Tag: 1991

  • PMQT – 6 June 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

    Mr. Speaker : Come on, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

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

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 June 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    White Papers (Costs)

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 4 June 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 June 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the representations he has received since 29 November 1990 relating to the payment of compensation to victims of the British nuclear tests at Christmas Island; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations and have nothing to add to the statements that I have previously made.

     

    Fishing Policies

    Mr. David Porter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps better to co-ordinate the policies and spending programmes of the various Departments of state concerned with the fishing industry in England and Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has lead responsibility for United Kingdom fisheries policy in consultation with other Fisheries Ministers.

     

    General Pinochet

    Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister what procedures Her Majesty’s Government have in place in respect of protocol, security, or other considerations, for the reception or treatment of senior Ministers or heads of armed forces of another country arriving in this country on a private visit; how these procedures were applied in the case of General Pinochet’s visit of 18 and 19 May; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : We have no set procedures for private visits to the United Kingdom, although protocol, security and other aspects are considered where necessary. In the case of General Pinochet, apart from arrival and departure, arrangements for his visit were the responsibility of his hosts.

     

    Gas and Oil Policies

    Mr. David Porter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps better to co-ordinate the policies and spending programmes of the various Departments of state concerned with the gas and oil industry in England and Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Department of Energy, which is the lead department for United Kingdom oil and gas, consults on and co-ordinates its policies with other Government Departments as appropriate.

     

    British Service Men (Correspondence)

    Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister when the hon. Member for St. Helens, North can expect to receive a reply to his letters of 1 February, 13 March, and 3 April, on the subject of the death of British service men in the Gulf other than by enemy fire.

    The Prime Minister : I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman’s letter of 1 February as soon as possible. I have no record of having received the hon. Gentleman’s letters of 13 March and 3 April.

     

    Journalists (Overseas Visits)

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister how many accounts have not yet been settled by newspapers which sent journalists on official transport provided for Prime Ministerial visits abroad.

    The Prime Minister : As of 3 June 1991, 14 accounts had not been settled.

     

    National Union of Mineworkers’ Funds

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what information Her Majesty’s Government have made available about NUM funds to Mr. Brian Larkins, sequestrator of Price Waterhouse.

    The Prime Minister : The sequestrators were appointed by the court to carry out the order of the court for the sequestration of the funds of the National Union of Mineworkers. The sequestrators requested and obtained from the Government, as well as others, information relevant to the discharge of their duties to the court.

     

    Downing Street

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister what changes he has made in the staffing and working arrangements in Downing Street since he became Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 28 March 1991 at column 500.

     

    Business Aviation Policy

    Mr. Wilkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to consult the Secretary of State for Transport about the implications for the Government’s business aviation policy of the Secretary of State for Defence’s decision to make the Royal Aeronautical Establishment airfields at Bedford and Farnborough available for disposal.

    The Prime Minister : I understand that consultations have taken place between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Transport on this matter.

     

    Banking Transactions

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what representations, either formal or informal, have been made by the Irish Government over the alleged surveillance by British electronic listening posts of private Dublin banking transactions.

    The Prime Minister : The Government are not aware of any such representations.

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will outline the rules which restrict the use of surveillance on private banking transactions in Britain and in the rest of Europe.

    The Prime Minister : The interception of communications during the course of their transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunication system is subject to the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

     

    Energy Efficiency

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in the Cabinet Office in the past five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

    The Prime Minister : Six energy audits have been carried out in the Cabinet Office in the last five years. The main conclusions for each audit are as follows :

    10-12 Downing Street

    Installation of :

    water dams of WC cisterns; high efficiency low energy lamps; low energy garden lighting; and krypton tubes.

    Reduction of electricity supply capacity.

    24 Whitehall

    Draught sealing of windows.

    Installation of heat meter.

    Improvement in light switching practice.

    Investigation of ventilation and heating control.

    36 Whitehall

    Adjust heating controller.

    Installation of heat meter.

    Reduction of domestic hot water wastage.

    Investigation of ventilation system.

    53 Parliament Street

    Change to a metered water supply.

    Reduction of electricity supply capacity.

    Adjust settings of thermostatic radiator valves.

    Installation of compact fluorescent tubes.

    Murray House

    Change electricity tariff to quarterly billed non-domestic.

    More efficient use of supplementary heaters.

    Replacement of hot water heater.

    Installation of krypton tubes.

    Hepburn House

    Change to a metered water supply.

    Improvement in energy management within boiler room.

    Improvements to domestic hot water system.

    Installation of thermostatic radiator valves.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give for each available year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by the Cabinet Office, expressing the figures in (a) cash terms, (b) 1990-91 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes ; and if he will give the square footage of accommodation to which these figures relate.

    The Prime Minister : The figures requested are available only in cash and 1990-91 money terms and only for the following years :

    |Electricity (£) |Gas (£) |Liquid fuel (£) |Total of accommodation in sq. ft <1>

    ——————————————————————————————————

    1987-88 |268,523 |74,797 |56,511 |616,899

    |<2>(330,693) |<2>(92,114) |<2>(69,594)

    1988-89 |294,485 |53,904 |39,906 |586,843

    |<2>(337,582) |<2>(61,782) |<2>(44,738)

    1989-90 |295,126 |56,575 |42,000 |545,861

    |<2>(317,998) |<2>(60,959) |<2>(45,255)

    1990-91 |300,542 |58,033 |48,988 |547,481

    <1> As at 30 September of start year.

    <2> 1990-91 money terms.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in the Cabinet Office and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

    The Prime Minister : The Cabinet Office has one part-time energy manager.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give for each available year from 1978 the amount invested in improving the energy efficiency of the Cabinet Office in (a) cash terms and (b) 1990-91 money terms.

    The Prime Minister : The only information available relates to 1990-91 when approximately £78,000 was spent on measures aimed at improving energy efficiency in the Cabinet Office. This excludes expenditure on planned maintenance and the use of energy-efficient lighting in refurbishment programmes which is not separately identifiable from other costs.

     

    Council of Europe

    Mr. Burns : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has made any changes to the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the 43rd session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

    The Prime Minister : At the request of the Leader of the Opposition the representatives and substitutes for the Labour party on the delegation to the 43rd session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will now be:

    The hon. Members for: |Representatives

    ——————————————————————

    Wentworth |Mr. Hardy

    Wallsend |Mr. Garrett

    Tooting |Mr. Cox

    Liverpool Riverside |Mr. Parry

    Wansbeck |Mr. Thompson

    Lord Kirkhill

    The hon. Members for: |Substitutes

    Warley, East |Mr. Faulds

    Newham, North West |Mr. Banks

    Cunningham, South |Mr. Lambie

    Falkirk, East |Mr. Ewing

    Manchester, Central |Mr. Litherland

    Don Valley |Mr. Redmond

    Newport, East |Mr. Hughes

    In addition, I have appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) from the Government Benches as a substitute delegate in succession to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), taking effect from 28 June 1991.

     

    Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the invitations to official functions at No. 10 Downing Street to which Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi has been invited since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 May 1991] : Mr. Bedi attended a general reception at No. 10 Downing Street on 1 December 1986.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference at Chequers Regarding Citizen’s Charter – 3 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference at Chequers, following a summit held there earlier on in the day, on Monday 3rd June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Very briefly, just to tell you what we have been doing at Chequers this morning.

    We had a very lengthy meeting this morning with a large range of people across both the public and the private sector regulators, people representing consumer interests and a large number of people with special expertise to discuss one variety or another of ways of bringing the Citizen’s Charter to life and making sure that it has teeth and bite. The purpose of it is to improve the quality of public services that everyone enjoys. Everyone in the country at some stage is a passenger, a patient, a parent; they all have a very direct interest in making sure that we deliver high-quality public services.

    What we have been looking at this morning is a series of ways to ensure there is proper accountability by the public service; a much better system so that there is more in it for the staff as well as the public; and that we can increasingly ensure that the public sectors that are delivered – often with the use of very large sums of public money – are delivered with the maximum efficiency.

    It was a very worthwhile and useful seminar this morning. I perhaps should tell you how we now propose to carry it forward. The whole of Whitehall will be engaged in this exercise; a very substantial official committee is looking at details of it. Francis Maude, the Financial Secretary for the Treasury, will carry out a series of bilateral meetings with Ministers in every Department across Whitehall. Some time before the summer, we will publish a White Paper setting out detailed proposals which will include action points and thereafter we will bring those forward for legislation.

    That is what we have been engaged on and I will be happy to take some questions on the Charter now.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what about some specifics? What are you looking at specifically or is it still very much open-ended and in general areas?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. We have been looking at specifics. I am not going to enlarge on those specifics until we bring out the White Paper but the White Paper will specifically mention areas that we propose to deal with, how we propose to deal with them and set out the time-scale for doing so but I prefer to reserve what they are until we publish the White Paper – but they will cover a very wide range.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] are you worried that perhaps some of the denationalised companies have been quite [inaudible] when it comes to [inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. We wanted to learn from the experience of what they have been doing and to build on that for the future – that was primarily why they were there.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I think the private sector may well wish to take an interest; there are areas of the private sector, of course, that have their own charters; they may not call them that but they have their own quality and their own interest in service – Marks & Spencer, of course, are a case in point – and I would hope that the private sector would follow the lead that we propose to give in the public sector, most certainly, because the public are entitled to a good service from both the public sector and the private sector and we wish to ensure that they get it.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, will the Citizen’s Charter prove that the skids aren’t under the Government, as some newspapers are saying?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not concerned with what newspapers say – I am concerned with what we are proposing to do to improve public services and that is what we were discussing this morning; and it something that has concerned me for not just the last year or two but for very many years. I suppose the first time I indicated a clear concern with this was when I was the Housing Chairman at Lambeth and at that stage I took out on tour the Housing Advice Centre – myself as Chairman, the Planning Chairman, the Director of Housing, the Lettings Officer, people who had a very material impact on the life of people who lived in Lambeth – and it seemed to me to take them out to meet the public, to listen to their questions, to answer their questions and see how they could improve their service was the right way to proceed. This is a first cousin to that particular proposition.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, the Liberal Democrats say that you are a bit of a late-comer to this particular field and that they thought of this idea a long time ago.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have just indicated that I was actually in this field twenty years ago so I must say if they thought of it that long ago it is surprising they have not put rather more flesh on it than they have!

    QUESTION:

    A White Paper would imply that you are thinking long rather than short when it comes to an election.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As for an election date, that will become clear in due course. We have more to do. I will announce the election when I am ready, but a White Paper certainly implies that there will be legislation to follow up this proposal – that would be correct.

    QUESTION:

    What would you say to those who say you should spend more time leading your Government from the front rather than holding seminars on the Citizen’s Charter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    How is a government led from the front? It is led from the front by forming policy. What have we been doing this morning? Forming policy. Why have we been forming it? To improve public services. And for whom are we improving the public services? For the public. That seems to me to be precisely and absolutely the job of Government.

    QUESTION:

    But what do you say about the Whitehall Departments who have been dragging their feet on this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The “Whitehall Departments”, as you put it, are not dragging their feet – they are all contributing to this particular exercise and I promise you they will continue to contribute to it.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, when the Party Chairman gives a message saying “Keep your nerve!”, doesn’t that give the impression that maybe some are losing their nerve?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am certainly not and I think you will find that nobody in the Government is and nobody in the Conservative Party is and you will find, as you have seen over the last few days, there are a lot of policy proposals to come forward: you will find they are very innovative and I think people will find them attractive.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but regarding reported comments made by Mrs Thatcher].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I gather she has denied them and I am perfectly happy to accept that denial – I am sure that is the case.

    QUESTION:

    [Same questioner, question inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I must say you are extremely devious, Alistair!

    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as I pointed out to you a moment or so ago, is in fact conducting bilaterals across the whole of Whitehall. It is a classic exercise to be coordinated by the Treasury – you will recall he is a Treasury Minister.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we have proposed will be put in the White Paper with details; I am not going to trail any of it in advance. I think some of the things that will be there will be eye-catching when they come forward; I have no intention of trailing any of it in advance.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would remind them of what they were saying very recently. There were lots of people saying two months or maybe two-and-a-half months ago “2 percent off interest rates is what we really need!” Over the last few weeks, we have had 3.5 percent off interest rates. That has not yet worked fully worked its way through to the market place – it does take a time. It is only just about to work its way through to a reduction in mortgages thereby increasing net spending power in the High Street. That has happened; it is a very significant reduction. As and when it is appropriate to make further reductions we will do so but I am not going to anticipate when that might be. But if you recall, just a few months ago we had inflation running at about 11 percent – it is now 6.4 percent and falling; we had interest rates at 15 percent – they are 11.5 percent and falling. I think that is a very substantial movement. I think that perhaps public opinion has not yet caught up with that because the impact of it has not yet hit the High Street – but it will!

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 May 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iraq (Economic Sanctions)

    Dr. Thomas : To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received concerning the United Nations Security Council appeal issued on 29 April for assistance to the 21 countries with special economic problems arising from their compliance with sanctions imposed against Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : None. Our policy on assistance for these countries was set out in the answer given to the hon. Member by the Minister for Overseas Development on 14 May at column 99.

     

    Medical and Dental Officers (Pay)

    Mr. Conway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces.

    The Prime Minister : The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has submitted to me a supplementary report on the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces which recommends increases of between 7.5 and 11.4 per cent., with an average increase of 11.2 per cent. The Government have decided to accept the recommendations in full, though, in common with the pay awards announced on 31 January for the national health service doctors and dentists, with whom the pay of service medical and dental officers is closely linked, implementation will be staged, with 7.5 per cent. payable from 1 April 1991 and the balance of the award payable from 1 December 1991.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

     

    Antarctica

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

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

     

    General Pinochet

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

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

     

    Kill the Messenger

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

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

  • PMQT – 21 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

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

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

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well Brian, My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Choice for young people to buy the training they need.

    Choice for employers to provide workplace training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    European Monetary Union

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

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

     

    International Arms Transfers

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

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

     

    Special Forces

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

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