Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 21 May.

    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.

     

    Antarctica

    Mr. Wallace : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), Official Report, of 10 May, column 604, whether Her Majesty’s Government now intend to pursue the objective of creating an international wilderness reserve in Antarctica.

    The Prime Minister : The Government have welcomed the draft text from the Madrid meeting. Article I of the draft protocol would designate Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science. We support that designation.

     

    General Pinochet

    Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister how much official expenditure has been incurred in connection with General Pinochet’s visit to the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : The visit to this country by General Pinochet was a private visit. No additional official expenditure was incurred.

     

    Kill the Messenger

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will acquire for the library at No. 10 Downing street a copy of Sir Bernard Ingham’s “Kill the Messenger”.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 May 1991] : Sir Bernard has already sent a copy of his book to my office.

  • PMQT – 21 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McFall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

    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. McFall : “It ain’t working, but it’s really hurting” is what one of my constituents told me in Dumbarton High Street last Saturday. After a lifetime of work, at the age of 54 he now finds himself made redundant. When I next meet my constituent, can I tell him that the Prime Minister echoes the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that my constituent’s tragedy and that of the hundreds of thousands who will surely follow in the coming months is a price well worth paying, or will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to add substance to his new caring image by dissociating himself completely from the Chancellor’s remarks?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has no monopoly of concern about unemployment. It is shared by every Conservative Member as well. It is precisely because we care about the impact of unemployment that we are determined to remove its cause–which, predominantly, is inflation–and we are now making substantial progress with that. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about unemployment–I return to the point that the Opposition have ducked on every occasion–may I say that the minimum wage proposal will put many people out of work.

     

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

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

    Mr. Ashby : In view of the recent spate of horrific incidents involving certain breeds of dogs, do the Government intend doing anything about that and, if so, what?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone will have been shaken by the attacks during the past few weeks, particularly the horrific attack on Rucksana Khan at the weekend. I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and we are persuaded that urgent action must be taken. From midnight tonight, the import of dogs bred for fighting, such as the American pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa, will be banned. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will wish to make a statement to the House tomorrow setting out further action to deal with the problem. But it is clear that such dogs have no place in our homes.

    Mr. Kinnock : I strongly support what the Prime Minister just said about fighting dogs.

    If, as the Prime Minister insists, hospital trusts are not outside the national health service, why does he refuse to allow people to have a vote on the future of their local hospital?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support on the subject of dogs. It if comes to legislation, which it may well do after my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s statement tomorrow, I hope that his support will hold good. It is a matter that the whole country will be keen to see brought to a conclusion at an early stage.

    On the subject of the health reforms, the right hon. Gentleman is aware, for he has clearly heard what has been said by many people in the health service in recent days, that he was wrong about health care outside the national health service. [Interruption.] Health trusts are outside the bureaucracy of much of the national health service, but they remain within the national health service. They will treat NHS patients. That is the position now and it will remain the position in the future.

    Mr. Kinnock : What we are hearing, Mr. Speaker, is the hysteria of defeat. The Prime Minister does not appear to understand his own legislation. The trusts are not owned by the national health service. They can buy and sell, hire and fire and make contract deals without regard to the national health service. They are not part of a national health service. [Interruption.] That is the big truth and the Prime Minister should face it.

    The Prime Minister : There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear because they know they have been wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has now been told by sufficient people who are professionals in the national health service that trusts are part of the national health service. If he is not prepared to correct the mischief that he and his party enunciated last week, that is a matter for them, but the whole country knows that he is wrong and that trusts are part of the national health service.

    Mr. Kinnock : On the subject of listening, the Prime Minister should hear what was said in Monmouth last Thursday. The people of Monmouth spoke. The right hon. Gentleman and his party were beaten fair and square, so why does he not listen to them and stop the second wave?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman and his candidate won the Monmouth by-election, and I congratulate the candidate on so doing, but I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the accuracy of the campaign that was run on that occasion. The Monmouth literature was deceptive and untruthful, because

    “self-governing hospitals continue to fulfil the crucial criterion of being a part of the NHS : they provide, free of charge, health care that is funded by the taxpayer’s contributions. What they have opted out of is the central bureaucracy of the NHS”.

    Those are not my words ; they are the words in a leading article in The Independent. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is true.

    Mr. Amery : My right hon. Friend will have noted that the dictator of Ethiopia appears to have left the country. Will he seize the initiative now and instruct our representative there to make immediate contact with the successor Administration to find out how we can help to lead the country towards democracy? Britain liberated Ethiopia from the Italians in the second world war. We now have a chance to lead the country towards democracy.

    The Prime Minister : President Mengistu’s resignation this morning is welcome. We hope that it will facilitate the peace process and enhance donors’ ability to help those in need in Ethiopia–a matter of considerable importance to us all. I urge both the Government and the opposition movements to take this opportunity to negotiate a lasting settlement of their differences and, above all, to put an end to the civil war from which Ethiopia has suffered for too long. We shall do what we can to help to bring that about.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Beith : Does the motion about Europe signed by 105 of the Prime Minister’s colleagues represent Government policy? The Prime Minister has often repeated the assertion that not this Parliament but a future Parliament must decide whether we should adopt a single currency. Is that assertion based on the belief that a future Parliament would contain more people who hold our view that Britain should take the lead in the development of Europe and its currency and fewer of the type of people who signed the motion?

    The Prime Minister : We are increasingly taking the lead in the European Community. That will become more and more evident as month succeeds month. Discussion in the two intergovernmental conferences is still at an early stage and negotiations will continue throughout the rest of this year. The Luxembourg paper that is identified in the early-day motion is but one part of that negotiation. The early-day motion rightly identifies elements in the paper that need to be changed, and will be changed, before the negotiation is complete.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hannam : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the health service reforms are already working well– [Interruption.] –and gaining the support of most hospital staff throughout the country? Is he aware that this year Exeter health authority will purchase some 200 hip and knee operations from the London hospitals? That will reduce waiting lists and help the London hospitals. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend continue to champion the rights of the patients, in contrast to the Labour party, which champions bureaucracy and the trade unions?

    The Prime Minister : Indeed, I will, for that is the basis of the reforms. I welcome the example provided by my hon. Friend of a health authority using the opportunity of the reforms to secure better and, in many cases, speedier treatment for patients in the local area. Similar improvements are evident in many parts of the country for those who wish to look and see.

    Mr. Jim Marshall : May I take the Prime Minister’s mind back to his meetings with Ulster Unionist leaders last week? [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members should listen. Will the Prime Minister confirm that there has been no change in the basis of the discussions between the constitutional parties in the Province as a consequence of his meeting with those two Ulster Unionist leaders?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that there has been no change in the nature of the discussions. As we speak, there has been no session of the talks yet. Discussions are continuing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the hope that the talks can soon begin. For the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that all concerned will speedily find a basis on which the talks can go ahead.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the polytechnics were given control of their own affairs– [Interruption.] –they have recruited a further 36,000 students? Now that colleges of further education have been given the same freedom, what does my right hon. Friend think will be the result?

    The Prime Minister : From what I could hear of my hon. Friend’s question over the hubbub, I think that he was commending the way in which the polytechnics have flourished since they were given their independence. That is certainly the case. Any director of a polytechnic will confirm that to anyone who seeks the information.

    Miss Lestor : Referring to what the Prime Minister said about the economic consequences of the minimum wage, we do not have a minimum wage in Eccles or, indeed, anywhere else, yet unemployment increased in Eccles by 100 between last month and this month. Can the Prime Minister explain why that is happening?

    The Prime Minister : I suggest that the hon. Lady reads the Fabian pamphlet, which is about to be published, which lists a substantial number of jobs that would be lost if a minimum wage were introduced. There is no way in which the hon. Lady can get away by wriggling. The minimum wage proposals will cost jobs and it is Labour party policy to destroy those jobs.

     

    Q6. Mr. David Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Amess : My constituents in Basildon–indeed, people throughout the country–would be grateful if my right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government, in their spending plans, are able to distinguish between overriding priorities, key priorities, top priorities and urgent priorities. Opposition Members certainly cannot. [Laughter.]

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a point that is so telling that it has even caught the imagination of the Opposition. Our priorities are indeed clear, but that is certainly not the case with the Labour party. Labour’s campaign co-ordinator has said that education is a first priority ; the overseas aid spokesman has said that aid is a top priority ; the shadow Chancellor has said that manufacturing industry is a key priority ; and just this morning it happened again. Asked for Labour’s plan about “Son of the GLC”, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, “It’s a first- term commitment.” [Interruption.] I shall wait until Opposition Members are silent.

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : I am prepared to wait until the Opposition listen. The reality is that their programme does not add up. It never has, and it never will. It all points towards higher taxation, and that is what we should get.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Annual CBI Dinner – 21 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Annual Dinner of the CBI, held at Grosvenor House in London on Tuesday 21st May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well Brian, My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I think I just heard a new version of confidence and optimism in the suggestion that I am going to tell you what the election date is. I do know it has been a subject of very considerable speculation as to when the election will be. All I can say to you is anybody who knows me well would think it is most unlikely it is going to be during the middle of the England/ West Indies test series. And even more unlikely that it is going to be straight down the middle of my son’s GCSE examinations. I don’t know how we will do in the test series, and to be strictly fair, I don’t know how he will do in his GCSE examinations. But I have given him one piece of advice. However he does, I told him, “don’t ever forget how you did, because you never know, thirty years on, how important it might be, to some people.” Brian, thank you very much indeed for inviting me to join you for a second successive evening.

    I was your guest here last year, and on that occasion, Roland Smith, who is hiding here somewhere in his usual anonymous way, sent up to the top table a Manchester United scarf, I can’t think why he did that. He sent up nothing this year, I suppose they haven’t been doing too well lately. Brian, this evening I want to look at a series of themes of concern, I believe, to all of us and to look forward to the opportunities opening up for Britain as we approach the millennium. And with that in mind, for it is a very remarkable period we have ahead of us, I want firstly to congratulate the CBI on publishing a ‘New Agenda for the 1990s’: an agenda which focuses quite directly quite specifically on the challenges and the opportunities, that lie ahead. And rightly it looks at not only those opportunities, but also back at the very remarkable transformation in industry during the last decade.

    Ten years ago, the CBI gave an earlier lead. They published an Agenda for the 1980s entitled ‘The Will to Win’ and that document was one of the first signs that after the 1970s, and all the difficulties of that period, enterprise was coming to life again. And now, industry must look forward once again, raise its sights as it looks towards the year 2000, plan for it, prepare for it and in doing so remember also the lessons of the past.

    In his foreword to that Agenda, your President concludes and I quote “British business has not only shown the will to win but the ability to do so in some of the toughest markets there are”. He is right about that. And my first message to you this evening is a simple one and a clear one. Never under sell what you and British business have achieved over the last decade. Now that same document also warns that the United Kingdom must not reverse the changes we have seen in that decade nor forget what the situation was like in the late 1970s. And that is a critical message. How easy and comforting it might be to forget but how dangerous it would be. In the late 1970s, wealth was being destroyed not created as the CBI itself said failure was almost expected, success was a surprise. Industrial profitability collapsed, productivity stagnated, Britain’s share of world markets contracted, inflation escalated to a peak four times as high as the levels we are experiencing today, and spend-thrift Government was borrowing up to 10 per cent of our national income. We must never return to the policies which created those problems.

    But in the 1980s we began to regain ground. Productivity was transformed. In manufacturing, often looked down on by some, in manufacturing it grew faster than in any other large economy and output in manufacturing rose to record levels. Profitability recovered and recovered spectacularly. After years of decline, our share of world markets is holding firm, our manufacturing exports increased by nearly 60 per cent over the decade and our car production for export almost doubled over the last year.

    Now those are remarkable and successful improvements. But I understand very clearly that right now industry is facing difficulties as we bring inflation down. I know that times are tough and I am very well aware of the problems confronting many of you. But I do believe that we must keep those current problems in perspective. Your President has called them temporary difficulties. He is right. It is a British characteristic, endearing perhaps but often damaging, to accentuate the negative and overlook the positive. But we should not lose sight of the gains that you have made in the recent years. For I believe that they are fundamental and that means that we will soon be in a position to build on past successes once again, and we also need to bear in mind that in no sense are we alone.

    Growth is still slowing in Europe and in North America. Unemployment is rising there too, indeed unemployment is far higher in France, Italy, Canada and Australia, than it is in this country. And yet however international and temporary the current problems, I understand very well that is no consolation for those who lose their jobs or for the companies which are facing financial crisis. And it is for that reason that I am absolutely determined that the defeat of inflation must remain our top priority. Never again, never again must our economy have to face the painful but necessary retrenchment of the last few months. This Government’s policies are clear. We must concentrate on getting the economy right. We must conquer inflation and we must have minimum interference in industry.

    We have already removed huge burdens from industry. A whole mass of restrictive administrative red tape that tied up your employees and your business and we haven’t finished with those changes. Our deregulation initiative will continue to pursue ideas for removing more burdens from industry whether imposed at home or from Europe we will seek to have them removed where ever we can.

    We have cut corporate taxation and then cut it again and again. The main rate of corporation tax is now lower than the special rate for small businesses when this government took office and with the Chancellor’s further cuts announced in the Budget, we will have the lowest corporation tax levied by any of our major competitors.

    But we know one thing very well. We know Governments can’t run businesses as well as private enterprise can. And that is why we privatised no fewer than 44 large businesses no less than two thirds of the nationalised sector that we inherited in 1979. And in doing so, we have turned a national burden into a industrial success and brought in 28 billion pounds for the tax payer as well. And nor have we finished in that regard. We will return more nationalised industries to the private sector, including British Rail and British Coal. And we will open up more national and local Government activities to private sector skills.

    To provide a stable framework for enterprise in an unstable world involves difficult economic judgements. But no Government can hope to get those right unless its objectives are clear. Our economic objectives are clear – to drive down the rate of inflation; to reward success and enterprise by cutting and simplifying taxation on individuals and on companies; to open up markets for businesses at home and abroad; and to restrain government and make it more efficient and more sensitive to the individual citizen. Of these, of course, the reduction of inflation is the most important, and it is down – coming down. Last Friday, we saw spectacular evidence of this. The annual rate of increase in the Retail Price Index, that headlined figure of such importance in our national inflation psychology, plunged nearly 2 full percentage points to 6.4 per cent. It was the biggest monthly fall that we have seen in a decade. The rate of inflation is now 4.5 percentage points below last Autumn’s peak. Of course, that is still not good enough and not for a second would I pretend that it was. We expect to see inflation fall and fall again. We expect to see it fall to 4 per cent by the end of this year. Underlying measures of inflation are inevitably falling more gradually, but make no mistake about it, on any sensible measure, inflation is now coming down and will continue to come down. So we are winning this most crucial battle. And our forecasts point to a welcome resumption of growth in the second half of this year. It will not be dramatic or sudden but it will be secure and it will be well-based.

    The task for business in this climate is to prepare for this recovery ahead. And the task for government is to assist the recovery by maintaining the stable policy framework that we have now put in place. I believe that this framework offers a robust defence against the inflationary surges we have suffered in the past. Against a return to the miseries of the 1970s, and even against the lesser resurgence of inflation that we have experienced in the late 1980s. Inflation peaked last year at less than half the excesses of the 1970s, and yet despite that, it has proved painful to correct and we must now ensure that it never recurs.

    Our new policy framework allows for the domestic management and monetary policy within the external discipline of the exchange rate mechanism. That is a discipline on both Government and on industry, sometimes tough but necessary. And it is a discipline that delivers the two most precious requirements for industry, low inflation and stable exchange rates. Already we are seeing the benefits of joining the exchange rate mechanism. Renewed international confidence in Britain’s economic strategy. A confidence that has enabled us to cut interest rates by 3 full percentage points without de-stabilising the pound. And others predicted, you recall, that we would have to devalue within the mechanism if we were to cut rates. They were wrong and we can now see that they were wrong.

    We have stability against the currencies of our European trading partners at a time when the dollar has oscillated widely. And there is widespread confidence that within the exchange rate mechanism framework, we will see further falls in inflation throughout the year, and that interest rates can and will fall further too. I share the confidence in that judgement.

    Exchange rate mechanism membership has made explicit our need to compete. Industry must break free of the bad old habits of paying itself, on the shop floor and in the board room, a level of salary and money that it cannot hope to earn.

    The retail price index is no longer sending dangerous misleading signals to wage negotiators and I welcome very much indeed the signs that pay settlements are now coming down. The faster they do the clear the evidence that inflation is coming under control and the sooner recovery can begin and bring new jobs to our economy.

    There should be no such thing as automatic pay increases. Pay must be linked to performance and to productivity. It is a principle that helps incentives, it involves employees in their business and it is also a principle which I wish to see being applied increasingly throughout the public sector as well as in the private sector.

    And nor must productivity gains simply be swallowed up by pay rises. Each business has the responsibility to decide for itself what margin must be left to help profits, to sustain investment, to generate future growth. And it must also decide what level of wages it can afford to pay its own employees. No-one else can make that decision for a business and by contrast, any proposal from whatever source it may come, any proposal to impose a minimum wage will dramatically drive up industrial costs and massively increased unemployment.

    Any attempt to link the lowest wage to the average would set off a pay spiral that would destroy jobs and cripple industry’s ability to create incentives and raise productivity.

    I believe such policies would be an industrial and economic tragedy for this country, if they were ever to be implemented and we must ensure that they never are.

    Precisely those same principles underlie our policies for training. We prefer incentives to intervention, and choice to compulsion. As I am sure you will know, yesterday, I helped to launch three White Papers which will, I believe, come to be seen as a turning point in the history of education and training in Britain and I am very pleased to pay tribute to Ken Clarke who is here this evening and Michael Howard who I think is not here, for the enormous work and innovation that they put in to ensuring that those White Papers were produced in, the form that we were able to publish them yesterday.

    And tonight I want to make it clear that at the earliest possible opportunity we will be giving legislative force to those proposals. An education bill to start the process will, therefore, be at the heart of our legislative programme. And along with those elements of those reforms which are already underway, such as the introduction of the national curriculum, the creation of grant-maintained schools and in the training field, the piloting of a new system of credits for school-leavers. The effects of these reforms will be truly revolutionary. I believe that they represent nothing less, nothing less than the most radical reforms since the great Butler Education Act of 1944.

    And that parallel is apt. It’s apt because one of our aims is to meet a great but unfulfilled objective of that particular Butler Act. And that objective is this we are determined to improve the quality of vocational education and the esteem in which it is held. That is an ideal that has never fully been realised in post-war Britain.

    But our ambitions go wider, they are to provide new links between the school room, the college, and the world at work. We have deliberately put forward our proposals for education and training together, precisely because we see them as being complementary, and they will, in consequence, extend choice and provide new opportunities for many more young people than ever before.

    And at the heart of these reforms, is our determination to break down the artificial barriers between academic and vocational education, between blue collar worker, and white collar worker between pin stripes and overalls. Such divisions are wrong, they are outdated, they are wrong. Wrong for industry, wrong for our economy, and utterly wrong for our future. These measure we have brought forward sound the death-knell for those divisions.

    At present, we have too many young people without the skills or motivation to get off to a good start in their working life. Time was, when school leavers took up an apprenticeship. Over a period of years they required a recognised trade and that was their training for a life-time of employment. That was fine, of course, if their employment lasted a life time. But tomorrow’s employees will be different, those youngsters leaving school today will face a different world and a different environment. They may have to train, then retrain, then retrain, and then perhaps retrain again and again during their working life, if they are to keep up with the skill and speed with which skills and innovation moves in the modern world. And all that means, a different approach to training. And that’s why are embarking on a programme designed to give more choice and more training to young people leaving school; to provide greater training flexibility for young and old; to maintain standards of academic education, while bringing up vocational standards; and to end the barrier between polytechnic and university.

    I know that this audience will welcome that. The CBI has played a vital part in helping to launch the skills revolution in Britain. Your President has a strong interest in education. I am happy this evening to be able to pay tribute to his work as Chairman of the Trustees of Education 2000.

    It is employers, you, employers, who now take on the lead role in the Training and Enterprise Councils. I know looking round the room amongst those who I have met before, that many of you here tonight are involved in the detailed decisions involved in public expenditure of 2.7 billion pounds a year on training, enterprise and vocational education. And now we are planning more – much more for the future.

    We announced yesterday that we would make training credits available to 16 and 17 year old school-leavers. This ambitious programme will be based on one essential principle, to create opportunity through choice, that is the principle underlying training credits.

    Choice for young people to buy the training they need.

    Choice for employers to provide workplace training.

    Choice, locally, within the TEC’s, to set the right training priorities for the needs of business in each area.

    And we will use that power of choice in the market to deliver opportunity for the workforce of the 21st century. And the whole country will gain as a result of that policy.

    And I believe it will gain too from another policy, from the proposals we will bring forward in our Citizens’ Charter. This is no gimmick, this charter, it will have teeth, it will bite, it will change the way in which public services are delivered and in which the consumers of public services have redress against the quality of those public services. And I will tell you why it will do these things, and what our ambition is for it. I want to make the public sector more responsive to the needs of the public, more responsive by defining standards of service and putting in place mechanisms to ensure that they are met.

    I want to bring business skills into the public service, through competitive tendering for the provision of services, contracting out, privatising and market-testing those activities best supplied by private enterprise.

    I want to introduce new performance incentives for public sector employees. But there is a counterpoint to that. There must also be penalties for poor performance in the public sector as well.

    I want to give greater authority and independence to those who monitor, audit and inspect public services.

    And I want to examine way of providing effective redress to those who suffer, when standards slip.

    Those are the principles of the Citizen’s Charter that we will introduce in a White Paper before the summer recess. We are, of course, already applying many of these principles. I have spoken earlier of the momentum of our privatisation programme. We are encouraging more contracting out of public service provision – and enjoying the benefits that it provides. In Westminster, those benefits are clear. They already contract-out printing, office cleaning, leisure centres, refuse collection, street cleaning and catering. What Westminster has done, others should do. And I hope will do, in the future.

    And there is a further point. The opportunity to tender for local services has encouraged the growth of successful small businesses right around the country. But it is where the market cannot reach that we need to be most vigilant in setting standards.

    Where services remain in the public sector, they must offer the same standards of courteous and efficient service that the best private sector companies provide. The Citizens’ Charter aims to ensure that is what they do.

    But I am aware, Mr President, that it is not only officialdom that needs to listen and to respond; Government must do so too.

    A fortnight ago, the Department of Trade and Industry set out, as one of its formal objectives, its requirement to listen to the concerns of business and consumers – and see that these are genuinely taken into account in the development of government policies. I would like to take this opportunity to endorse that new role for the department.

    Communication between government and industry will grow in importance as we approach the conclusion of Europe’s single market programme. The deadline of January 1 1993 is fast approaching. And there is much still to do. The single market will not exist until all its measure have been introduced, then implemented and then enforced in every country in the Community. And I emphasise the implemented and enforced. We must ensure that Community legislation is not approved but then ignored in countries throughout the Community. In this country, we put into effect the legislation to which we have committed ourselves. Let me say this evening, we expect no less from every country throughout the Community.

    Mr President, the Single Market will be an example of the benefits that can come from removing unnecessary regulation. The same must apply to what is called the “Social dimension” of the Community. We will continue to make clear to Brussels the dangers involved in ill-considered regulation. Employment and prosperity flow from free markets, not from bureaucracy and imposed uniformity.

    I have made clear on a number of occasions my absolute determination to place this country at the very heart of the European Community. And business, I know, has an unparalleled determination to compete with Europe’s best and to win in that competition, both in the Community and beyond the Community. And that is why our struggle against inflation is not just a matter of short-term economic tactics but a matter of priceless importance and of long-term strategy.

    Inflation is a distortion. Inflation is a handicap we cannot afford in the 1990s. If we have it and others don’t, we lose our markets our prospects and our prosperity. That is what is at stake as we battle to get inflation down to a very low level, at least as low as elsewhere in the Community. So we must reduce inflation to the point where it plays no part in people’s decision-making, no part in where or when they invest, how they plan for the future, with whom they have the confidence to compete in business, we cannot be satisfied with anything less than that.

    In recent months, we have brought our inflation rate down closer to the European average. But we must go further, and find for ourselves a place amongst Europe’s best. Then we will be well-placed to fight for free markets and firm counter-inflationary disciplines in the year ahead.

    Your President has rightly called this decade, the decade of Europe – one of opportunity and challenge. Both Government and industry have the chance to set themselves on a course that will yield the benefits of stability, growth and prosperity.

    I have every confidence, every confidence in industry’s ability to rise to that challenge – to plan, to invest, to succeed. That is what you are about as businessmen. That is what we expect you to do; that is what we know that with the right environment you can do and you have done in the past. That is what we invite you to do in the future. Mr President, I cannot overestimate the importance of the success that is necessary for business in this country upon your success as businessmen and as businesses, upon your success rest our country’s prospects for the future. I hope you appreciate, as I am sure that you do, how crucially important that is. So is it my pleasure and privilege tonight, Mr President, to propose tonight’s toast to British business. I propose a toast willingly and with fervour, I propose a toast in the belief that we have the best business disciplines in the world and that with the right economic climate we can capitalise upon those disciplines and storm markets in every part of the world. So my toast tonight is to British business and I will invite you to rise and drink that toast, a toast to British business, may it prosper and profit in the years ahead.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Monetary Union

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards the recent proposals by the President of the European Commission for a delayed consideration of entry into European monetary union.

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House on 24 January, we cannot accept any changes to the treaty of Rome that would bind us to move to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. The suggestion made at the informal ECOFIN on 12 May is a step in the right direction. But there remain many issues to be discussed in the economic and monetary union intergovernmental conference before a final agreement can be reached.

     

    International Arms Transfers

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek a debate on the United Nations on the United Nations Publication, “Topical Paper 3– Transparency in International Arms Transfers”.

    The Prime Minister : We are in favour of greater transparency in international arms transfers. On 8 April I proposed the establishment of a United Nations register of arms sales. We are discussing this with members of the Security Council, the Twelve and others. We fully expect it to be the subject of debate at the next general assembly.

     

    Special Forces

    Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if it has now become the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to reveal details of the operations of United Kingdom special forces.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 17 May 1991 at column 281.

  • Mr Major’s Remarks on the Education and Training White Paper – 20 May 1991

    Below are Mr Major’s introductory remarks at the launch of the Education and Training White Paper on 20th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    You will all have a copy of my formal statement in your press packs – so I do not intend to read it all out.

    But what I would like to do before we take your questions is to say a few words about why I believe these reforms are so important and why I wanted to be here myself to help launch them.

    I remember very well what it was like to be 16 and to believe that school had nothing to offer. To think that exams didn’t matter that much. To convince yourself that school was a bit of a waste of time. I left at the first opportunity. Of course, it wasn’t long before I realised that qualifications did matter. But to get them, I had to start again. I had to do correspondence courses. It was a slog, and I only did it because I had to retrieve what I had lost.

    What still happens all too often is that young people bale out of school at 16. If they aren’t lucky enough or determined enough, they don’t have another go. That means two things: first of all, they don’t have the sense of achievement – or the better paid job – that they could have. And second, the country as a whole does not have the skilled and motivated workforce it needs.

    So what we have to do is break down the artificial barrier which has for too long divided an academic education from a vocational one, the blue collar worker from the white collar one. We are going to streamline our system of vocational qualifications and raise the esteem in which they are held. At the higher education level, our theme is the same. The polytechnics have come of age, and the dividing line which still exists between them and universities will be ended.

    The reason I welcome these reforms is that they offer young people the opportunities and choices that I did not have. We have already succeeded in attracting more young people into further and higher education and more into good quality training than ever before. But now we are moving a stage further. We are pressing ahead with a package of far-reaching reforms which will help many more young people and adults to make the most of the talents they were born with, and will equip them with the skills which they and employers need.

    People develop at different speeds and in different ways, and our system of education and training has to reflect that. I don’t want to see young people being forced to fit in with the system. I want the system to fit in with them. What’s more I don’t want to see them being forced out to a particular training programme, and I don’t want to see employers being forced to provide training. The right way is to work with the grain, giving people the chance to choose for themselves. That’s why we are introducing a new system of training credits so that young school leavers will be able to buy the training they want from the provider they want.

    These White Papers bring more opportunities. They bring better opportunities too. I believe in levelling up, not levelling down. I want higher standards across the board. I want vocational qualifications to mean something, and I want academic qualifications to mean something. A Levels are – and will remain – the benchmark of excellence. I want young people to be stretched – because it is when they are stretched that they give of their best. That is what these reforms will do.

    This is a very good day for young people. It is a good day for their parents. And it is a good day for employers. I believe that these White Papers will come to be seen as a turning point in the history of education and training in Britain. They will extend choice and provide new opportunities to many more people than ever before. They will encourage excellence. They will help build up the skilled and motivated workforce that employers need. They will bring the schoolroom and the world of work closer together. They will improve the quality of the careers advice that young people receive. They will give each and every young person the chance to develop to the best of his or her ability. They will, in short, give us the key to success.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on the National Health Service – 18 May 1991

    Below are extracts from Mr Major’s speech at the Stamford and Spalding constituency dinner, held on Saturday 18th May 1991.


    THE PRIME MINISTER:

    I strongly believe in the National Health Service. It serves me and my family well. This Government will strengthen the NHS and ensure that more money goes into patient care.

    Only one ‘attack’ on the NHS is being made in British politics. It comes from Labour. Their disgraceful and unprincipled assault is sapping the morale of NHS staff, insulting their work, and cynically exploiting and alarming the sick. Scaring not caring. That’s the Labour policy.
    Labour’s campaign is based on a central lie – that NHS Trust hospitals are ‘opting out’ of the NHS. That was the Big Lie Labour peddled to the voters of Monmouth. Neil Kinnock has repeated the lie.

    It is a complete untruth. NHS Trust hospitals are and will remain part of the NHS. They will be run by NHS staff and will treat NHS patients just as they have done before – only better. Because they will be locally run, they will be better run. Trust hospitals are the flagship of the NHS. Their mission is to put patients first.

    Apparently Labour are against this.

    The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts issued a statement yesterday explaining that Trusts are not opting-out of the NHS. NAHAT says – and I quote – ‘they are as much a part of the NHS as they ever were’. In the light of that statement, I challenge Neil Kinnock to withdraw his lie.

    But it seems Labour prefer lies and innuendo to the truth. First, they say the NHS Trusts are not part of the NHS. Then Robin Cook raises the spectre of charging by saying that Trusts will put profits before patients.

    Every week the NHS received over £630 million; every week it provides well over a million patient treatments. Only Labour would be so malignant as to ignore over 150,000 stories of care successfully provided every day, and highlight the few things that will inevitably go wrong in a Service on this scale. And then oppose all our efforts to put them right. Labour ignore the fact that in a Southend Trust hospital, for example, there will be 1,500 more operations this year and 3,000 more the next.

    Labour may see party political advantage in putting the boot into one of Britain’s greatest national assets. They may be able to deceive people for a time – but not for long. For to my mind, actions speak louder than words. The last Labour Government damaged the Health Service – just as it is damaging it now. They allowed nurses’ pay to fall in value by over a fifth. They slashed the hospital building programme. They only delivered annual growth in resources of 1.5 per cent – under half the 3.1 per cent a year this Government has achieved since 1979.

    Since 1979 Labour have backed strikes against patients. They criticised plans for a Review Body that has helped raise the value of nurses’ pay by almost a half. And lined up with the BMA to oppose our selected list in drug prescribing, which took resources away from the boardrooms of pharmaceutical companies in Basle and put them into surgeries in Britain.

    It is Labour which has always been the Party of ‘cuts’. Now they promise to be the Party of cuts in the future. Their own Leader has told us they would spend less than the Conservatives. On the figures for spending increases proposed by Mr Kinnock they would have been able to treat 500,000 fewer patients than our £3.5 billion increase will allow this year. They would add to the costs of the NHS by abolishing charges for the better off. Turn over control of Health Authorities to the self-same Labour politicians who have disgraced the name of local government. And sell out to the big trade unions by scrapping competitive tendering and ending the drive for efficiency that has delivered hundreds of millions of pounds to NHS patients in recent years. Providers before patients. That, too, is Labour’s policy.

    Labour’s performance and promises condemn them. We stand on our record. Under this Government more patients have been treated than ever before in NHS history. Not least because there are over 50,000 more nurses, 4,000 more dentists, and over 4,500 more GPs than there were in 1979.

    The present reforms will carry forward that revolution in the scale and quality of patient care. They will allow more local decisions and let family doctors decide the pattern of care that is best for patients. Crucially they will lead resources and patients into the places where services are promptest and best. And they will produce clear contracts of service, which, in line with our Citizens’ Charter initiative, will ensure that the Health Service commits itself to the highest standards everywhere.

    Patients are entitled to less forbidding waiting rooms and better visiting hours for families. They should have proper notice of a hospital appointment. They deserve clear information about what is going to happen to them and when.

    Those campaigning against our Health reforms should be challenged to justify their opposition to a better deal for patients in matters like these.

    No one can deny that resources could be spent better. It cannot be right that the average cost of an ear, nose and throat in-patient treatment can vary by as much as 4 times in different parts of the Service, or that the same operation can cost many tens of times more in one hospital than in another. It cannot be right that in one District no patient will wait more than a year for non-urgent general surgery, while in another more than half may have to do so. Nor that all orthopaedic patients in one District receive their treatment in the first year, while in another more than two-thirds have to wait twelve months or more.

    Our Health reforms are tackling these problems. And I say this, simply and clearly, to those in the BMA and elsewhere who are campaigning against them. We will not alter policies that are in the interests of patients. We will see these reforms through. We will always be ready to listen to constructive proposals as to how our reforms might be made to work better. But I do not – and will not – respond to destructive campaigns based on selective anecdote, one-sided presentation of statistics or trade union style resistance to all change.

    The NHS has complete support from this Government. It is time Labour called a halt to their shabby and shameful political campaign. The real crisis of confidence in the NHS comes not from alleged ‘underfunding’ by a Government that has committed record resources to health care, but from the tactics of its so-called Labour friends, determined to see that NHS achievements are undercut, undermined and undersold.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Forces

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make it his policy to answer questions relating to special forces.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Education and Training

    Mr. Straw : To ask the Prime Minister when the promised White Paper on 16 to 19-year-olds’ education and training will be published; and which Department is taking the lead on this.

    The Prime Minister : The White Paper on education and training will be published shortly. It is being produced jointly by my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. A White Paper on education and training in Scotland will also be published shortly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

     

    Olympic Games

    Sir Neil Macfarlane : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet representatives of the British Olympic Association and the Manchester Olympic Committee.

    The Prime Minister : It is for my hon. Friend the Minister of Sport to discuss with those concerned how best the Government can help to promote Manchester’s bid for the 2000 Olympic games. The Government wish Manchester every success.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 May 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Services (“Customers”)

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister what instructions or requests have been made by him or any Government Department to any office, agency, or publicly owned service or authority to use the word customers in respect of users of public services; and if he will make a statement on his policy on the use of this word in respect of British Railways, London Transport, the Benefits Agency, and schools.

    The Prime Minister : No such instructions have been issued.

     

    Next Steps Agencies

    Mr. Higgins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the study by Sir Angus Fraser of the relationship between Government Departments and the “next steps” agencies.

    The Prime Minister : Since my predecessor’s announcement of the “next steps” initiative on 18 February 1988, 50 agencies have been set up, and nearly half of all civil servants will soon be operating under “next steps” principles. This is already leading to the real improvements in the quality of service to the public and better value for money which the changes are designed to secure.

    In the light of these developments Sir Angus Fraser was asked to examine the relationship between Departments and agencies and how Departments should be adapting their structure, size and methods of working. In his report to me, Sir Angus records the general agreement that “next steps” is going well. There is genuine enthusiasm and energy throughout the civil service for the changes that are taking place, with fresh ideas and increased commitment to improving value for money and quality of service, for the benefit both of the customer and the taxpayer. Running alongside this is a strong conviction that there is scope for more progress.

    The report contains a number of ideas for developing the roles of both Departments and agencies in support of Ministers. The objective is that both sides of the relationship between Ministers and chief executives– which lies at the heart of “next steps”–should be strengthened.

    For their part, Departments must provide well-informed and authoritative support to Ministers in order that Ministers can give agencies clear strategic direction firmly related to the Government’s policy objectives; determine the financial resources to be made available : select and set suitably robust and meaningful targets covering quality of service, financial performance and efficiency; and call chief executives to account for the performance. This means strategic advice and direction, geared to the relationship between each Minister and agency, not day-to-day involvement. As a result, the number of people at the centres of Departments can be reduced. On the other side, chief executives will need increased personal responsibility and authority for running their organisations in order to achieve the progressive improvements in performance, quality of service and value for money that are required. The Government believe that agencies’ delegations and flexibilities can be enlarged as their track record of performance is established, provided that essential controls on public expenditure are not jeopardised.

    It is on the basis of these principles that I have asked the head of the home civil service to set in train arrangements to ensure that the ideas in this report are taken forward in each Department and agency in ways which fit each particular activity. The next steps project manager has been instructed to work with the Treasury and Departments to achieve this, reporting to me through the head of the home civil service. I look forward to seeing further improvements in the management of the civil service resulting from this process. I am grateful to Sir Angus Fraser and his team for their report. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House and is being published by HMSO today.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

    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 be having further meetings later today.

  • PMQT – 16 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

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

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s unemployment figures prove conclusively that the Conservative party has one economic policy only–that of mass unemployment? Is it true that the Government intend to introduce some form of compulsory work scheme to reduce the numbers of jobless people in this country, or will he be following the example of his predecessor by adding to the 30 or so fiddles in the calculation of the number of unemployed? Or will he– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member is taking a great deal of time from his colleagues.

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Or will the Prime Minister do what is in the best interests of his country, by resigning and making way for a Labour Government with a genuine strategy on jobs and industry?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is being both silly and graceless. I am as concerned about unemployment as the hon. Gentleman is, and it is precisely for that reason that I propose to continue with the policies to get inflation down, to ensure that there is a stable basis for the creation of jobs. There are a million extra jobs today than there were when the Conservative Government came to power and, in so far as making way for a Labour Government is concerned, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has said, because of Labour policy on the minimum wage people will lose their jobs.

    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg : Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that it is not part of his policy to increase taxation on earnings, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who proposes to increase tax on earnings for one in 15 people, the shadow Chancellor who intends to increase it for one in eight, or the people who are really master-minding the hidden Labour party agenda, who intend to increase taxes for everyone who earns?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is certainly correct that Labour Members seem to be in something of a muddle over their tax and spending figures. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)–who, alas, is not here at the moment–has said :

    “Yes, of course, in an ideal world we would like to do what the Liberal Democrats are saying and say yes, we’d increase taxation.”

    That is their official policy.

    Mr. Kinnock : If, as the Prime Minister claimed last Friday, his economic policies are working, why are 2,175,000 people in our country not working?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the intention–and it is beginning to show clear signs of success–is to reduce inflation so that we may begin, yet again, to add to the 1 million jobs that we have created during the period of this Conservative Government. There is only one stable and sure way to create jobs and keep them–to keep inflation low, a policy which we shall pursue and he never could.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister seems to forget that today’s unemployment figures show the highest April rise in unemployment since the war, that since he has been Prime Minister 3,000 people have lost their jobs every working day, that output is down and that investment has plummeted by 20 per cent. over the year. When the Prime Minister’s policies are responsible for causing that huge damage, and when he has no answers and no policies to get out of it, is it not time that he went?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about unemployment, he should not advocate policies that will artificially increase it, such as the minimum wage. The Institute of Fiscal Studies said of his minimum wage policy :

    “If the point is to avoid people being poor this is an extraordinarily stupid way of doing it.”

    If he does not like the IFS, perhaps Mr. Joe Haines of the Daily Mirror is more to his taste. He said :

    “The minimum wage proposals won’t work and if they do, won’t help.”

    Sir Gerard Vaughan : Will my right hon. Friend visit, in the near future, a hospital that has opted out? Does he agree that yesterday Lord McColl explained clearly the benefits to patients when a hospital opts out– putting patients before bureaucracy?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will also explain to people in the vicinity that when a hospital opts out, it opts out of bureaucracy and not out of the national health service–contrary to the dishonest literature passed around by the Labour candidate for Monmouth, which the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) should repudiate.

     

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

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

    Mr. McAvoy rose — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us settle down.

    Mr. McAvoy : Conservative Members seem very nervous. In 1979, the Tories promised that, if elected, they would not double VAT, but once elected they increased it from 8 to 15 per cent. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister failed to answer a question on future levels of VAT. Can this simple and honest Prime Minister give a simple and honest answer to the question? If the Tories are re-elected, will they further increase VAT?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman graciously concedes that we shall be in a position to decide that at the next general election, but I want no lectures on value added tax from the party which put tax on children’s sweets, even though its leader did not know it.

    Mr. Stevens rose — [Interruption.]

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

    Mr. Stevens : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right way to raise the status of teachers is by giving them a pay review body, rather than reducing their take-home pay by increasing their tax?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Our purpose in introducing a review body was to raise the status of teachers, and I believe that teachers across the country will accept that. The Opposition’s policy, on the other hand, is entirely clear–to take away parental choice and, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has admitted, to increase taxation on a large number of teachers.

     

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

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

    Mr. Salmond : Has the Prime Minister heard of the great gas robbery? Is he aware that, last week, the Government gave permission for the development of up to 12 North sea fields to take gas from off the coast of Aberdeen straight to the north-east of England to generate cheap electricity, and that that will be done with public support through offsets against petroleum revenue tax? Why, under the right hon. Gentleman’s Administration, is Scotland set to become the first country in history to pay international oil companies to take away its most valuable natural resource?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might make some acknowledgement of the tremendous asset to Scotland that investment there has been–not least by the oil and gas industries.

     

    German Chancellor

    Q4. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of Germany ; and what subjects he intends to discuss with him.

    The Prime Minister : I expect to see the Chancellor next at the European Council in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 June, when we shall discuss whatever business is before the Council.

    Mr. Hunter : In the course of his continuing dialogue with Chancellor Kohl, has my right hon. Friend found grounds to believe that effective common European foreign, defence and security policies are attainable, or have the events of a few months ago demonstrated that, at least for the time being, they are unattainable?

    The Prime Minister : What is entirely clear is that, whatever may be decided, NATO must remain the core of our defence for the future, and that includes beyond any doubt the continued presence in Europe of United States and Canadian forces. But I think that there is scope for improving the co- operation of European views within NATO and the effectiveness of the European response outside the NATO area. We have put forward detailed proposals for both in the intergovernmental conferences.

    Mr. Wareing : As it is believed that Herr Karl Otto Poehl is about to offer his resignation as president of the Bundesbank, will the Prime Minister be telling the German Chancellor that he is about to offer a free transfer to Mr. Leigh-Pemberton, the Governor of the Bank of England, and offer him to the German Chancellor free of charge?

    The Prime Minister : No, Sir.

    Mr. Ian Taylor : When my right hon. Friend meets the German Chancellor, will he discuss the implications of the recent European Commission decision to intervene in German industry to remove the subsidies that the west German Government have been paying to west German industry for some years? And is not that a sign that the Single European Act and the single market are working very effectively and levelling the playing field for the benefit of Britain?

    The Prime Minister : I hope and believe that that is the case. We certainly wish to see the continued reduction of subsidies throughout Europe.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Loyden : Does the Prime Minister agree or disagree with the chief executive of Alderhey hospital, who has told the district health authorities that any district health authority paying an additional £7,500 will be guaranteed not to wait more than 12 months for surgery to be performed on children sent to that hospital? Is not that a clear indication that the Government have completely abandoned the national health service principle of treatment when it is needed and also any pretence of providing other than a two-tier service that will deprive children of surgery at the time when they need it?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is being very cheap and wholly inaccurate. There is no question of a two-tier health service. The hon. Gentleman may find what was said recently by a doctor on “Newsnight” interesting. He said :

    “I don’t accept that there’ll be any priority given”–

    [Interruption.] I know that right hon. and hon. Members do not like listening to alternative views, but it would do them good to do so occasionally. The doctor said :

    “I don’t accept that there’ll be any priority given in where the patients are treated at all. My enthusiasm for GP fund-holding is based on”–

    [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen. The doctor said :

    “My enthusiasm is based on the belief that because I know my patients and because I know the resources in the health service and because I care about the patients, I’m in the best position to use the resources in a wise and helpful way”.

    That is the view of people treating patients, and it is better than the hon. Gentleman’s.

    Mr. Burt : Bearing in mind the adverse criticism directed so often in the past against English football supporters, does my right hon. Friend share my pleasure not only in Manchester United’s excellent result last night against Barcelona but in the behaviour of its supporters? Does he agree with me that, good though the quality of the play was, it is likely to be bettered on Sunday in the third division play-off by Bury football club against Bolton Wanderers?

    The Prime Minister : I think that I should be in very considerable danger if I answered the last part of that question. With regard to the first part, however, I am glad to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Manchester United, and not only on the performance of its team.

    Mr. Kinnock : “Up the Reds!”

    The Prime Minister : Well, on some occasions, maybe. I congratulate Manchester United not only on the performance of its team but on the behaviour of its supporters, which gave an excellent example in Europe that I look forward to seeing followed by British teams throughout Europe when they lift, I hope, a number of trophies next year.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 May 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Bay of Bengal

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government made any offer to the Bangladeshi authorities to provide technical assistance in predicting storm surges in the Bay of Bengal.

    The Prime Minister : No. This is an area where the United States of America is the principal donor. Bangladesh’s cyclone early warning system was established in the 1970s when a satellite ground station was installed in Dhaka by a Bangladeshi organisation, the Space Research and Remote Sensing Organisation. The ground station has subsequently been upgraded through a project funded by the Office of the United States Foreign Disaster Assistance and implemented by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. United States aid assistance has continued for this activity and now totals excess of US$6 million.
    The Bangladesh authorities issued warning of the cyclone two days before it struck and an estimated 350,000 people were evacuated to anti-cyclone shelters.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Home Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Iraqi representations concerning their need to use helicopters for internal security which led the coalition representatives to concede that point during the ceasefire talks.

    The Prime Minister : The Iraqi use of helicopters was considered at a meeting between General Schwarzkopf and the Iraqi military authorities on the suspension of hostilities at Safwan on 3 March. An Iraqi request to permit helicopter flights for transportation was agreed, without limitations of their use.