Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Vietnam

    Dr. Thomas : To ask the Prime Minister when the Government next plan to meet representatives of the Vietnamese Government; and when he next intends to discuss with the United States Government trading policy on Vietnam.

    The Prime Minister : The Government are urgently seeking discussions with the Vietnamese Government on the problems posed by the sharply increased rate of arrivals of Vietnamese migrants in Hong Kong. We regularly discuss all aspects of United States Indo-China policy at a high level with the United States Government.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Bananas

    Mr. John P. Smith : To ask the Prime Minister;

    (1) if he has received any representations about the absence of a decision by the European Council of Ministers on trade arrangements for bananas after 1992; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) if he will seek an agreement with his European counterparts at the Luxembourg summit on trade arrangements for bananas after 1992 which guarantees the price and existing access of eastern Caribbean bananas;

    (3) what steps he intends to take to honour the commitment made in 1987 to guarantee the supply of eastern Caribbean bananas to the United Kingdom after 1992;

    (4) if he will raise the question of the European Commission’s delay in reaching decisions on the Banana protocol under the Lome convention at the forthcoming Luxembourg summit.

    The Prime Minister : The European Commission is considering arrangements to apply to bananas in the single European market post-1992. The Government will seek to ensure that new arrangements fulfil our commitments to Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers. We shall also take account of consumers interests, the need for budgetary restraint, trade policy considerations and the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market initiative. I have discussed the issue with the Prime Ministers of Dominica and Jamaica and am very alive to their economic needs.

    Officials are in touch with the Commission, who are aware of the need to make proposals as soon as possible. In the absence of these proposals it would be premature to raise the issue at the Luxembourg European Council.

     

    Council of Europe

    Mr. Ward : To ask the Prime Minister if he has made any changes to the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the 43rd session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

    The Prime Minister : I have appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) from the Government Benches to be a representative on the delegation to the 43rd session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in succession to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). I have also appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) as a substitute delegate.

  • PMQT – 20 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    NATO

    Q1. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet the leaders of other NATO member states to discuss, inter alia, the membership, structure, functions and policy objectives of the organisation and related matters ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : NATO Heads of State and Government will meet in Rome on 7 and 8 November. Our main task will be to conclude the review of NATO’s role, strategy and force structures set in hand by the summit in London last July. Good progress has already been made. The reformed alliance will continue to provide the essential basis for our security in the 1990s.

    Dr. Godman : I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but may I point out to him that, in Scotland, there is growing concern over what appears to be a piecemeal and fragmented restructuring of the armed forces of all the NATO countries, including the United Kingdom? Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the rapid reaction force will never be deployed outwith mainland Europe unless and until it receives the specific authority of the United St United Nations. [Interruption.] I said the United Nations and not the United States as I never want to see young Scots, or young men from anywhere in the United Kingdom, being turned into cannon fodder at the behest of an American President skilfully exploiting the sycophantic support of NATO leaders.

    The Prime Minister : Let me say first how much I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom will command the future NATO rapid reaction force. That is a key role for the British Army and one which I think it will perform splendidly, both in the interests of this country and of NATO. The specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised is quite clear. The purpose of the rapid reaction corps is to defend NATO territory ; it is not a signal of a more interventionist NATO approach elsewhere.

    Sir Robert McCrindle : When the Prime Minister comes to consider these matters, will he also take into account the enormous advantage of the participation of the United States and Canada in NATO, mapping it out, in the opinion of many of us, as a much more effective medium of western defence than any of the alternatives recommended?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. The presence of north American forces in Europe is absolutely essential; by that I mean US conventional and nuclear contributions, both of which are irreplaceable. They are here now and I hope, trust and believe that they will be here in the future.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister know precisely how much, in pounds and pence, a single old-age pensioner has on which to live for a week? Does he regard it as adequate?

    The Prime Minister : It would depend on his individual circumstances : whether he received income support, whether he had any state earnings- related pension supplement or a raft of other special payments.

     

    Q3. Mr. Roger King : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

    Mr. King : Will my right hon. Friend give a pledge to the House that he and his Government will never increase funding for various aspects of Government by plundering the wage packet of the British working man and woman? Will he further compare his Government’s spending– [Interruption.] –spending policies with those alluded to by the Opposition, whose policies of spend, spend, spend– [Hon. Members :– “Spund, spund, spund.”]–have no regard to how they will be paid for?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that people in this country need only look at our record on cutting the direct rate of taxation to be clear about the fact that we would not be in favour of increasing it. The Labour party, by contrast, is in favour of much higher spending, which can be met only by much higher taxation, not just for the well-off, but for those on the standard rate of income tax. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has shown that vividly this morning.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recognise that in their recent comments, both of his Tory predecessors were only trying to help him? Which of them did he find most helpful?

    The Prime Minister : The greatest help that this party often receives is from the right hon. Gentleman himself.

    Mr. Kinnock : That must be why we are 10 points ahead and are winning by-elections. Why will not the Prime Minister tell us? It is a straightforward question–is he closest to the last leader of the Conservative party or to the last but one leader, or is he just piggy in the middle?

    The Prime Minister : I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I can tell him that I have no intention of being distracted from the policy on Europe which I have set out clearly and repeatedly in the House.

    I shall continue to negotiate in Europe for an outcome that I can safely recommend to the House. It will then be for the House to decide on it.

    Mr. Waller : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider what the implications for taxation and public spending would be if the privatisation programme were to come to an end? Furthermore, what would happen if British Telecom, the water industry and the electricity grid were to be renationalised?

    The Prime Minister : The privatisation receipts are about £5.5 billion a year. That is the equivalent of nearly 3p on the standard rate of income tax, so clearly to abandon those receipts would lead either to higher borrowing or to higher taxation. There can be no doubt about that.

     

    Q4 . Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

    Mr. Bennett : I am sure that the Prime Minister would want to be fair. If he is so keen to have everything costed, has he had Majorism costed, or is he merely sending the bill for that to the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman plumbs new triviality with each question that he asks. In the past decade, conservatism has delivered a far higher standard of living for the people of this country than ever before and so it will in the next decade.

    Sir Ian Stewart : When my right hon. Friend goes to the European Council, will he accept that he carries with him the good wishes of all Conservative Members and our gratitude for the constructive and responsible way in which he has tackled serious and important constitutional issues? Will he take the opportunity to point out to his colleagues in the other European countries that any rapid move to a single currency, before the economies of the various countries in Europe are very much closer in performance, would produce disastrous consequences which would be far more likely to blow the European Community apart than to lead to greater unity?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with every word that my right hon. Friend has said. I have made the point consistently over the past 15 months that until and unless there is proper convergence of the European economies, it would be utter folly even to contemplate a single currency.

     

    Q5. Mr. Loyden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Loyden : The Prime Minister will be aware of the stand taken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the threat to ICI. What will the Prime Minister’s stance be in the event of a hostile bid being made by Hanson to take over ICI?

    The Prime Minister : There has been no such takeover bid and it would, therefore, be entirely inappropriate for me to comment.

     

    Q6. Mr. Beaumont-Dark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 902, which is an all-party motion tabled by, among others, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? It concerns Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray. Through no fault of theirs–whoever’s fault it was, they were not on a holiday jaunt–they lost their legs in a tragic accident. With his well-known compassion and concern for individuals who have problems, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will look at the problem with that compassion so that we can come to the right decision, which is to care for the individual who serves this state?

    The Prime Minister : This is a very tragic accident. I am sure that the whole House feels that deeply and we offer our sympathy to the guardsmen concerned. The board of inquiry has examined the matter carefully and has reached the conclusion that it was a tragic accident and that no one was culpable for the dreadful affair. I am examining the matter, but I must do so on the basis of legal liability.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister agree with his predecessor when she said that joining the exchange rate mechanism relegated Ministers to the status of innocent bystanders at an accident? If he agrees, how would he describe himself–as the bystander or the accident?

    The Prime Minister : We entered the exchange rate mechanism last year when my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister and I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was right to enter the mechanism then ; it is right for us to be members of the mechanism now. I made it absolutely clear at the time that I felt that that was the best way in which to ensure that we not only got inflation on a downward trend, but kept it on a downward trend. We are in the exchange rate mechanism ; we are staying in it. In due course, we shall move to the narrow bands.

     

    Q.7 Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list he official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Coombs : In considering local government matters in the light of the appalling record of the past eight years of the Labour administration in Liverpool–the appalling inefficiency, massive debts and uncollected refuse there, and the impending gravediggers’ strike–does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition that the Labour council there–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is not the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

    Mr. Coombs : –with the statement made yesterday that the council there is merely trying to provide– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Coombs : When considering the reform of local government, does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling inefficiency of Liverpool should be rate-capped and in future should be avoided by local government reform, or is the statement of the Leader of the Opposition merely pie in the sky?

    The Prime Minister : The whole country will observe what has happened in Liverpool over recent years and will be perfectly well aware where the blame for that lies. As the Labour Co-ordinating Committee has written about Labour councils :

    “They demonstrate as far as the public is concerned, what a Labour Government would be like”.

    Mr. Ashley : Is the Prime Minister aware that when considering the future of Britain the volatility of a couple of Prime Ministers is a trivial sideshow compared with the potential volatility of £84 billion sterling hot money as a result of the Government’s incompetence? How far can the Prime Minister say that he is confident that there will be no sterling crisis before the next general election?

    The Prime Minister : If there were to be a sterling crisis, it would occur only if there were no longer a Conservative Government.

     

    Q.8 Mr. Quentin Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Davies : Does my right hon. Friend agree that even marginal increases in taxation can have a serious effect on incentives and that even marginal increases in Government borrowing can have a serious effect on inflation and interest rates and that to increase borrowing and taxation by something like £35 billion would have catastrophic effects on the British economy?

    The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt about that. In practice it would mean either dramatically higher borrowing with consequentially much higher interest rates and mortgages, or it would mean up to an extra 15p on the standard rate of income tax to 40p in the pound. With a policy of adding national insurance contributions throughout the income scale, that would make us one of the highest-taxed countries in the industrial world.

     

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Sign Language

    Mr. Ashley : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards the recommendation of the EEC resolution of June 1988 to give official recognition to British sign language for the deaf.

    The Prime Minister : The Government have noted the terms of the resolution on sign languages for deaf people adopted by the European Parliament in June 1988. We fully recognise the right of deaf people to use their preferred method of communication, including British sign language and have grant aided a variety of organisations concerned with the promotion and development of sign languages and other communication techniques.

     

    Cruise Missiles

    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the departure to the United States of America of the last flight of Cruise missiles and the de-activation of 501 missile wing USAF at Greenham common.

    The Prime Minister : The departure of the last cruise missiles from RAF Greenham Common on 5 March and the deactivation of the 501st Tactical Missile Wing on 4 June mark an important milestone in the implementation of the INF treaty. As well as making a vital contribution to the NATO alliance, the 501st Tactical Missile Wing has been a valuable presence in this country and welcome neighbours to the people of Newbury. The United States presence in Newbury will continue at a reduced level with the base returning to standby status.

     

    Kurdish People

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West, of 25 April, Official Report, column 520; if he will now consider establishing safe havens in southern Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : We remain very concerned by the situation of refugees in southern Iraq. We believe the best way forward is to continue our support for the work of the United Nations, including the establishment of a humanitarian centre in Basra and the expansion of relief efforts in the area. We welcome the Secretary General’s decision to send a high-level fact finding mission to the south to assess humanitarian needs.

    Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister when he will answer the letters on behalf of the organisation British Aid for the Kurds of 17 April and 11 June sent to him by Mrs. Judith P. Stubbs of Culthorpe, Chesterfield.

    The Prime Minister : The letter sent in April by Mrs. Stubbs was among the 3,500 letters about Iraq and kind offers of help for the Kurds received by my office at that time. These were sent as appropriate to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration to take forward.

    The ODA has been in frequent contact with British Aid for Kurds since April to offer advice on the changing types of aid that would be most useful to the Kurds as the situation developed. The ODA chartered two Iran Air flights which carried over 90 tonnes of aid collected by British Aid for the Kurds. A reply to Mrs. Stubbs’s latest letter will be sent shortly.

     

    Energy Efficiency

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the main items of expenditure included in the £78,000 spent in 1990-91 on improving the energy efficiency of the Cabinet Office.

    The Prime Minister : The main items of expenditure in the £78,000 spent during 1990-91 on improving energy efficiency in the Cabinet Office were :

    Energy efficient lighting for the new residential block and roads and pathways in the grounds of the Civil Service College, Sunningdale – 48,766 pounds

    Energy audits of various buildings including Nos. 10-12 Downing Street – 7,245 pounds

    Energy efficient lighting scheme for 70 Whitehall – 22,000 pounds

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

    Mr. Ray Powell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

    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.

     

    “Blueprint for Football”

    Mr. Pendry : To ask the Prime Minister what support Her Majesty’s Government intend to offer to the “Blueprint for Football” launched by the Professional Footballers Association on 6 June; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 June 1991] : We welcome any new initiative that will promote greater unity in the leadership of the game and help football raise the necessary funds to implement Lord Justice Taylor’s recommendations and thereby improve standards of safety and comfort for spectators. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has had discussions with the Professional Footballers Association, the Football Association, the Football League and representatives of the supporters’ associations to hear their various proposals for the future of the game. He has not indicated a view on any of them other than to welcome them as a contribution to the debate. He has made it clear that decisions are for football alone to take.

     

    Birmingham Olympiad

    Sir Neil Macfarlane : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet the president of the International Olympic Committee during the Olympiad in Birmingham ; what functions the Government intend to host during that event ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 June 1991] : I have not yet had the opportunity of meeting the president of the International Olympic Committee. However, the Minister for Sport was present at the opening of the 97th congress of the IOC in Birmingham and had discussions with the president, other senior officials and members of the IOC. The Government were not invited to host any functions.

  • PMQT – 18 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

    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. Pike : Can the Prime Minister define the term “Majorism”? Does it mean reducing inflation from the level that the Government have created? Does it mean increasing unemployment to more than 2.5 million? Or does it mean failing to invest in our manufacturing industry? What is Majorism?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to read the speeches that I made at Scarborough, Southport, Swansea and elsewhere. It involves extending choice and opportunity more widely, bringing quality to our public services, a strong economy with low or nil inflation, letting people spend more of their own money in their own way, maintaining firm defences and giving choice back to people, which is where it should be.

    Sir Giles Shaw : Does my right hon. Friend agree that negotiating vigorously and directly with our European partners is the best way to arrive at a common approach to those political and economic issues that are in the best interests of Britain? Does he further agree that such an approach should be based on what is practical, realistic and evolutionary rather than engaging in rhetoric or working on a blueprint for federalism?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A European super-state would not be acceptable to me or to the House–and in my judgment it would not be acceptable to the country.

    Mr. Kinnock : Would the Prime Minister say that the large fall in manufacturing output over the past 12 months was evidence that his policies are working?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the best possible future for manufacturing industry is to ensure that the economy has the lowest possible inflation and the prospect of growth again. That is where the prospects for manufacturing industry come from ; without that secure base, manufacturing industry would face problems for a long time.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister not yet realise that by keeping on with his high interest rate policies he is making his recession deeper and longer, and causing a permanent loss of capacity in British industry? What sort of preparation does he think that that affords for the completion of the single market next year?

    The Prime Minister : The single market would not have come about but for the efforts of this Government, and there has not been a great deal of support from the Opposition. There are no good prospects for any part of the economy without low inflation. We are now delivering low inflation in a way that the right hon. Gentleman’s policies never could.

    Mr. Kinnock : At what point, then, will unemployment have increased enough, investment have fallen enough, enough companies have been closed and manufacturing output have fallen low enough to justify the Government cutting interest rates, which are the cause of the loss of capacity that threatens British industry?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman’s prescription is wrong. He will recall that on many occasions in recent months Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have suggested that 1 per cent. off interest rates would make a material difference. We have had 3.5 per cent. off interest rates in the past few months–and inflation has moved towards half what it was some months ago–and the figures are still coming down.

    Mr. Hayes : As this Government are the first in history to spend more on health than on defence, does not my right hon. Friend find it deplorable that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in his keynote speech to the Confederation of Health Service Employees, personally attacked–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he must ask a question that falls within the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

    Mr. Hayes : Should not the country know that the national health service trust in Bradford means an additional £1 million in health care for patients, and that at Guy’s hospital the trust means more patients treated? The minimum wage that the Labour party offers would starve the health service of £500 million.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend’s strictures are all correct. There is an increasing wealth of good news about the activities of national health service trusts, and the second wave of trusts in due course will bring even more good news and better service for the patients in the national health service, which is our intention.

     

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

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

    Mr. Maclennan : Does the Prime Minister agree with the view of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), propounded in Chicago yesterday, that a single European currency would take the heart out of the purpose of this Parliament?

    The Prime Minister : If this Parliament believed that, it would not vote for it and it would not happen.

     

    Q3. Mr. Quentin Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Davies : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the example of Liverpool provides in microcosm the most salutary lesson of the consequences of a Labour Government?

    The Prime Minister : I would most certainly agree. It is an illustration of Labour government in practice which I believe the country will observe and not like.

    Sir Patrick Duffy : Is the Prime Minister aware that whatever pillars may be involved in the construction of the European temple, a defence pillar is not yet considered practical and workable within western alliance parliamentary circles and nor is it considered desirable in eastern Europe? Does he agree that nothing which might cut across NATO’s rule or duplicate its military structure is desirable?

    The Prime Minister : First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his well-deserved honour in the Queen’s birthday honours list. I entirely agree that our defence interests are such that they must be based on NATO in the future, as they have been in the past. NATO has served us outstandingly well over the past 40 years and it will, I trust, serve us equally well in the future.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Marshall : In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the consequences of the abolition of aaaaaaaqqqqqqathe dock labour scheme, which will lead to much greater activity in scheme ports such as Liverpool, giving them the chance to prosper again ? Is it not significant that those who were loudest in their objections to the abolition of the scheme are now silent in its defence ?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly consider the consequences of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, and I believe that they are very attractive. The House will recall that the abolition of that scheme was passed through the House in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party. Yet in Liverpool productivity has improved by at least 20 per cent. since the abolition of the scheme and will improve similarly elsewhere in the country. What we have seen in Liverpool, not only in the dock labour scheme but elsewhere, is the clearest possible illustration that the Labour party is locked in the past and has no place in the future.

    Mr. Anderson : What is the Prime Minister’s reply to those who argue that the Government’s current troubles are due to indecisiveness at the very top ?

    The Prime Minister : I can be wholly decisive and tell them that they are wrong.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert B. Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will resist every attempt, whether from Europe or from the Labour party, to pressurise us to have a minimum wage ? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in addition to the extra unemployment that it would create, it would particularly hit those who find it difficult to find jobs now, such as the disabled, women and ethnic minorities–a lesson which is understood by Mr. Eric Hammond, even if it is not understood by the leader of the Labour party.

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend a categoric assurance on that. The Labour party may continue with its policy of a minimum wage, but it has few friends left for it. As Mr. Hammond said just the other day :

    “It would damage workers desperately and unless Labour can win the votes of such people, they will not win and will not deserve to.” He is right on both counts. They will not win and they certainly do not deserve to.

     

    Q6. Miss Lestor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Miss Lestor : Bearing in mind the previous Prime Minister’s commitment to give the highest priority to children’s rights, as agreed at the summit last year, the Government’s failure as yet to ratify the convention on the rights of the child and the almost daily reporting of the violation of children’s rights in some form or another in Britain, will the right hon. Gentleman now give a pledge to implement the Gulbenkian recommendations to appoint a commissioner for children as the Labour party has pledged?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady should recognise that the Children Act 1989 is the best Act for the future of children that this Parliament has ever passed.

    Mr. Tim Smith : In the light of a possible rail dispute, will my right hon. Friend have another look at employment legislation and, in particular, the possible introduction of measures designed to protect the consumer and the general public against strikes called overnight and at very short notice?

    The Prime Minister : I shall be happy to do so.

     

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

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

    Mr. Wallace : Has the Prime Minister yet had time to consider the letter sent to him last week by the chief executive of the Scottish Salmon Growers Association describing the present plight of the industry due to the dumping on the European market of Norwegian salmon? In the past, the European Community has been slow to deal with these matters. As the future of many businesses are at stake, what steps do the Government intend to take to inject some urgency into dealing with the crisis?

    The Prime Minister : I understand the problem of the Scottish salmon industry, which we are examining at the moment in the light of the letter that we have received. I propose to discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and then I will reply fully.

    Sir Robert Rhodes James : My right hon. Friend commanded great support and confidence for his policy for safe havens for the Kurds. Is he aware that some of us are becoming deeply concerned about the possibility of the abandonment of the Kurds? Would not it be a good idea if British politicians speaking to American audiences reminded them of their responsibilities rather than talking drivel about Europe?

    The Prime Minister : First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James) on his well-deserved honour bestowed in the Queen’s birthday honours list. As my hon. Friend will know, our purpose in creating safe havens in northern Iraq was to provide immediate humanitarian relief in conditions of safety, and to create the confidence for the Kurds to return safely to their homes. I believe that had we not done so, many thousands and perhaps many hundreds of thousands of Kurds would have died. Happily, many of them have now returned safely home and the safe havens continue in being, for the purpose for which they were originally set up.

     

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

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

    Mr. Alton : In the absence of refuse collection services in some parts of Liverpool for the past three months, does the Prime Minister agree that it is scandalous that Liverpool residents have been sent bills for £70.99 for poll tax unpaid by other people in that city? Does he agree that that offends against every principle of natural justice and that, in connection with the new local tax, there ought to be a provision in law to ensure a right to redress in such circumstances for citizens hit in that way?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman points out yet another example of the sheer inefficiency of the present Liverpool council, and the way in which the people of Liverpool have been extremely badly treated as a result of its activities. Residents’ bills in Liverpool are undoubtedly a good deal higher than they need to be because, as the Labour leader in Liverpool has admitted, it costs four times as much to pick up litter in Liverpool as it does elsewhere. The conclusion for the people of Liverpool must be obvious–no Labour Members and no Labour council.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Foundation for Sports and the Arts

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about progress towards the establishment of a Foundation for Sport and the Arts.

    The Prime Minister : I am pleased to say that the three members of the Pools Promoters Association have now confirmed that they will set up the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. I understand that the pools promoters are now working hard to finalise the trust deed under which the foundation will operate, and will soon be appointing the first trustees. The way is now clear for the Government to make the reduction in pool betting duty announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech and new clauses to the Finance Bill have been tabled.

     

    Holy Loch

    Mrs. Ray Michie : To ask the Prime Minister what agreements there are between the United States of America and United Kingdom Governments concerning the establishment and use of the United States base at Holy Loch.

    The Prime Minister : Details of the agreements between the United Kingdom and United States Governments for the use of the Holy Loch by the United States Navy are confidential between the two Governments.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Japanese Cars

    Mrs. Currie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will oppose the views expressed in the European Parliament that Japanese marque cars should be subject to a quota whether imported into the European Community or manufactured within its borders; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Cars manufactured in the European Community are European whatever the nationality of the manufacturer. I strongly oppose any attempt to restrict the circulation of such cars within the Community, for example, by incorporating them in a single quota with imports from Japan as suggested in the European Parliament debate. The Government’s position on this question has been made quite clear to the EC Commission.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at 1991 Welsh Conservative Party Conference – 14 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1991 Welsh Conservative Party Conference in Swansea on Friday 14th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is my first opportunity to speak to the Welsh Conference as Prime Minister. I look forward with pleasure to many more. The Conservative Party is giving a clear lead in Wales, setting the agenda for all the other parties. Much of the credit for that goes to David Hunt and his team. They are doing a superb job. I am lucky to have them. And so is Wales.

    Their work and their commitment makes me even more determined to lead this Party forward in Wales. Not only to win back Monmouth, Brecon and Radnor and Ynys Mon. But to take other seats as well. And, with your help, when the day comes we will achieve it.

    In politics – as in life – it is easy to miss the turning-points. Only afterwards are we able to say: this was when it was clear the struggle was being won. This was when determination, grit and patience began to yield their rewards.

    I believe, right now, that we are at one of those turning-points. For we have seen, over the past week, an unmistakeable advance in this country’s toughest economic battle – against inflation. We learnt in the 1980s how easily it can counter-attack against economic prosperity. And we know how painful it can be to force it back again.

    Over eighteen months ago as Chancellor my first action was to set a course against inflation. So I take particular pleasure in the signs of success we are now seeing. It is not merely that the all-important inflation headline has fallen sharply this week – and is now down over five percentage points since last autumn’s peak. Today’s figure is an encouraging 5.8 per cent.

    But more important is what this week’s figures say for the future. New realism in pay bargaining, which has brought the average increase down sharply this spring. And a new flexibility and variety in settlements. At the same time we have seen long-awaited evidence of a slowdown in price increases charged at the factory gate.

    The message of this week’s figures is of real success. On any sensible measure, underlying inflation is coming down. We are coming into line with the best of Europe. We are learning how to compete, and to win. And we can be more confident still that our forecast for the end of this year – an inflation rate of only 4 per cent – will be met. And it will fall further next year. It has been a hard battle against inflation, fought during a world recession. But the news this week shows that we are succeeding.

    Six months ago, three urgent tasks faced us:

    – to prepare for a possible Gulf War and to steer Britain through whatever crisis arose;

    – to sort out what seemed then to be the insoluble problems of local government finance, and;

    – to reverse rising inflation and interest rates and set the economy back on the road to recovery.

    GULF WAR

    It did come to war in the Gulf despite all our efforts. In that war our Armed Forces, including many young men and women from Wales, performed superbly. They were well armed, well trained and well supported. We can be proud of what they did – and how they did it.

    But now there are some who argue for concessions to be made to Iraq. I am not among them. So long as Saddam Hussein stays in power, we will maintain our firm line. We will veto any UN resolution to drop sanctions on Iraq. In the last six months we have driven Saddam out of Kuwait. His weapons of mass destruction are being destroyed. Of course he will lie and cheat – he is doing. But we will dog his footsteps. By whatever means it takes we will not allow Iraq to rebuild its nuclear, biological and chemical arsenal. So there should be no doubt. Iraq cannot return to the international community of nations white Saddam Hussein remains in control.

    At the war’s end, when we saw the tragedy of the Kurds unfolding, it was Britain who took the initiative to help them. Again, some derided our efforts to bring help to the Kurds. But we continued to press our “safe havens” proposal. And first the European, then the whole international community accepted our ideas. The ‘safe havens’ were established and a human tragedy of enormous proportions was avoided. We can be proud that it was Britain that took the lead in bringing support to the Kurds.

    COUNCIL TAX

    Meanwhile, at home we were tackling a second acute problem that faced us last November. To cut through the divisive problems of local government finance.

    Norman Lamont’s reforming Budget dramatically eased the burden of payment on local taxpayers. It made a £140 cut in headline charges. And gave extra help where it was most needed.

    Then, in April, we published detailed proposals for a new Council Tax. It avoids the disaster of a return to the rates against which this Party rightly campaigned for so long. We are now converting our plans into legislation for the very next Session of Parliament, while Labour are still floundering, trying to fathom out just how their unrealistic rates policy will work.

    COMING OUT OF RECESSION

    The third great task we faced last November was to lead Britain out of the world recession. That recession is not unique to this country. It has hit economies as strong as the United States and as far apart as Canada and Australia. But as we come out of recession, we need to look to the future. We need a stable framework for the 1990s that will keep inflation down so that the problems of the last two years will never occur again.

    That is why last autumn we took Britain into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Since then we have had five cuts in interest rates in just seven months. We have lowered interest rates by 3 per cent from their peak last autumn.

    A STRONGER ECONOMY IN WALES

    We are now reaping the rewards that flow from co-operation in Europe. No-one in Wales should need convincing of that. Our central role in Europe has been the prime reason for the massive flow of foreign investment into Wales over the last 12 years. In that time we have set out a new course for Wales, reversed its decline, and opened new prospects for the future.

    In doing so, it has not been the State on which we have relied. It is the choices and ambitions of millions of men and women that lead our country forward. The Conservative Party stands for variety and for independent action. In that it is akin to the natural instincts of the Welsh. The cultural, religious and practical inheritance of Wales bring a special quality to the character of the United Kingdom. We have done much to nurture the Welsh language and sustain Welsh traditions. We have swept away attitudes that patronised Wales, and brought new life to the Welsh economy. Where once it was dependent on old and declining industries, it now has new industries, new confidence, and jobs with a long-term future. It offers wider opportunities to its young people than ever before.

    In Wales we have also seen a revolution in investment. Companies from around the world have been attracted here. Bosch from Germany, Delanair from France, Matsushita, Toyota and Sony from Japan among many others. I tell you this. None of those companies would have come here if we had stood outside the European Community, as Neil Kinnock himself demanded we should, year after year until he became Leader of his Party.

    This investment drive continues. Take just the last few weeks. At Bridgend Sony, backed by Government support, creating some 1,400 jobs in television and computer display. And in the same period the 50th and 51st German-backed companies investing in Wales. Nine important new job announcements were made in Wales in May – with more to come in the pipeline. In the last financial year alone nearly 70 investment projects from overseas have been announced in Wales, totalling almost £300 million and creating or safeguarding over 8,500 jobs.

    I know that the recession has pressed hard on businesses – large and small – in Wales. But I also know that Wales is now in a stronger position than ever before to confront it. It is sought out as an investment base more today than at any time in history. This Government can be proud of that.

    Government support for Wales goes much further than promoting inward investment. Remember the unnecessary delay and obstruction over the planned Cardiff Bay barrage? How typical it was of many in the Welsh Labour Party to complain about job losses in Wales and then hold up a project to create 25,000 jobs. The very day after their members had filibustered for hours in the House of Commons to block new opportunities for 25,000 people, Labour had the sheer effrontery to launch a bogus policy document called ‘Opportunity Britain’.

    But we were not prepared to let Wales be filibustered. So we stepped in and gave full backing to the Cardiff Bay project. We will now make sure, through our own Government Bill, that the Cardiff Barrage and the thousands of jobs it will create will go ahead. And so will the housing for people on low incomes, many elderly and disabled, that go with this scheme.

    When we look at the progress made since 1979 in Wales as elsewhere, we see a picture of a nation transformed. There are three reasons for this.

    The determination and skills of a whole generation of people.

    The leadership in Wales that Peter Walker and David Hunt have given. That has been outstanding. They have fought to open up new opportunities for Welsh business and families. As a result more people than ever before now have homes, savings, shares, pensions. They have a stake in the present and the future. Many of them didn’t dream that was possible in the 1970s. Now it’s an everyday reality.

    EUROPE

    But the third reason for Wales’ revival has been our membership of the European Community.

    I have said before that I want to see Britain at the heart of Europe. A Europe which has seen, over the past two years, historic changes. A Europe in which the barriers of half a century have broken down. A new and wider Europe of free nations.

    Throughout the twentieth century, Europe has inflicted its worst wounds on itself. Now we must ensure that the years of division and hostility are finally put behind us.

    To secure our future, we need not abandon our past. Or accept the imposition of uniformity on the nation states of Europe. But we must not – cannot – turn our backs on the construction of the new Europe. That is where our history points; and our interest lies.

    There have been times, in our island story, when we have turned aside from Europe. But we have always been drawn back to Europe. There are still those, today, who argue that Britain should step off our chosen path. They seem to believe that Harold Macmillan was wrong to make our first application to join the European Community. That Ted Heath’s government was wrong to sign the Treaty of Rome. That the British people were wrong to vote overwhelmingly for Britain in Europe. And that Margaret Thatcher’s government was wrong to sign the Single European Act. I do not share those views. Sulking on the fringe of talks about the destiny of Europe cannot be the right role for Britain. Europe is not a battle between “them” and “us”. It is our continent, too.

    Of course, there are frustrations in membership of the European Community. Things on which one member will disagree with another. Things we fail to get right. But the opportunities dwarf the disappointments. We have gained much; we can hope to gain more from membership of a thriving Europe.

    There are people, of course, who readily admit we need a place in Europe, but suggest we might leave the Community for EFTA. What an irony, when so many EFTA countries are preparing themselves for membership of the Community. Indeed, this very morning Sweden announced its application to join. They want to be at Europe’s top table – where we already enjoy our rightful place. What a folly it would be to leave a party in full swing, to join one whose other guests are departing.

    In years to come, the European Community will have far more members than it has today. It must be in our interest to be an architect of that wider Europe.

    Our presence in the Community has helped to shape its development so far. Britain’s free market principles have been a powerful force for good. The single market, free of national barriers, will be the clearest expression of our contribution in Europe.

    And these same principles govern our approach to the Community’s long term objective. An objective formally approved by our Conservative Government in 1985, in the preamble to the Single European Act: the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union in Europe.

    For we bring another distinctive contribution to the European debate: a habit of asking how ideas will work in practice. A habit of subjecting them to hard-headed tests of their effect on our freedom and prosperity. That is the contribution we are making, yet again, to the current – critical – negotiations on the future of the Community. There are inevitably some faint hearts who think the outcome of these negotiations is bound to be bad for this country. I am not among them. And for good reason. We are negotiating vigorously. Positively. Clear in our aims, and confident of our position.

    Let me make one thing quite clear. There can be no change in the Treaty of Rome taking us towards economic and monetary union unless all members – Britain included – agree. We could say no. If we cannot find common ground, we may have to say no. And if necessary we will. But no-one should imagine that our European partners would simply abandon their ideas. That Europe would remain fixed in aspic. Or that we could insulate ourselves from the effect of what the rest of the Community decided to do.

    I do not intend to let Britain be sidelined. The potential damage to our trade, to the City of London and to our future prospects would be immense. Moreover, the rest of Europe does not want to sideline us. We all want to find common ground. There has been much talk recently of offers and compromises. But we are not interested in a fudge – in the kind of waffle we have heard from Neil Kinnock on Europe. So let me make the Government’s position clear.

    I will not agree to a treaty on economic and monetary union unless it is practical and workable. It would not be in our interests, or in the interests of our partners, to endorse economic nonsense.

    I will not put to the House of Commons a treaty unless I believe it conforms with our free market principles, and unless I believe it is in the interests of Britain to sign.

    I support the idea of a common currency, which all Europeans could use if they wish. But I am wholly opposed to the imposition of a single currency.

    I am not alone in Europe in my appreciation of how economically damaging it would be to put widely divergent economies into the straitjacket of a single currency. Act in haste; repent not at leisure, but in failure. I believe the whole European Community will come to see the need for caution.

    But I do not rely solely on this belief. I will promise you one thing more. We may, by the end of this year, have before us a treaty. A treaty that could, amongst other things, allow Europe to develop a single currency at some time in the future. If so, such a treaty would have to contain the following clear provision. The British Government and the British Parliament would only move to a single currency if they took a further, separate and explicit decision to do so. Not just when to do so. But whether to do so at all.

    That is a question that would not arise in this parliament. It might not even arise in the next parliament. But if or when it arose, it would be for Parliament to decide. Parliament will not be committed in advance. In no circumstances will I agree a treaty which does not contain that safeguard. Of course, that safeguard is not all we require. I have spelt out today a number of other important considerations. In long and complex negotiations, many issues arise.

    I believe the interests of this country lie in negotiating toughly and forcefully. Europe’s aim must be to achieve a treaty on which all can agree. This may not prove possible. But for my part, I believe the chances of successful negotiation are greater if it is clear where we stand.

    So, as you would expect of us, this Government will do what is right for the future of Britain. And I know that this Government and only this Government is capable of completing these negotiations and building the new Europe in the way that our country needs. So we intend to lead this country through to the conclusion of these talks later this year. That is my position. That is the Government’s position. That is the Conservative Party’s position. That is where we stand.

    LABOUR’S KEBABBLE

    Mr Chairman, I have today set out our position on Europe and set it out clearly. Just compare that with the sheer babble we heard from Mr Kinnock earlier this week when he was asked to explain where Labour stood. He claimed that there was “real understanding” of his ideas among European Socialists. Frankly, if they understand that, they’ll understand anything.

    Of course, Mr Kinnock never likes being asked to explain what Labour’s policies are. He calls it being “kebabbed”. Do you remember? When he refused to go on with an interview because he didn’t like the questions. Mr Kinnock was kebabbed alright on Europe this week. And his Euro-kebabble can’t hide the absence of a policy. He should be under no illusions. Over the next few months we’re going to put the search-light on Labour and expose Kinnock’s kebabble, not only on Europe but on every other issue as well.

    SOCIALISM – THE ROAD TO NOWHERE

    For there is only one thing that could stop the progress Britain has made over the last 12 years. A Labour Government. And that would do worse than stop progress. It would reverse it.

    Just remember. Year after year through the 1980s, Labour opposed all our advances for the people of Britain. They were against lower taxation. Against home ownership. Against denationalisation and better public services. Opposed to the right to buy shares in privatised companies. Against rights for parents in schools. Against help for savings and personal pensions. Against the hope and the independence that millions of people yearned for under the bankrupt Labour Governments of the ‘70s.

    Throughout the last 12 years Labour have fought and fought and fought again, against a better future for the people of this country.

    Labour have one constant criticism of us. Whatever the issue, whatever the problem, whatever the Department, they say we don’t spend enough of your money. It might have been Wilfred Pickles’ approach to politics. Do you remember? “Give ‘em the money, Mabel”. You name it; spend more on it. That’s Labour’s approach.

    But promises have to be paid for. And people are rightly afraid that under Labour their spending commitments would mean bigger tax bills. Labour don’t have the honesty to admit that. Instead they send John Smith out into the Boardrooms of the City to say that all those spending plans can be discounted. They promise the public they’ll spend. They promise the City they won’t. That’s what Labour call Public Relations. It’s what most people call public deceit.

    It’s the same on economic management overall. Labour seem to think it is possible to run the economy by giving everyone everything they want whenever they ask for it. Pay rises. Interest rate cuts. Spending increases. They will give you whatever you want. You name it. You can have it. All at the same time. As a result Labour have no credible policy on the economy at all. None on inflation. None on unemployment. None on investment. None on growth.

    But Labour’s policies do mean something. They mean a pay explosion, a huge increase in public spending, a surge in taxes, an increase in borrowing, a loss of confidence in our currency. Glad, confident morning would be followed by growing misery, devaluation, rising interest and mortgage rates for all. ‘Vote now, pay later’ is the essence of Labour’s plans.

    And there is one other basic truth about Labour Government which has not changed. Labour Government would be trade union government. The two are indivisible.

    Just consider some of Labour’s so-called new policies. The green light to flying pickets. Secondary action in industrial disputes. New life for the closed shop. A minimum wage that would destroy up to 2 million jobs. Labour say they have changed. But who is calling the shots when it comes to Labour policy?

    Who wants to scrap competitive tendering and waste money on direct labour in Councils and hospitals more than Rodney Bickerstaffe and the National Executive of NUPE?

    Who wants to bring in a National Minimum Wage more than Ron Todd and the National Executive of the TGWU?

    Who wants a National Economic Assessment, in which trade unions would parcel out the nation’s resources, more than John Edmonds and the General Council of the TUC?

    So whose policies are they really?

    Behind the Shadow Cabinet loom bigger shadows still – the big brothers at the TUC. In a Labour Britain they would be eased back into Downing Street faster and even more conspicuously than Neil Kinnock’s wardrobe.

    What does Labour’s National Economic Assessment mean? I’ll tell you. It means a glitzy gloss on meddling by trade union bosses. It means the elected Government surrendering its responsibility to unelected union bosses. Of this you can be sure. Just so long as the trade unions go on paying for the Labour Party, a Labour Government would go on paying off the unions.

    Mr Chairman, our duty in this Conservative Party is to stop there ever being a Socialist Government. Not just this year. Not just next year. Not just in 5 years’ time. But for good. For the hard-learned lesson of the twentieth century is this. Freedom, free enterprise, personal independence and wider ownership are the roots to richer, more inventive, more varied societies. Socialism is the road to nowhere. And it is on the road to nowhere that we will ensure the Labour Party stays.

    THE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH

    Our approach is far different from Labour’s. People say to me: ‘You cannot cut tax and improve public services’. But we have. We have. We have shown over the last twelve years how wrong these people are. Cutting income tax by record amounts, but spending far more than any Government before on improvements in health. Cutting back taxation on companies, but spending more per pupil on education than any Government before. Sweeping away the last Labour Government’s taxes on jobs, but committing billions of pounds to new roads, railways and hospitals.

    We will continue that work in the 1990s. And as we do I want us to concentrate, not simply, as Labour do, on what we spend, but on what we deliver for the money that we provide. That is why we are developing right across Government our Citizens’ Charter programme. The Charter initiative will bring new pride to those who work in public services, and still higher quality for those who use them.

    The 1980s were a decade of Government achievement. But we can’t stand still now. The world has moved on and so must we. So we are developing new policies. And improving familiar ones.

    Things will be different in the 1990s as we build on the bedrock of the last decade. It will be an era in which we develop further the wider competition, the choice, and the personal opportunities we have brought in in the 1980s. But it will also be an era in which we extend a helping hand to those still not aware of, or still not able, to take the opportunities that Conservative policies bring. A helping hand to help people up. That is our way.

    Our distinctive Toryism is the polar opposite of Socialism. It rejects their policies based on envy. It rejects their attitudes which foment class division. For our belief – our Tory belief – grows from the commonsense instincts of the British. From their fairmindedness, their sense of what is right and their sense of obligations to other people. It builds on the instinctive friendliness of our people. It seeks to unite, and not to divide. I want no barriers in my Party. And no barriers in our country either.

    I want our Tory approach to strike a common chord with all generations – a Toryism based on the liberal free market but sensitive to individual needs. A Toryism that stands for a stable way of life rooted in decency. For the breaking open of closed doors in our society, whatever or wherever they may be. For a culture of generosity, public and private; respect for the contributions and opinions of others; and pride in our great national institutions. For making it easier for everyone to build up something to call their own and to pass it on to their children and those after them. For all those values that, as I believe, go to create a nation that is sure in its aims and at ease with itself. We want a Toryism that encourages and does not threaten. That is as relevant in the high rise housing estate as by the village pond.

    I want to build a nation that can put hesitation and self-doubt aside. A nation that will act confidently in the world. That will accept its obligations and defend its rights. I stand for a strong, independent Britain playing a positive part in building a better and wider Europe. And playing its part, too, as a cornerstone of NATO in the defence of peace and security.

    Only a Conservative Government can build and sustain such a nation. And together we must fight to ensure that it is a Conservative Government that leads our country through the 1990s and beyond.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Hospitality Fund

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the expenditure covered by his Department’s hospitality fund for the financial years (a) 1989-90, (b) 1990-91 and (c) 1991-92 to date.

    The Prime Minister : This information is not available in the form requested. The cost of official hospitality met by my office during 1989-90 was £27,427 ; it is estimated to be £20,904 and in 1991-92 to date, it is £6,485.

     

    Statistics

    Mr. Soames : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to improve the quality, substance and accuracy of economic and commercial statistics available to Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister : A comprehensive statement on the current state of official economic statistics was submitted by the Central Statistical Office to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on Wednesday 24 October 1990–HC 671, Session 1989-90.

    The memorandum gave details of an important package of measures to improve the reliability of economic data which the Central Statistical Office is now implementing. I announced this package to the House as Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17 May 1990, Official Report, column 172. It is directed towards improving the quality of both the gross domestic product and the balance of payments estimates. In this context it has three major objectives:

    (i) Reducing revisions to early estimates of both gross domestic product and the overseas current account by extending the range of quarterly sources;

    (ii) Improving the accuracy and coherence of the measurement of gross domestic product through strengthening the weaker elements in the estimates;

    (iii) Improving the accuracy and coherence of the financial accounts including the overseas or balance of payments accounts. For details of the measures being undertaken, in order to achieve these aims, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) by the Economic Secretary on 13 May, Official Report, columns 19-21. Further and more detailed information appeared in an article, titled “Improving Economic Statistics–The Chancellor’s Initiative”, in the February 1991 edition of “Economic Trends” which is available in the House of Commons Library.

    The Government attach great importance to the need for reliable economic statistics and will consider further measures to maintain and improve the quality of economic data as the need arises.

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which his Department was responsible for each of the past five years, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

    The Prime Minister : This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Video Recordings

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial year 1990-91 and 1991-92 to date.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Ministerial Correspondence

    Mr. Onslow : To ask the Prime Minister what action Departments have taken in response to the report of the efficiency scrutiny on ministerial correspondence; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The report of the efficiency scrutiny on ministerial correspondence was made available to Members of Parliament and others last December. The report, which provides recommendations of good practice, was accepted by the Government. Departments have reacted very positively to the scrutiny report. Each Department has produced an action plan to implement those recommendations which they have accepted, and which are not already departmental practice. Each Department has nominated a Minister for correspondence issues.

    Every Department accepted a majority of the scrutiny team’s recommendations; overall 90 per cent. were accepted and none was generally rejected.

    The report recognised that Members of Parliament always have the right to approach Ministers directly, but that a more efficient service could be achieved by decentralisation of correspondence on operational matters to agency chief executives and other discreet units or local offices. Departments have generally accepted these recommendations, and the most recent edition of the “List of Ministerial Responsibilities” has been extended to provide information on agency chief executives and other key addresses. The report identified the use of targets and monitoring of performance as important factors in improving the management of correspondence and all Departments agree with this. All Departments accept the recommendation that their own targets on correspondence should be published, and there has been widespread acceptance of the recommendation to send a prompt and informative interim reply where a departmental target will not be achieved. Departments also gave a strong support to the recommendations for monitoring annual publication of performance.

    Departments are pursuing other recommendations, designed to improve the handling of correspondence, taking into account their differing functions and organisation.

    In line with the normal procedures for an efficiency scrutiny, each Department will produce by July next year an implementation report to record the achievements in carrying through their action plan.

     

    Minister for Ex-Service Men

    Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with responsibility for ex-service men.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 June 1991] : No. It would simply add another tier of administration to the present system as one Department could clearly not have policy responsibility for all the matters of concern to ex-service men or their widows. Creating a new Department could lead only to unnecessary delay on inquiries since these would need to be referred to other Government Departments for consideration.

    The Ministry of Defence is responsible for service pension matters, the Department of Health, through the NHS, for treatment of the disabilities of ex-service personnel and the Department of Social Security for war pension matters. The Department of Social Security administers the war pensioners’ welfare service through a countryside network of offices. The service offers war disablement pensioners and war widows help and advice on personal problems and liaise on their behalf as necessary with statutory and voluntary bodies. War pensions committees also play an important part locally in matters relating to the welfare of war pensioners.

  • PMQT – 13 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

    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. Amess : Does my right hon. Friend agree with many of my constituents in Basildon that although the Labour party talked about European reform when it was in power, it achieved nothing? Will my right hon. Friend continue to negotiate in the interests of this country within the European Community, as we have done so successfully in the past?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The budget rebate negotiated by the present Government was very welcome. Nothing whatever in terms of budget rebates was negotiated by the predecessor Government. I believe strongly that it is in our national interest to negotiate within Europe and to reach a conclusion that will enable the whole Community to go forward together. That clearly is the best prize for us and for the Community, and it is what we will seek to achieve.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is not it now clear that rising unemployment and deep recession provide the most accurate definition of Majorism?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am as concerned about getting unemployment down as anyone else in the House. The way in which to get unemployment down is to ensure that we get on top of inflation, as we are, and that wage demands and settlements begin to come down, as they are, so that the economy can yet again begin to grow. In the period of Conservative Government, there has been a great increase in the number of people in work and increasingly, as inflation falls, that will return to being the case.

    Mr. Kinnock : Today’s figures are the worst May unemployment figures on record and they are the direct result of the Prime Minister’s policies. Faced with that, is he still willing to say to the 2.25 million people who are now without jobs that their unemployment is a price worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should stop using the unemployed as political pawns– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : He does so not only in the way in which he conducts his politics, but in the way in which he frames his policies. He knows that Labour’s job tax would cost more jobs, he knows that the social action programme that Labour supports would cost more jobs, he knows that Labour’s strikers’ charter would cost more jobs and he knows that Labour’s minimum wage would cost more jobs. He is the last person in the House to lecture about unemployment.

    Mr. Kinnock : In the six months since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, unemployment– [Interruption.] I know that the Government do not want to hear about unemployment, but in the six months since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, unemployment in the United Kingdom has gone up by half a million. Is it not obvious that that is the true price of Majorism? It is a price not worth paying.

    The Prime Minister : In the six months since I became Prime Minister, the inflation rate has fallen from 10.9 to 6.4 per cent., interest rates have fallen from 15 to 11.5 per cent. and, as the right hon. Gentleman should know, unemployment in his constituency is 38 per cent. lower than it was at the last election.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Maureen Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mrs. Hicks : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under his leadership, the London economic summit will be an excellent opportunity to give impetus to the political and economic reforms of the Soviet Union?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with that proposition. Yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss the reforms in the Soviet Union with the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and an extremely useful and worthwhile discussion it was. He brought with him a message from President Gorbachev reaffirming his commitment to political and economic reform. I am pleased to be able to say that, after consulting the leaders of the other countries in the Group of Seven, I today invited President Gorbachev to London for discussions with the Group of Seven immediately following the London summit. I also invited him to stay on at the end of the London summit for bilateral discussions. I regret– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a very important matter.

    The Prime Minister : Most people would have thought it important, but apparently not Opposition Members.

    I propose to take the opportunity of discussing with President Gorbachev when he is here, all matters, including those of bilateral interest and the changes in the Soviet Union.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister recall telling us on Tuesday that he would speak his mind in future? Will he speak his mind today and tell us plainly, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury says that the Prime Minister is opposed– [Interruption.] When the right hon. Member for Cirencester– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. It was an understandable mistake.

    Mr. Ashdown : When the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) says that the Prime Minister is opposed not only to the imposition of a single European currency, but to the principle of a single European currency, is he correct?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) can speak for himself ; I have spoken for myself repeatedly on the subject. I have made it crystal clear to the House on a number of occasions that there is no question whatsoever of the imposition of a single currency on the House without the agreement of the House. That is, and remains, the position.

    Mr. Charles Wardle : As we move towards closer European co- operation, does my right hon. Friend agree that we all need to improve our skills in languages, perhaps even in double Dutch, so that we can translate the gibberish spoken on Europe by the Leader of the Opposition?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I have not heard any double Dutch–let us deal with the first part of the question.

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree that it would be advisable to improve skills in languages, which is something that I very much hope will happen among our young people. As to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, even if they were translated, I am not sure that they would be worth reading.

     

    Q3. Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Ross : Since the other major parties seem to agree that the United Kingdom ought to have a single currency and that there should be a federal Europe, does the Prime Minister agree that the Government have a responsibility to inform the citizens of this country of the consequences that would flow from that? Will the Government fulfil that responsibility and ensure that those issues form a major part of their manifesto–and of any referendum that might have to follow?

    The Prime Minister : I have spoken precisely about the impact of a single currency on this country on a number of occasions–not least when I set out our own plans for the hard ecu some months ago.

    Mr. David Martin : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, on his statement yesterday guaranteeing the rights of parents to see their children’s schools’ examination results? Does not that extend choice–which is at the heart of the Government’s reforms, but which is still hotly opposed by Labour?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly welcome that announcement, for parents have a right to know that information. In future, they will know it.

     

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

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

    Mr. McAllion : Since the Audit Commission reported this week that it costs the public purse £15 a time to collect an average amount of just £6 from those persons who are liable to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax, does the Prime Minister agree that, as well as oppressing the poor, the 20 per cent. rule is a waste of scarce public resources? Will he announce this afternoon that he intends to follow the commission’s advice and abolish the 20 per cent. contribution?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman produces only a partial comment from the Audit Commission. He neglects to mention that it supports strongly the Government’s aim of implementing the new council tax, which meets many of the objectives that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    Mr. Thornton : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government’s compulsory competitive tendering legislation is being completely ignored in Liverpool? Is he further aware that the council has admitted to lying about the figures, spending £1 million more on one contract alone than was necessary? That is not the work of Militant Tendency, but of the so-called moderate Labour party.

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure where the so-called moderate Labour party might be these days. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Councils should use competitive tendering to improve efficiency and to provide the best service to their council taxpayers. As Councillor Keva Coombs said, to some effect :

    “The council’s problems are not down to resources. It costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas.”

    That is Labour government in practice at local level.

     

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

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

    Mr. Illsley : Is the Prime Minister aware that the unemployment statistics released this morning include a number of pub licensees who have been forced out of their public houses, and possibly on to the dole, because they cannot afford the massive rent increases imposed on them by the brewing industry? Will the Prime Minister re-examine the Government’s policy towards the brewing industry and the sale of beer, to prevent the wholesale eviction of pub tenants?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know of the views of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and I have nothing further to add.

    Mr. Andy Stewart : It is six years since the coal industry dispute ended. Over that period, the miners of this country have broken their productivity record no fewer than 50 times, and their pay has increased 68 per cent.–making the miners of this country, as defined by the Labour party, super-rich. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate British miners on those achievements, and confirm that he will never, ever, tax their earnings at the rate of 59 per cent. as Labour proposes to do?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that point to my hon. Friend. I can also confirm for him that we do not regard the super-rich as starting on an income of around £20,000 per year as the Opposition do.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Nellist : Is the Prime Minister aware of the case that I took up two and a half months ago with the Secretary of State for Health of the death of Dr. Robin Senior who started work at Epsom district hospital on 1 February, worked 110 out of the next 138 hours and died on Thursday 7 February? Will the Prime Minister confirm that today’s wholly inadequate agreement on a 72-hour working week for junior doctors will not come in until 1997? How many more junior doctors have to die or suffer stress- related illnesses before that is brought down to a sane level?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman’s party is pledged to spend no more money on the health service, he is in no position to criticise what is in fact a considerable improvement both for patients and for doctors. As soon as practicable, junior doctors’ hours will be reduced to an average of 83 a week, or fewer by the end of 1994. Those working in the busiest areas will have a maximum on-call average of 72 hours a week. That is not the time that they actually work ; it is the time that they are on call. It is a substantial reduction and if the hon. Gentleman were not so mealy-mouthed he would welcome it.