The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1993

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 14 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1993 Scottish Conservative Party Conference, held on 14th May 1993 in Edinburgh.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, I’ve not come to this conference to talk just about Scotland. I’ve come to the Conservative and Unionist Party to talk about the whole of the United Kingdom. I hear you had some singing as well as some talking this week: the Secretary of State sang to you; Lord Sanderson sang to you, and this evening there’s a band in this hall – but you’re spared, I promise you. The last time we met was before the General Election. Do you remember? The Conservative Party? No chance, they said. Scotland? You’ll be wiped out, they said. The Union? A lost cause, they said. How wrong they were. Mr President, we stuck to our guns; we stood by our principles; we saw it through, and against all the wise men’s odds we won when the votes were counted. Aberdeen South from Labour. Kincardine from the Liberals. We won seats in Scotland and we won power right across Britain, thanks to you, the work that you did, the leadership that you gave here in Scotland. We proved faint hearts wrong. I’d like to say tonight how much we owe to Russell Sanderson, for on one worked harder than him to bring about victory. He’s been a tower of strength in Scottish politics for almost as long as any of us can remember. A very trusted friend, and a very wise owl, indeed. Russell, we owe you a very great deal and we’ll miss you. But bless you for all you’ve done. But we’re fortunate in Scotland: in Micky Hurst we have a worthy successor. A tough campaigner, a fighter, an old friend: just the man we need in 1993. A very welcome appointment. I offer my best wishes for the future.

    At the Election our opponents got quite a lot of things disastrously wrong. One of them of course was Galloway and Upper Nidsdale. How confident they were! It was all in the bag: they were measuring the office for curtains for a new Nationalist Member of Parliament. But they don’t need that office, and it was curtains of a different sort for the SNP. And, today, you can fit all the SNP Members of Parliament into a telephone box. Appropriate, really. The number they required was unobtainable and they had trouble getting through. They should have asked: I would have told them. Ian Lang’s a good operator and he reversed their charges. lan, you’re leading a renaissance of Conservatism in Scotland. It started with the General Election. It went on at the District Council elections. It’ll continue right the way through this Parliament. And I will tell you the next target for lan’s winning team: more Conservative gains in next year’s European elections.

    So, Mr President, we Conservatives know all about fight-backs, and today, once more, we’re coming out fighting: fighting for what we believe in. Mr President, we are not going to change our objectives. We are going to do what the Conservative Party has always done: the right thing at the right time for our country. That is the way to carry the British people with us. This is a five-year Parliament. Last week, at the end of the first year we had a serious setback. There’s no point in fudging the issues. The local election results across England and Wales were bad: worse than we thought they’d be; and, so, too, was the by-election at Newbury. We shouldn’t ignore that, but neither should we over-react to that. We’ve been here, before, you and I. And this time there are four years to the next Election. Four years to take through our programme of modernising Britain and building up its strengths. We don’t have a large majority, at present, so we cannot always grandly sail ahead oblivious to all. We may have to tack a little here, manoeuvre a little there. That’s politics. We can’t ignore the Parliamentary arithmetic. That would be plain stupid. But we cannot, and will not hold back from our objectives. So don’t expect a bland, Parliamentary programme: there’ll be red meat aplenty, and don’t expect us to shrink from controversial decisions because we won’t do that in the year ahead.

    We won’t be Nationalists, Liberal, Labour by imitating them – pale pink and poisonous as they are. I mean, of course, the policies. We are Conservatives. We must think like Conservatives. We must act like Conservatives. And we’ll win by carrying out policies that are distinctively Conservative. Conservatives are rooted deep in every part of the country. Draw on that strength.

    Let’s tackle first the problems people fear most: inflation, unemployment, crime, but there are other reasons why people look to the Conservative Party: for strong and modern industry; for better public services; for lower income tax; getting the state off people’s backs; wider ownership of homes, of shares, of pensions. A solid, sound schooling for the young, and yes, devolution, Conservative devolution: devolution of choice to every family throughout the United Kingdom. Mr President, that’s the modern Tory agenda. My agenda, your agenda, the agenda we will win on right the way through this Parliament. And I’ll you how we’ll do it: by remembering who we serve and what we stand for. By seeing the right policies through. Mr President, we’re at a turning point after a time of great difficulty for our country. We have had a war; a recession; a tough General Election; and international events have crowded and during this time there have been three matters that have dominated my concern. The first was to get inflation down and keep it down. That is the only way to bring down unemployment and create jobs. We forget too easily the fear and uncertainty of rising prices. The second was to put our country where it can play a leading role in shaping European policy. We must shape it and not be shaped by it. I don’t want to see Britain sidelined and dragged along behind the ambitions of others.

    And the third concerns the very future of the United Kingdom: a threat too little recognised before the last General Election. We had to waken our fellow countrymen to the scale of the danger and then face it down. Mr President, cutting inflation has meant hardship for many people. They want to know why and they deserve to know why, so let me explain. For many, the 1980s was a time of prosperity: Conservative governments brought home ownership within reach of millions who’d never expected to enjoy it. We all became too confident. We took our eye off the ball. We allowed inflation to creep back. People who’d worked hard, who’d borrowed money to start businesses or buy houses were caught up in it. Inflation had to be brought back under control. We had to do it. Left unchecked, it would have threatened everything that we had worked so hard to create. Doing that meant higher interest rates, higher unemployment, it lead to bankruptcies and home repossessions. I would have given all I had to avoid it, but if we hadn’t done it, people would have suffered all those things and we would still have had the inflation. That is the heart of the matter. All our hopes for the future depended upon the conquest of inflation. It was a huge responsibility and a huge challenge. It took determination. It took skill. It took guts, and Norman Lamont has shown he has all three in the difficult months through which he has come.

    But curbing inflation is only the first, the first, but indispensable step to recovery and growth. Since the General Election the fight for recovery has gone on, but people’s patience, even British patience is not unlimited. They have been hurt out there, they are reacting, and although we can see that recovery is underway, it isn’t obvious in the pay packet, it isn’t obvious in the Job Centre – not yet, but it will be. Mr President, the recovery has started. It is soundly based. Inflation is under control and we are going to keep it that way. No more boom and no more bust. We’re going for steady, non-inflationary growth. The British people have earned it and this Government are going to deliver it.

    Mr President, the second issue I faced when I became Prime Minister was a troubled relationship with our partners in Europe. Let’s be frank: we have an ambivalent attitude to the European Community: as a nation we don’t love Europe. We’re too British: too Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish for that. But we know its importance to us. We know our prosperity depends upon it. We, in this Party, want more cooperation in Europe between freely trading sovereign states. That’s what we’ve been fighting for these last two years. The kind that has led to hundreds of millions of pounds of inward investment pouring into Scotland: nearly one hundred thousand jobs depend upon that. And Britain’s hard, economic self-interest depends on having influence in Europe; on winning arguments in Europe; on building alliances in a Europe we can live with and be comfortable with. Mr President, you cannot build such a Europe if you denounce it daily; mis-represent it hourly; and poke suspiciously at it by the minute.

    It’s easy to play ‘John Bull’ in a china shop: attractive even. There is popularity to be gained by it, but it is not in our long-term interests as a nation to do that. If we cut ourselves adrift from the mainstream arguments about Europe, we would soon be sidelined, and five years from now the bitter, hardest of that short-term policy would be found in collapsing exports; in collapsing prospects; in collapsing companies, and in growing unemployment queues from one end of the United Kingdom to the other. There are great issues at stake: open Europe markets are vital for Britain; inward investment is vital for Britain. I am out to win both. I will do nothing that will put them at risk; I will do everything I can that will help to make Britain grow. Some of you may feel that we’ve heard rather a lot about principled opposition to Europe. I want to hear more in the future about principled support for Europe. Those, like me, who want Britain in the centre of European debate are not crying out for a federal state; not seeking to end a thousand years of British history; not seeking to undermine the essential individuality of our island. We are seeking a wider Europe, a Europe with less bureaucracy and without federalism. I know of no Conservative Member of Parliament who cannot support that sort of Europe, and I believe that vision is shared by almost everyone in this country and in this party. So let us put the arguments behind us – better to battle together, better for Britain, better for our Party and better for our future.

    The final great issue that faced us when I took office was the very maintenance of a United Kingdom. No other Party but the Conservative Party was going to fight for it, and I was determined, come what may, that we should. Some said the strategy was crazy, but you in the Party in Scotland, you never had any doubts. The Union was our great cause, and I spoke about the Union in every meeting I went to from the Tamar to the Tay. England needs Scotland, every bit as much as Scotland needs England. The United Kingdom is united, today, for one reason above all because the Conservative and Unionist Party won the last General Election. Mr President, we chose to put the Union right at the heart of our Election campaign. We spoke of the historic choice that faced our nation between a united and prosperous Britain, a force for good in the world, or the path to separatism, the path to disintegration and insularity. And we spoke about the Union, about our long history and achievements together, we spoke from the heart. We said the right thing at the right time for our country. It was instinctive and it was heartfelt, and the people responded. Mr President, for me, that was perhaps the sweetest victory of all in April of last year.

    But, now, now we must build on that victory. The separatist tide was turned but it’s not yet beaten. And that’s why Ian Lang’s proposals to bring the Union alive are so important: the will improve Government in Scotland; they will give Scottish people a stronger say. They mean change, yes, but we are changing to preserve the Union, and let me make this prediction: some time in the future we will look back at the last Election and say this: that was the moment of greatest danger to the Union, and that was the moment the Scottish people spoke up for it and saved it.

    Mr President, on these great issues we’re now winning through. It would have been easy to give up but we didn’t. And we won’t give up on our reforms in health, education, railways and public services; despite difficulties and setbacks, we intend to carry them forward. We had no intention of giving up – give over, I would say to those who think we might give up. Mr President, I know that some people say from time to time we’ve spent the whole year talking about Maastricht. Sometimes it feels like that to me, as well, but the truth is, we haven’t. During this last twelve months we put a series of radical, reforming Bills to Parliament: the Housing Bill, an Asylum Bill, a Lotteries Bill, an Education Bill, an Employment Bill – all key Conservative measures, all solid Tory objectives, and all in the first session of Parliament.

    That’s what Conservative governments are for: to extend choice to parents, to extend freedoms to trade union members, to give new rights to tenants, more opportunities to people to own their own homes, more chance for parents to know how their children are doing at school, and that is what we have been doing in the past year. And not a lot of people know that, but it is a massive programme of reform that we have carried through Parliament in the last twelve months. Mr President, these policies are building choice in every city, in every town and every village. Choice is power. We are taking choice away from Government and giving power back to the people. That is where power belongs. I want to see minimum control by Whitehall and maximum choice for every family. All this has been rolling forward: radical changes, far-reaching changes, stretching out and reaching forward to the year 2000. Mr President, there are ancient echoes in all of us that whisper: we’ve done enough. We should now opt for the quiet life. It sounds tempting. But if you start down that road, you soon bump up against a hard fact, and it’s this: unless we face up to change, change will overwhelm us. Year by year, all around the world, the pace of discovery quickens. We cannot just stop the world and get off. Mr President, it’s when the Conservative Party is on the side of reform that we win. That’s when we prosper. We Conservatives must have the confidence to go forward; confidence to test the market; confidence to trust the people: that is our duty, that is our strength, and that is our programme.

    So, let us keep our eyes on the bigger picture; on the key challenges of the next four years. And let me share with you some of my own priorities and the direction in which we must go. I’ve spoken already about some of the key themes, but there are other fundamental issues that demand to be heard. We must build a stronger, manufacturing base. We must take regulation off industry’s back – large industry and small industry. We must make public services truly serve the people’s needs. And we must provide the best possible education in all our schools. And, Mr President, critical to millions of people in this country, we must win the war against crime.

    It is upon these issues that we will take our stand. They will dominate our thinking and our law-making, so expect action on deregulation, expect action on education, and expect action on law and order right at the very heart of what we do. Ken Clarke’s package, yesterday, was just an instalment, so we will have a full programme and a busy autumn. Mr President, unless British industry is competitive abroad, Britain will be weak at home. We have to get the basics right for business: inflation, interest rates, tax, they’re all uniquely favourable to British industry today. Exporters haven’t seen a combination like that for very nearly forty years. The signs are right. Manufacturing output is up; investment is up; productivity is up: excellent signs, every one. Retail sales; construction orders; car sales – all of them are up – all very good signs. And Scotland – Scotland is leading the way: another very good sign, not least with whisky exports – Scotland’s liquid gold: rivers and rivers of scotch pouring down foreign throats. And not only foreign throats! I cannot tell you how much I’ve been looking forward to this part of the speech. That’s the way to get overseas businessmen to sign. And look at that – Ian Lang smiling, as well! That’s another sign: a Scottish sign, a marvellous sign, an Auld Lang sign! I know, Mr President, the joke was awful, but the whisky was great.

    And the future looks good: we’ve turned the corner. But for British industry the challenge is still enormous. For them to succeed they need a workforce with skills and with imagination. It’s they who’ll carve out success for Britain. So our children must be taught the skills they need. That’s why we need the basics at the very beginning of schooling. It’s why we need good, vocational education. Why we need proper information on how children are doing. And, yes, Mr President, that’s why we need tests in schools, as well. Mr President, we might as well face the truth, only quality will win in today’s world. As a small boy, I grew up like many of you, I suspect, looking at a map covered in pink with a huge British Empire spanning the world. Like many people I’m nostalgic about that. I wish the world was still a captive market for British exports, but it isn’t. And it’s no good our dreaming that it is and pretending that things haven’t changed. Our businessmen have to operate in the most competitive world we’ve ever seen, and so we must give those businessmen every bit of help that we can. And that’s why this Government must be, and I promise you it will be, right out there in the thick of the fight, right out there alongside British industry – manufacturing matters. And, Mr President, wherever I travel around the world I’ll tell you what I want to find. I want to find goods with that magic label, ‘Made in Britain’, all around the world. We’re going to win in the export markets of the world, and to those who said that Scotland can’t play its part in that, I say: this is James Watt country, Baird country, McLaren country, Bell country – doers. Doers who took destiny by the scruff of the neck and changed it. And it’s the country of Adam Smith, the arch priest of enterprise and choice. So, I make you this promise, here in Scotland, and where better, we’re not going to let tin-pot regulators who can’t see beyond their office door tie down the genius of a nation.

    Mr President, choice: choice is central to Conservatism, It is its very heart. Without choice there is no freedom. Without choice there is no achievement. It is a basic fact of human nature. When people choose of their own free-will, they become committed. They don’t just stick to the contract. They give that little bit extra. They become inventive. They make things happen. That’s the spirit we want, and not least in our public services. And, so, since the Election, look what has happened in some public services. In Scotland’s health service: not just the seventeen new trusts, but much more besides. Look what Scotland’s hospitals are achieving: better patient care; shorter waiting times; tough targets exceeded. That is the power of choice at work, today, in Scotland. And when others abroad were beginning to write about re-inventing government, we, in Britain, were putting it into practice. That is what the Citizen’s Charter is all about. The most far-reaching programme for raising standards in public service ever seen. Some said it was irrelevant. The cocktails grenadiers sniped and sneered, but then they don’t rely on public services. But millions and millions of British people do. And what has happened in these last two years? Real changes – real changes enhancing real lives, the time taken to deal with pension claims cut by a third; every hospital eliminating waiting lists of two years or more; ninety-five percent of Scotland’s parents now getting their children into their first-choice primary school, and every parent in Britain receiving an annual report on their child’s progress in schools. Some people always took such things for granted, but not everyone. And now the Charter’s opening out old narrow privilege. It’s making first-rate service a natural expectation of everyone. So here’s a slogan for Whitehall: competition reaches the parts of the civil service that memoranda cannot reach! We are changing the age-old practices of the public sector: making pay relate to how good they are, not how long they’ve been doing the job; giving the private sector the chance to compete. Mr President, we are still only at the beginning. Over time, there will be no part of the public service that will not be touched by these changes: from the dustman at your door, right up to the office of the Cabinet Secretary himself. And, I daresay, he’ll soon be asking my Private Secretary precisely what I mean by that. I’ll be very surprised if he doesn’t!

    Mr President, I want now to turn to another matter of huge concern. And let me say this right at the outset: I refuse to accept there is nothing to do about crime, and I’m not going to turn my back on what I know is a growing worry for millions of people. The great majority of decent British people know it’s the duty of everyone to uphold the law: no ‘ifs’, no ‘buts’. But I’m afraid there are a far too many who do ‘if’ and ‘but’. Who do criticise the police. Who do devote their energies to explaining crime and justifying it. And there are those who boost the self-esteem of young criminals by giving them the chance to swagger on television and radio. To them I would say: just think. Just think, then stop, That way you can play a part in this country’s fight against crime. Mr President, I don’t underestimate the challenge. There is a huge battle ahead, and it involves all of us. If we fail to teach children the difference between right and wrong, we are fostering crime. If we turn away or close the curtains, we are helping crime. If know what others have done and don’t say ‘no’ but say nothing, we are aiding crime. The police and Government, we will do all we can, but we cannot do it all. We are on the side of the public, but we need the help of the public. Society may not be to blame for crime, but it can certainly play its part in clearing it off our streets. I’ve been encouraged by the recent figures in Scotland showing a downturn in many types of crime. But Peter Fraser made it clear to you this afternoon, that we are far from complacent. We are putting more police on the beat. We are clamping down on late-night drinking, and we are reviewing Scotland’s criminal justice system to see how it can be improved further. Many of you will have been here at this conference all day, so let me say this, to ‘Judy of Edinburgh’ who spoke so eloquently and so bravely in this debate this afternoon, I heard what you said in that remarkable speech. Not only did I hear what you said, I got the message, and so have the whole Cabinet. Judy, you didn’t just speak for yourself. I believe you spoke for the whole country in what you said this afternoon.

    South of the border, we’ve been busy, too. There are too many young criminals offending and re-offending, and laughing while they do it. So, we’re giving the police and courts the powers they need to deal with them. There are too many people who’ve been committing new crimes while out on bail, so we’re going to crack down on them, as well. They will face stiffer sentences and, in my judgment, quite right too. And on too many occasions we’ve seen pedestrians killed by drunken or dangerous drivers, so we’ll be doubling the maximum sentence for them. And we’re removing artificial restrictions on the English and Welsh courts. They’ve resulted in some absurd sentences recently, and they’ve prevented magistrates from giving people with long criminal records the punishment that fits their crime. Mr President, that is wrong. I am not having policy driven by the size of the prison population. I am having policy driven by the safety of the population at large. And another thing, Mr President, we want our police to use their time as efficiently as they can. We want to help them do the job they want to do: beating crime. We don’t train, and equip and pay our police filling out forms. I don’t want policemen fighting paper on their desks: I want them fighting crime on the streets.

    Mr President, we are in the midst of a decade that will see greater change than any decade, even the most venerable person in this hall will have lived through. Change is accelerating, not just in this country, but in countries all around the world: inventions we’ve never dreamed of; social and other problems we’ve never yet faced lie not very far ahead of us. If ever there was a time when governments had to take a long view rather than a short view, you and I, today, are living through that time. We cannot afford just to cast our eyes on the problems of tomorrow, next week, or even next year. We have to stop and think and plan; and often take decisions that may seem strange, today, but are geared at the problems or the opportunities that we can see five or ten years ahead. It seems a long way away, the next millennium. It isn’t. It’s eighty months away. We need to start preparing for it now; thinking for it now; planning for it now; putting our industry and our nation in a position to compete for it in the most competitive world we’ve ever seen, Those are the matters that crowd on in governments, on Ministers, quite apart from the day-to-day problems that one reads about day-to-day in the morning newspapers and watches day-to-day on television.

    We need to stand back sometimes and re-assess where we are, where we’ve come from and where we need to be. I joined the Conservative Party, above all, for one reason: because I believed it had the clearest philosophy and the clearest instinctive ‘feel’ for the ambitions and hopes and dreams of individual people of any political party in this country; and it had a history that was unique. No other political party in any part of Europe, in any part of the world, has served so long, so well, so often in government for its nation.

    We are a remarkable political party: the most formidable fighting force when roused that western politics has ever seen. We have had our good days and our bad days; our highs and our lows; our opportunities and our difficulties, but it is in that unity, that philosophical unity of belief, that instinctive feel for what our nation is and what it wants that Conservatives draw their greatest strengths. It is at times of difficulties that they go back to those ancient instincts, draw out that strength again, and prepare for the years ahead. We’re a party that thinks beyond one generation. We can afford to do so. We were governing this nation long before the Labour party was ever a nightmare in anyone’s mind. And we’ll be governing it long after they’re dead and gone as a political party, provided – provided we maintain that instinctive connection with the cares, the concerns, the hopes and the aspirations of the British nation. That is the genius of our party. That is the genius, I suspect, that drew all of those, however we may have thought of it, in this great party, and kept us here through the years,

    So, let us put aside temporary problems and temporary difficulties. Let us keep our eye on the far distance as well as the near future. Let us plan not just for what we’ll be doing tomorrow or next year, but for the sort of society we want our children and our grandchildren to grow up in. That is what I ask this party of ours to do, both today and in the future. So, at the moment, after recent difficulties, we are fighting back at this conference. Fighting back for our ideals, fighting for what we believe in. Fighting for what brought us in to the party and what will keep us bound in this party, even in the most difficult of days. We have been through tough times, tough for this party, more important, perhaps, tough for millions of people across the land. But at the last General Election those millions of people supported us: fourteen and a half million more votes than any political party had ever received at any Election in this country, and they did so because we set out simply and clearly what we stood for and what we were doing. We set out where we were going and why we wanted to go. And from one end of the country to another they listened. We touched a chord in their instincts. They trusted us to do what was right for Britain and to see it through.

    Mr President, that is what Conservatism is about – your Conservatism, my Conservatism – to offer a fuller life; to stand up for Britain; to keep our United Kingdom whole and strong. Today, I sought to spell out where we stand and what our policies are. Our ambitions are, as they ever were, the ambitions of millions: to build a prosperous Britain. A Britain which sends its goods to every part of the world; a Britain where people feel safe on our streets, and secure in their homes. A United Kingdom, where effort is rewarded, where choice is ‘king’ and where everyone has the chance to succeed. Mr President, that’s the Britain that I want, and that is the Britain that we are fighting to build, and I invite you all to join me in that fight.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Alan Clark (Diaries)

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration has been given to the confidentiality guidelines set out in the advice to Ministers manual in relation to the submission by the right hon. Alan Clark, former Minister of State for Defence Procurement, of his diaries to the Cabinet Office for review prior to publication.

    The Prime Minister : Paragraph 19 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” requires former Ministers to submit their memoirs to the Secretary of the Cabinet before publication and to conform to the principles set out in the Radcliffe report of 1976 (Cmnd 6386). In offering comments, the Secretary of the Cabinet takes account of the recommendations in the Radcliffe report about the protection of confidential relationships within Government.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to monitor the incidence of kwashiakor, marasmus and malaria in Iraq; and by what mechanism Her Majesty’s Government monitor the condition of the Iraqi people.

    The Prime Minister : The United Nations conducted an assessment mission to Iraq in March 1993 which included a survey of the health of the population. As a result, WHO and UNICEF have included programmes to help relieve the situation in the United Nations plan of action. As well as official United Nations reports we also receive independent reports from non-governmental organisations working in Iraq.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 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 – 13 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Congdon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 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. Congdon : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the levels of compensation paid out under the citizen’s charter demonstrate its effectiveness? Does he further agree that the moves to agency status and contracting out are the best way of achieving value for money? Does he also agree that it is not surprising that all those measures have been resisted by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : As to the last part of my hon. Friend’s question, I am unsurprised.

    Paying compensation is popular with those who use public services. I also believe that it is right that compensation should be paid when service is bad. It provides a satisfactory discipline on the public services. As regards contracting out, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It has brought great benefits both to those who use public services and, critically, to those who pay for public services.

    Mr. John Smith : Since the opposition of the whole teaching profession to the imposition of tests this year has been reinforced by the overwhelming vote by members of the National Union of Teachers in favour of a boycott, will the Prime Minister now do the sensible thing and suspend compulsory tests this year?

    The Prime Minister : I was very sad this morning to see the result of the vote by the National Union of Teachers, which was the only teacher association not to welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on Tuesday. A lot of people will be asking whether that union really supports the principle of regular testing in our schools or whether another agenda concerns it. I very much trust that the NUT will reflect on what my right hon. Friend said.

    Mr. Smith : As the Secretary of State for Education was forced to concede that there were flaws in the tests, which is why he climbed down about next year, why on earth is the Prime Minister forcing children to take the tests this year?

    The Prime Minister : What should be called off are the unprofessional and utterly futile boycott threats. Teachers should do what the majority of parents want–co-operate in helping to make the tests work this year and in future years.

    On the second point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, he will recall that he has asked me that before. Ron Dearing has made it absolutely clear that he needs the experience of this year’s tests to redesign them satisfactorily for the future.

    Mr. Smith : As there is overwhelming opposition to compulsory tests this year, from parents as well as teachers and governors, why does the Prime Minister not show a glimmer of common sense and end the farce now? If he is not listening to parents and teachers, whom is he listening to? Does he not understand that to be so foolishly stubborn is a sign of weakness and not of strength?

    The Prime Minister : It is common sense to proceed with tests so that we can correct them and get them right in the future. Testing in schools is vital to measure the progress of the pupils concerned. The Opposition may wriggle, but that happens to be the reality. I hope that even, at this late stage, teachers will realise the importance to pupils of having these tests, the importance to the reform of testing of having those tests and the importance to the dignity of the profession of teaching in not proceeding with industrial action at the expense of schools.

    Mr. Gorst : Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Conservative Government came to office in 1979 membership of trade unions has fallen by 28 per cent? Will my right hon. Friend say whether he believes this is due to their being a growing anachronism, badly led, or merely because of their limpet-like, hand-in-glove connection with the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly not inclined to disagree with any of my hon. Friend’s points. Trade union membership does continue to decline and is substantially lower than it was a decade or so ago. I notice that many of the unions still sponsor right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench and resist suggestions that they should abandon the out- dated block vote in favour of one member, one vote. It is a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune, and on this, too, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is wriggling.

     

    Q2. Mr. Burden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Burden : The Prime Minister will probably have heard that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that he regrets “that inflation got out of control at the end of the 1980s.” Would the Prime Minister care to enlighten the House as to what jobs he was doing at the end of the 1980s?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had cared to research very carefully, he would have known that we have made it clear on a number of occasions that after the 1987 stock exchange crash we reduced interest rates faster than, with hindsight, we thought was correct, and that contributed to inflation. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, at that time, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) both invited us to cut interest rates further and faster and that that would have put inflation up even more. The hon. Gentleman should do his research more accurately.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jessel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Jessel : As the economy and business confidence have, under the Conservative Government, begun to improve–especially since Britain left the exchange rate mechanism–will my right hon. Friend give further support to business confidence by making it clear that the United Kingdom will not return to fixed exchange rates?

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, and as I made clear earlier this year, we will not consider rejoining the ERM before important conditions have been met, in particular the requirement that German and United Kingdom monetary policies must be much more closely aligned before we can begin to consider whether it would be appropriate for Britain to rejoin. Clearly those conditions are unlikely to be satisfied soon.

     

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

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

    Mr. Barnes : Some people still believe in the ultimate objective of a multi-ethnic democratic society, with full minority rights, for the former Yugoslavia. Included among them are many of the people of Yugoslavia who bravely stand out against violence and intimidation. Why do we not listen to some of their ideas for the extension of safe havens and United Nations border controls? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not everyone in Yugoslavia is a supporter of paramilitarism and war lords?

    The Prime Minister : We have indicated on a number of occasions in the House the way in which we think it is right for us to proceed at the moment. We have made that clear and we have said that we believe that it is right to continue to pursue a political settlement, without which no settlement can stick in the long term even though perhaps for a short while it might be held. We have made it clear that we believe that it is right to proceed with sanctions, and we have not ruled out the use of force, should that prove necessary, in selected circumstances.

     

    Q5. Mr. Alan Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that as economic growth strengthens and as our improved competitiveness, particularly in manufacturing, makes its impact, that will increasingly be appreciated by the voters, who will also note the nature of the Opposition parties–one inextricably tied to the big unions and big bureaucracy and the other without roots and no more than the scavengers of British politics?

    The Prime Minister : Things have certainly been difficult for many companies and people throughout the recession. I understand that and have acknowledged it on a number of occasions. I believe that as recovery comes through, many of those people will see that it would not have come through unless we had taken the right decisions to get inflation down and keep it down for the future.

    We can now see that manufacturing output is turning up, that manufacturing productivity is at record levels, that exports of manufactures are at record levels and that, according to the Confederation of British Industry, optimism in manufacturing industry has reached a 10-year high. They are very welcome signs. We are clearly coming out of recession in the right circumstances for sustained growth over a long period.

    Mr. Nicholas Brown : When the right hon. Gentleman took the decision to withhold the helicopter carrier order from Swan Hunter Shipbuilders, he will have known that he was bringing shipbuilding on Tyneside to an end, so he will not be surprised to learn that at 1 o’clock today Swan Hunter called in the receivers and 6,000 people are now to lose their jobs on Tyneside. Will the Prime Minister help my constituents by telling them where they will find alternative work?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Gentleman knows that, of the two tenders submitted, that submitted by VSEL at Barrow was many tens of millions of pounds below the tender submitted by Swan Hunter. I understand the difficulties faced by Swan Hunter and, because I know of those difficulties, I agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to bring forward that tender earlier than we would otherwise have done to see whether Swan Hunter could satisfactorily win the tender in open competition. I regret that it did not, but I am not in a position to reject a tender many tens of millions of pounds below that of the alternative tender. The answer to the substantive second part of the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary question is that it is precisely because we are concerned about the employment prospects on Tyneside that we yesterday announced a range of measures to help, including a new enterprise zone, a new English Estates development in conjunction with the city council and the development corporation, more services from the Tyneside training and enterprise council and employment services, confirmation that Newcastle and South Tyneside will remain a development area, and extra resources for the Tyne and Wear development corporation for industrial sites.

    I invite Opposition Members who scoffed when I mentioned the enterprise zone to look at other parts of the country that have faced similar difficulties in the past to see how effective that has been. They might, for example, recall the great difficulties at Shotton 10 years ago. If they go back to Shotton today, they will find a modern estate with high-paid, permanent, high-tech, secure jobs for just as many people as once worked in the steel industry there.

     

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

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

    Mr. Ancram : Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as the optimism to which he referred in yesterday’s CBI survey, there are also real indications of growth and increased investment in most of the regions of the United Kingdom, including the south-west? Given that after three hard years of recession most people in my constituency, and elsewhere, want to see real, tangible proof of recovery, as well as promises of recovery, does my right hon. Friend welcome the report as a true indication of recovery which even Opposition Members cannot deny?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I do welcome the report and I hope that that encouraging trend will continue in the months ahead. It is encouraging that businesses right across the country themselves expect to grow strongly in the months immediately ahead of us–in the south-west, certainly, but also in the south-east, the midlands and right across the land. What we in the House all want, I think, without exception, is to see that growth translated into jobs and into money in the family pay packet.

     

    Q7. Mr. Malcolm Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 May.

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

    Mr. Bruce : Does the Prime Minister accept that the campaign by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to transfer payments from post offices to banks is totally inimical to the interests of those who live in rural communities? Will he ask the Secretary of State to call off that campaign? Does he further recognise that the privatisation of the Post Office will damage rural post offices and delivery services? Rather than postpone privatisation, will he now abandon it?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) last week, I believe, we have made no such proposals. Our policy is to encourage people to receive benefits via their accounts while maintaining a viable network of post office outlets.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Non-fossil Fuel Obligation

    Mr. Cash : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made to ensure co-ordination between Government Departments on non-fossil fuel obligation 3.

    The Prime Minister : The responsibility for making orders imposing a non-fossil fuel obligation on public electricity suppliers in England and Wales lies with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He consults other Ministers as appropriate.

  • Mr Major’s Opening Remarks at Arrival of Canadian Prime Minister – 11 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening remarks at the arrival of the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Mulroney, in London on Tuesday 11th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say what a pleasure it is to welcome the Prime Minister back to London. He is a very old and dear friend of the United Kingdom and he is always a very welcome guest indeed.

    We have had the opportunity this morning of looking at a whole range of things. We spent quite a time on Bosnia. Canada has had a very distinguished role in assisting in Bosnia; many of their troops have done an absolutely magnificent job over the last year or so and I was able to express my admiration to the Prime Minister for the work that they have done.

    We had the opportunity to discuss GATT, a whole range of bilateral matters, the Prime Minister’s recent visits to Russia and to Germany and a series of other international issues.

    What I am proposing to do this morning is leave the Prime Minister with you. I have some other meetings so I am going to leave him in your good hands. We are delighted to see him. I am looking forward to seeing him for dinner.

  • PMQT – 11 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Pickthall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Pickthall : I thank the Prime Minister and the many Cabinet Ministers who campaigned in Lancashire in recent weeks and helped Labour vastly to increase its vote and achieve a majority on the local council. Was it in Lancashire that the Government heard about the challenging environment that they faced, the big hole that they were in and the bloody nose they were about to get? Did they listen to the people of Lancashire on value added tax, testing in schools, unemployment and the attacks on local democracy? Can the people of Britain expect the Government’s supposed listening to the people to be translated into action to rebuild the country, instead of the present policies which are dismantling it?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly deserves an A-level in smugness. Perhaps I may quote something to the hon. Gentleman from The Sunday Times that I have no doubt he will find of interest. The quote, which he may enjoy, reads as follows :

    “Conservative set-backs in Thursday’s county council elections were so severe that Labour would win the general election on the same voting breakdown.”

    That was The Sunday Times in 1985. Two years later we won the election with a majority of 100.

    Mr. Conway : Is my right hon. Friend feeling cheerful, because he should? Is it not the case that we have every reason to be optimistic because, of all the countries that pulled out of the exchange rate mechanism last autumn, the United Kingdom is the only country to have pulled out of recession?

    The Prime Minister : The principal reason Britain has come out of recession is that we have achieved low inflation ; because we have got inflation down, we were able to cut 5 per cent. off interest rates– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Will hon. Members on the Bench below the Gangway please desist until we get through Question Time? They can then go outside and have their own singsong.

    The Prime Minister : I think that everyone was enjoying it, Madam Speaker. It was because we cut inflation that we were able to take 5 per cent. off interest rates before last September, and because we got inflation down we are now beginning to see a recovery in retail sales and exports since the spring. It is because of that that we shall see greater growth this year and next year than any other country in the European Community.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Budget in November will be presented by the present Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)?

    The Prime Minister : That is a hoary old chestnut of a question. I have not yet even begun to contemplate Cabinet changes. But I will say this: it is because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken difficult decisions that we now have inflation at a 25-year low, interest rates at a 15-year low and prospects of the fastest growth in Europe this year and next year. That is an excellent record which people will recognise long after the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s undignified sniping is forgotten.

    Mr. Smith : Surely the Prime Minister heard the question quite clearly. It is a simple question : will the present Chancellor present the next Budget? Cannot the Prime Minister say either yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : I explained very clearly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If I wanted advice on Cabinet making, I would not seek it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who last week had to sack his own economic spokesman for incompetence.

    Mr. Smith : Madam Speaker– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Smith : The Prime Minister seems to be having some difficulty with a simple question– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and not use up time in this way.

    Mr. Smith : May I give the Prime Minister a third shot at it? Will the present Chancellor present the Budget? If the Prime Minister cannot say yes, why cannot he say no?

    The Prime Minister : Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman just admit that he has got a bloody nose? It is a good deal more dignified.

    Mr. Marlow : My right hon. Friend–as a genuine, listening Prime Minister–will be aware of the alienation expressed in the constituencies last week. He will also be aware of the severe mauling given to the Maastricht treaty by the democratic process. Is he not greatly concerned about the massive alienation that would result if the ratification of this new constitution now depended on the Danes, the Whips and the courts alone?

    The Prime Minister : If, as my hon. Friend intimates, the election was really about the Maastricht treaty, it is rather surprising how well some other political parties did.

    Mr. Ashdown : After Srebrenica, just as I predicted, there has been Zepa. Does the Prime Minister still insist on doing nothing more to save the tens of thousands of innocents in Gorazde from a similar tragic fate?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is being deeply unfair to the efforts by both this country and a large number of other countries which are working together. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the difficulties and also of the intense dangers of following some of the actions that he has advocated in the past. He knows what action we are proposing to take ; that remains the position and we continue to discuss that and other options with our allies.

    Mr. Streeter : Is my right hon. Friend aware that on a recent visit to estate agents in Plympton in my constituency, I found that estate agents could talk of nothing else but a real and significant upturn in the housing market, with house sales increasing and house prices improving week by week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that reflects a steady return to confidence in this country and represents good news for Plymouth, good news for the country and bad news for the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that that is right in every aspect. I have not myself visited estate agents, as I have no intention of moving.

     

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

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

    Mr. Milburn : Does the Prime Minister share his Chancellor’s lack of regret about the damage done to the country by his Government? Is not it time that he learned to apologise and to listen to the millions of people who have become the victims of his policies? Has he got time today to tell them what changes in direction he has planned following last week’s overwhelming public rejection not only of him and his colleagues but of his Government’s policies?

    The Prime Minister : I have said before, and from the Dispatch Box, that I understand the difficulties that people have faced as a result of the recession. I have said that clearly. I have also made it clear that I appreciate that it has lasted longer than people anticipated, but it was necessary to bring inflation down, or inflation would have gone on wreaking ever-greater damage for an even longer period. We needed to bring it down ; we have brought it down. That is the only secure basis for lasting growth in the future. The fact is that the Labour party would never have had the guts to take the decisions that were necessary.

     

    Economy

    Q3. Mr. Michael Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the state of the economy.

    The Prime Minister : It is getting better every day exports up, manufacturing output up, retail sales up, business confidence up, new housing starts up and gross domestic product up.

    Mr. Brown : Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply is confirmed in Brigg and Cleethorpes, where industrial recovery has resulted in unemployment falling to below the national average where once it was twice the national average? Will he acknowledge the Government support that has resulted in tremendous United States investment through companies such as Kimberly-Clark Ltd. and Paramount Packaging, where many jobs have been created in the last few months? May I advise my right hon. Friend that in Cleethorpes last week Allied Colloids announced that 90 more new jobs would be created?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to welcome investments such as those which represent good news for Humberside. They represent the confidence of inward investors and of British companies in the region. I know how hard my hon. Friend works for his constituents and how much he will welcome those developments.

    Ms Estelle Morris : What would the Prime Minister say to the millions of pensioners living just above income support level who thought that his pledge to start listening would mean that the proposal to charge VAT on fuel would be removed?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone, including the Opposition Front Bench, as I understand it, agrees that the budget deficit is too high and that we need to bring it down. We have had the courage to produce our proposals, of which VAT is a part, to bring it down. I am surprised that the hon. Lady should raise that after the nonsense talked by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about VAT last week, when it was clear from one of his economic spokesmen that the Opposition, too, would have increased VAT on a range of items.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Sir Fergus Montgomery : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 May.

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

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Has my right hon. Friend seen the report today that housing starts are up 22 per cent. compared with the last quarter? Should not that news bring joy even to the hearts of the dismal Johnnies on the Opposition Benches? Is not that a sign of a return to confidence?

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that the Opposition are unhappy at good news. They realise that good news today for us is bad news tomorrow for them. Clearly, it shows growing confidence by the building industry in the market for new houses. That is very welcome in view of the difficulties that the construction industry has had. With the measures that the Chancellor took in the autumn statement, the measures that he took in the budget and the reduction in interest rates, there is clearly a much better prospect for the housing market.

     

    Q5. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Connarty : Does not the Prime Minister accept that the bloody nose on Thursday was given to him personally as much as to his Government? Has it improved his listening skills area on the issue of testing children? We are to have a statement later today, but the nation is looking to the Prime Minister to see where he stands. As a Scot, I remember that we went through a period of attrition when the Government tried to force testing on to our country. Thankfully, it is now back in the hands of parents and teachers who care for children, so that test items can be used whenever they want and not compulsorily. Will the Prime Minister tell the House where he stands on the testing of children and the interference of the state in the care of parents and teachers?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is that, of course, I accept my share of responsibility for the election results last week, in precisely the same way as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will accept his share of responsibility for losing the last election. As for education and testing, I will tell the hon. Gentleman precisely where I stand : I stand four square with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

     

    Q6. Mr. Thomason : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 May.

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

    Mr. Thomason : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is never popular to increase taxes but it is necessary to balance the books? Does he further agree that the responsibility of the Government contrasts sharply with that of Labour Members, who demand more spending but do not tell us how they would pay for it?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend and, as he indicated, measures are in place to bring down the size of the borrowing requirement. That has required some tough decisions, but, having concluded that that is necessary, the Government have taken those decisions knowing that they cannot be ducked. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Labour party is in a fundamentally dishonest position– [Interruption.] Opposition Members are committed to spending money, but they will not say where the money is coming from. That is very good for an Opposition but not for a Government, which is why we remain on these Benches and they remain on the Opposition Benches.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Political Parties (Funding)

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will introduce legislation whereby political parties represented in the House will have to declare all moneys received from overseas.

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to do so.

     

    Friends of Bosnia

    Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the organisation Friends of Bosnia in Liverpool; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

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

     

    Bogus Marriages

    Mr. Shersby : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the number of undetected bogus marriages taking place in the United Kingdom; and if he will appoint a senior Cabinet Minister to co-ordinate an investigation into the abuse of the marriage laws, the extent to which this is facilitating illegal overstaying, circumvention of the immigration laws and the acquisition of British citizenship; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : No realistic estimate can be made of the number of undetected bogus marriages, but superintendent registrars are alert to the need to report to the Registrar General where they have reason to believe that a marriage has been arranged solely for the purpose of circumventing immigration controls. Where this also involved a lawful impediment to the marriage, the superintendent registrar would not proceed with the ceremony.

    Where the Registrar General believes that a marriage is prima facie one of convenience, the facts are passed to the Home Office to take whatever action is necessary to enforce the immigration law. These arrangements will be kept under review, but I doubt whether an investigation of the kind suggested would increase their effectiveness. I shall, however, draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health the information that my hon. Friend has sent me.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Appointments

    Mr. Maclennan : To ask the Prime Minister how many peers have been appointed to offices of profit under the Crown since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : This information is not available.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 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 – 6 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 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. Fabricant : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quantity of advertising spend is a sensitive barometer of the state of the economy? Is he aware that the amount of advertising for retail sales is up 4 per cent. on the first quarter this year and the amount of advertising on television is up 7 per cent. on the first quarter of this year? Does he think that that is an excellent advertisement for not only the Conservative party but its economic policy?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is correct about advertising being an indicator of activity in the economy. It has been increasing. I was not precisely aware of the figures that my hon. Friend has set out but I have no doubt– [Interruption.] I must have missed them in the welter of other encouraging economic news that I have seen.

    Mr. John Smith : Yesterday the Prime Minister boasted to the Newspaper Society about the number of manifesto pledges he claimed to have carried out during the year. Why was there no reference whatever to taxation in that speech?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in no position to talk to anyone about taxation. I recall that it was his talking about taxation that played a significant part in the fact that we are sitting here and he is sitting there.

    Mr. John Smith : The House will have noticed that the Prime Minister studiously avoided answering the question. Is not the real reason why he forgot to mention taxation that he wants the voters in the elections today to forget that his Government’s VAT and national insurance increases will cost the typical family in the United Kingdom another £8.50 every week?

    The Prime Minister : How interesting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should say that because I have in front of me a quote that I shall read :

    “I favour the higher band income tax and the removal of the ceiling on national insurance contributions that Labour’s 1992 Shadow budget proposed. Failing that, I would remove zero rating for VAT on all items.”

    That is the noble Lord Desai, an Opposition spokesman on economic matters in the House of Lords.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister knows well–because Lord Desai has written to him–that the noble Lord was on the Back Benches when he said what he said– [Interruption.] He also knows–

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not the case that–let the Prime Minister understand that he cannot run away from this–in the general election he made clear and specific promises not to increase VAT and national insurance contributions? Surely the last thing that he wants people to remember today is that his promises and Tory promises are worthless.

    The Prime Minister : Clearly the right hon. and learned Gentleman has lost touch with his own party. The quote that I used, far from being elderly, is in Tribune today.

    Sir John Wheeler : Will my right hon. Friend find time to examine the growth of bureaucracy which is seriously impeding the work of the police and the criminal justice system? Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the simplest case these days requires a trail of paperwork and that the more serious cases are such that the expensive time of detectives is now more likely to be spent on paperwork than on the investigation and detection of crime?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my right hon. Friend about that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, like me, wants to see police officers solving crime, not pushing paper. That is why he is setting out proposals to see how much paperwork can be cut. The more we can free our police from that work, the better they can do the work that I and every other hon. Member of this House would like to see them carrying out.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Roche : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.

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

    Mrs. Roche : In view of Asil Nadir’s breach of bail, should not the Prime Minister come clean about Nadir’s contribution of £1.5 million to Tory party funds?

    Madam Speaker : Order. May I make it clear to the House that, while that matter may be of some interest, there is no Government responsibility- – [Hon. Members :– “Yes, there is.”] Order. There can be no Government responsibility for finance given to a political party.

    The Prime Minister : Well, Madam Speaker, you are of course entirely right about that. I notice that the hon. Lady does not mention the remarkable sums that the Labour party received from the late Robert Maxwell. I cannot, of course, comment on the details of Mr. Nadir’s case, which is currently before the courts.

    Mr. Waller : Because the Bosnian Serbs possibly doubt the resolve of the United Nations to act forcefully against the atrocities that we have seen in recent weeks and months perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs against the relatively defenceless Bosnian Muslims, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House that we and our allies will not abnegate our responsibilities to take any action that may be deemed necessary to bring those atrocities to an end?

    The Prime Minister : Our highest priorities have to be to secure implementation of the settlement plan, to deter further Serbian offences and to sustain humanitarian relief. In one important aspect, things have changed in recent days. President Milosevic of Serbia has committed himself to the Athens agreement. Whatever views may emerge from the self-appointed Bosnian Serb assembly, the international community expects President Milosevic to make good that commitment. He should do so, in our judgment, by closing Serbia’s borders with Bosnia, cutting the supply of weapons and other goods and exerting all other possible pressure on the Bosnian Serbs. The Serbian people must realise that they will come under mounting pressure from throughout the international community until there is a peaceful settlement. That is the essence of the common approach that we have agreed with our allies.

     

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

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

    Mr. Worthington : Could the Prime Minister devote some time to the appalling situation in Sudan, from which the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and I have recently returned? There is mass starvation, the interruption of food supplies, the harassment of the Christian churches and the prevention of the international aid agencies from doing their work. Will the Prime Minister take up the matter with the Security Council to bring an end to the appalling 10-year civil war and allow uninterrupted work by the Christian churches and the international aid agencies, which are doing valuable work there?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. I fully share his concern and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) about the distressing situation in Sudan. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we took a lead in the United Nations General Assembly last December when it adopted a resolution condemning the Sudanese Government’s human rights record. Also, of course, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has decided to appoint a special rapporteur. We are looking at the moment to the negotiations under Nigerian auspices. We hope that they will succeed in ending the civil war. I certainly would not rule out a future role for the Security Council. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend could perhaps let me have a more detailed report of what they saw in Sudan. I would welcome that as I should like to discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Dr. Michael Clark : Is my right hon. Friend receiving letters, as I am, from pensioners and others receiving benefit who are concerned in case that benefit should be paid exclusively into banks and building societies? Will he confirm that benefit will continue to be available from post offices and sub-post offices, thus giving the customers a choice, in line with Conservative policy?

    The Prime Minister : This is a matter on which concern is raised from time to time. We have made no proposals to make those changes. If we had any firm proposals to make those changes we would bring them before the House.

     

    Q4. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will the Prime Minister find time during a busy and probably worrying day for him to reflect that when he and I were leaving school student grants were adequate and most discretionary awards were paid for higher degrees? Does he not think that the present situation, where higher degrees are not awarded grants by local authorities, is a deterrent to less-well-off students and the nation will lose their skills? Is it just that he is unconcerned because he got where he is with three O-levels?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in most of the things he says. His essential mistake about the future is that he entirely overlooks the vast increase in the numbers of young people going into higher education. Virtually one in three young people now goes on to further education. Those are wholly different circumstances from when the hon. Gentleman and I left school.

    Mr. Congdon : Is it not good news that British Telecom is to reduce the cost of connection charges by £40? Does this not show the benefits of privatisation combined with a tough regulatory regime?

    The Prime Minister : It certainly does and it certainly would not have been so efficient without privatisation. Privatisation has brought better service and lower charges for gas, electricity and telecommunications and that is why we continue to support it, unlike the Opposition who have supported no new idea of any sort for years.

     

    Q5. Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 May.

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

    Mr. Parry : The Prime Minister will be aware of the meeting last night in the Grand Committee Room where Mr. Nelson Mandela met Members of all parties and both Houses. The meeting was well attended and Mr. Mandela got a standing ovation on both entering and leaving the room. What help can the Government give to South African in the forthcoming general election, particularly in investment from Britain?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I separately met Mr. Mandela during his visit to the United Kingdom. We had the opportunity of discussing a whole range of issues : the difficulties with violence, the progress with the talks and the prospects for transition to a peaceful, multiracial democracy in South Africa. We discussed the range of ways in which we could help, both personally and publicly.

    One area that would be of immense help when the transitional Government is formed would be the immediate removal of sanctions and that is now of great importance to Mr. Mandela, as he probably mentioned last evening. The underlying concern that exists there is extremely serious. South Africa has nil economic growth, 7 million people unemployed, a 3 per cent. annual growth in the birth rate and badly needs international investment and the removal of sanctions. The sooner that can be agreed by all parties in this House, the better it will be for South Africa.

    Mr. Alexander : Will my right hon. Friend hesitate a little before deciding to abolish the May day bank holiday? Ideological considerations apart, is it not a fact that more people enjoy having an early summer day’s break than would enjoy a break at the beginning of winter? Is it not further the case that the May day bank holiday gives a welcome and much- needed kick-start to the leisure industry which a holiday at the end of October could never begin to do?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s advice on that important matter. When we have an announcement to make, we will bring it to the House.

    Mr. Shore : The Prime Minister will recall that yesterday the European Communities (Amendment) Bill was debated and that in the course of the debate an amendment was passed, as a result of which the House has unanimously agreed to strike out the protocol that the Government had previously negotiated for an opt-out from the social chapter.

    Can the Prime Minister now tell us whether his respect for the views of the House of Commons is sufficient for him not now to pursue his previous goal of completing the ratification of the treaty? If he is not prepared to give that guarantee to the House, will he at least now let the people of this country have a chance to vote on their future, when the House of Commons is unable to influence the Government even by a majority vote?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member the implications of being a parliamentary democracy. We are a parliamentary democracy, and I am not in favour of referendums. The sole effect of the amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is to remove the social protocol from being incorporated into United Kingdom law, but the opt-out remains part of the treaty. So let me repeat very clearly that we will ratify the treaty which I signed at Maastricht : no change, no social chapter, no back-door socialism.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Treaties

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister how many treaties have been ratified by Her Majesty’s Government since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : Her Majesty’s Government have ratified 243 treaties since 1 January 1979.

     

    St. Bartholomew’s Hospital

    Mr. Sedgemore : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the City of London about the proposal to close the accident and emergency department at St. Bartholomew’s hospital.

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

     

    Orders in Council

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the statutory powers which have authorised the use of the Orders in Council in the last six months.

    The Prime Minister : Since 1 November 1992, Orders in council have been made under the following Acts and Measures :

    Burial Acts 1853 and 1855

    Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

    Civil Aviation Acts 1949 and 1982

    Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

    Continental Shelf Act 1964

    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

    Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990

    Dioceses Measure 1978

    Education Reform Act 1988

    Education (Scotland) Act 1980

    European Communities Act 1972

    Extradition Acts 1870 and 1989

    Foreign Compensation Acts 1950 and 1969

    Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

    Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978

    Local Government Act 1972 and 1974

    Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972

    Merchant Shipping Act 1894

    Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865

    Northern Ireland Act 1974

    Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973

    Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986

    Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923

    Universities (Scotland) Act 1966

     

    Public Servants

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister how many persons have been appointed to grades 1 to 7, or equivalent grades, in the civil service since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : Since 1979 there has been about 1,250 grade 1 to 3 appointments in the home civil service. This figure includes those appointed from within the service.

    About 4,000 recruits have entered the home civil service at grade levels 4 to 7 during the period. This figure excludes promotions from within the civil service, on which information is not readily available.