that a Government should delegate that responsibility to an employers’ organisation that has a vested interest in top people’s pay? Is it not about time that the Prime Minister, who claims that he feels strongly about that issue, gave a lead to the country and introduced his own proposals–or shall we simply be left with government that is all delegation and no leadership?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are thirsting to go down the route of pay policies that the Labour party has gone down for generations. The concern that people feel about that issue is the concern that I spelt out with great clarity to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on Tuesday. We are examining that, we are waiting for recommendations on that, and, when necessary, when the facts are available, we shall decide what action needs to be taken, if necessary, including legislation. However, I have no intention of operating in the envious spirit that activates the hon. Gentleman.

  • PMQT – 28 February 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Rail Privatisation

    Q1. Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the impact of rail privatisation on the economy of the Scottish highlands and islands.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): The franchising director will consult on his draft passenger service requirement for ScotRail. I am confident that the outcome will improve the quality of service enjoyed by the passenger.

    Mr. Kennedy: Given the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Scotland, he will be aware of the widespread concern about the future of rail services, not least the impact that the withdrawal of sleeper services, motorail, the steam engine on the West Highland line, and so on will have on the tourist-oriented economy of the western highlands in particular. Given that degree of concern, will the Prime Minister agree to a meeting at the appropriate time to discuss this matter further?

    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, I believe strongly that rail privatisation will improve the service, not least because a privatised service will have access to new sources of funds to increase investment in the rail service.

    On the hon. Gentleman’s direct question, of course I would be prepared to meet him at an appropriate time, but it might be more helpful in the first instance if he were to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who will, naturally, try to assist him.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Dr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister recall that nearly three years ago he told the nation, “Vote Conservative on Thursday, and the recovery starts Friday”? [Interruption.] When will the recovery start for all those who have seen their real standard of living decline since then? When will it start for the people I saw in the Selly Oak jobcentre yesterday where skilled factory workers are being offered £150 a week, security guards are being offered £2.40 an hour and care assistants £2.25 an hour? When will they get the feel-good factor?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady cares to look at the published figures, she will see that we moved back into growth almost immediately after the last general election, precisely as I had forecast. If she is concerned about what is happening to the economy, she might bear in mind that it is now growing at about 4 per cent. a year, unemployment has fallen by 400,000 in the last year alone, exports have hit record levels in nine out of the last 13 months, investment is rising, manufacturing productivity is rising and, for the first time since records began, the number of people in work in manufacturing industry is rising. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell her constituents that.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech that he made in Glasgow on Friday night to a cross-section of the Scottish business community? Does he recall that his comments were widely welcomed? Is he aware that the Scottish business community feels that a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers will cost productive jobs in Scotland and threaten the Union?

    The Prime Minister: I do, indeed, recall speaking to 1,000 Scottish business men in Glasgow on Friday. I am in no doubt that they believe that a tax-raising assembly in Scotland would not be in the interests of Scottish business, not be in the interests of Scottish prosperity and not be in the interests of future investment in Scotland. That is strongly my view. I believe that it was also theirs.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads– [Interruption.] Does he share the anger– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not barrack from sedentary positions.

    Mr. Blair: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the anger at the latest multi-million pound pay package awarded to heads of privatised utilities–this time, the National Grid Company–and will he at last act to stop such abuses?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do find these payments as distasteful as the right hon. Gentleman–as do, I dare say, many other people as well. Where they cannot be justified, I believe that they bring the system into disrepute. I believe that directors have a duty to consider that, and I hope that they will. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Greenbury committee is examining those matters. Its recommendations will be addressed, of course, to companies and to shareholders. When its recommendations are available, I shall be ready to consider any proposals that may require legislative back-up. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is all very time consuming.

    Mr. Blair: But, Madam Speaker, he has the golden share in this company. Why will not he then use it?

    The Prime Minister: There are a wide number of issues to be addressed, not just this, and the right hon. Gentleman may find it interesting to examine what they are. First, we must address how best to promote complete and open disclosure of the remuneration of directors–that is necessary so that shareholders can have the full facts–and, secondly, how to ensure that bonuses and share options are firmly based on the performance of the company, and not provided as windfall gains. I believe that that is rightly where the greatest public concern is now concentrated. I believe that that may require stricter criteria for the price at which the shares are issued and the circumstances in which they are exercised. All those matters will need to be examined.

    I share the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that it is not the job of Government to substitute their commercial judgement for that of individuals. When we have the judgement that is now being provided, we will examine it with great care.

    Mr. Blair: For these privatised utilities, why will not the right hon. Gentleman use the golden share or give the regulator the power? Does he not realise that, until he acts to stop these abuses, he will be seen as a willing partner in a public scandal, where monopoly millionaires are paying themselves monopoly money?

    The Prime Minister: People who have listened to these exchanges may suspect that the right hon. Gentleman had prepared that question before he had listened to the earlier answers. If he had listened to the earlier answers, he would have known that there was no point in asking that question.

    Mr. Lamont: Is the Prime Minister aware that the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland over the weekend about decommissioning and the surrender of arms were as welcome as they were necessary? May I encourage the Government to stick to their word on that matter, otherwise the so-called choice that the people of Northern Ireland face will not be a real choice? It will be a choice subject to blackmail, intimidation and abandonment of a community that deserves our support and protection.

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend will know, the community has had our support and protection, with a large number of troops there, for the past quarter of a century. I can tell my right hon. Friend and all right hon. and hon. Members in the House that those British troops will stay there to protect people in Northern Ireland for so long as it is necessary. My right hon. Friend need have no concern but that we will keep to the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

     

    Q4. Mr. Soley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Soley: Has the Prime Minister made up his mind yet whether he agrees with his Chancellor that monetary union is not a threat to the nation state?

    The Prime Minister: I shall be addressing in detail all the matters that relate to our European position, and the right policies for this country, tomorrow. I shall do that tomorrow, and the hon. Gentleman will then be in no doubt.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mrs. Gorman: Unless my right hon. Friend has even half a mind to pull Britain out of Europe, could he explain to the House, and more particularly to the fishermen of Britain, how else they are to recover their Dover soles?

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will know, since she refers to the common fisheries policy, that there would be many parts of the seas from which British fishermen would be excluded were it not for the provisions of the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend and the fishing industry may not like every aspect of that policy–I am aware that they do not–but if we were to cut ourselves adrift from Europe in the way that she suggests, not just the fishing industry but a very large part of the commerce and other interests of this country would be put at risk.

    Ms Glenda Jackson: As the Prime Minister has already announced one U -turn in his policy, can he confirm or deny reports in today’s papers that the Government have abandoned their policy with regard to rail safety with the abandonment of automatic train protection? There has been a firm commitment to ATP by the Government and previous Secretaries of State since 1985. Can the Prime Minister confirm or deny that it is still part of his Government’s policy?

    The Prime Minister: On these matters, of course, we act on the advice that we receive from the Health and Safety Commission, as we have frequently been advised to do by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have received some advice from the commission and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering it.

     

    Q6. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the Belgians have recently exercised border controls in a most effective manner in relation to alleged football hooligans? Will he ensure that he lobbies Belgium hard for support in the European Union so that we can maintain adequate border controls at Dover?

    The Prime Minister: I welcome the action taken by the Belgian police to ensure that tonight’s game passes off without incident. I hope that the only action will be on the pitch–not off it. With regard to my hon. Friend’s second point, I have said in the past that I am determined to maintain the fair, but necessary, immigration controls at the border that we have at present, and we intend to do so.

     

    Q7. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.

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

    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Prime Minister recall that, about a year ago, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced an investigation into the impact of dividend payments on investment, but that was dropped after the intervention of Lord Hanson? Since then, investment as a proportion of gross domestic product in Britain has declined to 14.6 per cent., which is the lowest figure since the first quarter of 1955. Given that the increase in dividends since the Tories came to power is £22 billion, which is money that has been dragged away from investment, is it not time to resuscitate that investigation?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would do better to see what is actually happening both to manufacturing industry and to wider investment. If he does that, he will see the growth in manufacturing industry and see that industries that were dead or dying are now strong again, and exporting. He will see that British Steel has just increased production at its Llanwern plant by 30 per cent. He will also see a motor industry which was on its knees which will be a net exporter of motor cars before too long, and he will find that this country exports fibre optics, cameras and a whole range of products that were not available some years ago, all as a result of fresh investment in this country.

    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the city of Chester unemployment has fallen yet again? It is down by 2 per cent. on last month, by 14 per cent. on last year and by 42 per cent. on eight years ago. Does he recognise the fact that, as well as inflation being at its lowest level for a generation, in Chester inward investment is at record levels and year-on-year growth is up by 4 per cent., productivity is up by 6 per cent. and exports are up by 14 per cent? To what or to whom does he attribute that encouraging state of affairs?

    The Prime Minister: I am indeed encouraged by those statistics, both for Chester and for the rest of the country. It is not simply the growth, or the drop in unemployment, that is welcome. Also welcome is the fact that there is a physical growth in the number of people in employment, as well as a significant drop in the number of people who have been unemployed for a long time. I believe that that development is set to continue, and I imagine that everyone will welcome that fact.

  • PMQT – 16 February 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 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.

    Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend join me and every other Member of the House in condemning the appalling scenes of violence and vandalism in Dublin last night? Does he agree that those people are a disgrace to the United Kingdom and an affront to football fans? Will he assure the House that he will do everything possible to prevent such behaviour from occurring again either at home or abroad?

    The Prime Minister: I agree that the behaviour of a thuggish minority at the match last evening was a disgrace and a great embarrassment. I do not believe that the people involved are sports fans, nor do I believe that they represent the true face of this country or British sport. The Football Association and the Irish Football Association have launched a full inquiry into exactly what happened and will discover what lessons can be learnt for the future. I have said that we will do everything we can to help to identify the people concerned and ensure that they face due punishment.

    Mr. Blair: May I, first, associate myself entirely with the Prime Minister’s comments about the scenes of violence? Those people are not proper football fans, but criminals and thugs and should be treated as such.

    In today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that a single currency was a threat to the nation state. Is that the Prime Minister’s view: yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be wise not to misunderstand what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is saying. If he is so concerned about matters– [Interruption.] I note that the shadow Chancellor is chortling, but I must say to the Leader of the Opposition that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said:

    “I am not a fan of a single currency”

    and his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said:

    “I personally am in favour of a single currency”.

    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would care to adjudicate between the two of them.

    Mr. Blair: I am delighted that the Prime Minister keeps asking me questions; it will put him in good practice. Let me make him an offer: instead of the twice weekly Prime Minister’s questions, one day a week we will move over to the Government Benches and then the right hon. Gentleman can ask me questions.

    Let me just bring the right hon. Gentleman back to my question: it is his Chancellor of the Exchequer who has said in clear terms that a single currency is not a threat to the nation state. Does he agree or not?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman– [Hon. Members:– “Answer.”] I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman in my own way. He would be better advised to address himself to his own party and his own position. The right hon. Gentleman said in his own election address that he was opposed to British membership of the European Union. Then, later, he actually said:

    “I wasn’t actually opposed to membership”–

    and he went on to say–

    “I said . . . within the closed doors of the Labour Party, that I disagreed with that policy on Europe.”

    What is the right hon. Gentleman now saying within the closed doors of the Labour party and why will he not say it in public?

    Mr. Blair: I think we can see why the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet for a vow of silence on this issue. One simple question remains for him to answer: if he cannot trust his Cabinet or his Chancellor on these critical economic and foreign policy issues, why on earth should the people of Britain trust him or the Government to govern the country?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say in public what he said in private, why should anybody trust the Opposition? The Government have made it clear that we will decide in the light of the prevailing circumstances whether it is appropriate to join a single currency. The Cabinet is utterly united on that point and it reinforced that unity this morning, as the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of rail passengers, which were enhanced so much by the Government’s recent proposals, will be put at risk by the actions of the rail unions? Does he agree that those very unions are threatening to support clause IV against Opposition reformists, and does he have any confidence that the Leader of the Opposition will renounce those unions?

    The Prime Minister: I really do not know what he will do. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seems very keen to answer questions. I wish that some day he would try it, because if he did, it would be the first time yet in his career. I think that the aim of rail privatisation will undoubtedly be maintained, and it is to improve the quality of rail service. I hope that the need to improve the rail service does not escape the right hon. Gentleman for Kingston upon Hull, East, who has been summoned to his sponsoring union, the National Union of Rail Maritime and Transport Workers, to explain why the Opposition want to scrap clause IV.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Childish.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that that is rubbish. He says that they do not want to scrap clause IV. It is no wonder that he is sitting on the Back Benches.

     

    Q2. Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Watson: Given the unambiguous statements yesterday by the President of the European Commission on European Union internal passport controls and the creation of a single European currency, does the Prime Minister still hold to the view that he expressed in Brussels last July that Jacques Santer is the right man in the right place at the right time?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reads what the President of the European Commission said yesterday, he will find a whole range of specifically British issues, where we have made it perfectly clear that we wish change and where he has indicated the need for change. To that extent the President of the Commission will prove far more amenable to the British position than any of the alternatives.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs: In the light of the recent fall in unemployment, is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent CBI survey that showed that exports from small manufacturing companies in this country are at their best level for 10 years? As they appear not to be having any problems with exchange control or exchange rate risks, is there not a further argument for saying that what Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission, says about the need for a European single currency by 1997 is undesirable, unrealistic and unnecessary?

    The Prime Minister: I think that, in respect of the first point of my hon. Friend’s question, he is quite right to stress the growth in exports. He might have also stressed the extent to which manufacturing exports, in particular, are doing so well, and the fact that manufacturing employment has risen by 37,000 in the quarter to December. That is the fastest quarterly growth in employment in manufacturing at any stage since records began and shows clearly the extent to which manufacturing industry is undergoing a renaissance. As far as the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question is concerned, I have indicated clearly that I do not think that there is any prospect of a single currency in 1996 or 1997. At a later stage we will look at what is in the national interest in light of the circumstances.

     

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

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war, in which many of today’s British pensioners were involved. Why do our pensioners lag behind the rest of Europe when it comes to pensions and benefits? Why have the Government never considered providing a veterans’ benefit, which has been introduced elsewhere in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman would do well to look at the reality of what has happened.

    He would see that, since 1979, benefits to poorer pensioners have risen by 18 per cent. over and above the increase in prices. He would see that benefits to unemployed couples and others in difficulty have risen dramatically above the rate of inflation.

    The hon. Gentleman would also see that, among those people to whom he sometimes refers as the “poorest”, there has been a dramatic rise in the possession of consumer durables. That suggests that people have more net disposable income and it suggests also that their living standards are improving, which is demonstrated by every dispassionate survey that we have seen.

     

    Q4. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: When my right hon. Friend is next in touch with Mr. Santer, will he commend him for his words yesterday that, in matters of immigration and asylum, which affect many citizens in their daily lives, the Commission will seek to meet their expectations and to allay their concerns? Will my right hon. Friend tell him that the expectations and concerns of my constituents will best be met by upholding the British border controls that were agreed in Luxembourg 10 years ago?

    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House on Tuesday, I am entirely determined to maintain our fair but firm immigration policies, and that means that we shall retain our border controls. European Heads of Government endorsed our right to do so in a formal declaration and we intend to see that it is honoured.

    I hope that we may have the support of the Opposition in this matter. The shadow Home Secretary has indicated that we will have the support of the Opposition on this issue, although he does not appear to have the support of the leader of Labour Members of the European Parliament.

     

    Q5. Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Heppell: Even with the small but welcome fall in unemployment, there are still 20,000 long-term unemployed in the Greater Nottingham area. The proposed budget for Greater Nottingham training and enterprise council is such that only 800 or 900 of those 20,000 long-term unemployed can be assisted. Does the Prime Minister think that that is an adequate response to the problems of long-term unemployment?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that long- term unemployment–whether that is defined as six months, one year or longer–is falling and has been falling for a long time. I look forward to seeing it fall a good deal further.

    Unemployment, whether long-term or short-term, has dropped by more than 400,000 in the past 12 months. Britain is well on the way to having the lowest level of unemployment in western Europe. Our unemployment rate is substantially below that of other similar countries.

    In France–the country with the most comparative population size to Britain–unemployment is just below 13 per cent. and static; here, it is 8.5 per cent and falling and there is every indication that there will be further job creation. I hope that that will involve those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, although he may have mentioned–but neglected to do so–that unemployment in his constituency has already fallen by 11 per cent.

    Mr. Shersby: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the excellent report of the National Audit Office on grant-maintained schools? If he has, he will have seen that those schools are performing very well indeed. They are providing an excellent standard of education and many thousands of new governors have been drawn into the process of working with teachers and parents to provide good education for our children.

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt about the popularity of grant-maintained schools. There is no doubt about the fact that parents who have chosen grant-maintained status are pleased with the choice that they have made, and I think that that choice is exercised among many people, of all political persuasions.

     

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

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

    Mr. Fatchett: Given the widespread concern about corruption and bribery in sport and the rumours that games have been thrown for money, will the Prime Minister confirm that his regular poor performances at the Dispatch Box against my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) are simply a reflection of his ability and that he has not been bribed by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: The expression on the face of the Leader of the Opposition is as expressive as it needs to be and it expresses his view–as mine–of the hon. Gentleman’s question.