Category: 1991

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Services (“Customers”)

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

    The Prime Minister : No such instructions have been issued.

     

    Next Steps Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

  • PMQT – 16 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That is their official policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

    Mr. McAvoy rose — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us settle down.

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

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

    Mr. Stevens rose — [Interruption.]

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

    German Chancellor

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister : No, Sir.

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Kinnock : “Up the Reds!”

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Bay of Bengal

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

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

     

    Iraq

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Turkey (British Journalists)

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government have made representations to Turkey over the detention and expulsion of Robert Fisk, a journalist working for The Independent, and the banning of all journalists of The Independent from working in Turkey.

    The Prime Minister : The detention and expulsion of Mr. Fisk and the future of The Independent’s representation in Turkey have been discussed by the British ambassador in Ankara with the Turkish authorities. We naturally wish for The Independent to have effective representation in Turkey.

     

    Inaccurate Information

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list in the Official Report each instance of inadvertently inaccurate information given to Parliament since 1979 by Ministers of Her Majesty’s Government which was subsequently corrected in the Official Report; and what steps he is taking to improve the accuracy of information given to Parliament by Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister : Records are not maintained of corrections to the Official Report. Ministers seek the highest standards of accuracy in the information they give to Parliament.

     

    Occupied Territories (Education)

    Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has made to the Israeli Prime Minister about the continuing closure of Palestinian schools, colleges and universities in the territories occupied by Israel ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made representations on education in the occupied territories when he saw the Israeli Foreign Minister last on 5 March. This issue was also raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State during his visit to Israel and the occupied territories from 6 to 9 May.

     

    Scrutiny Programme

    Mr. Butterfill : To ask the Prime Minister what topics have been covered in the efficiency unit’s central scrutiny programme in the last financial year ; and which scrutiny reports have been published.

    The Prime Minister : Twenty efficiency scrutinies have been undertaken by Departments in 1990-91 in association with the efficiency adviser and the efficiency unit. The programme of scrutinies, including those which are not yet completed, is as follows :

    [see Hansard for table]

    Decisions on the publication of scrutiny reports are taken by the Ministers responsible for the scrutinies concerned. In a number of cases where a scrutiny has been recently completed, no decision on publication has been made.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 14 May.

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

  • PMQT – 14 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Thurnham : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has excellent and detailed plans to increase spending on public services by £38 billion in the next three years? What would be the effect of substituting an uncertain £20 billion along with socialist cuts and taxes on earnings?

    Mr. Major : If a £20 billion increase were substituted for our present plans, it would certainly mean a substantial reduction in services across the board, no doubt including the health service as well. On the other hand, if there is to be £20 billion in addition to the spending plans that we have proposed, it would undoubtedly lead to large and significant tax increases across the board.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister think that any citizen’s charter should include giving people the right to vote on whether they want their local hospitals to opt out?

    The Prime Minister : In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has previously said, I am very surprised that he has so little faith in the medical people who make those decisions.

    Mr. Kinnock : Even the Prime Minister must know that the “medical people”, as he refers to them, whenever they have voted, have voted by majorities in excess of 80 per cent. against opt-out. [Interruption.] I will provide a list later.

    Does the Prime Minister recall saying, just last Friday, that he trusts the people? Why does he not trust the people enough to allow them to vote democratically on whether they want their local hospitals to opt out? What is he afraid of? Why is he always running away from the ballot box?

    The Prime Minister : Why does the right hon. Gentleman always run away from the facts? He is wrong on the subject of medical people and, as for trusting the people, we have trusted the people to make decisions more in the past 10 years than any Labour Government ever would.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister now answer my question? Will he give people the right to vote on whether hospitals in their localities should opt out?

    The Prime Minister rose– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. It is no use hon. Members’ shouting, “Answer” unless they give the Prime Minister a chance to do so.

    The Prime Minister : What a remarkable question from the leader of a party whose education spokesman would take away the right of parents to decide what nature of schools their children could go to.

    Mr. Brandon-Bravo : To people in unskilled work, wages or a salary of £20,000 a year may seem very good pay indeed, but does my right hon. Friend feel that a level of pay of £20,000 a year makes a person rich–rich enough to be taxed at the horrendous levels now being spoken of by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : Only a genuine Leveller would think that £20,000 a year was rich these days. Certainly, no doctors, police constables, police sergeants, fire sergeants and others would think that. The reality is that average earnings and take-home pay have risen substantially in recent years. Only the Labour party could produce taxation policies to penalise people on modest incomes. Were it to implement all its plans it would be penalising not only people on modest and average incomes but every taxpayer.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Margaret Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mrs. Ewing : As the Prime Minister has demonstrated his intention to hold the 1992 European summit in Edinburgh, would he also accept that Scotland’s international diplomatic role could best be served not by inviting Europe to our capital city for a few days every other year but by enabling Scotland to play her full international role as a member of the European Community in her own right 365 days a year, especially against a background in which the people of Scotland have shown that independence is their preferred constitutional choice?

    The Prime Minister : Scotland has played a very honourable role in international affairs as part of the United Kingdom for a long time and it will continue to do so in that fashion. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the fact that the European Council will be meeting in Edinburgh. It think that the people of all Scotland, but especially Edinburgh, will welcome that too.

    Mr. Simon Coombs : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to raise £5 billion per year from the proceeds of privatisation in the next Parliament ? Will he also confirm that if that revenue were not forthcoming, it would be necessary either to reduce public services dramatically or to raise taxes and to increase public borrowing to an unacceptable level ?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. It would seem from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that the Labour party is planning either dramatically to increase taxation or dramatically to cut spending on public services. Privatisation has not only raised significant resources to liquidate parts of the national debt but has dramatically improved the performance of the companies concerned. We shall continue with policies of privatisation. I think that that will be much more welcome to people than increasing borrowing on the scale that a Labour Government would envisage and increasing taxation, which is what Labour has always delivered.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bradley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Bradley : To ensure that a citizen’s charter for the health service has real meaning for the people in my constituency, will the Prime Minister confirm that as 100,000 people have signed a petition to protest at the proposed closure of Withington hospital and its maternity unit, and as 3,000 people joined hands around the two-mile perimeter to protest about the plan, such overwhelming support will mean that citizens have the right to retain their local hospital and that the Government have a right and duty to honour their views ?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, matters of that sort are dealt with in the first instance by the health authority, and I think it is better that they should be. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the citizen’s charter–an idea that I first began to consider and to speak publicly about in 1987–is that it will provide far greater redress for the citizen than ever before.

    Sir Richard Luce : Is it not becoming clearer day by day that the Labour party is coming out in its true colours as the party of high spending and high taxation.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The right hon. Gentleman must ask a question about the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

    Sir Richard Luce : Did not my right hon. Friend reflect when he got up this morning that the Labour party is coming out in its true colours.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. That is no good.

     

    United Nations

    Q4. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : I have at present no plans to do so. However, I am in regular contact with the secretary-general.

    Mr. Cryer : In view of the withdrawal of the Valiant Churchill class of nuclear submarines due to dangerous defects in their nuclear reactors, would it not be prudent for the Prime Minister to withdraw all Polaris nuclear submarines, which have identical defects in their nuclear reactors? At the same time, he could cancel the Trident programme and announce that his Government are supporting the United Nations– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Hon. Members should give the hon. Gentleman a chance to get to a conclusion.

    Mr. Cryer : The Prime Minister could announce that his Government were supporting the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty ; the 141 states which have signed that treaty have pledged not to deploy or manufacture nuclear weapons.

    Mr. Speaker : Briefly, please.

    Mr. Cryer : Billions of pounds could then be released for the national health service in this country and for the millions of poor in other countries throughout the world.

    The Prime Minister : Someone spoke a moment ago about the true face of the Labour party. I think that we have just heard it. I happen to be in favour of our maintaining a nuclear defence. That will be our position in the future. I am interested to learn from what the hon. Gentleman has said that that may not be the position of the Opposition.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Roger King : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. King : Does my right hon. Friend agree that education, and particularly the quality of that education, are paramount in many people’s minds? Is he aware that in Birmingham we have excellent grant-maintained grammar schools which are under threat from the local Labour council, which intends to strangle them to death so that there is no choice for the people of Birmingham, despite 96 per cent. of them saying that they want their grammar schools maintained? Will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting educational excellence.

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of that proposal, but I am unsurprised to hear that that is the view of the Labour local authority ; it clearly has no concern for the views of parents about education–a point which the Leader of the Opposition neglected to mention. As a general principle, I agree with my hon. Friend that the Labour party opposes choice on assisted places, on city technology colleges and on grammar schools. Its top priority on day one, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, would be to take away parents’ choice to keep their schools independent of council control.

    Mr. Ashdown : As the Prime Minister has registered that some in his party regard the proposals put forward by our European partners next week on monetary union as a fudge, and as one of his Ministers has said that they are a fraud, although many others will see them as Britain’s last opportunity to be at the heart of Europe rather than its periphery, will he now tell us his view of the proposals? Are they a fudge, a fraud or an opportunity not to be missed?

    The Prime Minister : We are at a very early stage in the negotiations on economic and monetary union and on political union. As to the proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House in January that “the Government have made it plain 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 the United Kingdom Government and Parliament.”–[ Official Report, 24 January 1991 ; Vol. 184, c. 470.]

     

    Q6. Mr. Michael Morris : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Morris : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the evidence is that, in local government, competitive tendering has given the public good value for money? Does not that mean that we should have similar policies throughout the public sector, including the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has considerable knowledge of the health service and he is, of course, entirely right. Abolishing competitive tendering for support services would threaten the loss of the savings of £150 million a year that have been achieved in the national health service thus far. Opposition to those improvements and to efficiency improvements worth £400 million could only remove more than £500 million from the health service, year after year after year. That is the policy of the Opposition, but not of the Government.

     

    Q7. Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West) : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Archer : Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, prior to the last election, the Government gave a categorical assurance that if re- elected they would not increase VAT? Bearing in mind that, having been re- elected, the Government doubled VAT, will the Prime Minister invite the electorate to believe future election promises? If so, can he now say categorically whether the Conservative party, if re-elected, will increase VAT further?

    The Prime Minister : Characteristically, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is telling only half the story. He utterly neglects to mention the fact that there was a precisely corresponding reduction in local tax by way of the reduction in the community charge.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1991 Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 10 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the 1991 Scottish Conservative Party Conference on 10th May 1991 in Perth.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s wonderful to be back in Scotland for my fourth visit since I became prime minister. And each time I come I am struck by the growing confidence of our party. We are right to be confident. So is Scotland. There are five Scots in my Cabinet shaping policy – for all the UK, with my old friend Ian Lang making sure the Scottish dimension is always considered.

    He has a powerful team at the Scottish Office. Allen Stewart once defeated me by one vote for a local council candidacy over twenty years ago. I often wonder what would have happened if I had won.

    And in the party machine, Russell Sanderson and Micky Hirst are revolutionising our prospects as we look forward to Conservative gains at the next election.

    Today I want to share with you some important news – of a new White Paper we will be publishing to improve public service, of help for a hard pressed region of Scotland, of our initiative to tackle the international trade in arms. And a meeting that will make Scotland the focus of world attention.

    But before I address these policies to enhance our future, I want to turn for a moment to something that could threaten it – Labour’s policy fiasco on tax and spending. We have always said Labour do not add up. This week they have proved that in spectacular fashion.

    People want to know a party’s promises, of course. But they also want to know how they will be delivered; how they will be paid for; and – crucially – who will do the paying.

    After this week we know who will do the paying for Labour’s promises. Every single taxpayer will. It was kind of Mr Kinnock to warn us he wouldn’t make any tax cuts. We never supposed he would. It’s not your taxes he’ll cut. It’s your income.

    This week he promised 20 billion of extra public spending which, he said would be paid for by economic growth. But existing spending plans already rely on growth in our economy. You can’t spend the same money twice. So his 20 billion would have to be paid for either by higher borrowing or higher tax. 10p on the basic rate of tax. Of course, it would be phased over a full parliament. So that is the cost of Mr Kinnock. 2p a year on the basic rate of tax every year for 5 years to take the basic rate even above the 33p we inherited in 1979.

    It is a breath-taking lunacy. And this from the man who promised 14 out of 15 tax payers would not be worse off under his plans.

    You work harder. Good. You pay more.

    You put more into your job. Bad luck. You take less home for your family.

    What folly!

    That is no way to encourage people to work harder. It is a way to encourage people to work abroad. And when our doctors, dentists, surgeons and scientists take their talents abroad Labour will be surprised. But who will be the poorer? The whole country will be poorer. They always are under Labour.

    So don’t be misled by the red rose ad-men. I know from personal experience how deep is the difference between Labour’s policies and ours. When I was young and living in an inner city, labour canvassers used to come to our door. They were confident and cocky. They assumed I would vote Labour because of where I lived. But they never said how their policies would help me make the best of my life or how they would help me reach a position where I could help others.

    They just assumed I would go on living exactly as I did then. That was my role in life. And I should stay there. They talked about my rights. They talked about what they would do for me. But never about my opportunities or my obligations.

    That is the enduring face of Labour. Never to ask what people, given the encouragement and opportunity can do for others or for themselves. Just what the state might do. Always with someone else paying the taxes. To block out hopes and ambitions and to disparage success. That is the real failure of socialism.

    So when people say there’s no difference between us and Labour, tell them some of the differences.

    We back the consumer through our citizens’ charter plans; they line up behind the trade union providers.

    Our aim is lower taxes for all; they reject lower taxes and plan to put them up.

    Our pledge is more home ownership; theirs more council homes.

    We offer personal pensions to millions of families – pensions they own; they want dependence on the state and attack personal provision.

    We promote more savings and investment; they plan to tax savings and so damage investment.

    We help more families to own shares they want the state to have more.

    We give more say to parents in running their schools; they would go back to council control – ‘on day one’, Labour’s Education spokesman boasts. Their top priority. To take parent’s freedom away. ‘on day one’. I tell you. If parents understand that message there will never again be a ‘day one’ for Labour.

    So Mr Chairman, there is a giant gulf between our parties. That gulf is seen in many policies. But in essence it is that we trust people and they don’t.

    One thing is clear. Labour have peaked. Roy Hattersley knows that. He now warns he will retire if Labour don’t win. Well there’s a threat. Vote Labour to keep Roy Hattersley in politics. It’s not the worst reason I can think of for voting Labour. But, it’s far from compelling.

    As always, it is our party that has the new ideas. About good public services at low public cost. About raising standards in schools and hospitals. About leaving more money in the pay packet and about ownership for all. The issues that we put first are the issues that matter to Britain.

    People build success

    Mr Chairman, it is now evident that we are getting inflation down. And provided we keep it down our prospects are bright. The opportunities immense. I want to see those opportunities spread as widely as we can. To see more people with homes, shares and pensions of their own. More people with skills. More ways into independence and less ties to dependence. More say for every family in their children’s future. More chance to save to make that future secure.

    In our party we know that it is not the state that builds the success of a nation. It is the citizen that builds the success of the state. What we in Britain must do is encourage success at every level. And recognise it when it happens. I don’t want a country in which anyone should be led to feel: ‘I can’t do that; that’s for other people’. I want to see an end to the bystander mentality – the view that problems are something for someone else to deal with, and that success is something you see on television. No-one should settle for less than they can achieve. The credo is simple. If you think you can do it, you can do it. So start to do it – and don’t delay.

    Winning hearts and minds

    We must take our Party’s appeal into every village and home in Scotland. Our door must be open to everyone. And we must open their doors to our ideas. And that means understanding the doubts and fears of many who traditionally vote Labour.

    We have always stressed the dangers of Labour’s far left. And rightly so. Their neglect of defence; their attacks on the police; and their contempt for the law. And never suppose that those elements in the Labour Party have ceased to exist.

    But the vast majority of those who have supported the Labour Party do not share those extremist views. They have their ideals. As we do. They want a better future for their children. As we do. We need to show them, through performance and persuasion, that it is the Conservative way that offers independence, choice, and better living standards.

    And if you want to test the strength of our vision there is nowhere better than Scotland.

    Scotland’s revival

    Ten years ago Scotland stood on the fringes of Europe’s economy. Its industries outdated, its infrastructure and cities run down. So we took the Whitehall controls off Scotland’s economy. Output today is more than 10 per cent higher than it was in 1979. All due to the work of those in the offices and on the shop floor. At 4.6 per cent a year over 12 years, the rise in productivity in Scotland has been among the fastest in Europe.

    No longer is Scotland dependent on a few declining industrial sectors. On steel, shipbuilding, coal. New industries have grown, high tech industries. Service firms alongside the manufacturing base. Who would have expected in 1979 the rate of expansion of services? Services now account for two in every three jobs in Scotland. 23 billion of value-added in 1989.

    And look at the astonishing growth of the electronics industry – a fivefold increase in output since 1979. Who would have guessed then that within just twelve years, one in ten of all the personal computers built in the world would be made in Scotland?

    We took the tax burden off personal success. And Scotland responded – with a surge of innovation and effort. There are five companies in Scotland today for every three in 1980. And the number of self-employed is up by more than half.

    No one ever needed persuading of the attractiveness of Scotland, the quality of its people or of its environment. Whenever I come here I am struck by how within a few minutes of any airport or station I am in beautiful countryside.

    But for too long the outdated face of Scottish industry turned opportunity away. Now, people and businesses are voting for Scotland with their cash. And with their feet. In 1989, 10,000 people moved here from the rest of the UK and from abroad. Since 1981 foreign companies have invested 4 billion in Scotland, creating or safeguarding a planned 80,000 jobs.

    These achievements reflect Mrs Thatcher’s determination to get business and industry here and throughout the United Kingdom back on its feet. And her success in doing so.

    Lanarkshire

    But I recognise that, for all the progress since 1979, some parts of Scotland have managed these changes less easily than others. Lanarkshire is one. At Ravenscraig, and elsewhere in Lanarkshire, British Steel has already announced a number of job losses. That has come as unwelcome news to all who live and work in the area. And I am well aware these are by no means the first job losses in Lanarkshire.

    Allan Stewart will shortly receive the report from the working party we set up to examine the problems of the area and see how they can best be overcome. Ian Lang and I will study that report carefully and speedily.

    There will be no delay. We will take the necessary steps to help Lanarkshire become, once again, an area that will be attractive to new investment and new jobs.

    But even before we see the report there is some preliminary work we can put in hand. Today – before we have seen the report – we are making a further 15 million available now to Scottish enterprise to enhance work on site clearance and to ‘green’ over the worst areas of industrial dereliction. For I want to see Lanarkshire as a thriving, successful part of the Scottish economy. I believe the extra resources I have announced today – together with the other support for Lanarkshire already committed – will be a further step towards bringing about that resurgence.

    Labour’s tax on skills

    Whatever we do, when it comes to regeneration, what areas like Lanarkshire need, will be men and women of energy, skill and vision. Good managers, trained professionals, skilled workers. They are the people who will build new businesses and create new jobs. And we need them here – not abroad.

    Only one thing could discourage people like that – a Labour Government. They plan a special tax on the hardest-working and most skilled people. 72 a month extra national insurance stopped from the pay of a family doctor in Dundee, and a secondary head teacher in Glasgow. A quarter of a million Scottish workers and their families, would be caught in Labour’s trap – before we even begin to consider their tax increases.

    Those people already pay nearly 1650 a year in national insurance. But that’s not enough for Labour. 1650? Labour would spend that in less than one hour on a new state-led body. A typical Labour proposal. The men from the ministry picking winners in technology – the boomerang that won’t come back, the aircraft too heavy to fly, the computer that could make Labour’s policy plans add up. Labour picking winners? They would have a better chance in sporting life. Yet it is to fund quangos like that – 71 of them – that Labour now want to attack the most enterprising people in our country with a new tax on skills.

    Many of Scotland’s top business managers would be facing bills of 250 a month and more. Why should they stay in Scotland when Labour’s new policy would drive them abroad? Such a policy would be a disaster. Indeed, for Labour, it is a disaster. Publishing it was the beginning of the end of their prospects of power.

    Economic revival

    The industrial changes of the ‘80s have helped Scotland resist the present world recession better than most other parts of Britain. Things may seem difficult. Unemployment is rising. I regret that. I know what it means to the people and families involved.

    But there are still far more people in Scotland with jobs than when we came to power. Britain’s unemployment levels remain below the EC average. But I know also that this is not much comfort to those looking for jobs who want them. What is of comfort is that we are winning the battle against the cause of the problem – inflation. That we have put in place policies to prevent it. And that our policies will mean more jobs in Scotland as Britain grows again. More secure jobs. In modern industries. For this generation and the next.

    If we are to grow again strongly, we need to get inflation down. That we are doing. Eighteen months ago we took tough action against price rises. I knew it wouldn’t be popular. I knew it might not be ‘electorally convenient’. But I also knew it was right.

    As a result inflation is now tumbling in Britain when it is climbing elsewhere. It will tumble further throughout this year. Scottish families and Scottish business will benefit from that.

    It is not just inflation that we have in retreat. A few months ago we led Britain into the ERM. Since then we have made five cuts in interest rates. Yet the pound is as strong in Germany now as it was when we joined. Five cuts in interest rates. And the costs of mortgages falling as well. It is high time some of those who opposed entry into the ERM recognised the benefits it has brought.

    Local government

    There is another way in which we must help both people and business in Scotland. By improving the quality of local services. Reducing the costs of local government. And, where necessary, intervening through tougher capping powers to block excessive spending.

    I believe local residents must have more choice. Parents should have the right we gave them to choose the right school for their children, and have more say in how it is managed. Families should have more choice over the homes in which they live. This Party gave Scottish people the right to buy. Now we are going further by giving a new group of tenants the chance to buy their homes with our rents-into-mortgages scheme. Older people. Those on lower incomes. Single parents. They found right-to-buy difficult. Rents-into-mortgages is exactly for them. The response has been huge. Two weeks after the new scheme’s launch, 20,000 people had expressed their interest. People who thought that they would never be able to own a home. People who thought they would be renting for the rest of their lives. Now they will have something that is theirs; something they can leave for their children in the future.

    We are also extending choice into the future shape of local Government itself. There will be many different ideas – perhaps even a return to the old city corporations. But few will favour keeping artificial and impersonal regions like Lothian or Strathclyde. You can be certain. If people’s views, point to the scrapping of any authority, the next Conservative government will act to abolish it.

    Citizen’s charter

    I am determined to give power back to the people who use public services. I intend to help them secure improvements in quality. That is what our new citizens’ charter programme will work to achieve.

    The charter’s principles are already in action. When we privatised British Telecom we insisted on competition and tough regulation. And compensation too, when standards weren’t met. The results were dramatic. Then, a quarter of callboxes were unusable; now it is just one in twenty. Then, under three-quarters of line cuts were repaired in two days. Now it is over 96%. But we should do better still. So we are bringing in more competition to help the consumer. As a direct result there will be a cash cut in BT charges this autumn. Then take gas. There, too, we set up a regulatory regime. But the system was not tough enough. So this month OFGAS has acted. If inflation falls as we expect, gas charges next year will actually be cut. When did that last happen? Did it ever happen when gas was in state hands? It will now. And, again, the public will gain.

    Ian Lang has told you how he will develop the Citizen’s Charter in Scotland. Already, some forward-thinking services have brought in the kind of reforms I want to see throughout the public sector. In the health service; in Scottish homes; and in education. They must go far further.

    We will be developing our charter programme throughout the summer. Make no mistake. I intend it to bite. And to do so in the interests of parents, pupils, passengers and patients alike. This summer we will be publishing a white paper which offers the citizen nothing less than a revolution in the way public services are delivered. It will be the most comprehensive quality initiative ever launched. New and tougher standards of service will be set. We will introduce a wide range of mechanisms to ensure they are met, to the citizen’s satisfaction. But it should also point the way to new pride and purpose for those who work in public services. They too believe in a job well done.

    We do not fall into the trap of supposing that better service must always and everywhere mean spending more. That is Labour’s expensive fallacy – peddled by those who would rather take the money than deliver the service. We never forget it is the citizen’s money government uses; and it is the citizen to whom the public sector must be accountable for every penny it spends.

    The whole public sector will be expected to commit itself to this process. Whitehall, the new Next Steps agencies, local Government, public services, and nationalised industries. And I will keep it under the closest scrutiny as it does. There must no longer be any hiding place for sloppy standards, lame excuses and attitudes that patronise the public. Our programme has four main strands – more competition, privatisation and contracting out, to ensure that complacent services are shaken up; new approaches to pay and budgeting which mean that good performance is rewarded and low standards penalised; a complete review of all the mechanisms for helping the public to get the standards they deserve – truly independent inspectorates, tough auditing, ombudsmen and effective complaints procedures; and insistence on the publication of detailed targets for performance and how nearly those targets are achieved. Services and their users must know where they stand. And, where possible, as the new electricity companies have already found, we intend to look for ways of direct compensation to the public when standards fall far below what the public should be entitled to expect.

    For each public service we will select the most effective means of delivering the best. For each service the techniques will be different. But the citizen’s charter will have just one common aim – achieving the highest possible standards of performance for those who rely on public services in this country. Once complete, it will be the most comprehensive of its kind in Europe.

    Health

    No-one should doubt our commitment to good services at every level, including the NHS. I believe in the health service. My family and I use it. We will go on doing so. Because I have confidence in the NHS and admiration for what it achieves. It is well over forty years since the health service was formed. And everyone knows how dramatically it has grown. But hang on. For most of that time Britain has had Conservative governments. So who do the government’s critics imagine has been pouring resources into the NHS over that time? Nearly 33,000 million a year, four times as much in 1979. Treatments unheard of in the 1970s routine today. Health spending in Scotland some 24% above the UK average. It wasn’t Labour that achieved all that. They weren’t in Government. We were.

    And what of this? At every recent election Labour promised a 3% real annual growth in NHS spending. They never got near that in office. Just 1.5% a year between 1974 and 1979. Nurses’ pay cut by 21%. The hospital building programme slashed by a third. A very modest performance. Indeed shameful. The more so when measured against their own immoderate boasts.

    Yet while they’ve blustered, we have delivered. Spending is up, year after year after year. 3.1% a year over twelve years. And levels of patient treatment up as well. Our performance has gone far beyond Labour’s promises.

    And the fact is that if Mr Kinnock’s 2+% growth formula had been applied this year, the NHS would have had 500 million less than it has had from us. 500 million? That would have meant 500,000 fewer patients treated in hospitals, according to the Labour leader’s official plan. It must be one of the biggest own-goals in British political history. Yet more evidence that Labour doesn’t and can’t add up.

    There is just one more thing I want to say about the health service. I do not accept that there cannot be change in the NHS. I do not accept that every pound in nearly 33,000 million cannot be better spent. Our reforms are about achieving better patient care – and better patient care alone. We will see them through.

    European Council

    I want Scotland to play a leading role in international affairs. Our place in the world begins in Europe. As I said recently, it lies ‘at the heart of Europe’ . I believe that Scotland’s experience is essential to that. I was delighted that Glasgow made such an impact as Europe’s city of culture for 1990. Next year I want to put Edinburgh, like Glasgow, at the centre of European events.

    Edinburgh is already the European Community’s fourth largest financial management centre. And it is moving up the world league close on Chicago’s heels. But a historic capital like Edinburgh should be a diplomatic centre as well. I can tell this conference today that when a Conservative Government chairs the European Council in 1992, we will bring the European council, and the summit meeting of European leaders, to Scotland. I want it to be in Edinburgh that Europe signals the final completion of the single market, on which so many countries have laboured for so long.

    Scottish Assembly

    But I don’t just want Britain to be in Europe. I want Britain to be a leader in Europe. That means being confident and secure as a people as well. I believe passionately that our country must stay united. The United Kingdom draws together, in partnership, the traditions of four proud nations. We have much to give each other. Much to learn from each other. The Scots have always played a great part in the government of Britain, and always will. I know there is sometimes a feeling – not just in Scotland, but in Wales and England too – that Westminster can be too remote. I believe that government should be – must be – more receptive to the aspirations of people throughout the united Kingdom.

    But I do not believe those aspirations would be met by the creation of a further tax-raising body in Scotland; by more Government and more taxes that would disadvantage this part of the island. I don’t want industry and investment to be driven out of Scotland by the highest level of tax in Britain, destroying jobs and smashing hopes. Nine out of ten of Scotland’s business leaders oppose the kind of revenue-raising Assembly the convention proposed, and surely we must listen to that warning.

    Ever since the union of the crowns of Scotland and England in 1603, it has been as a United Kingdom that we have made our incomparable mark on the history of the world. And in this century it was as a British people that we fought in two world wars. And, more recently, as part of the British armed forces, that so many young men and women from Scotland went to the Gulf to throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. I was proud to meet them when I visited our forces in the Gulf, and proud, too, last weekend that it was here in Scotland that Britain gave thanks for what they had achieved.

    Britain in the world

    At that service there were readings by children from differing traditions – Christian, Muslim and Jew. All Scottish children. It was very moving. They spoke of common thankfulness and a prayer for peace. It is a peace that for the sake of all our children we must buttress with new safeguards.

    Britain did not sell arms to Iraq. Others did. Saddam Hussein built up his supplies until he had twice as many tanks as Britain and France put together. That is why I have called for a register at the United Nations of all conventional arms sales. I can tell you today that I have asked our representative in New York to press this issue as a high priority. And let me also give more details today of what I want this register to do. It needs to require countries selling arms to declare what they sell, to whom they sell them and in what quantity. I shall be working for that register to be agreed this year.

    Achieving agreement on a register will be an ambitious objective. But we are getting used to breaking new ground. For example, the safe haven for the Kurds in the north of Iraq. And the United Nations special commission, which in the coming weeks and including British scientists, will search out and destroy the weapons of mass destruction still held by Saddam Hussein after the war. Both those ideas were without precedent. Both were British proposals. A Conservative Government s proposals.

    Today, at this conference, I can give the country two further assurances:

    First, Britain will veto any UN resolution designed to weaken the sanctions regime we have set in place, for so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power;

    Second, that we shall ensure, by whatever means it takes, that Iraq can never again build a capacity to threaten her neighbours with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

    Conclusion

    Mr Chairman, we have come a long way together these last seven months. Do you remember what the critics were saying last autumn? They said that our government was finished. We were 16 per cent behind in the opinion polls in the UK as a whole, 33 points behind in Scotland. Well, seven months on we have silenced those critics. Now we are ahead in the polls overall, and we have increased our support by a third in Scotland.

    Last autumn we were facing a world recession. Now we are on the road to recovery. Then inflation was rising. Now it is plummeting. Then mortgage rates were locked at a high level. Now they are coming down and poised to fall further. Then disputes over local government finance seemed insoluble. Now they are solved.

    And I have not even mentioned our progress in Europe, or our help for the Kurds. That is not bad for just seven months work.

    So we should be confident about our party’s future. And, what is more important, we can be confident about the future of Scotland as well.

    This party has the right vision for Britain’s future. Our priorities are to care for those who can’t, to encourage those who can, and to make our country a better place to live in for everyone.

    And that message must ring out from this conference. Our Party in Scotland – the Conservative Party – is on the way back. We are not talking any more about holding on in Scotland. We are talking about regaining seats in Scotland from Labour, Liberal and Nationalists, too. And we will not be easily satisfied. Not satisfied at all, until we have what once we had – a majority of seats in Scotland, safe and secure in the Conservative interest. Nothing less will do. And with your support, whenever the election comes, we will begin that work.

  • PMQT – 9 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister know of the grave shortage of resources that is affecting children’s wards and units in hospitals throughout Britain? Is he aware that the unique baby life-saving unit in Groby Road hospital in my constituency is likely to have to close because there is no money locally and the Department of Health has refused central NHS funding? If that unit closes, as is almost certain unless the Government change their mind, what will the Prime Minister say to the parents of babies who will certainly die, totally unnecessarily?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, I cannot carry in my head the details of each and every aspect of the national health service, but he knows that the average annual increase in the national health service budget has been more than 3 per cent. during the period of this Government–substantially higher than it was under any previous Government.

    Sir Michael Shaw : If public spending is to be paid for in the future by increases in our economy, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend do policies of increased taxation, increases in quangos and Ministries and a minimum wage level make a sensible policy to increase such a demand?

    The Prime Minister : I suspect that I know what my hon. Friend is driving at. The reality is that the Labour party would never deliver any growth whatsoever to fund increased public expenditure. It never has and never would and any suggestion that it would is sheer wish fantasy.

    Mr. Kinnock : Has the Prime Minister seen the letter from the health authority district general manager to his clinical directors stating that

    “the reality of GPs holding their own budgets”

    is that

    “equity has gone out the window”?

    In view of that, will the Prime Minister withdraw the claim that he made in the House on Tuesday that operations are done on the basis of clinical need, as that claim is obviously fiction?

    The Prime Minister : It is not fiction. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. I have been advised within the last hour or so that the doctor to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred has also said that the big advantage of the trusts is that you are opting out of bureaucracy, not out of the national health service. At Bart’s, the hospital at which he works, they are treating more patients at less cost. Over 1,000 jobs may have gone in the last five years, but more patients are being treated.

    Mr. Kinnock : Since the Prime Minister also wants to quote Dr. Grant, I remind him that he is the man who said that they are opting out of equity. Can I put it to the Prime Minister again? Is not it clear that the Prime Minister’s health market policies have now made queue-jumping the order of the day and that the clinical needs of patients are coming second to commercial considerations? I put it to him again. In view of that reality, on the testimony of Dr. Grant, will he now withdraw the false claim that he made two days ago that operations are done on the basis of clinical need? It is fiction.

    The Prime Minister : No, I will not, and I will call in evidence to support my position Mr. Rowden, the chief executive of West Lambeth health authority, who writes to the press as a nurse, a general manager in the national health service and a member of the Labour party. I quote :

    “For Labour to suggest that the old-style district health authorities provided a sound basis for the management of the NHS is spurious to say the least. Decisions prior to the reforms were arrived at by a process of those who screamed the loudest, and we have all witnessed various displays of shroud-waving This was not a rational way of making difficult decisions, and perhaps the key benefit from the NHS reforms will be the evolution of a system that will lead to rational and informed debate about how and why we use precious resources in our NHS.”

    Mr. Kinnock : Like his predecessor, the more the Prime Minister goes on in his answers, the less convincing he becomes. May I put it to him again? Does not he agree with the testimony of one of his supporters, a district general manager, who says that because of his system equity has gone out of the window? Will not he affirm now that, as a consequence, operations are not being done on the basis of clinical need but on the basis of commercial considerations?

    The Prime Minister : I neglected inadvertently to complete the quote from Mr. Rowden, the Labour party supporter. He deals with the point that the right hon. Gentleman now raises :

    “When all the politicking stops, it has to be said that many of the Government’s changes to the NHS give us the first opportunity in decades to begin explicitly to make choices about where we spend our money in the UK health care system.”

    Mr. Harris : Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, unlike the Labour party, he will keep public expenditure in line with what the country can afford? Furthermore, as the First Lord of the Treasury, will he make available to Her Majesty’s Opposition the full facilities of the Treasury to check out their taxation and spending plans, as clearly their sums do not add up?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Our economic policies in the last 12 years have achieved a remarkable treble–tax cuts, spending increases on public services and a reduction in the national debt. The extra £20 billion that Labour promises is spending that it could never deliver out of growth which it has never previously provided when in government. The only things that would grow under the Labour party would be taxes, inflation and national health service waiting lists, just as they always have done.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that while the scale of international relief in Bangladesh is still pitiful in relation to need, there is nevertheless real pride about Britain’s lead in providing it? I again ask the Prime Minister why it is that he, his Government and, it appears, the written press continue to ignore the incalculably greater scale of the disaster now unfolding in Africa? I want the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that he knows and understands that 27 million lives are imminently at risk and that in some areas food will run out at the end of this week. If he knows about these matters, will he tell the House what he intends to do to help?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his question. The assistance that we have given to Bangladesh has made us the largest single national donor. We are prepared to do more and are urging others to do more. Particularly in the months ahead we will need to seek a better international way of co-ordinating assistance when great tragedies such as this are faced. I shall do what I can to bring that sort of system about. On the subject of Africa, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are providing substantial aid and providing it fast. After the United States, we are the second largest bilateral food aid contributor to the Horn. We have done a great deal and, where necessary, we will be able to do more. However, we cannot do everything that is necessary on our own. We have a better record than almost anyone in the world and we can justly be proud of that record.

    Mr. Butcher : Is my right hon. Friend aware that 12 years ago to this day he and I first entered the House? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his personal dedication and commitment to an improvement in public services throughout that period. If the history of the 1980s shows anything it is that it is possible to reduce taxation while simultaneously and dramatically improving public services.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right about that. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his illness. We are all very pleased to see him here and looking so fit and I look forward to seeing him sit here with me for at least another 12 years and possibly a good deal longer. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such improvements depend on the levels of growth that we have achieved over the last decade, which levels Conservative Governments traditionally achieve and Labour Governments fail to achieve.

     

    Q2. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Welsh : As the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Energy both oppose test drilling by Nirex in their constituencies, does the Prime Minister understand why the people of Scotland do not wish to see up to 6,000 planned test boreholes being drilled in Caithness? If Nirex proposes to spend such time, effort and money in drilling up to 6,000 boreholes, how can the Prime Minister expect anyone to believe that Nirex has not targeted the north of Scotland as a nuclear dump? Scotland has been badly let down by this decision.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman will know, there will need to be quite specific planning consents before there can be any dumping of waste there. That matter lies in the future, but before any dumping at all could take place after the test borings, quite specific planning consents would need to be granted. We will look carefully at those when they come forward.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beaumont-Dark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Will my right hon. Friend accept that when we came to office 12 years ago the top rate of taxation was 82 per cent., that it is now 40 per cent. and that the miracle has happened because everyone has been encouraged to work harder which has meant that £17 billion more has been spent on the health service this year than when we came to office? Does he agree that a nightmare will strike people such as a police sergeant, a deputy head teacher or a doctor when they hear that if they earn £20,300 a year they are among the rich and are to be taxed and taxed and taxed again.

    The Prime Minister : That would certainly do nothing but damage to enterprise ; and it is certainly true that, over the past few years, lower rates of tax have produced a higher yield.

    My hon. Friend is right about people earning £20,000 a year. In no sense can they be described as rich. Last year in London and the south-east £20,000 was less than the average white collar wage and it will certainly be much less this year. It is less than many Metropolitan police constables and sergeants, senior house officers, registrars or junior doctors earn. It is less than many teachers earn. Those are the people whom the Opposition regard as rich and whom they would tax not only unreasonably but as they did in the 1970s : right out of this country.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ron Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Brown : As the poll tax has been a big mistake, why should people be hounded and imprisoned in England? Why should they suffer because the Government got it wrong? People outside think that something has to give–that there should be an amnesty. The Government should understand the position of the 16 individuals in England– [Laughter.] It is not funny.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This does not help the hon. Gentleman. Briefly, please.

    Mr. Brown : Those 16 people are in prison because they did not pay the poll tax. We know that the Prime Minister claims to want a classless society– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now conclude his question?

    Mr. Brown : This is important, because people cannot be imprisoned in Scotland but they can be in England. Let us free these political prisoners. That would be an important decision.

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply about these matters, but I must point out that he did not even carry his own side of the House with him in his remarks.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 May 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ministers’ Visits

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister what are the guidelines for Ministers using Government expenses to undertake official visits which promote prospective candidates for the constituency visited.

    The Prime Minister : As under previous Administrations, Ministers do not normally use official resources, such as transport, in connection with party business, but there may be circumstances which makes this necessary, for example, security or when official and party engagements are consecutive.

  • PMQT – 7 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Immediately after Questions I shall depart the House to attend a guard of honour for the Prime Minister of Spain. I shall have further meetings later today.

    Mr. McAllion : In the past week we have heard some Scottish Tories describe Scottish devolution as an immovable force which their party ignores at its risk. Other Scottish Tories have described it as a fantasy and a dead duck and yet others have described it as a London-based plot hatched by the chairman of the Conservative party to win cheap votes in Scotland. With which of those views does the Prime Minister agree–or is this yet another important issue on which he does not know his own mind?

    The Prime Minister : Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain fully so.

    Mr. Quentin Davies : Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the past 12 years this country has gained tremendous advantages through substantial reductions in income tax levels? Does he further agree that to increase income tax rates again, even for those on moderate levels of earnings, such as classroom teachers in London, would be a retrograde step and a major blow to the aspirations of millions of people and to economic output?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly would agree with my hon. Friend about that. It applies also to national insurance contributions, because what matters is the net disposable income that people have left in their pockets to spend. People will have noticed the Opposition’s plans in that regard.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity publicly to oppose a two-tier system in hospitals, such as Watford general hospital, where the patients of non budget-holding general practitioners must wait longer and take second place, regardless of their clinical need?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. There will be no reductions in existing operations in Watford. Instead, as a result of our reforms, some people will get operations faster than otherwise they would have done. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister has just confirmed the existence of a two-tier service. Does he realise that a two-tier system such as he supports is, as the British Medical Association says, “unethical”? Does he recognise that even in its existence it is a violation of the basic principle of the national health service that treatment must be determined according to clinical need, not contracts or commercial decisions? Is not it obvious from what he says and allows that although we believe in a national health service on the basis of need, the Prime Minister believes in one according to deals?

    The Prime Minister : None of that remotely follows. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my first answer. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. I shall repeat that in case he did not fully hear it first time : operations are done on the basis of clinical need. What we are seeking and attaining are a more efficient system and more efficient use of the large resources in the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman’s plans would take money away from the NHS as a result of many of his spiteful proposals. He has made it clear that he will provide no extra funding. We need no lectures on health care from him.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister not only misrepresents me, he misrepresents what is going on– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister misrepresents what is going on now. Will he take this opportunity to say that there are no cases that he will allow in which the patients of non budget-holding GPs will be allowed to take second place to the patients of budget-holding GPs who have made contractual arrangements with hospitals to gain preference for their patients?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should read what I have said twice already : that operations are done on the basis of clinical need.

    Mr. Alexander : Does my right hon. Friend recollect his past criticism of the unsatisfactory nature of the laws on Sunday trading? In the light of recent events, does he agree that it might now be appropriate to bring our laws in England and Wales into line with those of Scotland, where the commitment to the Sabbath and keeping Sunday special goes hand in hand with sensible Sunday trading laws?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, a number of cases are being considered by the courts. Some may go to appeal. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is consulting interested parties to see whether a consensus can be found on Sunday trading law that would be acceptable both to them and to the House, which has repeatedly expressed a view on the matter. I believe that that is the right way ahead on a matter of conscience such as this. Experience in Scotland suggests that a suitable consensus is possible. I hope that we can find one south of the border.

     

    Q2. Ms. Ruddock : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Ms. Ruddock : Does the Prime Minister know that last year in Lewisham there were only 320 employment training places when there were 10,000 unemployed people? Can he tell me, therefore, why today, when unemployment has increased by a third, to over 14,000, the number of employment training places is to be cut by a third? What faith does he expect the British people to put in his commitment to a fairer society?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady will know, the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe to guarantee a training place to everyone under the age of 18 who is not already in full-time education or employment. Spending on training is £2.7 billion this year. That is two and a half times more than was spent by the previous Labour Government.

     

    Q3. Mr. Speller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Speller : Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will fight for the interests of the small family farm in Britain at the common agricultural policy discussions that are to come and also by providing assistance for such items as expertise in marketing and help for farmers’ incomes, which have fallen to an unacceptable level?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We will defend the interests of all farmers, including small family farmers, in the forthcoming Community discussions. The House knows that, as currently framed, the Commission’s plans for CAP reform would discriminate against United Kingdom farmers, largely because our average farm size is greater than that in other member states. We have given considerable help to small farmers recently, in particular by increasing milk quotas and by means of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. We shall continue to help.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Hain : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the views of the Conservative candidate in the Monmouth by- election who yesterday advocated the opting out of not just the Royal Gwent hospital but the Nevill Hall hospital as well?

    The Prime Minister : Opting out–that is to say, putting control in the hands of local people within the national health service–is the right way to produce better management and local choice. I note that the hon. Gentleman does not favour local choice, just as his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made clear in terms of education yesterday.

     

    Q5. Mr. Wilshire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Wilshire : Given the Government’s desire to extend choice in education further, and given the public’s desire to see the highest possible standards of education everywhere, will my right hon. Friend find time today to look for ways to extend further choice in education?

    The Prime Minister : We are very pleased to see extended choice in education. The new grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and open enrolment have provided considerable extra choice. I hope that parents will take advantage of it. It is clear that the Opposition do not like choice. Grant-maintained schools, CTCs, the assisted places scheme, charitable status for private schools and the existing A-levels would all go and, with the Opposition’s tax plans, most of the teachers would go as well.

     

    Q6. Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Having clearly misled Parliament last week–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. No hon. Member misleads Parliament. The hon. Member knows that and he must rephrase his question.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Having misrepresented to Parliament last week the attitude of the British Medical Association and Britain’s doctors as to GP contracts, why did the Prime Minister seek to cover up his mistakes by doctoring Hansard? Is that not true and does not the Prime Minister owe someone an apology?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and Mr. Speaker will make a statement about that matter at 3.30 pm. In advance of that statement, let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. Like every hon. Member, he knows that it is normal practice, when a Minister uses a quote, for the precise words and their source to be provided by Hansard. In this case, the name of the correct source was put into the record, but I am entirely happy for the original words to be reinstated. The magazine from which I quoted was GP Magazine but similar sentiments to those that I quoted, endorsing the reforms, have been expressed in the British Medical Journal, published by the BMA– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us hear the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I quote from a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal, which said :

    “The reforms may not address all the problems of the NHS, but they do improve our capacity to specify the quality of services and to price improvements.”

    The point that I was making is entirely justified. If any apology is required, it is from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).

     

    Q7. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity, over the weekend, to reflect on the damage that would be done to our representative democracy by a system of proportional representation? This system would deprive people of their solely responsible local representative to satisfy the Liberals, the statisticians and the pundits who enjoy smoke-filled rooms.

    The Prime Minister : I am not in favour of either smoke-filled rooms or proportional representation. I share my hon. Friend’s view that it leaves minority parties determining Government policy and striking bargains for their support. That is not democracy, it is horse trading, and I will have no part in it.

     

    Q9. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Paice : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the fact that we, by reducing the top rate of tax to 40 per cent. from 83 per cent., have increased the proportion of total yield of income tax paid by the highest 10 per cent. of taxpayers from 20 to 30 per cent? Is not this because many of the most wealthy people are now staying in this country and bringing their money back, so that we get 40 per cent. of something, whereas the Opposition would get 59 per cent. of nothing?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The evidence as to the amount of tax collected with lower rates is clear for all to see. It is equally clear that, under the Labour party’s proposals, 14 out of 15 taxpayers would not be better off, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said a year ago. The figure is now one in eight. When the shadow Chancellor gets at the figures they change daily, and when we have finished costing Labour’s programme they will change again.

    Mr. Simon Hughes : The Prime Minister will be aware that, in relation to his policy on local government finance, only after huge public protest and widespread cuts in services did he decide that he had better review the policy inherited from his predecessor and then to ditch it. Does he agree that his policy on the opting out of hospitals was equally widely opposed and that it is now clear that it, too, will result in widespread cuts in services? For the sake of consistency of principle, will the Prime Minister carry out a wholesale review and then ditch the policy?

    The Prime Minister : No. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s views, and I do not believe that his analysis is remotely correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must wait and see how it turns out. He will find that he is wrong. For many years we have had to ensure that the national health service uses its resources to the most efficient extent. At last the present Government have had the courage to introduce a system that will ensure that the money is used to best effect for patients. I believe that, for the national health service, that is the right way to proceed and the one which will produce the maximum amount of good patient care. That is what we propose to do.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Spanish Prime Minister – 7 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Felipe Gonzales, held in London on Tuesday 7th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you for being here this evening. We have had so far around an hour and a half’s discussion, very friendly, very constructive, there are many matters that we have in common that we wish particularly to deal with. We have spent the time thus far discussing mainstream European matters, the inter-governmental conference on economic and monetary union and political union have dominated the discussions we have had thus far.

    Later on this evening we will be continuing discussions when we will have a wide variety of other matters outside mainstream European matters. No doubt at that stage we will be discussing the problems of Gibraltar and also of course the Soviet Union, Iraq and many other matters as well. But this far we have concentrated on the principal matters of concern within the European Community.
    I will say no more for the moment but invite the Prime Minister to say whatever he would wish to say.

    MR GONZALES:

    [Not interpreted].

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Could I just add to that? We did discuss cohesion in its widest aspects, that is both cohesion in the sense of the structural funds and cohesion also in the series of both inputs and outtakes from the general Community budget, so we looked at it in a very wide sense indeed.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can you tell us anything more about Mr Gorbachev’s possible attendance at the G7 summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That has not been a subject of discussion with the Prime Minister this afternoon, that is a matter that we will have to discuss with our G7 partners, but I am in no position to make any statement about that yet.

    QUESTION:

    Has Mr Gonzales given you any further support for your hard Ecu plan?

    PRIME MINISTER:
    We have discussed economic and monetary union at some length and there are very considerable similarities between the British position and the Spanish position on how to move ahead from where we are now. The British have proposed the Hard Ecu as you know and the Spanish have put forward their own proposal which is similar and which would involve hardening the basket Ecu. So we have neither of us given specific support to the other’s proposal but we are very close together on the principles of how we must go ahead on economic and monetary union.

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    MR GONZALES:

    [Not interpreted].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I agree.

    QUESTION:

    What reassurances can you give Gibraltarians that nothing will be done against their wishes on sovereignty or on the airport?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I could only echo what the Prime Minister said a moment or so ago, I think it would not be prudent for either of us to make comments on Gibraltar, either comments we have traditionally made or comments that may follow our discussions until we have had those discussions. That was the position the Prime Minister took a moment ago. I believe it was the correct one and I must answer in the same way.