Tag: 1991

  • Mr Major’s Remarks on the Education and Training White Paper – 20 May 1991

    Below are Mr Major’s introductory remarks at the launch of the Education and Training White Paper on 20th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    You will all have a copy of my formal statement in your press packs – so I do not intend to read it all out.

    But what I would like to do before we take your questions is to say a few words about why I believe these reforms are so important and why I wanted to be here myself to help launch them.

    I remember very well what it was like to be 16 and to believe that school had nothing to offer. To think that exams didn’t matter that much. To convince yourself that school was a bit of a waste of time. I left at the first opportunity. Of course, it wasn’t long before I realised that qualifications did matter. But to get them, I had to start again. I had to do correspondence courses. It was a slog, and I only did it because I had to retrieve what I had lost.

    What still happens all too often is that young people bale out of school at 16. If they aren’t lucky enough or determined enough, they don’t have another go. That means two things: first of all, they don’t have the sense of achievement – or the better paid job – that they could have. And second, the country as a whole does not have the skilled and motivated workforce it needs.

    So what we have to do is break down the artificial barrier which has for too long divided an academic education from a vocational one, the blue collar worker from the white collar one. We are going to streamline our system of vocational qualifications and raise the esteem in which they are held. At the higher education level, our theme is the same. The polytechnics have come of age, and the dividing line which still exists between them and universities will be ended.

    The reason I welcome these reforms is that they offer young people the opportunities and choices that I did not have. We have already succeeded in attracting more young people into further and higher education and more into good quality training than ever before. But now we are moving a stage further. We are pressing ahead with a package of far-reaching reforms which will help many more young people and adults to make the most of the talents they were born with, and will equip them with the skills which they and employers need.

    People develop at different speeds and in different ways, and our system of education and training has to reflect that. I don’t want to see young people being forced to fit in with the system. I want the system to fit in with them. What’s more I don’t want to see them being forced out to a particular training programme, and I don’t want to see employers being forced to provide training. The right way is to work with the grain, giving people the chance to choose for themselves. That’s why we are introducing a new system of training credits so that young school leavers will be able to buy the training they want from the provider they want.

    These White Papers bring more opportunities. They bring better opportunities too. I believe in levelling up, not levelling down. I want higher standards across the board. I want vocational qualifications to mean something, and I want academic qualifications to mean something. A Levels are – and will remain – the benchmark of excellence. I want young people to be stretched – because it is when they are stretched that they give of their best. That is what these reforms will do.

    This is a very good day for young people. It is a good day for their parents. And it is a good day for employers. I believe that these White Papers will come to be seen as a turning point in the history of education and training in Britain. They will extend choice and provide new opportunities to many more people than ever before. They will encourage excellence. They will help build up the skilled and motivated workforce that employers need. They will bring the schoolroom and the world of work closer together. They will improve the quality of the careers advice that young people receive. They will give each and every young person the chance to develop to the best of his or her ability. They will, in short, give us the key to success.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on the National Health Service – 18 May 1991

    Below are extracts from Mr Major’s speech at the Stamford and Spalding constituency dinner, held on Saturday 18th May 1991.


    THE PRIME MINISTER:

    I strongly believe in the National Health Service. It serves me and my family well. This Government will strengthen the NHS and ensure that more money goes into patient care.

    Only one ‘attack’ on the NHS is being made in British politics. It comes from Labour. Their disgraceful and unprincipled assault is sapping the morale of NHS staff, insulting their work, and cynically exploiting and alarming the sick. Scaring not caring. That’s the Labour policy.
    Labour’s campaign is based on a central lie – that NHS Trust hospitals are ‘opting out’ of the NHS. That was the Big Lie Labour peddled to the voters of Monmouth. Neil Kinnock has repeated the lie.

    It is a complete untruth. NHS Trust hospitals are and will remain part of the NHS. They will be run by NHS staff and will treat NHS patients just as they have done before – only better. Because they will be locally run, they will be better run. Trust hospitals are the flagship of the NHS. Their mission is to put patients first.

    Apparently Labour are against this.

    The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts issued a statement yesterday explaining that Trusts are not opting-out of the NHS. NAHAT says – and I quote – ‘they are as much a part of the NHS as they ever were’. In the light of that statement, I challenge Neil Kinnock to withdraw his lie.

    But it seems Labour prefer lies and innuendo to the truth. First, they say the NHS Trusts are not part of the NHS. Then Robin Cook raises the spectre of charging by saying that Trusts will put profits before patients.

    Every week the NHS received over £630 million; every week it provides well over a million patient treatments. Only Labour would be so malignant as to ignore over 150,000 stories of care successfully provided every day, and highlight the few things that will inevitably go wrong in a Service on this scale. And then oppose all our efforts to put them right. Labour ignore the fact that in a Southend Trust hospital, for example, there will be 1,500 more operations this year and 3,000 more the next.

    Labour may see party political advantage in putting the boot into one of Britain’s greatest national assets. They may be able to deceive people for a time – but not for long. For to my mind, actions speak louder than words. The last Labour Government damaged the Health Service – just as it is damaging it now. They allowed nurses’ pay to fall in value by over a fifth. They slashed the hospital building programme. They only delivered annual growth in resources of 1.5 per cent – under half the 3.1 per cent a year this Government has achieved since 1979.

    Since 1979 Labour have backed strikes against patients. They criticised plans for a Review Body that has helped raise the value of nurses’ pay by almost a half. And lined up with the BMA to oppose our selected list in drug prescribing, which took resources away from the boardrooms of pharmaceutical companies in Basle and put them into surgeries in Britain.

    It is Labour which has always been the Party of ‘cuts’. Now they promise to be the Party of cuts in the future. Their own Leader has told us they would spend less than the Conservatives. On the figures for spending increases proposed by Mr Kinnock they would have been able to treat 500,000 fewer patients than our £3.5 billion increase will allow this year. They would add to the costs of the NHS by abolishing charges for the better off. Turn over control of Health Authorities to the self-same Labour politicians who have disgraced the name of local government. And sell out to the big trade unions by scrapping competitive tendering and ending the drive for efficiency that has delivered hundreds of millions of pounds to NHS patients in recent years. Providers before patients. That, too, is Labour’s policy.

    Labour’s performance and promises condemn them. We stand on our record. Under this Government more patients have been treated than ever before in NHS history. Not least because there are over 50,000 more nurses, 4,000 more dentists, and over 4,500 more GPs than there were in 1979.

    The present reforms will carry forward that revolution in the scale and quality of patient care. They will allow more local decisions and let family doctors decide the pattern of care that is best for patients. Crucially they will lead resources and patients into the places where services are promptest and best. And they will produce clear contracts of service, which, in line with our Citizens’ Charter initiative, will ensure that the Health Service commits itself to the highest standards everywhere.

    Patients are entitled to less forbidding waiting rooms and better visiting hours for families. They should have proper notice of a hospital appointment. They deserve clear information about what is going to happen to them and when.

    Those campaigning against our Health reforms should be challenged to justify their opposition to a better deal for patients in matters like these.

    No one can deny that resources could be spent better. It cannot be right that the average cost of an ear, nose and throat in-patient treatment can vary by as much as 4 times in different parts of the Service, or that the same operation can cost many tens of times more in one hospital than in another. It cannot be right that in one District no patient will wait more than a year for non-urgent general surgery, while in another more than half may have to do so. Nor that all orthopaedic patients in one District receive their treatment in the first year, while in another more than two-thirds have to wait twelve months or more.

    Our Health reforms are tackling these problems. And I say this, simply and clearly, to those in the BMA and elsewhere who are campaigning against them. We will not alter policies that are in the interests of patients. We will see these reforms through. We will always be ready to listen to constructive proposals as to how our reforms might be made to work better. But I do not – and will not – respond to destructive campaigns based on selective anecdote, one-sided presentation of statistics or trade union style resistance to all change.

    The NHS has complete support from this Government. It is time Labour called a halt to their shabby and shameful political campaign. The real crisis of confidence in the NHS comes not from alleged ‘underfunding’ by a Government that has committed record resources to health care, but from the tactics of its so-called Labour friends, determined to see that NHS achievements are undercut, undermined and undersold.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 May 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Forces

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make it his policy to answer questions relating to special forces.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Education and Training

    Mr. Straw : To ask the Prime Minister when the promised White Paper on 16 to 19-year-olds’ education and training will be published; and which Department is taking the lead on this.

    The Prime Minister : The White Paper on education and training will be published shortly. It is being produced jointly by my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. A White Paper on education and training in Scotland will also be published shortly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

     

    Olympic Games

    Sir Neil Macfarlane : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet representatives of the British Olympic Association and the Manchester Olympic Committee.

    The Prime Minister : It is for my hon. Friend the Minister of Sport to discuss with those concerned how best the Government can help to promote Manchester’s bid for the 2000 Olympic games. The Government wish Manchester every success.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Public Services (“Customers”)

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

    The Prime Minister : No such instructions have been issued.

     

    Next Steps Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

  • PMQT – 16 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That is their official policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

    Mr. McAvoy rose — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us settle down.

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

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

    Mr. Stevens rose — [Interruption.]

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

    German Chancellor

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister : No, Sir.

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Kinnock : “Up the Reds!”

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Bay of Bengal

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

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

     

    Iraq

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Turkey (British Journalists)

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

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

     

    Inaccurate Information

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

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

     

    Occupied Territories (Education)

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

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

     

    Scrutiny Programme

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

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

    [see Hansard for table]

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

  • PMQT – 14 May 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister rose– [Interruption.]

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Speaker : Order. That is no good.

     

    United Nations

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Speaker : Briefly, please.

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister : We are at a very early stage in the negotiations on economic and monetary union and on political union. As to the proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House in January that “the Government have made it plain to our European partners that we cannot accept any changes to the treaty of Rome which would bind us to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament.”–[ Official Report, 24 January 1991 ; Vol. 184, c. 470.]

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 May 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Labour Party Programme

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister whether any civil servants will be involved in carrying out the costing of Labour’s programme to which he referred in his answer of 7 May, Official Report, column 624.

    The Prime Minister : Guidance on the involvement of civil servants in costing policies of Opposition parties is set out in the fifth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, Session 1989-90, HC 260.

     

    General Pinochet

    Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister whether any Government Minister or official plans to meet General Pinochet on his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Aid Budget

    Mrs. Clwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now set a timetable for the United Kingdom to meet the United Nations aid target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 30 April at column 163.

     

    Red Cross Appeal

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister who approved the Government’s £10 million contribution to the Red Cross appeal for the Kurds; when such approval was given; from which departmental budget the donation came; what proportion of the Government’s donation will be allocated to relieve hardship of Kurds and Shias in Iraq and Iran; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I announced the Government’s decision to contribute £10 million to the “Simple Truth” refugee appeal in my reply to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 29 April at column 31. This addition to the overseas aid programme will provide relief to all Iraqi refugees, not just Kurds.

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

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You work harder. Good. You pay more.

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

    What folly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    People build success

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

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

    Winning hearts and minds

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

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

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

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

    Scotland’s revival

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Lanarkshire

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

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

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

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

    Labour’s tax on skills

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

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

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

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

    Economic revival

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

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

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

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

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

    Local government

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

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

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

    Citizen’s charter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Health

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

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

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

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

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

    European Council

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

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

    Scottish Assembly

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

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

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

    Britain in the world

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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