Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 March 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Women’s Issues

    Mrs. Dunwoody : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to alter the present departmental structure for consideration of women’s issues.

    The Prime Minister : I am currently examining existing departmental responsibilities for women’s issues.

     

    Value Added Tax

    Dr. Marek : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy not to widen the scope of VAT by introducing a positive rate on those items that are presently zero-rated.

    The Prime Minister : The Government have no plans to extend the scope of VAT to any items which are currently zero-rated, and no need to do so.

     

    Nuclear Non-proliferation

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet with non-governmental organisations which specialise in non-proliferation issues to discuss the outcome of the special session of the United Nations Security Council decisions on nuclear non-proliferation agreed in New York on 31 January.

    The Prime Minister : I have no specific plans to do so. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in close touch with non-governmental organisations in this field.

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister whether the library at 10 Downing street contains a copy of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    The Prime Minister : Yes.

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the main points of the agreed United Nations Security Council special session policy to control nuclear proliferation held in New York on 31 January; indicating what plans he has to publicise the strategy agreed on nuclear non-proliferation.

    The Prime Minister : The agreed conclusions of the high-level meeting of the Security Council on 31 January are set out in the statement which I made at the time on behalf of all members of the Security Council, and on which I reported to the House on 3 February at columns 21-35. The statement has been published as Security Council document S/23500, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

     

    Scotland

    Mr. Raffan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which he has officially visited Scotland since he assumed his present office, and the engagements he undertook during those visits.

    The Prime Minister : I have made five official visits to Scotland, when I undertook a number of different engagements.

     

    Wales

    Mr. Raffan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which he has officially visited Wales since he assumed his present office, and the engagements he has undertaken during those visits.

    The Prime Minister : I have made one official visit to Wales, when I undertook a number of different engagements.

     

    National Health Service Improvements

    Mr. McCartney : To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received in the past six months seeking improvements in the national health service.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 March 1992] : I have received many representations on the national health service. The Government have increased the resources available to the National Health Service with the result that National Health Service spending has risen by 55 per cent. in real terms under this Government and next year National Health Service spending in England will rise to £618 per person, compared with £409 per head–1992-93 prices–in 1979.

    The Government’s reforms are beginning to deliver improved health care. In 1991-92, the first year of our reforms, the National Health Service is forecast to treat 5.6 per cent. more in-patients and 4.3 per cent. more out-patients than last year.

     

    Libya

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of the visit to Libya by Vasily Safranchuk, the United Nations envoy.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 February 1992] : The United Nations Secretary-General has now reported to the Security Council the outcome of Mr. Safronchuk’s recent visits to Libya. That report states that Security Council resolution 731 has not yet been complied with. We agree with that assessment. Libya must comply with United Nations Security Council resolution 731 or face further measures.

  • Mr Major’s speech to the 1992 Local Government Conference – 7 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to The Conservative Local Government Conference on Saturday 7th March 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Britain is fortunate in the dedication of her Councillors and her council officers. This Party is particularly fortunate. Let me start by thanking you for all you do.

    When I spoke to this Conference last year I referred to my own period in local government. I learnt then that being a Councillor is not easy, it means commitment. It can mean days – weeks – of spare time surrendered, late nights – perhaps after a long day. Meals snatched, sleep lost, problems coming at all hours. Every one of them urgent to those who face them. Councillors must sort them out, without fuss, often without thanks, usually without personal assistance. There are no deputising services for Councillors – no-one to stand in for you. It’s your name in the Council book.

    So it isn’t easy I know. But I hope you will go on working for your communities. Because a properly conducted local council, the kind which so many of you here influence or control, can have a greater impact on the quality of life for most people than central government itself. And the converse is also true – a poorly conducted Council means more than inconvenience for its tenants, schools, and residents. As we have seen in far too many inner city areas, it can bring them to the very edge of despair.

    Every voter should remember that at the local elections in May. There’s only one way to be sure of value for money, quality service, and priorities that match public needs. To vote Conservative. And that’s what we must persuade them to do.

    Across the world Socialism is dying. We must help it on its way in this country too.

    Together, we must take municipal socialism, designer socialism, closet socialism, the whole paraphernalia of this modern Labour Party, and send it packing. And, while we’re about it – since they agree so much – let’s send the Liberal Party along with them.

    As we’ve moved towards an Election, we’ve faced a barrage of strident Labour campaigns. I’m relaxed about that. But the public expect and deserve reasoned debate. And we must make sure that they get it. So we’ll concentrate on policy, compete on policy, and we will win on policy.

    A Conservative victory is crucial for Britain. Crucial because we want to take our country forward – not slip back into old habits, long discarded. Crucial because Britain is ready to come out of recession – and only a Conservative Government can bring it out. In present world conditions, there is no quick fix. I wish there were – but the plain fact is that there isn’t. Across the globe some of the strongest economies have slowed. Britain cannot evade the effects.

    Succeeding in the 1990s will take hard work. Keeping inflation down. Keeping taxes low. Offering incentives to those with the will to succeed. Doing all the things we’ve done in a decade in which the face of Britain has been changed immeasurably for the better.

    It is high time some of Britain’s home-grown critics stopped talking her down. Just think what we’ve achieved in changing the everyday lifestyle of the average Briton.

    Whereas in 1979 one in eight of young people went into higher education, it’s now one in four. And soon it will be one in three.

    Whereas less than half of all pensioners had a telephone, it’s now five in every six.

    Where just over half our families owned their own home, it’s now nearly seven out of ten.

    Where just one home in a hundred had a video recorder, it’s now more than two out of three.

    Where only one in twenty had shares, it’s now one in three.

    And where we did some 3000 heart by-pass operations, it’s well over 14,000 today. Where only 3 heart transplants, it’s over 300 today. Where not one single person had a personal pension, now over four and a half million do.

    I don’t believe people will tolerate attempts to write off a country that’s made such progress as if it was some kind of banana republic. Banana republic? Bananas.

    The truth is we’ve taken giant strides forward. But we can go much further. New expansion and new prosperity lie within our grasp.

    What the country needs now, above all, is confidence. Self-confidence. Confidence in our future. And if confidence in business is to grow, there’s nothing will make it grow faster than a Conservative victory at the next General Election.

    All the other ingredients for recovery are in place. So we must make sure that we’re back in place. To build prosperity in the ‘90s. And with a clear majority.

    Any other outcome would shatter Britain’s prospects. If you were inventing a policy to destroy confidence, where would you start?

    You’d start with higher taxes. Higher inflation. Higher interest rates. New levies and new surcharges. A green light for the trade unions. A minimum wage policy tailor-made to destroy jobs. The wilful upending of every existing policy – simply because it’s there.

    In other words you’d start with Socialism. Such policies would be a disaster for every family. A disaster for every business, a disaster for every community. Labour’s tax and spending plans are the road back to the day before yesterday. They would put a ball and chain around our ankles. Shackle our country, as we are fighting to compete in a challenging world.

    They simply haven’t the wit to see that if you grab people’s money, if you hit people’s hopes, if you block people’s choice, then you don’t just blight the prospects of the families themselves. You risk the whole future of our country.

    Take education, a crucial local government service. What could be more important than getting the best schooling for all our children?

    What our Party stands for is commonsense in the classroom.

    Proven teaching methods. The learning of basic skills. Proper reward for the best teachers. That’s what our new Review Body will bring.

    We want local management for schools, a trend led by my own county council in Cambridgeshire, and backed by Conservative councils across the country.

    We want what our Citizen’s Charter guarantees. More power for parents. A report for every parent on how their child is doing. Regular inspection of their school and a sight of the inspector’s report.

    And we want better choice for parents. We’ve given them the right to send their children to the school they like. Now we need to tell them how that school performs. Then every parent can compare them – and can choose the best, the most appropriate for their child. Such a decision is far too important to be left to the chances of school gate gossip.

    I want children to have the kind of education that best equips them for life. Helps them understand what it’s all about, gives them the chance to enjoy it, helps them make the most of it. That’s why we want variety in education. Because our children deserve it.

    That’s why we want good comprehensive schools teaching on the right principles.

    Why we’ve given every school more control over their future.

    Why we’re bringing quality and hope into the inner cities with the new Technology Colleges.

    Why we’re helping bright children from every background through the assisted places scheme.

    Why we also defend the rights of independent schools. And why we’ll back any council that puts standards first in everything they do.

    Our agenda on education is straightforward. The best for every child, the best from every child.

    Who on earth could oppose these ideas? I’ll tell you who. Those educational ostriches who bury their heads in the sand. Who can’t see around them the desert that a generation of Left-wing ideas has created in far too many of our schools.

    I find it hard to understand such bunkered attitudes. And so, in the campaigns ahead, will every parent, every grandparent, every would-be parent in Britain. Every person who wants the best for their children and grandchildren will reject Labour’s plans to turn back the clock.

    For theirs are not the actions of a party that cares; they are the actions of a party that scares.

    That is not our way. We want all our children to enjoy opportunity and choice throughout their lives. That means levelling up. And saying no to levelling down.

    The levelling down brigade have just one last outside chance to renew their experiments on our children. The return of a Labour Government. We must – and we will – deny them that chance. For our children. And for their children, too.

    There are many reasons for the Conservatives winning the next General Election. But few are better than Labour’s attitudes to the education of the men and women of tomorrow.

    Yesterday Ken Baker announced details of our plans for a National Lottery. It’s expected to raise £1 billion net a year. That money will be used for improvements throughout Britain – on projects that could never take priority over the first calls on taxation – the National Health Service, education, pensions and defence.

    It will help us to preserve our heritage, safeguard our great buildings, and create a legacy for future generations. We will be able to help young artists, actors, and musicians; improve our galleries and museums; provide matching funds for new charitable causes; help Britain’s Olympic bid for the year 2000 succeed. The prospects are limitless.

    Who doesn’t wake to a thrill of pride when we beat the world at sport? How much better we could do if we gave the right training to the champions of the future, who in their turn will inspire a whole generation of the young. I want to see the fund being used to find more Gooches, more McColgans, more Linekers, more Carlings, more facilities for our young athletes right across the board.

    We won’t produce a Wimbledon champion without a real commitment to tennis. And we won’t produce the Currys or the Torvills and Deans if we don’t have ice rinks.

    We marvel at the skill of young Russian and Rumanian gymnasts. But our youngsters have the same talent, the same ambitions. Give them the same opportunities and support – and watch them go for gold.

    I want to do better still for all our young people, champions and beginners alike. I’ve long believed in a National Lottery. Well, now we’re going to have it. And with it a better Britain, for the charities, the artists, and the sportsmen of tomorrow.

    I sense a powerful revival of local pride in our country. Greater interest in our heritage. Concern for our long-term future. I believe those attitudes will mean a growth in interest in local government at all levels – from parish to county.

    It will be a time for councils that innovate and adapt. For those that listen and don’t dictate. That help their communities and don’t insist on doing everything themselves. It will be a time for councils that keep charges on their citizens low. A time for Conservatives. In other words – you.

    There will, of course, be changes. Conservative Councils are already taking the lead in new ways of managing local government. Cutting back on red tape. Bringing in private sector skills. Rigorously conducting performance review.

    That is the right way forward. The way that will enable local government to enter the next century with the same self-confidence that it had at the start of this one.

    As I said there will be changes. But we are proceeding cautiously with discussions on structural change. We want the new Local Government Commission to listen to your views, and the views of the people you represent in a way that’s never been done before.

    This week, in Wales, David Hunt suggested important changes. These reflected lengthy discussion among councils and public alike.

    Whatever changes the Commission may recommend for England must reflect your views. We are not seeking to impose any single blueprint. But I’ll make one thing clear. I don’t believe that some of the bodies created in the 70s have captured public loyalty in any way. Local pride draws from deeper wells. Older traditions. That’s where public affinities lie.

    I cannot predict the outcome of this review. It is necessary for all of you to take part in the debate. But two promises I can give you.

    There will be no return to the wasteful GLC and super-metropolitan bodies of which Labour became so fond.

    And we will not bring in costly regional assemblies in England, as Labour and Liberals propose.

    There is no case for such assemblies. There is only one reason why these are on the Labour and Liberal agenda – to mask the fact that their self-seeking devolution strategies for Scotland and Wales are falling apart. They know that people don’t want these unnecessary assemblies, but they want people to have them because that suits their own political interests in Scotland. In England, people don’t want such an unnecessary new tier of local bureaucracy. And there will be no place for them under a Conservative Government.

    This is a watershed for local government. A time for a new start. The Town Hall should be a forum for the whole community, not a fortress for one political ideology.

    Huge damage has been done to local government by political posturing. High spending councils destroyed the credibility of domestic rates. High spending councils undermined the principle of the community charge. Too often the result of their actions has been tension between town hail and centre. I regret that. I want to put it all behind us. I want to rebuild the historic partnership between us. It has always been the strength of this Party. Together. That is the right way for us to work.

    The new Council tax – now passed by Parliament – will provide a lasting basis for stability in council finance. It preserves the principle, the just principle, that the widow living on her own should pay less than three adults next door. Of course, our opponents say they would repeal it. They promise a return to the rates. Back to yesterday again. Well, by all means let Labour go to the doorsteps and campaign for the rates. That’s another sure way they’ll lose.

    Your elections in May are vital. Labour councils have always been careless with the public’s money. What was it Tony Crosland said ‘The party’s over’.

    But that’s not Labour’s message today. No. ‘The party’s on’. That’s Bryan Gould’s message. Open season on the pockets of the public.

    The party would be on again alright – in Labour Town Halls up and down the country. But the public wouldn’t be getting the invitations – they’d be getting the bills.

    Can you imagine what would happen if the loony Left – and too many loonies still are left – if those people ever got to work with Labour’s plans?

    No controls on spending.

    The Audit Commission abolished.

    Competitive tendering abandoned. Councils allowed, in Mr Gould’s own words, to do ‘anything they want’. Anything? Anything?

    Just imagine it. Lambeth free of spending control. Haringey allowed to do anything they want.

    Anything they want? Why don’t Labour councils just get on with what the public want?

    Collecting the rents.

    Finding people homes in empty council property.

    Taking politics out of the classroom.

    Collecting the rubbish – not talking it.

    Backing the police, not running them down.

    They tell us the extremists have gone from Labour town Halls. If only they had. Gone quiet, maybe. But not gone, as all too many of you know. And if ever Mr Gould’s ‘do what you like, spend what you like’ policy gave them a chance, Labour’s extremists would be out of the woodwork so fast you’d think chemicals were being injected. A case of Rentokil meets Rent-a-mob, if ever there was one.

    At this conference we see the responsible face of local government. The true face of local government that has served our country well. Too many local councils have drifted away from the public. Become remote; sometimes resented. I want us to see more of the right people attracted onto local councils. I want us to restore the friendly face of local government. That must be our aim for the 1990s.

    And we will succeed in that aim by working on Conservative principles. Principles of public service. Principles shaped by open minds and steady hands. Principles of leadership.

    One thing must not change. The Conservative Party belongs to the people. It is, quite simply, on the people’s side.

    It is an historic choice that Britain faces this year. Five hundred years after the new world of America was discovered, the ancient continent of Europe is rediscovering its destiny. Just as in 1492, it is a new world that we see opening before us. A single market in our community. A single continent after generations of division and of strife.

    And, as ancient nations are reborn as democratic states, as hope is rekindled, it is plain to see that the rebirth of our continent is rooted in something far older than the froth and frenzy of Socialist philosophy. What has Socialism done in this century throughout the world. Socialism in this century has sown seeds of envy, division, and spite. Seeds that have borne bitter fruit in countless ways in the lives of countless millions.

    But now that rotten fruit is dropping from the trees. What you hear is the dying fall of Socialism. The springtime of a new Europe. Founded on lasting free market principles. On freedom. On wealth creation. On the responsibility, to others and for others, that this Party and those who support it always affirm. On the right to own. And the power to choose.

    Under the Conservative Party, throughout the 1980s, Britain under Margaret Thatcher, stood firm when the wind was still cold from the East. The stand that we made in those difficult times helped to make the new Europe possible. And it is this new Europe we are beginning to shape now.

    Yes. In a Conservative Britain you do – and you will – have the power to choose. To choose between the past, the old ways, the rabble and rubble of Socialism. Or the future, the way of hope, the way of partnership, the way of prosperity – the Conservative way, where welfare and wealth creation for all the people go hand in hand. A true partnership with the people. I know that in 1992, wherever that choice is made, it is to our way that the people of Britain will turn. And with our Conservative Party that they will stand, and fight, and win.

  • PMQT – 5 March 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th March 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 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. Mitchell : As the Prime Minister savours one of his last few busy days before the deluge, will he think back to the dinner that he gave at No. 10 Downing street last November on behalf of the Tory party [Interruption.] for what The Sun –I must quote it accurately because it is from The Sun — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. No quoting ; paraphrase, please.

    Mr. Mitchell : In that case, I will paraphrase, Mr. Speaker. For The Sun told us of members of Britain’s Asian community being brought together to win the votes of that community. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nine of his 21 guests were tax exiles in this country who cannot even vote here? Will he also confirm that he was able to tell them that the loophole in the tax law which enables them to pay virtually no tax in this country will not be closed by his Government? Finally, will he tell us whether they were asked– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. It is a terribly long question.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken, and I will set out the position clearly for him. I give a number of dinners for industrialists at Downing street, and the dinner for business men was no different. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I should not have such occasions with business men. He also shows his usual willingness to exploit every leak that comes to him. He may care now to listen carefully.

    What I said on that occasion was to confirm a policy agreed with the hon. Gentleman’s own party. He has obviously forgotten that the Government decided not to introduce a tax on world income in 1989, following consultation and representations from the Labour party.

     

    Q2. Mr. Butterfill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Butterfill : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the encouragement of savings is important not simply because it gives security to the saver but because it provides funds for investment in the future of our country? Will he give an assurance that a future Conservative Government will take measures further to encourage savings? Will he condemn the narrow-minded and vindictive savings tax proposed by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I shall happily do both those things. My hon. Friend makes a good point. We shall continue to encourage personal savings by keeping income tax rates low, and through special schemes such as the tax-exempt special savings account, which has been a remarkable success. The savings tax proposed by the Labour party is one of the most poorly thought out and damaging of its proposals. It would hit widows on ordinary incomes. It would hit people taking early retirement such as miners, policemen and soldiers. Now that the Labour party has finally decided to publish its phoney budget, it should think again and drop those damaging and vindictive proposals.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning the University College hospital cancer specialist, Dr. Jeffrey Tobias, said :

    “30 per cent. of the time I have to say to my patients, Sorry, I had planned to give you chemotherapy today but that is not possible”

    because the beds are not available? Does not the Prime Minister think that that is a terrible indictment of the health policy of a Government who have been in power so long and could have made things so much better?

    The Prime Minister : But as the right hon. Gentleman knows, things have been made much better. Waiting lists are improving–are falling. More people are being treated and there are more resources for the national health service. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to swap quotes, perhaps he will listen to what Dr. David Colin Thorne, a Labour party member who stood for Parliament, said on fundholding. He said:

    “I’m aware that what we’re saying may be used but we do believe it is the most energising thing that has happened in my 21 years as a GP It has been good for care, public health and management.” That is a Labour party former candidate, a doctor, supporting our Conservative party reforms of the health service.

    Mr. Kinnock : Why does the Prime Minister never even try to answer the question? The reality is that cancer specialists are unable to treat patients because of a shortage of beds. Why do not the Government even now get rid of the tax concessions for private health insurance and put the £60 million saved straight into fighting cancer? That is what the Labour Government will do. That is the right thing to do.

    The Prime Minister : That would have more credibility if we were not spending more on the health service than the right hon. Gentleman even promised to spend. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party was not pledged to introduce a minimum wage that would cost the health service £500 million. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party would claim and set out the funding that it would provide for the national health service, which it has expressly failed to do. We have repeatedly indicated in public expenditure round after public expenditure round that we are increasing over and above inflation substantial resources for the health service–far more even than the right hon. Gentleman dared to promise.

    Mr. Kinnock : Just in recent weeks we have had public reports of a cardiologist who has had to turn seriously ill patients away because of the budget system– [Interruption.] I am telling the truth about the health– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The right hon. Member has a right to put his question.

    Mr. Kinnock : We have had other public reports of closed accident and emergency units. We have had public reports of a mortally ill little girl being unable to gain treatment in a paediatric intensive care unit. Now we have a physician reporting that he cannot treat 30 per cent. of his cancer patients because of a lack of beds. Why does not the Prime Minister address those issues of life and death instead of parading false claims about his Government?

    The Prime Minister : We have addressed those issues. That is why the waiting lists are falling by record amounts at this moment. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what was the test for our new health service reforms set by his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The standard test. The hon. Gentleman invented it. He asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health whether he was prepared to measure the success by the simple test of whether the trusts did more or less work for the national health service. They have done more work. During the first six months of operations English trusts treated 6.5 per cent. more patients than in the months before they became managed. They have treated 5 per cent. more out-patients. That is the Cook test, not mine. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept it? [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down.

     

    Q3. Mr. Thorne : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Thorne : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the launching of the first Trident submarine yesterday, and the fact that three more are under construction, is the minimum insurance policy that the country can afford to accept in a dangerous and uncertain world? Does he further agree that, at this critical time of ordering, building and commissioning that submarine fleet, we should not pay attention to the recommendations of the two main Opposition parties, whose opinion appears to vary, not merely from day to day, but from hour to hour?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right about defence and we have no intention of gambling with this country’s defence. My hon. Friend is also right about the Opposition’s position on Trident. They have said that they would order it, they have said that they would not order it, and they have even suggested that they would order it and send it to sea without any weapons. Frankly, one has no idea what they will say next on defence. This morning the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that Labour

    “have nothing whatsoever to do with CND. We have no connection with CND.”

    What can he have meant? According to the chairman of CND more than 100 Members still belonged to it late last year. Have they all resigned? Have they all let their membership lapse?

     

    Q4. Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Wareing : The Prime Minister has made much of the citizens charter and the need for openness in Government. Does he realise that many of our citizens would like to know whether and how much Mr. Vijau Mallya, an Indian millionaire, and Mr. Adam Polemos, a Greek shipping magnate, contributed to the funds of the Conservative party?– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is very unseemly behaviour.

    Mr. Wareing : Will the Prime Minister emulate the Labour party by publishing the accounts of the Conservative party, so that citizens of this country may know the truth before the general election, about who donates to the finances of the Tory party?

    The Prime Minister : It is difficult to take that seriously from someone whose party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement. According to Labour’s own figures, in 1987 the Transport and General Workers Union gave more money to the Labour party than the whole of industry gave to the Tory party, and it gets votes for it, even on the leadership of the party.

     

    Q5. Mr. Moss : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Moss : Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the reaction of the CBI to the proposal for a national minimum wage? Has he seen its estimates, which suggest that it would increase business costs by an extra £50 million and cut 150,000 jobs? Does he agree that to propose such a policy at this time is the economics of the mad house and that the Labour party should stop it at once?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I have read reports of the CBI’s views. The Labour party claims that it listens to the views of business. The views of the CBI could scarcely be clearer than they have been on the subject of the minimum wage. As I said a moment ago, even in the national health service that policy would cost £400 million to £500 million a year. I wonder what the Labour party would cut elsewhere in the health service to make up for that loss of revenue.

     

    Q6. Mr. John P. Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Smith : The crime rate in the United Kingdom is the highest ever, the detection rate is the lowest ever and our prisons are the fullest ever. Would the Prime Minister explain why he thinks that deplorable situation exists?

    The Prime Minister : I shall take lectures from the hon. Gentleman when he and the Labour party support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

    Mr. John Browne : I offer my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for the crucial personal role that he played in securing compensation for the three injured Grenadiers. Will he now look personally into the cases of some other very obvious cases of severe injuries to service men, in particular those of Mark Booth and Andy Konalyck of the Parachute Regiment and Martin Ketterick of the Royal Marines? In those obvious cases, they have not been compensated properly because they were not covered due to a lapse of cover in the law. Surely, it is time that some form of flexibility was introduced into the compensation legislation for armed services personnel who are severely injured in the course of their duties.

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of the particular cases to which my hon. Friend draws attention. He knows that wide-ranging compensation schemes are available. I will certainly ask to see the details of the cases that he mentioned.

     

    Q7. Mrs. Margaret Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mrs. Ewing : Does the Prime Minister accept that, when the people of Scotland vote for independence, Scotland will become an equal partner with England in the European Community?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Lady is unwise to assume that Scotland will react as she proposes, but in any event, were that unlikely event to occur, Scotland would have to reapply for membership of the European Community. Every member state would have a vote on that application. The United Kingdom’s existing membership of the European Community would continue, but Scotland would have to apply.

  • PMQT – 3 March 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd March 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Townend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Townend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disposable income of 10 million mortgage payers is affected by two factors–income tax and interest rates? Is he aware that the Labour party will put up both–a double whammy?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right. We have brought down interest rates and we are determined to keep them low. We believe that the Labour party would do precisely the reverse. An average of 10 independent City forecasts shows that interest rates would rise by 2 per cent. immediately if there were to be such a disaster as a Labour Government. That is Labour’s message to home owners–more taxes and higher interest rates.

    Mr. Kinnock rose — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have an end to all this shouting.

    Mr. Kinnock : Has the Prime Minister seen the report from Mr. Graham Jackson, consultant cardiologist at Guy’s trust hospital, who says :

    “You put seriously ill heart patients on a list to come in but, by the time their turn comes, the contract has run out and the trust administrator says there are no funds till the next financial year”?

    Does not the Prime Minister agree that such a system, which puts cash before care, betrays the fundamental principle of the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no system that puts cash before care. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that we have provided more additional resources in this Parliament than he was even prepared to promise in his last election manifesto.

    Mr. Kinnock : But does not Dr. Jackson have a powerful point when he says that the new system– [Interruption.] This is a man working in the system. Does not he have a powerful point when he says : “The new system is run by accountants who don’t have to sit across the table from the patient and say I cannot treat you” until the new financial year? Will the Prime Minister recognise now that it is tragically wrong for treatment for seriously ill people to be determined by money rather than medical need?

    The Prime Minister : The view that the right hon. Gentleman attributes to that surgeon is certainly not shared by, among others, Nye Bevan’s nephew. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government’s role in health is twofold : first, to provide the resources and, secondly, to make them work better for patients. The resources are at a record level, as the right hon. Gentleman must concede, and the new system is making sure that the resources work better for patients. There is no other way to improve health care and there is no doubt that the new system, across a range of treatment, is improving health care.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister is going to borrow to fund tax cuts. Does he understand yet that the priority of the British people is to use all available resources for health and other essential services? The Prime Minister wants to bribe, they want to build–why does not he listen to them?

    The Prime Minister : In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, perhaps he will tell us two things : how much extra would he provide for health, and where does health come in Labour’s order of priorities? Labour has a long list of priorities : a £3 billion pledge on pensions–presumably health comes after that ; health presumably comes after Labour’s £1 billion recovery programme and it presumably comes after Labour’s £8 billion housing pledge. What else does it come after? The right hon. Gentleman’s priorities do not add up and he knows it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot put a cost on his compassion, for it is bogus.

     

    Q2. Mr. Lee : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.

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

    Mr. Lee : Since the Government came to power, my Pendle constituency has gained two new enterprise zones which are bursting at the seams, one new motorway and a brand new community hospital. Currently, 55 per cent. of employment is in manufacturing–the highest level in the country. Modesty prevents my asking my right hon. Friend what message he will send to the electorate of Pendle in the coming election. However, what message will he send to the electorate in the whole of the north-west?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly reiterate fully the message that I delivered when I visited the north-west a few days ago. The future and prosperity of the north-west are best served by a Government who are determined to keep inflation down, who want to keep taxes down–and will not let interest rates rise as the Opposition would–and who recognise that the level of strikes is at its lowest for more than a century. In the north-west, we will continue to encourage domestic and inward investment and we will not discriminate against it.

    Mr. Ashdown : Now that we know what it means, will the Prime Minister reflect on the “double whammy” that he received from the other place on the Education (Schools) Bill last night? When will he accept that the best thing to do with that damaging and foolish Bill is to ditch it?

    The Prime Minister : I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to providing more power for parents in relation to schools. I note that it is the Liberal Democrats’ policy to take power away from parents and governors and to give it to centralised bureaucrats, and that is precisely like the Labour party policy as in so many things.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bill Walker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.

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

    Mr. Walker : Does my right hon. Friend recognise the dangers inherent in introducing unworkable proposals for devolution for Scotland? Does he accept that if such proposals were implemented, they would lead to a separatist, socialist, nationalist Scotland, enormous loss of jobs and the closure of military bases? The jobs that currently go to the military in the United Kingdom would be lost from factories in Scotland.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the risks of the devolution proposals which have previously been put before people. The Act of Union has served Scotland well and it has served England well. It has provided an essential cement for the whole of the United Kingdom. The devolution proposals that we have seen thus far would damage that union and separately damage Scotland, England and the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand the emotional pull that devolution has for people in Scotland, but I hope that every Scot will examine very carefully what it would mean in practice for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom.

     

    Q4. Ms. Short : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Ms. Short : Has the Prime Minister seen the report on “World in Action” last night, which showed that one of his Ministers has been involved in smearing a private citizen? Does not this place give the Prime Minister the chance to show whether he is really against the smears that have been organised against the Labour party, or is he getting others to do his dirty work for him? Will he sack the Minister concerned?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Lady were sensible, she would look in the backyard of her own party.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Hill : Will my right hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down.

    Mr. Faulds rose —

    Mr. Speaker : Sit down.

    Mr. Hill : Will my right hon. Friend continue vigorously and robustly to negotiate the British contribution to the European budget and, at the end, submit it at a level which the House of Commons and the country can accept?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir. The Community’s budget is already £40 billion a year. The existing own resources ceiling has plenty of room for further expenditure without increased resources being committed. It is the Government’s view that the Commission should be thinking of ways of saving taxpayers’ money, not justifying fresh reasons for expending it. It cannot justify increased expenditure on the scale that it proposes, and we are not prepared to renegotiate in any way the present rebate to the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Tom Clarke : Is the Prime Minister aware that the parents of Carly Reavill and everyone else know that he was misinformed on the circumstances concerning that child’s tragic death? Will he accept that there is indeed an acute shortage of intensive care beds for children? Will he tell us precisely what action he intends to take so that never again will desperately sick children be turned away from hospitals which do not have the money to provide emergency treatment?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know, for he takes a close interest in this matter, that from next year, there is an extra £2.7 billion for the health service in its next budget, in a few day’s time–up another 5 per cent., including efficiency gains. That is the most tangible way to demonstrate our concern for the health service and to continue to improve the service available to everyone in this country.

     

    Q6. Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Bottomley : My right hon. Friend has been successful in building on the work of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in bringing the constitutional parties together. Will he accept that we are asking the Social Democratic and Labour party and the unionists to work more closely than parties normally do in Great Britain? Will he send a message to the Provisional IRA and the disloyalists that the mindless, aimless use of bullets and bombs will not be as successful as parliamentary debates and normal political election campaigns?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the whole House will share my hon. Friend’s view on the latter matter. I warmly welcome the decision of the Northern Ireland political leaders to start their talks again. It gives a clear and very welcome signal to all the people in Northern Ireland of their determination to find a political solution. That is very much needed. It also gives a very clear signal to the terrorists that the people of Northern Ireland will not be bullied by guns, by bombs or by any other form of intimidation. That goes for everyone on the mainland as well.

     

    Q7. Sir Patrick Duffy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Sir Patrick Duffy : As the restructuring of the armed services proceeds, the displaced and redundant service men will continue to be treated with the utmost care and sensitivity, as the Prime Minister is well aware. But if that policy is not extended to the displaced workers in the defence industries, does the Prime Minister accept that our high-tech base will be damaged, perhaps irreparably? Certainly, we can ask questions about the future of certain design teams and skilled and professional workers.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we still have substantial orders for defence equipment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a further statement shortly.

     

    Q8. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Colvin : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if he or my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment had a meeting with business leaders to discuss the policy of the minimum wage, they would tell both the House and the country what business leaders had to say about the damaging effect on jobs that such a minimum wage would have? Does my right hon. Friend think that the shadow spokesman on employment should do likewise?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The minimum wage policy has been condemned by everyone from The Guardian to Goldman Sachs. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is apparently the only person in the country who does not yet believe that the minimum wage would cost a substantial number of jobs if it were implemented. The only debate about the national minimum wage is not whether it would put people out of work but how many hundreds of thousands more people would be unemployed, wholly unnecessarily as a result of partisan dogma on the part of the Labour party.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 March 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd March 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lord Chief Justice

    Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will describe the procedure whereby the Lord Chief Justice is appointed;

    (2) if he will list the parties consulted before the nomination of the new Lord Chief Justice was submitted;

    (3) what consideration was given to the custom and practice that an outgoing Government should not seek to bind its successors before appointing the new Lord Chief Justice.

    The Prime Minister : As with other senior appointments to the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister following confidential consultations in appropriate quarters. It has never been the practice to list the parties consulted nor to reveal the nature and source of any advice or recommendations received.

     

    Secondees

    Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the external secondees among the personnel of the efficiency unit, the “next steps” unit and the citizen’s charter unit, together with the seconding organisation or company where appropriate.

    The Prime Minister : The external secondees working in these areas are :

    |Seconding organisation |Location

    ————————————————————————

    1. R. Cribb |Unilever |Efficiency unit

    Dr. I. V. Howell |British Petroleum|Efficiency unit

    1. R. Ross |Bass |Efficiency unit
    2. Purbrook |Ernst and Young |Next Steps unit

     

    Alice Hyde

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister how he proposed to respond to the petition from Alice Hyde.

    The Prime Minister : I have acknowledged Alice Hyde’s petition on the effect of the proposed east London river crossing on Oxleas wood and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will arrange for a full reply to be sent shortly. It will confirm that the impact of the road on the wood was carefully considered at the public inquiries held in 1985 and 1986, and subsequently by the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment before they approved the line of the road.

    The route has been aligned to preserve the largest part of Oxleas wood intact. The slopes of the cutting through the wood, and the new area of open space to be given in exchange for that required for the road, will be landscaped to recreate, as far as possible, the woodland habitat that existed before the road was built.

    The Government place much weight on environmental matters. However, we have to balance the environmental impact of measures associated with road schemes with the benefits of those schemes in order to reach decisions that are in the best interests of the community as a whole. We believe that the right decision was made in this case.

     

    Mirror Group

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the committee representing the staffs of Mirror Group Newspapers in regard to the recovery of pension assets from the banks which are holding them; if at an early date he will meet a deputation from the committee; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have recently received a request to meet a deputation and it will be considered in the usual way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, and other ministerial colleagues met representatives of trustees of all Maxwell pension schemes on 6 February.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    South Africa

    Mr. Caborn : To ask the Prime Minister if he raised at the meeting with Mr. De Klerk on 1 February, the proposition of giving the white electorate a veto on any agreement reached at the Conference for Democratic South Africa or otherwise over the negotiating process.

    The Prime Minister : For President de Klerk to continue with his reforms, he has to have the support of the whole electorate. I discussed these reforms with President de Klerk on 1 February. I believe that the path of reform on which South Africa has embarked under President de Klerk’s leadership is the only course which will allow her reintegration into the international community and enable her to attract the investment she needs for economic growth. That economic growth is in the interest of all South Africans.

  • PMQT – 27 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Loyden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Loyden : Will the Prime Minister come out of his ivory tower across the road, put his photo calls on hold and face up to his responsibility for the past 13 years of Government mismanagement, which has culminated in the worst economic crisis since the 1930s? How long must we go on, how many more jobs are to be lost and how many more families are to be dispossessed of their homes? Will the Prime Minister now put it to the test through the ballot box and let the people decide on his record?

    The Prime Minister : It is the hon. Member who is wrong. We grew throughout the 1980s better than any other major European country except Spain : we received the highest growth in manufacturing productivity of any Group of Seven country and faster growth in business investment than any other G7 country except Japan. By contrast, the hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind that Labour’s plans for an extra £37 billion a year and policies of higher taxation, higher inflation and higher interest rates would drive this country into perpetual slump.

     

    Q2. Mr. Devlin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Devlin : Does my right hon. Friend agree that higher taxes and minimum wages would put up the costs of British businesses, making them uncompetitive and costing them jobs? Does he agree that such twin torture is the very last thing that British business needs at the moment?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Only the Labour party could plan to cripple industry with both a national minimum wage and substantial tax increases when trading conditions are so difficult. Let me give my hon. Friend a quote :

    “If our costs rise more rapidly than others’ costs, particularly German costs, then British producers lose markets at home and abroad.”

    Those are not my words–they were the words of the Leader of the Opposition. If that is what he thinks, he should withdraw his tax plans and withdraw his minimum wage plans and do so today.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recall saying that a “promise to cut taxes AND increase public expenditure is dishonest and absurd”?

    When the right hon. Gentleman wrote that, did he think that he would end up making exactly that “dishonest and absurd” promise himself?

    The Prime Minister : It is quite staggering to everyone who listens to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) how terrified he and his party are of tax cuts. He still thinks that tax cuts are immoral. The Labour party has opposed every tax cut that we have introduced and now it threatens to raise taxes if we cut them. The right hon. Gentleman wants people to let him spend their money rather than spending it themselves. Labour opposes tax cuts when the economy is growing and when it is not.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister heads the Government who have imposed the biggest tax burden in British history. Perhaps he will now try answering the question. The Government have promised to increase public expenditure and are promising to cut income taxes. Is that not, in the Prime Minister’s own words, truly a “dishonest and absurd” promise?

    The Prime Minister : If the tax burden is so high, why does the right hon. Gentleman propose to increase it still further? When it was pointed out to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that his taxes would rise, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed surprised : what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, in effect, was that taxes under Labour would “only” rise higher than those in any other G7 country–lower, perhaps, than taxes in Albania, but higher than those of all our competitors.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister, in the last couple of weeks left to him in that office, try answering the question? Does he not recall that he has promised to increase public expenditure, to cut taxes and to balance the budget? His promises do not add up. He was right– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister has made all those promises. He was right : those promises are dishonest– [Interruption.] I am quoting the Prime Minister, and he will hear this again– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have an end to this pointing across the Chamber.

    Mr. Kinnock : Even deliberate disruption will not stop the country hearing this. The Prime Minister has described promises to cut taxes and raise public expenditure as “dishonest and absurd”. He was at least right about that–and right about the Government who are making such promises.

    The Prime Minister : In the 1980s we did cut taxation and raise public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman makes an absurd point. Under the Labour Government, borrowing averaged more than 6 per cent. of national product ; since 1979, it has averaged not 6 per cent. but less than 2 per cent. Before the right hon. Gentleman starts to give lectures on borrowing, he should get his facts right. In one year under Labour, borrowing reached a crippling 9 per cent.–the equivalent of £55 billion today. That was the Labour party’s half decade of debt and now they plan another £37 billion worth of expenditure. Which would it be : £37 billion of extra taxes or £37 billion of extra expenditure?

     

    Q3. Mr. Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Hill : On the eve of the first anniversary of the Gulf war, will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing our gratitude to our armed forces, our commitment to the independence of Kuwait and our determination to ensure that Saddam Hussein and his generals comply with all international sanctions or suffer the consequences?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right. The whole country is proud of the role that our armed forces played in the liberation of Kuwait. The way in which Saddam Hussein still behaves is unacceptable to us, to the United Nations and to the international community, and we shall continue to keep pressure on him.

    Mr. Ashley : Is the Prime Minister aware that something far more valuable than the woolly citizens charter was brought before this House recently–a Bill to improve the rights of disabled people–but was talked out by Conservative Members? Will he now undertake to rescue the Bill? Or is this yet another example of the Government and their supporters talking up human rights in theory and knocking them down in practice?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has done a great deal during his period in the House for disabled people and everyone in the House admires him for what he has done, but he must know that there have been dramatic improvements in recent years in the scope, range and value of benefits and in the number of disabled people who receive them. No doubt there is still more to do, and it will be done in due course, but the right hon. Gentleman ought not to deny what has been done.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bellingham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Bellingham : Does the Prime Minister recognise that, because of privatisation, the water companies are spending £28 billion on improving water quality, including schemes in west Norfolk to upgrade drinking water and clean up our beaches? Is he aware that renationalising water would cost the taxpayer £8 billion and that the whole of this investment programme would be put at risk? Is that really what the Labour party wants?

    The Prime Minister : I suspect that it is. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Yesterday, Labour’s spokesman made the point that nationalising water was a priority–yet another priority–which would cost £8 billion. There was no sign of where the money will come from, and no sign of any advantage from the policy–just sheer blind dogma.

    Mr. Ashdown : With British industry burdened by record debt and Britain’s trade deficit at its highest for a year, will the Prime Minister explain why tax cuts which will suck in more imports are right while public investment in the kind of things that Britain needs for the future is wrong?

    The Prime Minister : There was a time in the history of the Liberal party when it trusted people with their own money and believed that they could make their own decisions. I note that, yet again, the Liberal party is aligning itself with the Labour party on social and taxation matters. The whole country will note that, too.

    Mr. Kilfedder : I am sure that the Prime Minister will join me in expressing the utmost admiration for the Australian people and the great commonwealth of Australia. Will he therefore do his best to defuse the present unhappy situation and assure the people of that great continent that, although they may be on the other side of the world, they are close to the hearts of the people of the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly undertake to do that. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend on that matter.

     

    Wallsend

    Q5. Mr. Ted Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Wallsend.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to return to the north-east in the midst of those plans.

    Mr. Garrett : I would like the Prime Minister to visit Wallsend because he visited the neighbouring Conservative-held constituency and saw the destruction arising from the Meadowell riots as a result of 13 years of Thatcherism. The Prime Minister would be most welcome to visit the Wallsend part of North Tyneside where he would have an opportunity to visit Swan Hunter and see a dedicated work force, a dedicated management and, above all, the pride of the people in Wallsend in building and refitting ships for the Royal Navy. He would also learn about a series of problems, the main one of which is the unfair subsidies to ship building companies in the European Community which are handicapping the British ship building industry in terms of merchant shipping orders.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I have considerable sympathy with what he says about that. The Government’s plans for the future naval fleet, including those recently announced for amphibious forces, will provide excellent opportunities for Swan Hunter to bid to obtain more orders. On the subject of equitability across Europe, our aim is to establish that and competitive conditions for all United Kingdom ship builders as soon as possible at national and international levels. We shall certainly keep up the pressure to achieve that, in the interests of Swan Hunter and many other fine firms in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : On his way to Wallsend, will my right hon. Friend visit the north-west of the United Kingdom, and the borough of Macclesfield in particular?

    If he does, he will find an area ready to respond to the sound foundations of the economy that he and the Government have established.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very warm support. I had the opportunity to visit the north-west on Monday, where I found a good deal of buoyancy and confidence in the future of the north-west and of the country as a whole.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Skinner : Does the Prime Minister not have a guilty conscience about his role as an ex-social security Minister? Does he remember the period after 1985 when he came to the Dispatch Box and abolished the death grant and took away maternity grant and income support for 16 and 17-year- olds, while all the time pensioners were losing £14 a week? What is all this claptrap about a classless society and a citizen’s charter? The pensioners need more than that–and not that load of hypocrisy from the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about claptrap, he should listen to what he has just said. If he examines the record, he will see that for people in need I dramatically increased the amounts available for the death grant.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners

    Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions have been held to seek joint purchases of MRI scanners by the Northern Ireland health authorities with the Departments of Health in Scotland and England.

    The Prime Minister : No approaches have been made to health authorities in England about the purchase of MRI scanners. However, the Northern Ireland health and personal social services management executive is shortly to establish a new regionally managed supplies organisation which will be expected to seek opportunities for greater savings by co-operating with other supplies agencies in the United Kingdom.

    The Scottish Health Common Services Agency has already placed an order for a number of MRIs–and it is therefore not possible for the Northern Ireland authorities to join with Scotland at this stage.

     

    Exchange Rate Policy

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his letter dated 13 February to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on the effect of exchange rate policy, what assessment has been made of the effect on pricing out of overseas markets of United Kingdom exports, and the pricing into domestic markets of imports, of increases in the real value of the pound sterling; and if he will publish a table showing the changes in the indices of import and export values of manufactures as a consequence of each quinquennial change in the statistical base.

    The Prime Minister : The Government cannot determine the real exchange rate over the medium term. The crucial factor determining competitiveness is the effectiveness of United Kingdom producers in controlling their costs. Value indices of trade in manufacturing are not published.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister (1) further to his letter dated 13 February to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, whether he will distinguish those periods in the last 25 years in which Her Majesty’s Government assess the pound sterling to have been (a) overvalued and (b) undervalued;

    (2) if he will give the figures underlying the statement in his letter to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 13 February that the central rate at which the pound sterling entered the ERM was close to the pound sterling’s average real rate over the previous 25 years.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Treasury bulletin for winter 1990-91 volume 2, issue 1, pages 25-32 which analyses

    “measures of real exchange rates and competitiveness”,

    in particular chart 4 on page 31 shows the real sterling exchange rate against other ERM countries and the long run average 1966 to 1990.

     

    Exports

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a table showing, for each of the years 1965 to 1991, the Department of Trade and Industry and the International Monetary Fund indices of trade-weighted relative export unit values base on the second half of 1973=100, estimated where necessary on the basis of movements in the rate of exchange since the quarter in which the figures for other countries were last made available.

    The Prime Minister : The Department of Trade and Industry does not produce a relative export unit value series. The information from the International Monetary Fund series is in the table. Data for 1991 are not available.

    United Kingdom relative<1> export unit value index-UVI- for manufactured goods

    |Value

    ——————

    1979 |119.9

    1980 |134.0

    1981 |131.5

    1982 |123.7

    1983 |120.4

    1984 |117.6

    1985 |119.7

    1986 |116.9

    1987 |121.5

    1988 |131.8

    1989 |124.6

    1990 |129.1

    <1>United Kingdom’s UVI of manufactured goods compared with an export-weighted average of 16 major competitors, in common currency.

     

    Manufactures

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his letter dated 13 February to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, what criteria he uses in judging whether United Kingdom manufactures are fully competitive at home and overseas.

    The Prime Minister : A number of indicators of competitiveness are readily available in, for example, the “Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics”. But the underlying competitiveness of United Kingdom manufacturers is best demonstrated by the United Kingdom’s rising share of world trade over the last three years, as shown by the chart on page 62 of the Autumn Statement.

     

    Pelagic Fish

    Mr. Salmond : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make an assessment of the implications for the pelagic fishing industry of the collapse of markets in eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) if he will make a statement on the discussions held with President Yeltsin concerning supplies of pelagic fish to Russian and other Commonwealth of Independent States markets;

    (3) what progress he has made following his discussions with President Yeltsin in establishing pelagic fish as part of the European Community food aid programme to eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Disruption of the long-established trade with Russia and other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States could have serious implications for the Scottish pelagic fishing industry, even though they have been making commendable efforts to find other market outlets. The possibility that pelagic fish might be included in the EC’s food aid programme or credit guarantee scheme is being explored by Departments, including in contacts with the Russian authorities. So far, no request for assistance of this type has been received from Russia.

     

    Low-Energy Lighting

    Mr. Corbett : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make it his policy progressively to introduce low-energy lighting in all the offices used in connection with his offices of state.

    The Prime Minister : Following an energy audit of 10 to 12 Downing street, high-efficiency, low-energy lamps have been installed where appropriate. Low-energy luminaires and krypton tubes have also been installed.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

    The Prime Minister : 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.

  • PMQT – 25 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Kilfoyle : The Prime Minister recently told the House that the British economy had grown faster than any other in Europe, when it has not; he said that the Japanese economy was in recession, when it is not ; and he said that German unemployment was over 3 million, when it is not. Given that series of gaffes, will he now compound his confusion and tell us that he bears no personal responsibility for the appalling slump that is devastating Britain today?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a recession in a number of countries. I quote from what Sir Allen Sheppard of Grand Met said yesterday :

    “One thing which no one could predict a year ago was exactly how long the recession would last This recession has not been an exclusively British phenomenon–as some people would have us believe. It is a worldwide problem ; only last week we heard the news that Europe’s strongest economy, Germany, had slowed down.”

    Those are not my words, but those of Sir Allen Sheppard of Grand Met.

    Sir Peter Blaker : Will my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the attempt being made to steal the emblem of the duchy? Is he aware that on a previous occasion when such an attempt was made, the miscreant–an imposter named Lambert Simnel, who attempted to steal the red rose from King Henry VII– was not only defeated but sentenced to serve as a scullion in the royal kitchens? What does my right hon. Friend think would be the appropriate sentence now?

    The Prime Minister : It is difficult to find anything entirely appropriate. Perhaps continuous service as Leader of the Opposition would do.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recall saying a short time ago in his personal statement–in this document from the Conservative party– that “if” Government

    “borrowing takes the strain, taxes have to go up”

    Does he still take that view?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was Chief Secretary for two years and Chancellor for one year. Because of the repayments that were made of borrowing during that period, in the midst of a recession we are now in a better position to borrow prudently– [Interruption.] than we have been at any stage in the past : to borrow prudently and to maintain our commitment to a balanced budget in the medium term. Before the right hon. Gentleman reflects further, he may recall that the borrowing requirement was 9 per cent. of GDP under the last Labour Government–the equivalent to borrowing today £55 billion.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister is now borrowing billions to try to finance a pre-election tax cut, so will he tell us exactly which other taxes he would raise to pay for the bribe?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend’s Budget, and I have no intention of doing so. He should also realise that tax is levied on people’s own money : it does not belong to the Government ; it is their money that the Government compulsorily take away from them in taxation. Taxation levels determine how much. We know that the right hon. Gentleman would add to taxation, for he needs to in order to sustain his promises.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister said a very short time ago that “If” Government

    “borrowing takes the strain, taxes–not just our taxes”–

    [Hon. Members :– “We have heard this before.”] And you are going to hear it again : “If” Government

    “borrowing takes the strain, taxes–not just our taxes but the next generation’s too–have to go up.”

    Does not the Prime Minister think that he owes it to the country to say exactly which other taxes he would put up to pay for his bribe?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should have done a little more research. If he had done a little more research and had seen the evidence that I gave to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in 1987, he would have seen then–when we had a fiscal surplus of many billions–that I indicated that it would be right, in a downturn, to borrow money in a recession. Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer to do what Labour last did–cut the hospital building programme and cut the other programmes? That is what it did before.

    Mr. William Powell : I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Corby last Friday to open the magnificent Brooke city technology college. Does he agree that this type of secondary school has a substantial part to play in the future education of our children in the secondary sector, and will he encourage the development of further city technology colleges in our country?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly enjoyed my visit to the Brooke city technology college last week. It is an excellent establishment and has attracted a good deal of support and resources from the private sector. I think that that is the sort of choice that parents want for their children, and it widens the opportunities in education. It is inexplicable to me that the Labour party would wish to stop this continuing and successful experiment.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Margaret Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mrs. Ewing : As the Prime Minister has now had time to appreciate the significance that Scots attach to the phrase “taking stock”, will he elaborate on what that means in the Scottish constitutional set-up? Is it an affirmation of what his junior energy Minister says : that it will be acceptable for the Scottish Office to be staffed by Members from constituencies south of the border, or of what his Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland have said in the past 24 hours : that nothing will happen, or is he considering the possibility of affording the Scottish people the right to determine their own future in a democratic fashion? Will there be a referendum or any other mechanism to establish a Scottish Parliament?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady’s party seeks isolation for Scotland. I do not believe that that prescription is in the interests of Scotland or of the rest of the United Kingdom. I said that we would be taking stock, and I meant precisely that–taking stock on the basis of an increased vote in Scotland, on the basis of more Members of Parliament for Scotland and on ways of seeking to increase the strength of the Union. That is what I mean by taking stock.

    Mr. Dover : Is the Prime Minister aware that millions of people are fed up with having to pay extra community charge to cover those who do not pay? Will he encourage all local authorities to ensure that people pay their bills promptly and will he ensure that future charges are reduced when that money comes into council coffers?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we need to pursue those who do not pay the community charge and, in particular, we should pursue those Members of the House who do not pay the community charge and set a bad example to everyone else.

     

    Q3. Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister agree with the proposition that it is entirely sensible for a Government to borrow prudently in order to fund capital investment to build economic recovery but that it is sheer folly for a Government to borrow in order to buy votes for an election? Would that not be fiscal philandering of the worst kind?

    The Prime Minister : Without in any way prejudging what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will do in the Budget, I seem to recall that the last Labour Government–on the back of a huge borrowing requirement–cut taxes just in advance of the 1979 election. But if the hon. Gentleman wants to know about investment, let me give him some information about investment. We now have the largest investment programme of capital investment in the national health service that we have ever had. Next year hospital spending in capital terms will be 75 per cent. up on the last year of the Labour Government. Those are the fruits of an improved economy over the last 10 years.

    Mr. Tracey : Will my right hon. Friend restate his commitment to the assisted places scheme in our schools, which is an extremely cost-effective way of sending children of high ability to good schools? Is it not short- sighted for both Opposition parties to be pledged to the abolition of this scheme?

    The Prime Minister : It is an extremely popular scheme, as my hon. Friend knows. We will sustain that scheme in the next Parliament. The Opposition parties would abolish it, given the chance.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Williams : Having been Chief Secretary to the Treasury before becoming Chancellor, and Chancellor before becoming Prime Minister, is the Prime Minister really trying to tell us that he bears no responsibility whatever for the recession? Why is the Prime Minister continually trying to blame everyone else when it is his own errors of judgment, mistakes and economic incompetence that have produced the current recession?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman builds too much on too little. I made it clear on a number of occasions over recent years that there was, in retrospect, one change that I wish we had not made at the time, but it was one that was urged on us by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. That was the reduction of interest rates immediately on the back of the stock exchange crash, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we were urged to cut them even more by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). What responsibility will they accept for that?

    Mr. Butcher : Can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that he will never propose the introduction of unnecessary and expensive regional assemblies in England and Wales? Does he agree that when Opposition parties advocate such bodies they do so with the entirely cynical objective of maintaining the over-representation of Scotland in this House in the aftermath of the dog’s breakfast called devolution?

    The Prime Minister : Such assemblies are neither wanted nor needed, and we will not propose them.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jack Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Is the Prime Minister aware that since 1979 the crime figures in England and Wales have gone up by 102 per cent., that in the north of England they have gone up by 123 per cent. and that in the Northumbria police force area–my area–robberies have gone up by 240 per cent. and criminal damage by 238 per cent? The Home Office is advising the police to increase the number of officers while at the same time the Department of the Environment is capping local authorities’ spending. How does the Prime Minister square that circle?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about law and order, perhaps he could explain to me why his party refuses to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, which was introduced initially by a Labour Government and is now opposed by a Labour Opposition. He might also have mentioned in his remarks that spending on law and order is up by 80 per cent. in real terms and that there are 15,500 more police officers, whereas Labour left the police force under establishment by 7,000 when it left office. Labour has opposed our measures which have led to stiffer sentences, it would shackle the police with political controls and its answer to rising crime is to blame everyone except the criminal.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise with President Bush the circumstances of involvement of non-Libyans in the Lockerbie bombing.

    The Prime Minister : We remain in close contact with the United States over the Lockerbie bombing. We and the United States authorities share the view that there is no evidence to suggest that any countries other than Libya were responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.