The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1991

  • 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.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

    The Prime Minister : This morning I has meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

     

    Tanks

    Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to the letter of 4 June from Sanderson Kayser Ltd. on the implications of the Chieftain main battle tank replacement contract.

    The Prime Minister : A reply will be sent to the company shortly.

  • PMQT – 11 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 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. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the England cricket team on the marvellous win in Yorkshire yesterday ? Does he equally welcome the sharp fall in wage increases announced yesterday and in producer prices announced today ? Does not that demonstrate that his Government’s policies against inflation have what it takes to build a long and successful innings while the whole country knows that under Labour the economy would be for ever trapped leg before wicket ?

    The Prime Minister : There are some dangerous metaphors there. I certainly welcome the producer price figures. They are extremely good. The fall in the underlying, as well as the headline, rate of inflation is very welcome news indeed. It shows clearly that we are now well on target for the Budget forecast of a 4 per cent. inflation rate this autumn. It is also encouraging that wage bargaining is beginning to reflect falling inflation and the realities of exchange rate mechanism membership. That is very good indeed for industries’ competitiveness. On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I am happy to congratulate the England team, but, in doing so, I remind him and everyone that the West Indies is a formidable side and there is a long way to go yet.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister now be asking his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to step down as President of the Bruges group?

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

    Mr. Kinnock : Is it not apparent from today’s events and yesterday’s events that what we are seeing is not Britain at the heart of Europe but deep division at the heart of the Conservative party? [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is it not the Prime Minister’s duty to clear up the confusion in the ranks of his own Government, which can do nothing but damage Britain’s interests?

    The Prime Minister : I am not quite sure what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) might think about the degree of unity that the right hon. Gentleman suggests is on his Benches. We are negotiating in the intergovernmental conferences on exactly the same basis as that on which we first started. The position on economic and monetary union has not changed in any way. I have set out repeatedly the circumstances and conditions under which we are negotiating.

    Mr. Kinnock : Can the Prime Minister tell us why 11 finance Ministers and a couple of Commissioners in a meeting yesterday with the Chancellor got entirely the wrong end of the stick?

    The Prime Minister : I can say categorically to the right hon. Gentleman, as I did a moment ago, that there is no change whatever in our negotiating position on Europe. I have repeatedly set that out over recent months.

     

    Q2. Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Adley : In welcoming the current ministerial visit to the Lebanon and in recognising the help that the Syrian and Iranian Governments are providing on the hostage problem, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he recognises an additional ingredient in the conundrum, namely, the holding by the Israeli Government of Sheikh Obeid and other Lebanese hostages? Will he please make known on behalf of his Government to Mr. Shamir that that ingredient is a problem, and that we expect the Israelis to be as helpful as possible in resolving it?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend, and can tell him that the Prime Minister of Israel is aware of my views on that matter. It is wrong for any country to take and hold hostages, and I have communicated that view to Israel on more than one occasion. Our objective is to see the release as soon as possible of all hostages, and we count on any Government with influence to use it for the return of hostages. They should be back with their families where they belong.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Beith : How will the Prime Minister respond to the demand from those of his supporters who say that he should veto a single currency here and now? Will he back a single currency when it comes before this Parliament for decision, or is he scared to say?

    The Prime Minister : There is no veto as such. There is a requirement that treaty changes can come into effect only if agreed by all member states and by their Parliaments. I have repeatedly said that we will not agree to any treaty on EMU which does not safeguard the interests of this country. I am happy to reiterate that.

    Sir Michael Marshall : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome the visit to the House of Britain’s first astronaut, Helen Sharman? Does he agree that her courage and professionalism is a matter of national pride? Will he take this opportunity to urge British industry and science to join with the Government in the careful and continued look at further opportunities for international space collaboration?

    The Prime Minister : I look forward to meeting Miss Sharman shortly and to congratulating her on her courage and on her remarkable achievement. I happily agree with my hon. Friend’s other comments.

     

    Q4. Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Sir David Steel : Is the Prime Minister aware that there are some creatures who, when removed from their settled natural habitat, can turn dangerously unpredictable in their behaviour [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Sir David Steel : Since allowing them to wander freely abroad has caused some difficulty– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Interruptions take up a great deal of time.

    Sir David Steel : –has the right hon. Gentleman any proposals to extend the requirements for muzzles and leashes to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, every hon. Member has the right and the duty to speak their mind, and that is entirely proper.

    Mr. Tony Banks : She never said that.

    The Prime Minister : That is entirely proper, and it is a freedom which I propose to exercise myself.

     

    Q5. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Now that Mr. James Baker’s middle east peace mission has fallen into serious trouble, and given that the United Kingdom was the first sponsor of United Nations’ resolution 242, would not this be a good moment for the United Kingdom and its European Community partners to start playing a far more positive role in the search for a lasting peace settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have played an important role in that process for many years, and it is right that, in the forthcoming peace conference, the European Community should play a leading role. I welcome the recent Israeli agreement that the European Community presidency should participate in the conference that will be held soon. That is a welcome advance.

     

    Q6. Mr. George Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Howarth : If the Prime Minister is so confident about the Government’s proposal on health service trusts, why is it that the Mersey regional health authority is keeping its expensively produced business plans for the second wave of opt-outs a secret? It will not even release them to Members of Parliament. Why can we not have all this information out in the open, have a proper debate on the subject and then a ballot? Let us find out what the people of Merseyside think.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that there will be many opportunities for Mersey debates in the weeks to come and I look forward to those with great relish. Every reform of the health service has been controversial, but, in due course, each has proved to be irreversible and in the interests of the health service. Our recently introduced changes will follow the same course.

    Mr. Norris : Will my right hon. Friend intervene in the local government review to look at a local authority in Britain where people wait eight weeks to have their bins emptied, where thousands of council houses lie empty and where kids have to run the gauntlet of a picket line to get to school? My right hon. Friend will know that this is not fiction ; it is Labour Liverpool under so-called moderate Labour control. If this is how the Labour party runs a city, how will it run a country?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly suspect that the whole country will have observed how Liverpool has been run and drawn appropriate conclusions from that about how a Labour Government would work on a larger scale. Whether the Labour council is far left or moderate, it has done that great city no favours, just as a Labour Government would do this country no favours.

     

    Q7. Mr. McKelvey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. McKelvey : Will the Prime Minister give some serious consideration to the plight of two brave but unfortunate young men in my constituency, Walter and Ian Baird, of the same family, who are 21 and 16- years-old and who have contracted AIDS through blood transfusion? Although a settlement of over £45,000 for the pair of them was agreed over two months ago, they have yet to be paid. Why is it that 10 per cent. of the payment seems to be held up in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will give me precise details of the cases that he has in mind, I shall be happy to examine them and respond to them.

     

    Q8. Mr. David Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Evans : Will my right hon. Friend make sure that there are enough funds in the English Heritage budget to ensure that a certain building in the Walworth road is preserved, so that my children and grandchildren can not only read about the demise of socialism but can go and see where the last of the Bolsheviks are working, led by a leader who was a co-producer and director of a play called “Promises, promises”?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his point as only he can.

    Dr. Owen : Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is as determined to strengthen and enlarge the European Community as he is to prevent the emergence of a united states of Europe? Will he tell the European Community that positively negotiating and participating in those negotiations does not in any way surrender a final decision on the overall package to protect the best interests of this country, and that while the devil, as always, is in the detail, so can be the benefits, and that it will probably be December before we can make an overall decision on the package that is negotiated?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct in his latter point and I strongly support his remarks about a wider Europe, which I believe should involve not only the EFTA states but, in due course, the eastern European states. I agree with him that negotiations on the two conferences are of vital importance to the future of this country. Whatever decisions are made may have a profound effect on our trade and well-being. I have set out often enough to the House that the economic case for monetary union has not been made, that we cannot accept the imposition of a single currency and that any proposed changes to the treaty of Rome–a move to a single currency–would require a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament– [Interruption.] If Opposition Members do not wish to hear about the important negotiating position of the Government, that is a matter for them. Against that background, I shall negotiate with our European partners for what I believe to be right for this country. It will then be for this House to decide at the conclusion of those negotiations whether it is content to accept them.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    International Tropical Timber Organisation

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for the United Kingdom’s membership of the International Tropical Timber Organisation from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Overseas Development Administration.

    The Prime Minister : Responsibility was transferred to the Overseas Development Administration in October 1990.

     

    National Union of Mineworkers’ Funds

    Mr. Galloway : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 June, Official Report, column 34, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on Her Majesty’s Government’s assistance to Price Waterhouse, sequestrators of the National Union of Mineworkers, what relavant information the Government passed to the sequestrators; and what was the provenance of this information.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to my answer of 3 June to the hon. Member for Linlithgow. Information was provided to the sequestrators in confidence.

     

    Cleeve Station

    Mr. Galloway : To ask the Prime Minister which Minister in Her Majesty’s Government has responsibility for the work of Cleeve station, and what is Cleeve’s relationship to Government Communications Headquarters.

    The Prime Minister : The station at Cleeve camp, Morwenstow is GCHQ’s and, as such, comes under the ministerial responsibility of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Middle East (Arms Control)

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what recent consultations Her Majesty’s Government have had with the United States Government concerning the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

    The Prime Minister : We worked closely with the United States Government and other members of the United Nations Security Council in the preparation of Security Council resolution 687, which specifically refers to the need to work towards the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. President Bush’s recent initiative, if implemented, would be an important step towards that objective.

     

    Special Forces

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what questions Her Majesty’s Government have answered relating to special forces since November 1990.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 24 January at column 317 and on 21 March 1991 at column 230 and by me on 17 May 1991 at column 281 and 20 May at column 333.

     

    National Security

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether GCHQ, or Cleave station, Warminster has undertaken surveillance of any communications in order to assist criminal or civil investigations or to aid the enforcement of court orders since 1979;

    (2) whether GCHQ, or Cleave station, Warminster has undertaken surveillance of any communications for purposes other than national security since 1979;

    (3) what provisions are in place to prevent the dissemination of information gathered at GCHQ, or Cleave station, Warminster, in cases other than those representing a clear danger to national security.

    The Prime Minister : It has been the policy of successive Governments not to discuss the work of the intelligence services. The dissemination of intercepted information is governed by safeguards under the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

     

    NUM

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will request the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to report on allegations of the use of intercepted material in pursuit of the enforcement of court orders against the National Union of Mineworkers.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Foreign Visits (Journalists)

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 June, Official Report, column 34, if he will list by date of journey and newspaper those accounts for journalists travelling on official transport provided for Prime ministerial visits abroad which remained unsettled as of 3 June.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 June 1991] : It is not my practice to give details of outstanding accounts.

  • PMQT – 6 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 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 have further meetings later today.

    Mr. Banks : Will the Prime Minister join me in sending best wishes to Prince William for a complete recovery– [Hon. Members :– “Hear, hear!”] That is the nice bit–

    Mr. Speaker : And it is just about in order.

    Mr. Banks : Did the Prime Minister see the article in yesterday’s Daily Mirror —

    Mr. Speaker : Order. One question is the ration.

    Mr. Banks : Did the Prime Minister see the article in yesterday’s Daily Mirror stating that the scanner used on the prince at the Royal Berkshire hospital was bought from the proceeds of jumble sales and sponsored walks? Is the Prime Minister aware that the ambulance which brought the prince to London was from a service that is actually breaking down in Greater London and that Great Ormond Street hospital, which looked after the prince so well, is turning away sick children because of the pressures on its services and has been kept open only by public begging? What sort of society is it that can find all the money in the world for weapons of death and destruction, but when it comes to keeping hospital wards open and buying vital medical equipment, has to use sponsored runs, flag days and jumble sales?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that the whole House and the country will join the hon. Gentleman in sending best wishes to Prince William. We all hope that he will make a full recovery as speedily as possible.

    The Government found £33,000 million for the national health service, which is four times as much in cash terms as any previous Government have ever found. The private collections and private donations which go towards providing equipment such as scanners show, above all that the people of this country, including the Conservative party–in fact, often led by those in the Conservative party–care sufficiently for the national health service to cherish it and provide extra resources for it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Gill : My right hon. Friend is aware of the tremendous support among Conservative Members for his views on economic and monetary union– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Come on, please.

    Mr. Gill : Is my right hon. Friend aware that those same views, clearly articulated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the “Today” programme this week, command the support of the majority of British voters, as evidenced by a recent opinion poll showing that 63 per cent. oppose the single currency?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about that. It is becoming increasingly recognised in this country and the Community that moves towards economic and monetary union which did not reflect proper convergence would be damaging, not only for this country, but for the whole of the Economic Community. That has been our position since the beginning of the negotiations and it remains our position, together with our constant intention to preserve the prerogatives of this House.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister tell us what in concrete terms he intends to do to ensure that further harm does not come to small businesses as a result of the high interest rates being imposed upon them?

    The Prime Minister : The principal damage and difficulty that small firms have faced in recent years has been the collapse of demand not only in Britain but abroad as a result of a general downturn in trade and inflationary problems. Inflation is now falling rapidly, and that is a matter of the greatest concrete concern to small businesses, as they have repeatedly testified.

    Mr. Kinnock : It is obvious from that answer that the Prime Minister is not going to do anything in concrete terms. Is it not obvious that high interest rates are the policy of the Government and that the banks’ behaviour is the result of financial deregulation, also the policy of the Government? Why does not the Prime Minister change the policies, as he should, or will he remain the betrayer of small businesses?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, having other things on his mind, has clearly not noticed that inflation is falling rapidly and that interest rates have fallen by 3.5 per cent. in recent months. That will make a dramatic difference to individuals’ prospects and, most particularly, to prospects for small and large firms.

    Mr. Kinnock : Small businesses which used to have arrangements to pay 3 per cent. above base rate on their overdraft facilities are now paying as much as 17 per cent.– [Interruption.] Oh yes, they are. Conservative Members should talk to some of the people who run the businesses which are paying that kind of money. How can such huge charges contribute to fighting inflation or to sustaining the small business sector?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the gasp of frank disbelief at what he said a few moments ago. I hope that he will provide clear illustrations, not an isolated example, of what he has just said. What is necessary for the future health of Britain is, first, to ensure that we bring inflation down to a low level ; secondly, to keep it there ; and, thirdly, so as to ensure that that happens, never again to have a Labour Government.

    Sir John Wheeler : Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read about the dreadful events taking place in Labour-controlled Hackney– [Interruption.] –where council officials have been racketeering on the backs of the homeless and illegally renting out properties? [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a scandal, and will he condemn the empty properties that Hackney, Lambeth, Islington and Liverpool have that could be brought into use?

    The Prime Minister : In so far as I could hear the question over the chanting from Opposition Members, I believe that it concerned Hackney borough council. Anyone who wanted an example of the Labour party in power could only have seen it in recent years in local government in places such as Hackney, and I do not believe that they will have liked what they have seen. Labour repeatedly feigns concern for the homeless, but Hackney has more than 2,000 properties empty.

     

    Q3. Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : Reverting to the important question of a single European currency, has the Prime Minister yet had a chance to study the important speech made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) last night? Am I right in thinking that the Prime Minister’s personal opinion is that a single currency may be a good thing eventually, but not yet and not for the foreseeable future? Does he not think that that “yes-maybe” approach to the question is now so hedged about and qualified as to be almost devoid of any meaning? When will he come to the House and tell the country what he thinks is the right course of action for Britain to take in this fundamentally important economic issue?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening over the past two years, because we have done it repeatedly. We have made it plain to the House and to our European partners that we cannot accept any changes to the treaty of Rome which would bind us to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision by this party, by this Government and by this Parliament.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Nicholson : Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member who represents the constituency where I was educated–the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)–on exercising his right of parental choice under the Education Reform Act 1988–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The question must relate to the Prime Minister’s responsibility. He has no responsibility for that.

    Mr. Nicholson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that parental choice in schools is a major Conservative policy, and would it not help if more senior members of the Opposition parties joined Conservatives in supporting parental freedom of choice?

    The Prime Minister : I am always pleased to see support for Conservative reforms, especially from Labour Front Benchers. I wish that they would not say one thing in opposition and practise something else in there own lives.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Irene Adams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mrs. Adams : The question that I am going to put to the Prime Minister is a simple one and it has been put to him twice at Prime Minister’s questions in the past few weeks, but he has refused to answer it. Following his last refusal, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy)–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. May I say to the hon. Lady, who is new to us, that preambles take up much time? Will she ask a question, please?

    Mrs. Adams : Is the Prime Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen wrote to him putting that question yet again? He is still awaiting a reply. Will the Prime Minister answer today, because the question deserves a serious answer– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Lady a chance to ask her question–please.

    Mrs. Adams : If the Conservatives should win the next general election, will the Prime Minister give an absolute guarantee that he will not raise value added tax–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : When the Conservative party has won the next general election, the hon. Lady will see, and will perhaps have learnt by then, that no Government at any stage give categorical assurances–none have, and none will. But I can say to the hon. Lady that we have no present plans whatsoever to increase value added tax.

    Mr. Moss : Has my right hon. Friend had time to read a report published yesterday by the respected City firm, Goldman Sachs, which concludes that a minimum wage policy would destroy jobs, increase inflation and lead to a reduction in output? Does he agree that it is totally irresponsible of the Labour party to continue peddling that policy?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I have seen that report and it shares the views of the Government, the Fabian Society and many others. A minimum wage would have devastating effects for people. It would encourage others to seek to raise the general level of wages. It would raise inflation and unemployment, and a National Institute estimate– [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen, because this would affect people and their jobs, about whom they claim to care. The institute estimates that a statutory minimum wage would raise price levels by 3.5 per cent. at the end of three years, and would reduce the level of gross domestic product by 0.5 per cent. That is the likely cost of a Labour Government.

     

    Q6. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Why have not the problems of a minimum wage that the Prime Minister just outlined caused difficulties in West Germany?

    The Prime Minister rose– [ Hon. Members – “Answer.”] I was unable to hear the hon. Gentleman’s question over the noise being made by Opposition Members. If you, Mr. Speaker, will allow the hon. Gentleman to repeat his question, I shall endeavour to respond to it.

    Mr. Bennett : I asked why the problems of a minimum wage that the Prime Minister outlined have not been evident in West Germany.

    The Prime Minister : West Germany has in no sense in recent years had many of the attendant difficulties created by trade unions and others– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is now a stack of people, the Fabian Society– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : We have seen the way the Opposition behave and it is not unlike Hackney borough council writ large.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    White Papers (Costs)

    Mr. Straw : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of the design, preparation, printing and distribution of the White Papers “Education and Training”, Cm. 1536, volumes I and II and “Higher Education”, Cm. 1541.

    The Prime Minister : The total cost of the design and preparation of the White Papers “Education and Training”, Cm 1536, volumes I and II, and “Higher Education”, Cm 1541, was £51,000. This does not include the costs of printing, publishing and distribution, which are borne by HMSO, and which aims to recover its costs from sales revenue.

    Mr. Straw : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of the launch at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre of the White Papers, “Education and Training” and “Higher Education”, on 20 May, including the cost of the hire of the centre and other charges.

    The Prime Minister : The total estimated cost of the launch at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre for the White Papers “Education and Training” and “Higher Education”, including the hire of the venue, will not exceed £48,000.

  • PMQT – 4 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread concern that in certain cases banks have not been fully passing on, particularly to smaller businesses, the full very recent and welcome reduction in bank base rate?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am very concerned about the growing level of complaints from small businesses that they are being harshly treated by their banks. I discussed that matter with the Governor of the Bank of England 10 days ago and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking this forward with the individual chairman of each of the clearing banks. The banks themselves can be in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling on this, and they are as aware as anyone that their interests lie in having a sound base of small firms around for the future.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister think that recession, rising unemployment and increasing poverty will improve or make worse the health of the nation?

    The Prime Minister : The health of the nation is improving. The policies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be announcing in a few moments about preventive health medicine will also make further improvements. No one I know of with any experience or knowledge whatever doubts the improving quality, quantity or nature of health of the people in this country at the present time.

    Mr. Kinnock : I hope that the forthcoming Green Paper will therefore include specific policies to combat unemployment and poverty, although I very much doubt it. The Government have brought us two recessions in 12 years. Unemployment is higher and poverty is more widespread. As there is a very definite link between low income and high rates of death and illness in poor families, will the Prime Minister now do something effective to combat unemployment and recession instead of saying that it is a price well worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman will soon learn, there are specific targets in the health proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will announce in a few moments. We set targets in other contexts a year or so ago, which have been met by doctors in terms of improving health care, and the targets will be met on this occasion as well.

    As for unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman’s comments were rich when every time his own party has been in government, when that Government left office unemployment was twice as high as it was when they entered government. The right hon. Gentleman’s present policies would have the same effect. His minimum wage policy would destroy jobs, his penal tax proposals would destroy incentives, and Labour’s tax on savings would destroy investment. What would then happen to jobs?

    Mr. Kinnock : Clearly, when the Prime Minister cannot give a straight answer to a straight question, his last refuge is to try to sound like the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)–no wonder she said at the weekend, “I chose him.”

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, week after week, sinks to a new low. We shall see how low he can sink. We shall see how far he can sink in the months ahead.

    Sir William Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that not passing on the reduction in the base rate to small businesses is damaging to the economy? Would it not be a good idea for the British Bankers Association to make it mandatory for its members immediately to reflect any reduction in the base rate?

    The Prime Minister : A large amount of lending is, of course, tied specifically to the base rate and is therefore amended automatically. It is those loans that are renegotiated that I think cause the particular problems. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is examining that matter with the chairmen of the clearing banks.

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Illsley : In view of the horrific attacks by dangerous dogs that have taken place in the past two weeks or so, and the Government’s dithering about what measures to implement to take account of those attacks, will the Prime Minister now agree that in the interests of responsible dog ownership a dog registration scheme should be introduced? Will he introduce such a scheme at the earliest possible opportunity?

    The Prime Minister : So decisive have the Government been that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing a Bill later this week to deal with the problem of dangerous dogs. On the specific point of general dog registration, I continue to hold the view that such a scheme would be ineffective, bureaucratic, expensive to operate and difficult to enforce.

    Sir Gerrard Neale : Has my right hon. Friend seen–and, if so, will he comment on–the report by the respected City institution, the Nomura Research Institute, that if interest rates were 11 per cent. at the next general election they would rise to 16 per cent. in the unlikely event of a Labour victory?

    The Prime Minister rose–[Interruption.] I will wait for a little silence– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is taking up a lot of time. I call the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I have absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friend and the analysis that Nomura has made are right. Financial markets have no confidence whatever in Labour’s ability to keep down inflation and no confidence in its capacity to protect our competitive position. By contrast, the major independent forecasters agree with us that we shall have inflation at 4 per cent. by the fourth quarter of this year. The other point about Nomura’s analysis is very clear–it shows that Labour’s first priority would not be pensions and child benefit, but an immediate and necessary hike in interest rates and mortgage rates.

     

    Q3. Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Campbell : Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many in the House about the events of last night in Vilnius? Will he take the opportunity both now and in July to impress upon Mr. Gorbachev and his generals that western economic co-operation and assistance depend upon a recognition of human rights and an acceptance of the right of self-determination for the people of Lithuania and of the other Baltic states?

    The Prime Minister : I can say nothing more to the hon. and learned Gentleman other than that I agree with him.

    Mr. John Browne : May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to early-day motion 776–about Grenadier guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray who, in 1989, had their legs blown off in Canada–which has now been signed by more than 200 right hon. and hon. Members on a cross-party basis, including the Secretary of State for Defence of 1989? It calls on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to look personally into the case with a view to granting an ex-gratia compensation payment, thus creating a good precedent. What progress has been made in the past month?

    The Prime Minister : I am not yet in a position to tell my hon. Friend precisely what the outcome will be, but I am satisfied that the proper grounds for compensation should be on the basis of legal liability, and it is upon that basis that I shall examine the matter.

    Mr. Speaker : Mr. Hood–no, Mr. John Garrett– [Interruption.] Order. I am looking for an hon. Gentleman who has not asked a question. Let us have Mr. Garrett.

    Mr. John Garrett : Does not Britain deserve better than a lame duck Government, limping from one public relations fiasco to another?

    The Prime Minister : As it has a Government who are announcing new and fresh policies every day, the question does not arise.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Marshall : During the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend been able to read the comments of Mr. Gavin Laird about a minimum wage? Does he agree that a minimum wage would be cruel and heartless because it would lead to much higher prices and to an increase of 50 per cent. in the level of unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : I have, of course, read them. I enjoyed them and I agree with them, as do many other people. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition’s plan for a minimum wage has very few friends left : the Fabian Society has said that there would be massive job losses ; Mr. Laird thinks that the plan is nonsense ; the engineers and electricians recognise that Labour’s policy is nonsense ; and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said that himself in the past. Even the Sunday People, which is hardly a Conservative news sheet, stated in its editorial :

    “Labour’s plan for a national minimum wage is not the answer. It would only cause more unemployment and deny jobs to those who need them”–

    [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like that because they know that it is true.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister has rightly criticised the banks, but does he not accept that small business failures have increased by 68 per cent. with nearly 8,000 mainly small firms going to the wall in the first quarter of this year? The Prime Minister has criticised the banks, but does he feel any personal responsibility for this?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, very many additional small firms have grown and thrived in recent years. All Conservative Members, including myself, regret the loss of small businesses in the past year or so. However, what is essential is to create the circumstances in which businesses can thrive and survive and in which fresh businesses can be created, as has happened so widely in the past 10 years. That requires reducing inflation to a low level and keeping it there. That is the policy we are pursuing, and every independent commentator now acknowledges that we are succeeding in that policy.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert B. Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to visit north-west Hertfordshire to see for himself the £40 million worth of new investment in the national health service that has been made under this Government? Will he contrast the fact that at this very moment a new maternity unit is being completed in which babies can be born in the 1990s with the fact that, under the last Labour Government, babies had to be born in the clapped-out facilities of the former workhouse?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Capital expenditure on hospitals in England has grown in real terms in the past 12 years by 62 per cent. to £1.7 billion. In contrast, as the House well recalls, under the last Labour Government capital spending on hospitals in the national health service was cut by nearly 16 per cent. because the Labour Government lost control of the economy and inflation and would not take the necessary decisions to bring inflation down.

    Mr. Clelland : Did the Prime Minister see the recent “Panorama” programme entitled, “Scuppering British Shipbuilders”, which demonstrated how the Government have killed off merchant shipbuilding in Britain? Is he aware that unless the right decision is made about Challenger 2, “Panorama” will soon be making another programme about the killing off of the British tank manufacturing industry? Will he ensure that the decision that we now understand is to be made before the end of this month is made not only in favour of the British Army but in favour of British manufacturing and British workers?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is no, I did not see the programme to which he referred, but on his substantive point–the question of a new tank for the Army–I hope that a decision on equipment for our future main battle tank fleet will not be delayed too long. When the appropriate military conditions are right for us to make the decision, we shall do so.

     

    Q6. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Bowis : Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the report of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which shows that for the past year Britain’s strike record has been at its lowest for 56 years? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to legalise secondary strikes, unofficial strikes and flying pickets, that strike record would be undone? Is it not odd that that is precisely the policy of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is correct. It is also the case that our employment legislation, which was opposed at every step by the Opposition has helped to transform industrial relations in Britain. But the Opposition do not care about industrial relations–they are obsessed with public relations.