..............................................................................................................
Below is the contribution Mr Major's response to the Queen's Speech - May 1997
This is the second part of the speech, the first part is here.
The Chancellor has handed a very important political power to unelected officials. He has damaged his choices as Chancellor of the Exchequer; he has taken a vital choice away from himself. He has damaged his choices in managing the economy, he has ensured that unemployment will grow and that growth will be held back, and he has done all that without debating with, considering or consulting the House of Commons on the decision. Although I know that the decision was well-meaning, I believe that the Chancellor will live to regret it because it is profoundly mistaken.
The Queen's Speech stated that education was to be a high priority. Again, I agree with that aspiration. Everyone wishes to see higher standards, and I am delighted that the percentage of pupils getting good examination results has doubled over the past few years. Here again, however, we share the aspiration but not the way in which to achieve it. For example, the previous Government aimed to give more power to parents and to take it away from town halls, whereas the Prime Minister proposes precisely to reverse that process. Hundreds of thousands of parents have voted for their schools to be independent of local authority control, but the Prime Minister proposes to ride roughshod over their wishes.
That is not all. Local education authorities will have new powers over development plans and admission policies specifically at the expense of parents and school governors. The Government intend that despite the fact that, over many years, the worst-performing education authorities have consistently been Labour-controlled. The changes offer a bleak prospect for the improvement of education standards. The assisted places scheme is to go because the Government do not believe that children from less well-off families should have the opportunity to attend good public schools. Such advantages for low-income families are plainly unacceptable to Labour. Only children whose parents can afford it can go to public schools. Under new Labour, the size of the wallet matters most in education.
The reason for that bit of ideological spite is, allegedly, to save money to reduce class sizes generally; but the figures do not, of course, remotely match, as the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will find out. The children who will not get an assisted place will go elsewhere to be educated, putting up class sizes in the short term and eating into the savings. Some independent estimates--not mine--suggest that to meet the Government's objectives on class sizes, they will need ?250 million over and above the savings that will arise from the abolition of the assisted places scheme. Where will the money come from? The answer will be either higher taxes, more borrowing or cuts in other programmes, but their objectives certainly cannot be met without extra money.
The Government's education priorities are very lopsided. They include worthy aims such as higher standards and the new targets set by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment--which are similar to the ones that we would have set had we won the election, as we announced during the election campaign. Other objectives may prove worth while, such as a general teaching council, but alongside that lies the traditional enmity of the Labour party towards grammar schools, city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools and parental choice through vouchers and assisted places. The overall balance of the Government's education programme is very negative and, frankly, rather depressing.
Let me now turn to the centrepiece of the Government's programme--devolution. I concede that, on devolution, they have always had the best slogans but the worst arguments. The Gracious Speech provides for referendums in Scotland and Wales on a devolved Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. If the proposals are approved, legislation will follow. As the Prime Minister knows, I believe that it is a profoundly dangerous policy, but he has clearly won the right to put it before the House of Commons. I hope that he will share with us the importance of the issue and the fact that, before voting in the referendums, the people of Scotland and Wales need to know all the implications involved.
Can the Prime Minister now confirm to the House that constitutional Bills will be taken here on the Floor of the House in accordance with convention? Can he please do so this afternoon? The Minister without Portfolio wriggled unmercifully on the radio the other day without giving any coherent answer to that plain, straightforward question. So I repeat it: can the Prime Minister confirm that the Bills will be taken on the Floor of the House? Can he promise that they will not be smuggled upstairs to a Committee stacked full of enthusiasts who will not properly examine the measures?
Can the Prime Minister tell us why he favours a tax-raising assembly in Scotland and a non-tax-raising assembly in Wales? Can he tell us why Scottish Members should be able to vote on such matters as health and education in England and Wales, whereas English, Welsh and Northern Irish Members will not be able to vote on those matters as they affect Scotland? It is not just the West Lothian question; it is the west Dorset, west Hampshire and west Lancashire question, and we still await an answer.
When the Prime Minister was asked for his answer to that question, he said that it was the same as he had always given, but he has never given an answer. Will he do so this afternoon? Will he let Scottish Members sit as Ministers running Departments and managing English affairs? The Foreign Secretary once memorably said that, as a Scottish Member, he would not be able to do that if there was a Scottish Parliament. Does the Prime Minister agree? Why is it Government policy at present to have a tax-raising Parliament in Scotland, which the Welsh Secretary described as "economic illiteracy" in Wales? Can the Prime Minister answer those and the many other questions that will follow about his devolution policy?
Devolution of power, whether to Scotland, Wales or the Bank of England, inevitably takes power from the House of Commons, as does the Government's known policy for the Amsterdam summit in a month's time. In various important matters, our veto--in essence, our right to say no unilaterally if we choose to do so--will be unilaterally abolished. It will go on environmental policy, social policy, industrial policy and regional policy. Our right to stay out of the working time directive and the social chapter will go--an extraordinary policy for a Government claiming to be business friendly. With three new taxes, new trade union rights, a muddled policy on late payments and more taxes to come, that is a dubious proposition. If that is their idea of being friendly, thank heavens we do not have a Government who are hostile to business.
Of course there is a genuine disagreement between the parties over many European policies, but once a veto is surrendered at Amsterdam, Britain will have no right at any stage in the future to say, "No, we do not want those policies here," or to reverse those policies if they fail. The Prime Minister knows that. I therefore have a suggestion, which I hope he will find helpful. If he thinks that the policies are right, why does he not bring legislation before the House and let hon. Members decide through free debate and discussion? If we get it wrong, successive Governments can change it; but if we surrender the power to our partners, we can never change it--regardless of whether it proves to be right or wrong. Will the Prime Minister bring the measures before the House of Commons?
In the debate on the Gracious Speech, many of my right hon. Friends will want to raise a series of detailed points about the plans that the Government have set before the nation. The Opposition will do so, as far as is practicable, in a spirit of friendly co-operation. None the less, we will raise questions to which legitimately not only the House but the country require an answer. I hope that, notwithstanding the size of the Government's majority, Ministers will be prepared to give free and frank responses to such questions during the debate.
At the start of a new Parliament, a new Government deserve some good will and some luck. I willingly give them the good will and, for the sake of the country, I wish them luck. They begin their term of office with a large majority, a sparkling economy and unemployment below 6 per cent.--and falling rapidly. No Government have ever had such an inheritance. That inheritance was won despite the daily opposition and obstruction of many of the hon. Members who now sit in office and on the Government Benches. I hope that, despite all that they did to prevent us from reaching the very attractive economic situation, they will not wreck it through the policies that they will follow in the months to come. In the interests of the British nation, I wish them success; in the interests of the House, I hope that they will face us not as though they have a majority of 179 but with frank and open responses to the legitimate concerns of the Opposition and the country.