The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1992

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Oxleas Wood

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited Oxleas Wood, south-east London; and if he will make a statement. The

    Prime Minister : I have not visited Oxleas Wood.

     

    European Union

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 13 January, Official Report, column 470, concerning the inclusion in the draft treaty of European union of a reference to the role and significance of European parties, when he expects to receive a draft formulation from the presidency; when he expects to lay this before Parliament; and what is the objective of the provision.

    The Prime Minister : The Portuguese presidency has proposed the following draft treaty article :

    “Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union”.

    Discussion is continuing in Brussels as to where this article should appear in the treaty. This is one of a number of technical points which will be settled before signature in early February. The text of the treaty will be published in the normal way after signature.

     

    Advisory Council on Science and Technology

    Dr. Bray : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the current members of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology; if he will give the date of their original appointment; and what is the date on which their current term of office will end.

    The Prime Minister : The current members of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology are as listed. In addition, the chief scientific adviser, Cabinet Office, Professor William Stewart, attends council meetings. Departmental chief scientists/scientific advisers are also invited to attend most meetings.

    Name |Date of original appointment |Appointment ends

    —————————————————————————

    Sir Robin Nicholson (Chairman) |July 1990 |July 1993

    Executive Director, Pilkington plc

    Professor Roy Anderson |July 1989 |July 1992

    Department of Pure & Applied Biology Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

    Professor Sir Michael Atiyah |July 1991 |July 1994

    President, The Royal Society

    Professor Michael Brady |July 1990 |July 1993

    Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford

    Lord Chilver |May 1989 |<1> n/a

    Chairman, Universities Funding Council

    Dr. Peter Doyle |July 1989 |July 1992

    Director of Research and Technology, Imperial Chemical Industries plc

    Mr. Ian Harvey |July 1989 |July 1992

    Chief Executive, British Technology Group

    Mr. Keith Henry |July 1991 |July 1994

    Chief Executive, Brown and Root Ltd.

    Sir Graham Hills |July 1987 |<2>July 1993

    Past Principal of University of Strathclyde

    Dr. Nigel Horne |July 1990 |July 1993

    Head of IT Practice, KPMG Management Consulting

    Professor Christopher Llewellyn Smith |July 1989 |July 1992

    Chairman of Physics, University of Oxford

    Professor Leonard Maunder |July 1987 |July 1993 <2>

    Department of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

    Professor Sir David Phillips |July 1987 | <1> n/a

    Chairman, Advisory Board for the Research Councils

    Professor Gareth Roberts |July 1989 |July 1992

    Vice Chancellor, University of Sheffield

    Sir Alfred Shepperd |July 1989 |July 1992

    Former Chairman and Chief Executive, Wellcome plc

    Dr. David Smith |July 1987 |<2>July 1993

    Consultant

    Dr. William Wilkinson |July 1990 |July 1993

    Deputy Chief Executive, British Nuclear Fuels plc

    Sir Martin Wood |July 1990 |July 1993

    Deputy Chairman, Oxford Instruments Group plc

    <1> Lord Chilver and Professor Sir David Phillips are ex-officio members in their capacities as chairman of the Universities Funding Council and Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils respectively.

    <2> Members in their second term.

     

    Staff Salaries

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the number of those employed in his office, their position and the salary range in each case, excluding secretarial and clerical staff.

    The Prime Minister : The number of those currently employed in my office excluding Secretarial and clerical staff and paid from public funds are :–

    Positions Held |Grade

    ————————————————————————-

    1 Principal Private Secretary |Grade 2

    1 Private Secretary-Overseas Affairs |Grade 3

    1 Private Secretary-Economic Affairs |Grade 5

    1 Private Secretary-Parliamentary Affairs |Grade 7

    1 Private Secretary-Home Affairs |Grade 7

    1 Secretary for Appointments |Grade 5

    1 Chief Press Officer |Grade 3

    1 Deputy Chief Press Officer |Grade 5

    1 Policy Adviser |Grade 3

    1 Policy Adviser |Grade 5

    1 Security Co-ordinator |Grade 7

    2 Assistant Private Secretaries |SEO

    1 Parliamentary Clerk |HEO

    5 Special Advisers |-

    3 Senior Information Officers |-

    4 Higher Executive Officers |-

    11 Executive Officers |-

    It is not our practice to reveal the salaries of individual advisers as they are individually negotiated in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential. The rest are paid in accordance with the civil service pay scales.

     

    Televisions

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister how many television sets there are at 10 Downing Street; and how many television licences are held for 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister : Nineteen television sets are currently in use at 10 Downing Street. No licence fees are payable for television sets on Crown property used for Government purposes.

  • PMQT – 16 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    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. Winnick : In view of the evidence given yesterday should there not be a full and frank ministerial statement–which should come from the Prime Minister–of what was known inside the Government at the time about the supergun affair? Bearing in mind the number of military items sold to the Iraqi regime by this country right up to the invasion of Kuwait and the highly critical comments made about the conduct of Ministers during the Gulf war, what right do the Government have to lecture hon. Members on the Opposition Benches over defence matters?

    The Prime Minister : In so far as the Gulf war is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is referring to one of the most successful military operations ever undertaken by this country or any other. It achieved its objectives more swiftly and with less bloodshed than anyone could possibly have imagined. As to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, he knows that much of what he said was nonsense. It has been dealt with often enough.

     

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

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

    Mr. McGrady : Could I remind the Prime Minister that one of the consequences of his Maastricht agreement is to prevent Northern Ireland from participating in the new cohesion fund, to the extent of losing tens of millions of pounds? I am sure that he is aware of the total lack of adequate funding for roads, transport and the environment in Northern Ireland, especially now that the Secretary of State has imposed a total moratorium on all public spending in Northern Ireland. Would he assure the people of Northern Ireland and the House that as soon as possible he will remedy that appalling error, and allow Northern Ireland to benefit from the new cohesion fund as a category 1 area?

    The Prime Minister : There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a higher level of public expenditure per head of population in Northern Ireland–and rightly so–than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The establishment of the cohesion fund and eligibility to benefit from it were agreed by all the member states. There is a misapprehension that Northern Ireland is the only category 1 area that will not benefit from that, but that fund is designed to help the poorest member states, not poorer regions or provinces within the more prosperous nations. So, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the purpose for which the fund was devised.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gwilym Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has no plans to increase income tax and national insurance contributions for millions of ordinary taxpayers? Does he agree that it is the height of irresponsibility to try to pretend that there can be a massive increase in spending from day one of a Government if the tax increases to pay for that are to be phased in?

    The Prime Minister : I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that we have made no plans for a super increase in VAT, as the Opposition have apparently considered. There is no doubt that the Opposition are now in a shambles over their tax plans. Their muddled statements show that they cannot be trusted on tax ; they shift their position from day to day. The only thing that is certain is that a party that promises to spend and spend is a party that would have to tax and tax.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister tell us why his record on unemployment is even worse than that of his predecessor?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone in the House and beyond regrets the fact that unemployment rises. That is why we are persisting with policies that will create long-term, permanent jobs for the future. We have put those policies in place–low inflation, lower taxes and lower interest rates. Those are the only measures that will get people into work and keep them in work, which is the only proper policy to follow.

    Mr. Kinnock : Unemployment has risen by nearly 1 million in the time that the hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor and Prime Minister, but still he refuses to do anything useful to stop that remorseless rise. Is it not because he believes that 2.5 million unemployed is “a price worth paying”?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should not be so cheap over such a problem. Unemployment is greater than a year ago in every country in EFTA and in every G7 country except the Netherlands. French unemployment is at its greatest level ever. United States unemployment is higher than for the past five years. What the right hon. Gentleman might also have fastened his mind upon is the fact that reported job vacancies are rising, that the number of people placed in jobs is rising and that there are 500,000 more people in work than in 1979. Those are some of the facts which the right hon. Gentleman should absorb.

    Mr. Kinnock : The right hon. Gentleman is a dodger.

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : In the last year employment in Britain went down by 873,000. Job vacancies are still 10,000 lower than they were this time last year. When Sir Nicholas Goodison of the Trustee Savings Bank says that this is the worst recession in living memory, is it any wonder that the whole country knows that this is the Government of high unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Some people might say that on policy rather than on personal matters the right hon. Gentleman is a tax dodger. He can give no lecture to us on unemployment. [Hon. Members :– “Withdraw.”] His policies would cut jobs across the whole country.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that that was meant in a personal sense.

    The Prime Minister : Indeed ; I expressly said that, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman’s minimum wage would increase unemployment by putting 2 million people out of work. His plans to slash defence budgets by £6 billion would cost 100,000 more their jobs. His tax on jobs would cost another 100,000. He is the only person in opposition to plan for greater unemployment as a matter of policy.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions– [Interruption.]

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

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions were to be removed, it would punish not just somebody earning £20,280 a year but would punish anyone who earned £390 in a single week? Does he agree that a proposal that would impose a massive tax burden on 4 million ordinary people could be produced only by a shower such as those who currently comprise the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The House is in a very excited state.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that the Labour party simply did not understand when it drew up its policy that everyone would pay more national insurance contributions in a single week if they earned above one fifty second of statutory UEL. The Independent pointed out, for example, that the Opposition’s tax plans would mean

    “the largest ever peacetime tax increase.”

    The Leader of the Opposition promised explicitly that anyone earning less than £21,000 a year would not pay a penny tax extra in income tax or national insurance under a Labour Government. Clearly, he was wrong about that. He should admit it, and do so publicly.

     

    Q4. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Canavan : Will the Prime Minister confirm that he personally was informed about British Steel’s decision to close Ravenscraig over a fortnight before the official announcement last week–[ Hon. Members :– “Oh?”]–and that instead of trying to reverse the decision, he and the Secretary of State for Scotland took part in a conspiracy of silence? Will the right hon. Gentleman now, even at this late stage, intervene to try to stop the closure, bearing in mind the Government’s responsibility for privatising the steel industry, thereby allowing a butcher such as Bob Scholey to betray the Scottish steel workers?

    The Prime Minister : It is noticeable that the Labour party has not offered to keep Ravenscraig open. I was informed that British Steel would be making a decision on the day that it made the decision– [Interruption.] I was informed in confidence some days before that it would be making a decision on that day. It was a commercial decision by British Steel. It is clear, despite all their words, that Opposition Members would have done nothing different.

    Mr. Irvine : Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence cuts of £6 billion would lead to a massive loss of jobs in defence industries throughout the country? Does he further agree about the hypocrisy of those who call on the one hand for the maintenance of defence contracts in public and, on the other, plan in private for defence reductions?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our policy, both for nuclear and conventional defence, is clear, has been set out in a number of documents and is properly costed. The Opposition do not say where they stand, cannot say where they stand and cannot admit to the jobs that would be lost if their policy were carried out. The Labour party conference has three times voted to cut £6 billion from the defence budget, and we can see the extent to which that would devastate the defence industry and the defence of this country.

     

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

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

    Mr. Madden : Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about which I gave notice to his office earlier this morning? Will he arrange for X-ray and metal detection equipment to be installed immediately at Armley prison in Leeds? I ask for this following a serious breach of security at the prison last Friday, when a visitor inside the prison drew a knife and sought to attack another visitor. As this is the latest in a series of serious breaches of security at prisons, will the Prime Minister call upon the Home Secretary, who has clearly lost control of his own Department and no longer enjoys the confidence of the public, to resign now or else sack him?

    The Prime Minister : First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the detailed point that he wished to raise. Security at prisons holding category A prisoners is already very tight, with rigorous searching procedures. In addition, however, we are providing X-ray equipment, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested we should. A contract has been placed for the supply of this equipment to prisons that hold category A prisoners. Devices have to be specially constructed, and they will be delivered as soon as possible.

    In reply to the hon. Gentleman’s last point, I can say that I have complete confidence in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

     

    Q6. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Evennett : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to base defence policy on defence cuts–the North Sea oil of the 1990s–is irresponsible and misguided? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition Front- Bench spokesman on Treasury affairs has actually stated this as a belief–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about Government policy.

    Mr. Evennett : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Labour remains unsound on defence?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, it is clear that, as my hon. Friend says, Labour would cut the defence budget to ribbons. It is true that on defence Labour cannot be trusted. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the Prime Minister please answer the matters for which he has responsibility?

    The Prime Minister : I am seeking to do precisely that. It is perfectly clear that, while the defence of this country is the first priority of the present Government, it might not be the first priority of the Opposition if they were to make the defence cuts to which they have committed themselves.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Foreign Investment

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in regard to selective intervention in circumstances of inward economic investment by foreign companies in (a) the regions of England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland, respectively.

    The Prime Minister : Regional selective assistance (RSA) is available to encourage inward investment in the assisted areas of England, Wales and Scotland. Investors with a choice of location are offered the same level of RSA to go to assisted areas of equal status. A similar scheme operates in Northern Ireland but higher levels of assistance are available and may be offered.

     

    Nuclear Waste

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what correspondence his office had with Mr. W. R. Burton on nuclear waste disposal over the past three years.

    The Prime Minister : As far as I am aware, none.

     

    World Commission on Environment and Development

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty’s Government have to contribute new proposals to the World Commission on Environment and Development when it reconvenes in London on 21 to 24 April.

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted that the World commission will reconvene in London in April. The purpose of the meeting is to enable the commissioners to make their independent assessment of the prospects for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. The commissioners are not seeking proposals from Governments but, in view of the importance of the event, Her Majesty’s Government are giving financial and other support to the organisers, the Centre for our Common Future.

     

    UN Environment and Development Conference

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what resources have been committed by Her Majesty’s Government to ensuring wide public distribution of preparatory committee reports and decisions for the Earth summit at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June.

    The Prime Minister : The Government have provided reports on decisions so far taken at UNCED preparatory committees to a wide range of interested organisations and individuals through the United Kingdom committee for UNEP.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what information he has received on the international meeting of non-governmental organisations held in Paris in December to formulate agreed proposals to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June.

    The Prime Minister : It is important that the views of the non-governmental community should be taken fully into account in preparations for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. I understand that agreement was not reached on all items addressed by the Paris meeting in December but that a partial set of proposals will be forwarded to the UNCED secretariat. These will be discussed at a meeting today between officials of the Department of the Environment and the British representatives of non-governmental organisations who attended the Paris meeting.

     

    Women and the Environment

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for his Office’s library a copy of the recently published “Women and the Environment” compiled by Annabel Rodda.

    The Prime Minister : I have already done so.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Constituencies

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards equalising the size of parliamentary constituencies; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : When conducting a review of parliamentary constituencies, the parliamentary boundary commissions are required to give effect to the rules set out in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which include a requirement that constituency electorates should be as close as practicable to the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom.

     

    Engagements

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

    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 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Douglas : Will the Prime Minister take some time today to examine his pledge not to turn his back on Lanarkshire? Will he give a clear indication of the earnestness of that pledge by agreeing to meet the shop stewards of Dalzell plant, who have indicated that they have a plan guaranteeing the effectiveness of their own plant, together with continued steel production in Scotland? Does he accept that he has an obligation to honour that pledge by examining every possible avenue to maintain steel production in Scotland, and in particular not to turn his back on a plan which has shown great effectiveness?

    The Prime Minister : I made my position clear in Scotland some time ago. We certainly would not abandon the people of north Lanarkshire. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall be seeking agreement from the European Community to establish an enterprise zone such as those which, in other parts, have been very successful. He will also know that in the past year we have provided about £120 million extra assistance for north Lanarkshire through the Scottish Enterprise fund, East Kilbride development corporation, the iron and steel employees readaption benefit scheme, the Scottish Development Agency and much else. I am sure that either my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be happy to meet the shop stewards in Dalzell.

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my right hon. Friend accept that, at a time of great international instability, the whole country welcomes his decision as chairman of the United Nations Security Council to call a meeting of that council later this month? Does not the acceptance of his invitation by President Bush, President Yeltsin, President Mitterrand and other world leaders prove the importance of that meeting? Is it not an insult to world leaders that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) should describe that as grubbing around for a photo opportunity?

    The Prime Minister : We have had a very favourable response from Heads of Government, all of whom share our view that the meeting offers a unique opportunity to reinforce the role of the United Nations as a peacemaker and peacekeeper, to look at the role that they can play in both disarmament and non-proliferation, and to reinforce the role that they can play in terms of improving good government and human rights records in a large number of countries. There has been unanimous acceptance by Heads of State and Government among Security Council members to attend. I hope and believe that it will be a useful and worthwhile occasion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bidwell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Bidwell : Is the Prime Minister aware that conflicting views about the future of the railways are coming from No. 10 Downing street and from the Secretary of State for Transport? It is said that the Prime Minister has a view. May the House hear it today? There is an old saying, “This is no way to run a railway”–I suggest that this is no way to run a Government either.

    The Prime Minister : On a non-controversial note, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his 75th birthday today.

    We are discussing within government the right way to take forward the privatisation of British Railways. Our aim is to ensure that passengers get a better deal as a result. We believe that the way to do that is to expose the railways to private sector disciplines. That is what we are discussing. In due course, when we have discussed the detail of how that will be brought about, we shall make a public statement.

    Mr. Lawrence : Since raising the quality of life of the British people is one of the main aims of my right hon. Friend’s Government, can we count on his support for my National Lottery Bill?

    The Prime Minister : An important debate on my hon. and learned Friend’s Bill is scheduled for this Friday. The Under Secretary of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), will make the Government’s position clear in that debate.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm that it is still his view that, as he put it in his own words just a few weeks ago,

    “tax cuts in the Budget”

    would be “unwise”, would “recreate problems” and would be “fools’ gold”?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has been misled. What I said in the interview in Harare, from which he has quoted, was that a reduction in interest rates just to stimulate the economy would be fools’ gold–as it would be. However, to help the right hon. Gentleman, I went on to add that if there was a prospect of tax reductions, we would take it and give people the opportunity to spend their money in their own interests.

    Mr. Kinnock : Everyone will have the opportunity to check the words used in that interview and everyone will have the opportunity to ask why, if those words are so wrong, they have not been corrected before now. Does not the Prime Minister recall saying in precise terms that tax cuts in the Budget before the election–as he is precisely quoted as saying–would be “unwise”, would “recreate problems”, would be “unfair”, would “hurt” people and would be “economic tricks”– [Interruption.] Is it not clear– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : As the hopes of Conservative Members fade, so their voices grow louder.

    Is it not clear that what was fools’ gold in October is fools’ gold in January and would be fools’ gold in March?

    The Prime Minister : As I said to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago–clearly, he was not listening –the quotation that he used refers to a reduction in interest rates, not to a reduction in taxation. The right hon. Gentleman can check the quote–perhaps he should have done so before using it inaccurately. When it is prudent to make tax reductions, we shall make them, because we believe that people are better able to look after their own interests with their own money than any Government, however benevolent, would be. It is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy to increase taxation. He proposes the sharpest increases in taxes that we have had in peacetime since the war. That is expressly not the policy of this Government.

    Mr. Kinnock : The right hon. Gentleman heads the Government who have imposed the highest tax burden in history on British families. He is the head of the party of high taxation. Why has he not the courage to stand by the words that he gave to his interviewer just a few months ago?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should not repeat what he has twice been told is incorrect. If he is concerned about the level of taxation, he might perhaps explain to the country why he proposes to increase the rate of taxation if given the chance. He might also explain why his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has suggested a luxury rate of value added tax, after all that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), has said in recent weeks.

    Mr. Mills : Does my right hon. Friend recall those heady days in the early 1980s when, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), we changed industrial relations law? That has led to fewer days lost due to industrial action in Britain than in many of our competitor countries in Europe and abroad. Has my right hon. Friend read the recent report? Has he any comments? Will he continue to change industrial relations legislation to take further the Conservative progress which has helped democracy within trade unions and reduced the number of days lost to strikes?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that, as a result of the trade union reforms in the last decade, we have a far better record of industrial relations than our competitors elsewhere or than previously in Britain. When and where appropriate, we shall continue to make further improvements.

     

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

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

    Mr. Fraser : Has the Prime Minister noted the remarks of the Minister for Public Transport about one class of service for business men and another, cheap and cheerful class of service, for typists? Despite the Minister’s apology, does not that statement, accurately sum up the Government’s policy on public services such as housing, education and health? The cheap and cheerful version of the service is hardly ever likely to be used by Cabinet Ministers or their families.

    The Prime Minister : That is uncharacteristic, and I would not have expressed myself as my hon. Friend did. My hon. Friend has subsequently made it clear that he regrets expressing his views in that way. If every politician in government or opposition were forced to apologise for injudicious remarks, few of us would be doing anything else.

     

    Q4. Mr. Michael Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Brown : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of discussions between the American company Kimberley Clarke and the Department of Trade and Industry, it is likely that a factory employing 800 people is to be built in my constituency? Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the DTI investment and the number of jobs to be created? Will he confirm that that is Conservative industrial policy working to the benefit of my constituency in particular and the country in general?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to hear of the proposed investment and job creation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The amount of grant offered is, of course, a confidential matter between the Department and the company. On the other specific questions that my hon. Friend asks, I will make inquiries and write to him. He is entirely right that inward investment is created by the right policies of deregulation and low taxation. The enormous amount of inward investment that we have seen in recent years would be lost if those policies were reversed.

    Mr. Ashdown : Further to the Prime Minister’s previous answer, does he not realise that, while he and his Chancellor argue about the Budget, and while his Cabinet is split on the matter, there is widespread public support for the view that at this time investment in the nation’s future should come before cuts in the basic rates of tax? Is the Prime Minister saying that he disagrees with that view?

    The Prime Minister : I agree entirely with the importance of investment. Where I might disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is that I do not believe that investment is increased by increasing taxes.

     

    Q5. Mr. Squire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Squire : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospect of a dictator or an irresponsible third-world country acquiring any of the 27,000 nuclear weapons previously controlled by the Soviet Union is literally a terrifying thought? Against that background, does he further agree that to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent is as important and essential today as it ever has been?

    The Prime Minister : I do agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The end of the Soviet empire creates a large number of opportunities, but also some dangers. We have to be prepared for both. The diminished threat to NATO gives us the opportunity to make prudent reductions in defence, but they must be prudent and it would at this stage be imprudent to lift our nuclear shield in any way.

    Mr. Faulds : Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders that he should make a statement– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Faulds rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The House is becoming disorderly.

    Mr. Faulds rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right to express his view as any other Member of the House.

    Mr. Faulds : Hon. Members seem embarrassed by good works. Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders for him to make a statement urging stores not to break the Sunday trading laws? Did he simply lack the moral courage?

    The Prime Minister : I have indicated the Government’s position on Sunday trading laws in the House on a number of occasions. I am interested to note the hon. Gentleman’s concern on behalf of the Churches. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not mention it to me on new year’s day when we had lunch together.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    RECHAR

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will institute an official inquiry into the source of the leaked letter from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales referring to the RECHAR scheme.

    The Prime Minister : Where it appears that classified documents may have been leaked, it is for the Secretary of State for the relevant Department concerned, in the first instance, to decide, in consultation with his officials, what inquiries need to be made.

     

    Security Service

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the appointment of the new director of the Security Service.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 16 December 1991 that Mrs. Stella Rimington had been appointed as the new director general of the Security Service, in accordance with the provisions of the Security Service Act 1989.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what changes he intends to make in his policy for providing answers to questions from hon. Members on the Security Service;

    (2) if he will make it his practice to give information in reply to parliamentary questions concerning the Security Service;

    (3) if he will list changes made since 1987 in practice on providing answers to questions by hon. Members on the security services.

    The Prime Minister : The functions of the Security Service and other statutory provisions were debated in Parliament during the passage of the Security Service Act 1989. The Government intend to continue the practice adopted by successive Governments of not disclosing information relating to the operation of the Security Service.

     

    Roman Catholic Church (Recognition)

    Sir Hugh Rossi : To ask the Prime Minister whether, following the repeal in part XVI of schedule 1 to the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1978 of section 24 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, he will now make it the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to accord the same degree of official recognition to the territorial sees and titles of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales as is accorded to the unestablished Anglican churches outside England.

    The Prime Minister : This suggestion is currently being considered, and I will write to my hon. Friend about it as soon as possible.

     

    Government of London

    Mr. Gould : To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to reply to the letter dated 22 October from the hon. Member for Dagenham concerning the government of London.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has replied on my behalf.

     

    Government Achievements

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his reply, on Her Majesty’s Government’s achievements, to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 16 December, Official Report, column 22, he will set out (a) the cost of making this reply and (b) the failures of Her Majesty’s Government over the same period.

    The Prime Minister : My reply of 16 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge demonstrated a consistent record of success and achievement throughout 1991. The cost of that reply, based on the cost of staff and overheads in various departments involved in its compilation, and the printing costs, is estimated at £1,520.

     

    European Union

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister what action he has agreed to or authorised in respect of the annex 1 entitled “Reference in the treaty to European Parties”, in the draft treaty on European Union; and when, and under what circumstance, the places and formulation of such reference will be determined.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 December 1991] : It is for the presidency to propose a precise formulation and place in the treaty for such a reference before signature.

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will state which body or bodies will define which associations or foundations are deemed charitable, in respect of the declaration on co-operation with charitable associations in pursuing the objectives of either version of article 117 in the draft treaty on European union.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 December 1991] : Declarations by the inter-governmental conference have political rather than legal force, and the existing arrangements for defining charitable status are not affected. In the case of the United Kingdom, the competent body remains the Charity Commission.

     

    Western Shoshone People

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for his office’s library the 1989 report by the United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment to which reference is made in the letter by Ambassador Renwick to Chief Rowell of the Western Shoshone people.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 December 1991] : I have already done so.

     

    Nuclear Weapons

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the technical basis for the requirement for the United Kingdom to carry out tests from time to time to ensure the safety of the nuclear deterrent deployment by the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 December 1991] : It has not been the practice of this or previous Governments to give technical details of our nuclear test programme. Testing remains essential to ensure the effectiveness, safety and credibility of our independent nuclear deterrent.

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to co-ordinate the United Kingdom nuclear weapons deployment and development programme with Her Majesty’s Government’s commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 December 1991] : For as long as our security depends upon the possession of nuclear weapons, the Government are committed to maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent. This is entirely consistent with our commitments under the nuclear non- proliferation treaty.

     

    Coopers and Lybrand

    Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister which Departments, for what purposes, and at what cost, have used the services of Coopers and Lybrand since 1989.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 December 1991] : This information is not held centrally.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Ron Brown : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Libya about the Lockerbie bombing; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 December 1991] : The Libyans have issued various statements and indirect messages about the Lockerbie bombing. None of these provided a satisfactory response to the requests we made with our United States and French partners on 27 November.

     

    Lt. Col. Partap Singh

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to answer the letter, dated 12 August 1991, from Lt. Col. Partap Singh (retired), president of the Khalsa Raj party; and if he will place a copy of his reply in the Library.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 December 1991] : My office has no record of receiving Lt. Col. Singh’s letter.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with UN Secretary General – 13 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the UN Secretary General, Mr Boutros Boutros Ghali, in London on Monday 13th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I was very pleased this afternoon to be able to welcome the Secretary General to London and to congratulate him at an early stage in his new appointment as Secretary General of the United Nations.

    We have had the opportunity this afternoon of a very wide ranging discussion on many of the matters of concern to the UN at present and there are of course a vast range of those. In particular I have been able to finalise with the Secretary General the arrangements for the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Security Council, which I can now confirm will be on 31 January.

    We now have confirmation from all the Heads of State and Government that they will be present on this occasion and it will give us an early opportunity in the Secretary General’s tenure to meet and to look at some of the issues of great importance to us all at present.

    I can in particular confirm that President Yeltsin will be attending and this of course will be the first occasion he will have had to attend such a meeting in his new capacity.

    In the Extraordinary General Meeting we see several matters that need to be addressed as being of particular importance. The first of those is the United Nations’ role as a peace-maker, a peace-keeper and as a settler of disputes. We will wish to look and examine how that can be enhanced with the vast number of regional conflicts that exist at present.

    The second area of particular importance will be the question of disarmament and non-proliferation and the very important role that the United Nations has to play in that.

    And the third continuing area of importance will be to stress yet again the very great importance that the United Nations generally gives to the maintenance of good government and human rights.

    I am very pleased that this special General Meeting is coming about. I do not claim it as an original idea, the original concept of this was President Mitterrand’s some months ago. But I am confident from the warm response it had from people around the world that it is an idea whose time has come.

    So these are the matters we have had the opportunity to discuss this afternoon and I am very grateful to the Secretary General for joining me. He now perhaps may care to say a word or two.

    MR GHALI:

    I just want to thank the Prime Minister for the Summit meeting of the members of the Security Council which will be held at the end of the month in New York and I believe that this summit meeting will be very useful for the United Nations, for the Secretariat of the United Nations and for the new mission of the United Nations – promoting peace, settling peacefully international disputes, contributing to peace-keeping, peace-making and peace-building, and promote human rights and democratic institutions in the different countries of the world. The summit meeting will certainly help me personally in my new job and I want again to thank the Prime Minister for proposing this meeting and I am sure that this meeting will be a success and will contribute to the reinforcement of peace and security all over the world.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, is President Yeltsin coming to London first?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I spoke to President Yeltsin at length on Friday afternoon and I invited him to London. In principle he would like to come, there are a lot of things happening at the moment, we are looking at the logistics to see if it is possible on that particular date. But if he cannot come on 30 January I hope he will come at an early date, but the 30th is not yet finalised.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, it is your contention, is it not, that it is only the Conservatives who can manage these changes for Britain that you are going to discuss at the Security Council in the way that Britain needs. Secretary General, could you assess Britain’s future role in the United Nations and do you share any worries about a change of government?

    MR GHALI:

    The United Nations is cooperating with Great Britain and this is what is important for the United Nations.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, is it your belief that only the Conservatives can fulfil the proper role in the UN?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You heard the Secretary General’s reply, you heard what I had to say, this is not an occasion for that sort of remark.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Ghali, could you answer this question in Arabic, if the Prime Minister does not mind. There is news today that there is an overall plan to solve the hostage dispute in the Middle East, do you have any comment on that?

    MR GHALI:

    No I have no comment, the United Nations is trying very hard to contribute to the release of the hostages, there are still two more hostages in the Middle East and this is one of the duties of the United Nations that my predecessor had played a very important role in this, and we intend to continue to do our best to release all the hostages in the Middle East and outside the Middle East also.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Terrorist Bomb – 10 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement, made on Friday 10th January 1992, following a terrorist bomb.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION:

    What is your reaction to this terrorist attack?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I am grateful firstly that no-one has been injured and the Police have been able to deal with the matter so speedily and so effectively. But I think the terrorists really should have learned now that neither in Belfast nor in London nor in anywhere else in the United Kingdom will they be able to bomb people out of their normal activities, their homes, their schools or anything else. If they want to reinforce our determination to make sure we defeat them this is the way to do it. It’s utterly counterproductive.

    QUESTION:

    Of course this happens everyday in Northern Ireland but they’re hoping for maximum impact by doing it almost in the heart of Government aren’t they?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it is not the first time in the last year that they have tried that of course in London. But it is perfectly true the real thrust of their campaign has been against the people in Belfast who have stood it with very great courage for many years. The people of Belfast haven’t wavered, haven’t weakened, haven’t changed their determinations and neither will we.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it is designed to damage the prospects of Peter Brooke’s talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is impossible to say. We are dealing with people who have many motives and many splinter groups. It is impossible to say precisely what their motives are. The only thing we can be certain about is that whatever the motives are they are not honourable motives and they will not succeed.

    QUESTION:

    It does reinforce the need for those talks to get underway though doesn’t it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are very keen for the talks to proceed. It has been a remarkable piece of work the way Peter Brooke has brought so many different people and so many different ideas around the table to talk. That’s the way to make progress. It is to talk. Not to place bombs that may or may not injure any innocent that frequently have in the past. That is not the way to behave, talking is the way to behave, talking is the way to behave and I think Peter Brooke has done magnificently so far, and we are keen to see that talks commence again.

    QUESTION:

    Will security be stepped up as a result?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to talk about security now.

    QUESTION:

    Why weren’t you in Downing Street at the time?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That’s because I had a meeting here that was arranged sometime ago.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to North East Businessman of the Year Award – 7 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the North East Businessman of the Year Award Dinner in Newcastle on Tuesday 7th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today I have been able to see at first hand the continuing strength and the enormous diversity of the North East economy. This morning I visited Vickers – one of its oldest and most famous engineering firms. I spent a most enjoyable time clambering around Vickers’ new Challenger II tank. And inevitably my thoughts went back to the last occasion when I climbed on top of a Challenger tank. Just ten months ago in the desert in Kuwait.

    Everyone who went through the Gulf War knows of the efforts made by the Vickers Gulf team. Their ingenuity, their persistence and their sheer hard work ensured our tanks, guns and equipment were ready for action at all times. It made a vital contribution to the war effort – and I was delighted to see that contribution suitably “honoured” last June. It was thoroughly well-deserved.

    At Newcastle Business Park, I opened the new British Airways flight reservation centre. BA is, of course, just one of many enterprises attracted to the new Newcastle Business Park. With some £140 million in private investment, it is already 95 per cent sold or let. And by companies that read like a Who’s-Who of modern, innovative industry.

    That demonstrates another vital feature of this region. An understanding of the need to diversify: an eagerness to use both the public and the private sector to create new facilities; and a determination to attract new enterprise and new firms that will ensure the future growth of the North East.

    Finally, at Amec Offshore, or Press Offshore as many of you will know it, I had the opportunity to see the oil rig fabrication yard. In 7 years, the company’s turnover has increased 10 fold and its workforce by a factor of 4. Today, it has announced a further contract which will create 200 new jobs at Sunderland. Amec Offshore is surely a classic example of the way forward: building on our traditional engineering-based skills and applying them to a new and expanding sector.

    This combination of enterprising incoming firms and traditional strong businesses has given the North East greater resilience in recent years. I know times are hard. I don’t pretend otherwise. But in many ways the North East has proved more robust than other areas in recent months; it has built on its long-standing record in the engineering-related industries and transformed it into a worldwide reputation for success.

    And increasingly the North-East offers a greater diversity of enterprise and employment opportunities than ever before. Whole communities are no longer dependent on single industries; and that offers greater security to future generations than their predecessors ever enjoyed.

    Perhaps that success is best demonstrated by the attraction of well-known Japanese inward investment – Nissan, Fujitsu and Hashimoto. They could have gone anywhere in Europe. But they chose Britain. Chose England. Chose the North East.

    But the future for the North-East is also:

    – about new investment by successful UK firms – Glaxo, MTM and British Airways;

    – about the work of the Tyne and Wear Corporation to rehabilitate old industrial areas, and promote major commercial developments alongside the Tyne and Wear; and about the parallel activity of the Teeside Development Corporation alongside the Tees;

    – about the development by ICI at the Belassis Technology Park to encourage and attract small technology-based businesses;

    – and about the innovation centre at the Newcastle Science Park linked to the City’s university and polytechnic.

    With such a record of innovation, diversification and growth, you may well wonder why this Government is sometimes accused of having no industrial strategy. Well it’s partly politics of course. But also, if by industrial strategy, you mean an obsession with regulation, with intervention, with Government interference, with excessive taxation, then certainly we have no such strategy. What we have is quite different and, I believe, better for our longer term interests.

    Our industrial strategy is clear. It is based on creating the framework in which business and industry can flourish in a decade that will be more competitive than any we have previously known.

    – That is why low inflation is our top priority. Without that our companies cannot compete;

    – that is why we reward initiative and success through lowering taxes: we now have one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the industrial world; we have cut income tax rates and our objective is a basic rate of 20 per cent;

    – that is why we will continue to return nationalised industries to the private sector – we are already discussing the ways in which British Rail and British Coal can be privatised;

    – and why we will continue to free up the labour market.

    Mr. Chairman, we have no intention of adding £1,000 to the annual tax burden on the average family; or of setting a 59 per cent top tax rate.

    And we have:

    – no intention of creating a national investment bank with regional branches trying to second guess business and markets;

    – no intention of introducing a minimum wage, thereby destroying the jobs of many lower-paid workers;

    – no intention of introducing a statutory training programme with every company subject to a half per cent of payroll tax, whatever their size or profitability at the time;

    – no intention of reversing the reforms that have transformed our industrial relations in this country.

    That is also why I was not prepared to sign up to the new Social Chapter at Maastricht. We could not see decisions taken in Brussels that would have reversed the better balance between the two sides of industry that we have achieved.

    Of course, that does not mean we are seeking lower standards for our workers; indeed, people know that in many areas standards in this country are higher than in other European countries. These are matters to be settled between individual employers and their employees – not by central government. And not by agreements at European level between trade unions and employers subsequently imposed by European directives – even though it might be opposed by the British Government, British management and workforce alike.

    We are a trading nation. We cannot flourish unless we can compete on level terms with other countries. That is why we consider a successful outcome to the current GATT negotiations so vital. It is why we are working so hard for the successful completion of the Single Market. And it is why I fought at Maastricht to make sure that in future countries which sign up to Directives implement them in full – or face penalties if they do not do so.

    Mr. Chairman, I recognise that for many sectors in our economy times are hard – in some cases very hard indeed. With growth faltering overseas in the world’s largest economies, our economy has not performed as well in the last year as had been hoped.

    But let us not get these matters out of perspective. We are at a different stage of the economic cycle than many of our competitors. For while Germany and Japan will continue to slow in 1992, I do not doubt that we will see recovery here in Britain.

    I know there is much speculation about the date of the turning point in the UK. Some economic pundits talk of little else. Yet in reality, there is no magic moment, no precise point when recession lies clearly in the past, while recovery stretches out into a better future. Inevitably economic data will show ups and downs and irregular patterns as recession ends and recovery begins.

    Recent economic figures certainly do not support the sudden swing into pessimism which has overcome certain commentators. Of course, there is no point in excessive optimism or trying to talk up the economy. But there is equally a risk in going too far the other way. And I certainly believe that the recent pessimism has been overdone.

    There are plenty of encouraging developments. If you listen to some of the dismal Johnnies you might never realise what has been achieved in the last year.

    We have reduced inflation from almost 11 per cent to around 4 per cent; it is now firmly under control.

    – We have cut interest rates eight times – faster and further than almost anyone expected: for some on annual mortgages, those cuts are only now feeding through into lower mortgage payments.

    – Thanks to our ERM membership, we have been able to bring our interest rate differential against the deutschmark to its lowest level for decades. In the 1980s sterling rates were on average 5 per cent higher than DM rates – today that differential is around 1 per cent.

    – Retail sales are higher than a year ago – and many stores are reporting record sales.

    – The trend rate of increase in unemployment has now slowed substantially.

    And real incomes are rising.

    Too many people seem to be losing sight of the issues that really matter. Governments cannot – and should not – try to adjust the economy month by month, or week by week. Policy cannot – and should not – react to every monthly economic statistic that is released. Our job is to provide a stable and predictable economic framework, with responsible monetary and budgetary policies so that business and individuals can have the confidence to take the right decisions.

    I believe we can look forward to 1992 with confidence. It is not just the Government but virtually every international, City and academic body that expects a return to growth. For we are getting the fundamentals of the British economy right. We have made clear our commitment to exchange rate stability through membership of the ERM. We have brought inflation down and will keep it down. We can look forward to growth founded on economic stability and low inflation.

    But, while we can create the right climate for future growth, it is up to business to seize the opportunities and build our future prosperity.

    What does that mean in present circumstances? Ultimately, at its very heart, business seizing opportunities is about the behaviour of individuals. About how they act. How they decide on their actions. About their skill; their foresight; their knowledge; and the sheer hard work, that they bring to decision-making.

    And it is also often about an independence of thought – what you might term being “canny”. Persisting with a view based on the evidence that the individual believes to be right. Having the initiative to look at a problem in a different way – and thus perhaps seeing the solution and way forward that escaped everyone else. It is about being able to spot and assess opportunities. And then having the skill, foresight and the courage to take the risk and then turn those opportunities into realities.

    And that of course is what tonight’s Businessman of the Year Award is all about. We are here to celebrate successful risk-taking, the very heart of a successful commercial economy. It was that spirit of enterprise which built the North-East in the first place. Now it is transforming the structure and diversity of its economy once again. It will enable that economy to grow and expand in the years ahead.

    I am confident about our prospects for the 1990s. In the last decade the Government and business – working together – turned an uncompetitive, ramshackle, over-regulated economy into an enterprise economy that out-performed most of its competitors. Now, as we come out of our difficulties, we must build on that. We will come out of the recession as we need to – with low inflation, a stable exchange rate and the prospect of steady, sustainable growth.

    If we build on that; if we ignore siren voices offering quack remedies; if we turn aside from re-regulation and higher taxation; if we build an enterprise partnership between Government and industry, then we can create a level of prosperity that exceeds anything we have known before.

    That must be our objective for the 1990s.

  • Mr Major’s Labour Tax Bombshell Statement – 7 January 1992

    Below is the text of the Conservative Party Press Release, ref 17/92, following a statement by John Major on 7th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    LABOUR’S TAX BOMBSHELL

    Speaking to a meeting of Party workers in Newcastle today, the Rt Hon John Major MP (Huntingdon), Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party said:

    “We have a clear message for the electorate at the next General Election: there is only one Party in Britain which believes in lower taxation and that is the Conservative Party. This century the Labour Party has been in Government for a total of 20 years. In only three of those years did they reduce the basic rate of tax. One of those was at the end of the war, when we returned to peace-time finance. One was when we and the other Parties forced them to do so by beating them in the House of Commons. And the third was when the British economy was being run not by the Labour Government but by the IMF. Hardly the record of a tax-cutting Party.”

    “Before elections Labour politicians constantly promise to carry out their spending programmes without increasing the basic rate of tax. The evidence shows that once in office they always raise it. Labour has no enthusiasm for tax cuts, but a great appetite for tax increases. Some tax payers may wonder whether basic rate tax really would rise from 25 per cent to 35 per cent over a Parliament. The answer is yes – if Labour keep the promises on spending they have made. The unwary should remember. The last Labour Government hiked tax up to 35 per cent. They did it before. And they would do it again.

    “We already know that a Labour Government would raise the top rate of tax from 40 to 59 per cent bringing in a new tax on talent by imposing extra National Insurance contributions on all workers earning over £20,280 a year. They would also bring back a tax on thrift with a 9 per cent surcharge on savings. Those are only three of their eight admitted tax plans. But all eight together would raise at most £10 billion by the end of a Parliament. Far short of Labour’s existing spending commitments of at least £35 billion a year by that time. With this huge programme of promises, who can possibly believe Mr Kinnock’s incredible claim that 88 per cent of tax payers would pay no more?”