The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1992

  • Mr Major’s “Country with a Heart” Speech – 19 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, “A Country with a Head, a Country with a Heart”, given in Manchester on Thursday 19th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, I’m delighted to be back in the North-West and in Manchester – one of our great cities, with a fabulous international airport that grows day by day.

    You don’t need me to remind you that Manchester has been the home of that great cause, free trade, now becoming a reality in the Single Market. It’s the arts centre of the North. Two football teams riding high in the First Division. And it’s our ambition that, in the year 2000, Manchester should host the Olympics.

    We’re going to back that bid. I want the Olympics here in the year 2000 to start the next millennium in the best possible way. And to provide better – and permanent – facilities in the heart of the North-West.

    LABOUR’S ONSLAUGHT ON MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES

    Mr Chairman, some commentators say that there’s really little difference these days between the Conservative and Labour Parties. How wrong can they be. The divisions between us could not be more fundamental. They could not be more clear.

    I know the Labour Party. I grew up with it. I know the envy – and, yes, the spite – that so often motivates it. I know the way it thinks. The determination to treat people as blocks and groups – as pensioners, trade unionists, or council tenants – never as individuals.

    Labour have no new ideas. They simply want to turn the clock back, Take John Smith’s mockery of a Budget. That takes us right back to the past. Let there be no doubt what Labour are proposing.

    It is the biggest increase in personal tax since the war. Let me repeat, to avoid any doubt or misunderstanding, the biggest increase in personal tax since the War. Worse even than Labour’s notorious promise in the ‘70s to squeeze the taxpayers until the pips squeak. This time it’s not just squeaking pips that John Smith is after. And it’s not just the rich.

    It’s millions and millions and millions of middle income families up and down this land. Just what have Labour got against middle income families? Consider the people who would be hurt. Not the wealthy – but doctors, teachers, engineers, police. What have these middle-income earners done wrong? Why should they be singled out for such punishment?

    Labour’s ‘vision’ for the 1990s is now clear. It goes as follows. If it’s successful – tax it, penalise it, control it, nationalise it. Never offer hope or encouragement. Nothing shows more clearly that Labour don’t trust the people – with their own money, with their own choices, with their own future.

    What Labour says is: “Trust us – we’ll decide for you, we’ll provide for you.” Labour don’t want people to choose for themselves. They might choose something that Labour don’t like.

    THE NEW BRITAIN

    Well, I’ve a message for Labour. It’s something I came into politics to say. They used to call us ‘our people’. It was as if we were – and would always be – their dependents. It was as if we were in bond to the Labour Party. What arrogance that was – what arrogance it is. Like some feudal lord discussing his serfs.

    Today, we don’t live in a forelock society. We are a new generation – we and our children. We don’t live in a country where people are prepared to have their past, present, and future determined by the State. We are fortunate – we have more independence than those before us. And we’re not going to give it up. What a tragedy it would be for Britain if Britain alone were to put a whole generation back in the straitjacket of socialism.

    Let me say this. Never again, never here, never in our time will we turn down that road. The plain fact is that the Labour Party is standing against the tide of history. Well, history has a way with tides. And Labour will be swept away on its flood.

    Mr Chairman, during the 1980s, the Conservatives shaped a new Britain. A Britain, where ambition is encouraged and success rewarded. A Britain where freedom is extended and people have more control over their own lives. A Britain which can afford to spend more than ever on health care and the social services. A Britain with an international reputation, once more a power in the world.

    ENDING THE CLOSED DOOR SOCIETY

    Mr Chairman, what made this possible? We did. The Conservative Party made this new Britain possible. Under Labour, back in the seventies, we had a closed door society. If you could afford it, you had choice. But if you couldn’t afford it, the council, the union, or the State made your choices for you.

    For so many people life was just a series of closed doors. Of hopes turned away. Government offered a hand out, never a hand up. It was a planned progress from the cradle to the grave, with no easy way out of the world where you lived. No way to increase independence. No opportunity to become an owner at all.

    In the eighties Conservative Governments began to throw open the doors that were closed. We began to turn the nation of ‘Have-Nots’ into a nation of ‘Haves’. Opening those doors wasn’t always easy. We faced vested interest. Lack of interest. And always, always blind Labour hostility. Socialist bouncers blocked every doorway.

    I can think of no right that we extended – whether in housing, unions, schools or through low taxation – which the Labour Party didn’t oppose, resist and reject. The Party that likes to boast it is of the people is frightened of the choices of the people.

    But, Mr Chairman, we defeated them. We did. The Conservative Party did. And, because we did, millions of people went through the doors that we opened into new opportunities, greater freedom, independent lives.

    It is this great revolution that in the 1990s we must protect. That great revolution we Conservatives want to take further. We want every individual in Britain to feel a belonger. Not to turn away from the doors we open, but to walk on through.

    A MANIFESTO FOR THE PEOPLE

    Mr Chairman, I’ll tell you how we’re going to do it. It’s in our Manifesto. My Manifesto. If you want to know what I believe in – read the Manifesto. That’s what I believe in. It’s what I care about. Read it. Study the ideas, the arguments, the policies. It offers the best future for Britain. It’s based on four C-O-R-E principles – choice, ownership, responsibility, enhanced opportunity. It gives the right leadership. It captures the mood of the nineties. It’s a Manifesto for the people.

    Mr Chairman, the decision this country has to take on April 9 is as critical as it’s ever been. So let me tell you what I believe in. Where I want to take this country; what I will fight for and what I will fight against.

    THE BEST FOR EVERY CHILD; THE BEST FROM EVERY CHILD

    In education I will fight for a good start in life for every child. I will fight for higher standards, more variety, and a return to basics in our schools. Our children have only one chance for a proper grounding in life. Education can make or mar each child’s future. If things don’t go right at school then getting started in life can be a tough struggle. I don’t need to ask anyone about that. I know.

    That’s why I am so angry when I see some of the things that have been done in the name of education. Too many good children have been let down by bad ideas. by the teachers, most of whom do a difficult job extremely well. I want to see good teachers properly rewarded for the work they do.

    Too many of our children have been victims of a giant left-wing experiment in levelling down. Vital props for life, like spelling, tables and dates written off as so much old hat. Children of different abilities made to learn at the same speed. Tests resisted – in case they showed how little had been learnt. Parents denied information – in case awkward questions were asked.

    Can you believe that any political party would set out deliberately to close down good schools and undermine quality in those that remained? But that’s what the Left did, right here in Britain. We must never let in a Labour Government that would unmuzzle such people again.

    In the schools of Britain this Conservative Government is putting parents and pupils first. We have set out 39 steps to a world in which every school will see every child and every family as separate individuals, with different needs.

    I want to provide the best for every child; and to ask the best from every child. That’s what I’ll fight for in this Election – because that’s what our children deserve.

    CITIZEN’S CHARTER; EXTENDING PEOPLE’S RIGHTS

    Mr Chairman, what else will I fight for? I know how important good public service is to millions of lives. I know how frustrating it is when you are tossed from pillar to post in Government office or council department. I know; because I’ve been there. That’s why I launched the Citizen’s Charter less than a year ago.

    I want Government that is more open, and more accountable. Let us throw open the closed door society. I want services that put customers first and respond to their needs. Our Charter is raising standards of service. It extends people’s rights.

    Of course. That’s why Labour oppose us. It’s inconvenient for some of their union friends. But just consider, Mr Chairman. Yesterday, only yesterday, what did the Socialists in France do? I’ll tell you. They launched a Citizen’s Charter. Mesdames et Messieurs, it’s yet another international success for Tory ideas. One more proof that we’re on the side of the future and Labour the side of the past.

    In the next Parliament the Charter will transform every part of public service for the better. We’ll make them listen in Town Halls – and we’ll make them listen in Whitehall. And who will they listen to? We’ll make them listen to the people.

    NO RETURN TO THE BRITISH DISEASE

    And while we’re about it, let’s talk of another area where the people need support. I see no reason why people should be inconvenienced by illegal industrial action in public services. None at all. So in the next Parliament we will legislate to give every citizen the power to take legal action to restrain unlawful strikes of this kind.

    And, Mr Chairman, we will also act to ensure that all pre-strike ballots are postal and that at least seven days’ notice of a strike is given after a ballot. All done to protect the public. All done to keep our position as one of the nations least affected by strikes. Labour would let the trade unions loose once again. When they were in power, other countries looked to our strike record as the British disease; now they look to the British example. We need the next Conservative Government to keep it that way.

    HOUSING: CREATING NEW OWNERS, NEW RIGHTS FOR TENANTS

    Mr Chairman, now let’s turn to another area where I care passionately. About better housing and the rights of tenants. If there’s one thing for which Labour should never be forgiven, it is their bitter rearguard battle against the Right to Buy. Even now they are fighting against it. With go slows on sales. With small print to stop them. Labour’s concern is for the welfare of housing departments rather than for the tenants they so often neglect.

    Our Manifesto takes our programme in housing still further. Creating even more new owners. Giving new rights for those who rent.

    We will crack down on council departments that patronise their tenants. We’ll give tenants new rights to repair and improve. They shouldn’t need to hang about council offices, where it always seems to be Friday and time to close.

    Mr Chairman, all the good ideas to widen choice in housing are Conservative. They’re our ideas. And all the policies to undermine home ownership. They’re Labour’s. Unfair rates. Uncapped spending. Unstable interest rates. But none of Labour’s policies against the home owner would hit harder than their new tax programme.

    LABOUR’S TAXATION: KICKSTARTING THE PHILOSOPHY OF ENVY

    One of the Conservatives’ greatest achievements has been to bring down rates of income tax – to reward hard work, success and enterprise. So people at every level of income can keep more of the money they earn.

    We’re always being told that Labour are edging their way to this kind of thinking. Well,

    Labour’s Shadow Chancellor has finally killed that notion once and for all.

    Labour’s idea of Santa Claus is John Smith out of season, with a sackful of taxes to kickstart, not the economy – never the economy – but to kickstart the society of class and the philosophy of envy.

    They’ve reverted to type. They always do. They can’t help it. It’s that old tax bug that gets them. The mask slips and the real voice of Labour is heard in the land. So after all, there’s to be no gradual phasing in of National Insurance Contributions. All the increases come in at once. Well, well. It’s tragic really. Neil’s night out at Luigi’s. His grip on his Party, or his grip on the facts, gone for a Burton.

    RIDDLED WITH ERROR, SPICED WITH SPITE

    Mr Chairman, John Smith’s mockery of a statement wasn’t a Budget; it was a fudge it. Riddled with error. Spiced with spite. Its effects on families up and down Britain would be devastating. The combined rates of tax and contributions would be 49 per cent and 59 per cent. They make Healey’s axe look like a feather duster. Labour’s tax increases would hit everyone with ambition who wants to get on. They would hit enterprise – the wealth-creators and job creators, the very people who are so desperately needed today.

    They would hit people who never dreamt that they would be classed as rich – and who are not. People on middle incomes. People working hard to make the best of their lives. Secure in their homes, until Labour’s taxman comes hammering at the door.

    Think of it. Young couples with children. Proud of their first home. Making ends meet. The first thing that happens is that tax goes up and take home pay goes down. It’s not the holiday they’d be worrying about. That would be out of the window. It would be far more serious than that. It would rip the very heart out of the housing market in every part of the UK. Not just in the short-term. Not just in the recessionary phase. But for good.

    Mr Chairman, almost overnight, the value of the largest investment that millions of families have made for their lives would plunge through the floor. No-one at any stage in the history of Britain has launched such an onslaught on the security of hard-working, middle income families. It is an incredible proposal for a modern political party to make – a devil’s cocktail of incompetence and of malice which defies belief.

    WRECKING PROSPECTS, WRECKING HOPE

    But it’s not just the housing market that Labour would hit. Who could believe that any would-be Government would set out to wreck the pension policies of four and a half million young people saving for retirement? But that’s precisely what Labour would do. Wreck them.

    And, Mr Chairman, what would these brutal increases mean for those who depend on work in the home? For the builders? The decorators? The electricians? The DIY shops? The garden centres. The corner shops. Labour would slash the incomes of the very people who give them work. Labour would blight their livelihoods as surely as if they’d targeted them direct. Their tax hike would be a fast-spreading cancer that would seek out independent trades in every part of the economy.

    What incentive do Labour’s policies give to our young people planning for the future? What prospect for those seeking promotion? What hope for the parents and grandparents wanting to see their children and grandchildren making a career, building a better life? None, Mr Chairman. None, none, and less than none. No incentives. No prospects. No hope. No future.

    That’s Labour’s policy.

    LABOUR: THE WARNING

    Mr Chairman, if there were ever to be a Labour Government, I warn you not to be ambitious. I warn you not to be qualified. I warn you not to be successful.

    I warn you not to buy shares. I warn you not to be self-employed. I warn you not to accept promotion.

    I warn you not to save. I warn you not to buy a pension. I warn you not to own a home.

    None of these would be encouraged in a Labour Britain. None of them would be safe in a Labour Britain.

    THE QUESTION OF LEADERSHIP

    Mr Chairman, there’s one other issue at the heart of this Election. It’s the question of leadership.

    As Foreign Secretary, as Chancellor, and now as Prime Minister I have travelled the globe. I know at first hand – from Presidents and Prime Ministers – how high Britain’s standing is in the world.

    We have a reputation for principle, for strength, for loyalty. A reputation we have earned. By the strong lead Britain gave to the countries of Eastern Europe as they moved from dictatorship to democracy. By the unswerving support we gave to President Yeltsin during last August’s coup – the first country to do so.

    By Britain’s total determination to throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

    As a result the world is a far better place than it was ten, five or even two years ago. But it is also a more unstable place. This is no time for an unsure hand at the helm.

    Would you want Britain led by men who, not that long ago, were all for giving up our nuclear defences and caving in to the old dictators of the Soviet Union?

    Would you want Britain’s case in Brussels to be put by men who have conducted somersault after somersault in their attitudes to Europe – who’ve held every principle, but never for long?

    When you go to a summit and it comes to the crunch you’re alone in there. Alone in the conference chamber arguing the case for Britain. With 55 million people depending on your judgment. You need to be cool, clear-headed, have conviction. That’s how it was at Maastricht. That’s how it’ll be from 1 July when Britain holds the Presidency in Europe. And that’s how it’ll be at all seven summits I shall be attending for Britain in the rest of this year.

    Mr Chairman, Britain can’t afford to be led by people who don’t know what their policy on foreign affairs and defence is from one day to the next.

    That must never happen. Never.

    A COUNTRY WITH A HEAD; A COUNTRY WITH A HEART

    Mr Chairman, every society has choices. The question at this Election is – who makes them? That’s what’s at stake.

    Strip away the masks. Strip away the pretence. It’s a choice between going forward, along the road to greater freedom and wider ownership, towards a more responsible society.

    Or to turn backwards into what even the Labour leader admits is still the world of Clause IV. The world of outdated class divisions. The world of high taxes, State regulation and control. This is a world that the remainder of Europe has cast into oblivion.

    That’s not the road for Britain, That’s not the way for Britain.

    What we want is a better Britain. A country which is strong in the world. A country where the individual counts. A country of real opportunity, where everyone of her people is free to choose. A country with a head. And a country with a heart.

    And, on April 9, Mr Chairman, I have no doubt. It is for our Britain that the people will make their choice.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference on Scotland – 18 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference held on Wednesday 18th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the best way to spend the next few minutes is for you to ask whatever is on your minds rather than me to regurgitate what doubtless you have heard from me and other Conservatives on several occasions over recent days. We have got a limited time; let us deal with the matters that concern you.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask about Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Sure! We are going to win some seats in Scotland

    QUESTION:

    How many?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know, we will have to wait for the General Election but we will hold our seats and we will win some back.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me talk about both independence and devolution and the concerns that I have about it because I do think it is, as I said elsewhere, an issue that in many ways transcends the election. Let me take separation first and then I will come on to devolution because I think there are slightly separate arguments with the two.

    I believe that collectively the Union has served every part of the United Kingdom extremely well. The Act of Union was the establishment of Great Britain. There was no Great Britain until there was the Act of Union voluntarily entered into between Scotland and Britain. If that were suddenly to be thrown away, I believe it would have a very weakening effect not just upon Scotland but upon the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not base my arguments on saying as an Englishman what is right for Scotland; I do believe, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that I have a responsibility to speak for the United Kingdom and I believe to wrench any part of the United Kingdom out in terms of separation would leave that part of the United Kingdom much weaker in representing its interests than it is as part of the United Kingdom and it also leaves the other parts of the United Kingdom much weaker.

    Let us take the Scottish position in Europe. Let us presuppose, for example, that Scotland were separate and Scotland were in Europe – it had negotiated its way into Europe and everybody had accepted it and it was safely in Europe. What authority would it have in Europe? It would probably have in the Council of Ministers two votes; it would have the same sort of clout in the Council of Ministers that Luxembourg has so it would not be in control of its own destiny in the European Community.

    Let me tell you as a matter of fact that when you sit round the European table with the other Heads of Government, the big nations with the large voting authority actually determined European policy; it is not determined by the tiny nations. If Scotland thinks it would be moving into a position in Europe in which it had complete freedom to determine its own affairs, it wouldn’t. It would find in the European setting that it did not have a great clout. It does have a great clout as part of the United Kingdom and we defend very forcibly the interests of every part of that Kingdom so I think that it is an important part, but essentially I believe that the Union has served Scotland well and England well and the United Kingdom well and I don’t want to lose it.

    There are grievances and concerns in Scotland, it is difficult for a non-Scot to be absolutely certain what the origin of them is, but as you will know, I have spent a lot of time on and off in the last two or three years going backwards and forwards to Scotland and whatever the origin of it is, I understand the depth of the sentiment that is there but I cannot believe after getting on for three hundred years that it is beyond the wit of the rest of the United Kingdom and Scotland to find other ways of solving that grievance short of what is at present proposed and which I think would be very damaging.

    Let me turn separately to devolution. I am sorry this is a lengthy argument but I believe this is as important a matter on the domestic agenda as any. Were I a Scot, I could understand the arguments that are put for devolution. It must often sound to Scots; “Here are Englishmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen down in London telling we Scots we can’t look after our own affairs!”. It truly isn’t that way as I see it but let us assume for the sake of the hypothesis that there was a devolved Assembly in Edinburgh with tax-raising powers, which is the proposition proposed by the Labour Party and the Liberal Party.

    That devolved Assembly would have complete responsibility for some aspects of policy, perhaps health, perhaps education, perhaps other matters. What would that in practice mean for the United Kingdom Parliament? That, in a sense, is the price for Scotland – what is the price for Scotland of that actually happening and how does it impact on the rest of the United Kingdom?

    The first point, I think, is this: that Scotland would not retain the same representation at Westminster as it does at the present time.

    But the second point is an even more damaging point than that. What one would then have in Westminster would be two sorts of MPs: MPs from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who would vote on every issue that went through the Westminster Parliament and MPs from Scotland who could not because the rest of the United Kingdom would not say: “Yes, you in Scotland can determined absolutely alone in Scotland health, education and other matters without English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs voting or affecting that, and then Scottish MPs come to Westminster and have a say in what happens on those very same subjects in other parts of the United Kingdom!”. It simply would not be in the real world of politics and it would not happen so you would have two tiers of MPs – those who could vote on everything and those who could only vote on some things.

    That opens up a range of difficulties. Firstly, would any Government be able to command a majority? Very possibly not. The second point that it clearly opens up is what would be the impact in Scotland of having effectively second-tier status at Westminster? I believe in the short-term or the medium-term it would lead to huge frustration and bitterness in Scotland and might well push Scotland that extra mile towards separation rather than devolution.

    Nobody can be certain whether I am right about that or whether I am wrong about that and I don’t pretend to you that I have got divine wisdom but those are the concerns as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that I have.

    The argument about devolution has gone on for a long time but it has been an argument about what the Scots could do in a devolved Parliament, not what the impact of that would be on the rest of the United Kingdom, and what I am saying to Scotland is: Let us sketch in the whole canvas, not just what you can have in Scotland but what it would mean in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and what it would mean for Scotland at Westminster. Let us sketch in that whole canvas and have an honest and serious debate about it and see then where opinion lies. I believe opinion would like quite differently.

    I am sorry that is a lengthy argument but I believe it is one of the most important constitutional arguments that we have had on our place for many years.

  • Press Release – Prime Minister’s Comments on Education – 17 March 1992

    Below is the text of the Conservative Party Press Release on Mr Major’s education policy. It was issued on Tuesday 17th March 1992, reference 442/92.

    39 STEPS TO HIGHER STANDARDS

    “When I became Prime Minister, I promised to put education at the top of my personal agenda,” said the Rt Hon John Major (Huntingdon), the Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party, at a press conference at Conservative Central Office today.

    “Let me remind you why.

    Nothing is more important than education to ensure that all our young people have the opportunities they deserve.

    And nothing angered me more than the damage socialist dogma did to some of our schools:

    – undermining good teachers;
    – downgrading the three ‘Rs’;
    – making children all learn at the same speed;
    – resisting tests that might show how little had been learnt;
    – refusing to give parents information, in case they asked awkward questions.

    The people who did the damage weren’t the ones to suffer. It was school children who suffered – teenagers who had learnt so little at school that they couldn’t even fill in a job application or count their change in the shops.

    We’ve changed a lot in our schools already:

    – we now have a National Curriculum;
    – we have nationwide tests, so we can discover where things are going right – and where they’re going wrong;
    – we’re expanding opportunities in school and after school.

    A lot has been happening even over the past year. And Kenneth Clarke will tell you more about our plans for the future – our 39 steps to higher standards. They amount to the most radical programme of education reform since 1944.

    I’m particularly pleased that Ken and his colleagues have been bringing the worlds of school and work closer together. By encouraging technology schools, developing vocational qualifications and setting further education colleges free, they’re opening up a whole new channel of opportunity for young people.

    And I’m also very pleased we now have a Pay Review Body for teachers, which acknowledges their professional status.

    But the job isn’t done yet. Before the Parent’s Charter, many parents never even received a written school report on their children.

    Until we passed the Schools Act, there was no requirement for regular independent inspection of schools – or for information on how they perform.

    In the future, under a Conservative government, more children will get a good grounding and worthwhile qualifications.

    More schools will be able to develop their own special character. I want to see all parents, not just those who can afford to pay school fees, with a real choice of school for their children.

    And more youngsters will go on learning and training after school. One young person in three will enter higher education by the year 2000.
    But Labour’s still fighting all our education reforms. They don’t want to publish results which show how badly left-wing councils are running their schools. They would rather muddy the figures with all kinds of excuses.

    They don’t want schools to run their own affairs. They want to restore Town Hall control.

    They don’t want new kinds of school, even if parents make it very clear that they do. Labour want to destroy scores of highly successful schools.

    They’d undo all the good we’ve done – and damage another generation of our children.

    So the battlelines are clearly drawn: Conservative choice and opportunity, against socialist doctrine and dogma. To protect our children’s interests, it’s a battle we must win.”

  • Press Release – Prime Minister’s Campaign Coach – 16 March 1992

    Below is the text of the Conservative Party Press Release with details of the Prime Minister’s campaign coach. It was issued on Monday 16th March 1992, reference 405/92.

    PRIME MINISTER’S CAMPAIGN COACH – USE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY

    Computer technology will be playing a major role throughout the General Election campaign by providing communications between the Prime Minister’s campaign coach and Conservative Party Headquarters. This includes computer equipment, cellular telephones and fax machines.

    British design and manufactured Apricot 486 Qi computers are being used to produce reports, documents, speeches and press releases. For the technically minded these computers have Intel i486 processors, running at 25MHz, 8Mb on-board memory, large hard disk storage and internal tape backup drives.

    Computer access security is also featured and each system is provided with special infra-red security cards.

    The computers are equipped with Communicate fax cards and specially modified scanning software, capable of converting incoming faxes from an image into a document for editing by word processing software.

    This development of converting documents received by FAX on a computer, into a format which can be edited in word processing software, is a major technical achievement. This has been a joint development by two British companies namely – Communicate based in Ascot and AL Systems in London. The Apricot Qi Computers and Fax Cards are connected to British Telecom’s Cellular system.

    Two Apricot Notebook Computers are also being used.

    Diskfax is in use on the coach and at locations around the country. This device, recently developed by ALFA Systems Limited, will duplicate the contents of a computer’s floppy disk, through the telephone network from one machine to another.

    The manufacturers claim transmission speeds of up to 40 pages of A4 in 80 seconds can be achieved. The Diskfaxes are also connected through British Telecom’s Cellular telephone system.

    British Telecom Mobile Communications have also been involved in the project by equipping the vehicle with the latest Cellular telephones.
    The vehicle is a Duple 340 converted by Plaxton Duple Parts and Service of Anston, Sheffield.

    Mains power is supplied in both 240 volts and 12 volts to drive the range of computer equipment, fax machines, Xerox copier and mobile telephones. Specialist work has been undertaken on the vehicle by Image Intelligence Ltd of Cheltenham.

    The Prime Minister said he was delighted to see how so many companies had co-operated to bring together their technology skills for this project.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 March 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Gambling

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy on encouraging the demand for gambling.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 13 January 1992, at column 460.

     

    Government Objectives

    Mr. Sayeed : To ask the Prime Minister what are the present objectives of the Government; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s objectives were set out in the Queen’s Speech on 31 October 1991 at columns 5-7.

    Progress made on these objectives is detailed in today’s Prorogation Speech.

     

    European Union

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister with reference to the changes proposed by the new article 8–citizens of the union–of the revised treaty of Rome, as specified in the draft treaty on European union, what variation will occur between the future status of any citizens of the United Kingdom and that of its monarch.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 13 March 1992] : There will be no change in the status of citizens of the United Kingdom or that of the monarch. Every person who is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes will hold citizenship of the union as an additional right.

  • Press Release – Prime Minister’s Comments on the Labour Party – 15 March 1992

    Below is the text of the Conservative Party Press Release on the Labour Party. It was issued on Sunday 15th March 1992, reference 412/92.

    WHAT DO LABOUR STAND FOR?

    “Mr Kinnock said we would be better off if Labour had been elected in 1983. This gives us the clearest insight for some time into what he really believes”, the Rt Hon John Major MP (Huntingdon), the Prime Minister, said today.

    “In 1983 Labour wanted to withdraw from the European Community. They were in favour of unilateral disarmament. They wanted to close down American nuclear bases. They wanted to reintroduce exchange controls and protectionism. They still favoured mass nationalisation.

    And they wanted absolutely uninhibited trade unions with no controls to protect either the public or ordinary trade union members. The truly astonishing part of what Mr Kinnock has said is that those policies are the policies he says he has dropped.”

    “The public must be baffled. How on earth can they know what Labour stands for?”

  • Mr Major’s 1992 Conservative Central Council Speech – 14 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1992 Conservative Central Council meeting, held at Torquay on March 14th 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The phoney war is over. The Battle of Britain has begun.

    That battle is a battle we’re going to win.

    Win on our record.

    Win on our policies.

    Win on our values.

    Win on merit – because we have the vision, the ideas, and the team to build Britain in the ‘90s. To make the future of our country as great as its past.

    I’m not interested in standing still. I want to lead this country forward. To build on what we’ve achieved. To continue to change the face of Britain. And enhance still further its reputation and influence abroad.

    Be proud of what we achieved in the ‘80s. The work, the growth, and the success of those years is the foundation of an even better future. So that when, in generations to come, people look back, they will say: ‘This was when the battle was won. This was when the British people came truly into their own. This was when socialism crumbled away and was seen off forever.’

    After 16 months as Prime Minister, the immediate tasks I set myself and my colleagues have been completed – winning the Gulf War, bringing inflation down, putting the council tax safely in place, giving a new face to public service with the Citizen’s Charter, safeguarding the interests of Britain at Maastricht, and setting out in Tuesday’s Budget our strategy for recovery and growth.

    That is now done. Britain is poised to come out of recession. All that is needed now is the confidence that will come from a clear Conservative victory.

    And so now is the time to seek a new mandate from the British people. I believe they will share my vision, my ambitions for our future.

    Let me tell you how I see that future.

    I want to bring into being a different kind of country. Bury for ever old divisions in Britain – between North and South, blue collar and white collar, polytechnic and university. They’re old style. Old hat. And we need to be rid of these prejudices. We want a country in which people get on because of what they are, not who they are. If you are good enough, you can’t be too young and you can’t be too old.

    For most of my lifetime, before I came into Parliament, before Margaret Thatcher changed Britain infinitely for the better, people were expected to be dependent – never, however hard they worked, never independent, never in control of their own lives or their family’s future.

    It was a world in which we were told that Governments knew best. They knew best how to spend our money. How to make our choices. They knew best who should own homes, and run businesses. They always knew better than us.

    And what happened? Town centres were bulldozed. Homes ripped down. Good schools closed. Taxes soared. Trade union barons carved out huge fiefdoms and marshalled their militants at the factory gate. Our very history was rewritten; our traditions despised. Through all that time, the time we were told that the man in Whitehall knew best, the people of Britain knew better.

    And now, all over Europe, one after the other, the Socialist dominoes have gone down. Who believes that the answer to Britain’s problems is to go back to what everyone else has cast into oblivion? Socialism was the crowning folly of our time, which at this coming Election we Conservatives will finish for good.

    A century ago Lord Randolph Churchill said ‘Trust the people.’ It is one of the oldest truths of Conservatism. That people know better than governments.

    We trusted the people. We gave them the chance. And the British people led the world – in a movement that has swept every continent.

    Would they be privatising in Latin America today, if we hadn’t first done it here?

    Would they be cutting high tax rates in India today, if we hadn’t first done it here?

    Would they be planning to bring Eastern Europe into the Community today if we hadn’t first suggested it here?

    How astounding that now in Latin America, in India, in Bulgaria, and Moscow they understand more about free markets than they do in Walworth Road.

    The Labour Party see the British people as pawns. We see them as partners. Partners in the building of Britain. With their values, through their values, commonsense everyday Conservative values, Britain’s future will be assured.

    That is why our programme for the ‘90s will be a partnership with the people. With a Government that trusts the people. A decade of trust given and trust returned.

    I promise you this.

    Wherever freedom can be extended, there we will be.

    Wherever choice can be widened, there we will be.

    Wherever wealth can be created, there we will be.

    Wherever care must be given, there we will be.

    That’s the Conservative philosophy: wealth and welfare, hand in hand.

    Our partnership with the people is already touching every aspect of our daily lives. And it is those lives that will be touched by the result of this Election – whether in city tower blocks, in lonely villages, or along quiet suburban roads.

    This crucial election is not a faraway battle fought between warring factions at Westminster. It is a battle of ideas, of ideals – about our future. It is a battle about how we live – all of us. It’s about our schools. Our workplace. Our standard of living. Our security. It’s about who controls how we live – us or the State.

    Our partnership with the people has come a long way. And we’re going to take it further.

    In education we will go back to basics and make sure they’re properly taught. Where parents want them we’ll open the way to grant-maintained schools, free of Council control. We’ll extend parental influence and choice, everywhere – because we trust the people.

    In health we’ll extend the reforms which have led to more patients being treated than ever before. Don’t be misled by Labour’s shoddy, shabby propaganda about our National Health Service. There will be more of those successful trust hospitals. More GP fundholders with power for doctors to decide on their patients’ needs. We’re giving more weight to local decisions, everywhere – because we trust the people.

    In local government we’ll open up to the public how their councils are doing, allow tenants new rights and shake up arrogant bureaucracy. And, something else, there’s a lasting affection throughout the land for many of our historic and familiar counties and cities. That’s why we’re asking the public’s views on how local government should be structured, everywhere.

    All these policies have something in common – that choices will be there wherever people want them. We’re giving power to the people, because we trust them. We’re pushing choice back to the people, because we want all of them – every single person in Britain – to have greater control over their lives and their families’ future. To be the masters, not the servants, of their personal world. That’s my Conservatism.

    To our fellow citizens I give this pledge: when the next Conservative Government has completed its work, you will feel, more than you’ve ever felt before, that Britain belongs to you, and that you have a secure place within it.

    But there is one area above all in which we trust the people. To do what they wish with the money they earn, to have and to hold – for themselves and their children – a growing piece of their country which they can call their own.

    Last Tuesday’s Budget underlined the giant gulf between the Conservatives on the one hand and Labour or Liberal on the other.

    We want low tax and personal choice; they want high tax and State choice.

    What the country decides on that great divide will affect the future of every family in Britain.

    When I became Prime Minister I said I wanted a nation at ease with itself. That means a Government that people believe is fair. To be fair, isn’t it right that those most in need should be helped most? That’s the British instinct. That’s what I believe in. And that’s what the Budget does. It has cut tax in a novel way – to help most those who earn least.

    The new 20p tax band does three things. It cuts tax for everybody. It confirms our intention, as soon as we can, to lower the basic rate to 20 per cent. But, it also gives that benefit now to four million taxpayers with the lowest incomes. In future, they’ll only pay 20 per cent, not 25 per cent.

    These are people on modest incomes. Men receiving low pay. Many married women, who perhaps work part-time. Disabled workers who are often low paid. Pensioners with modest savings. Young people starting out on their career. We’ve given them a helping hand, by cutting their tax by a fifth. Labour have voted to put it right back up to 25 per cent. They’re no longer content with taxing the rich; now they’re even after the poor.

    We knew Labour wanted massive taxes on the better-off. We knew they plotted new burdens on middle incomes. Now we know they want high tax on low pay. Unbelievable. But that’s Labour policy for you.

    John Smith said it himself. There would be no tax cuts under Labour – ever. However hard you worked, however well the country performed, the fruits of your labour would be Labour’s, not yours.

    So how would Labour support schools? By taxing teachers. Help hospitals? By taxing nurses. Beat crime? By an assault on the pay packets of the police. It’s a lunatic strategy -by prejudice out of ignorance. All founded on the bogus claim that in order to build tomorrow you need to rob today. Just remember yesterday – when Labour taxed and taxed and cut and cut – cut, let me remind you, hospital building and nurses’ pay. Labour cut the National Health Service.

    Does anyone want to go back to those days? When every Budget was a day to dread. When tax took 35p in the £ from the wages of every worker. When you even had to ask permission to take £50 abroad. But that’s the philosophy of the people who now want to be brought back to run this country. The nerve of it.

    Labour’s higher tax commitment is a mean-spirited manoeuvre. It would break the backs of businesses, hit every family and drive people out of their jobs. You will never create the permanent jobs we need by punitive taxes. High taxes mean high unemployment – permanently.

    The British people can now see clearly what we have warned them of for ages – Labour have a fatal addiction. Tax. They are high on tax. We must make sure that it’s Labour, not Britain, that this high tax habit drags down and destroys.

    Even after all this some commentators still ask – does it really matter who wins this election? Let me say this to them. The result of this Election matters as much as any we’ve known. Labour talk of time for a change. There would be change, all right. Short change.

    Short change for workers as pay packets shrank.

    Short change for pensioners as inflation surged.

    Short change for savers as taxes rose.

    Short change for homeowners as interest rates soared.

    Yes, Labour would change Britain. Short-change Britain. They would stop the revival of Britain dead in its tracks. It’s not going to happen. We’re going to stop them dead in their tracks.

    Somersault Socialism, Labour’s game of ‘look at us, no hands, we’re different now’ won’t fool anyone. Whatever mask they put on we’ll take it off and show the people it’s the same old face underneath.

    Next week we will publish the programme for the next Conservative Government. It will be a full, modern, positive programme for an independent people in an independent Britain.

    But of all the issues in this Election there are three that I want to share with you at the outset of the campaign.

    The place of Britain in the world.

    The cohesion of our country.

    And the future of the battle against inflation.

    Let me take inflation first.

    I don’t want a little bit of inflation. I don’t want a modicum of inflation. I want an end to inflation. I want to take this country back to stable prices. What a prize that would be. We all know what it means to walk into the supermarket and see that the price of a pint of milk or a loaf of bread has gone up. I want to see prices stay down. Nothing would give greater security to those on fixed incomes.

    I know the fear, the despair that inflation brings to everyday lives – the raw misery when the bills at the end of the week are bigger than the pay packet, or when the value of savings melts like snow in spring.

    Inflation is a curse. We’ve got to beat it. We’ve got to get prices stable – and do everything we can to keep them there.

    No other Party will do that but us. No other Party would even try. And that’s one giant reason why Britain needs Conservative Government.

    Next, the cohesion of Britain. That, too, is something I feel passionately about. I said in Scotland that the unity of the United Kingdom transcends the Election – and I meant it. I admire the pride of Wales. I understand the national aspirations of Scotland. I’ve been there. I’ve felt it.

    But I know this. It would be hugely damaging to go down a route that, in short term or long, could lead to the break-up of our country. I hope that everyone throughout the United Kingdom appreciates the scale of this issue.

    This is more than a Scottish concern. It matters in Gloucester as it matters in Glasgow.

    Whatever they intended, the devolution proposals put forward by Liberals and Labour alike could put us on the road to a Disunited Kingdom. They haven’t faced up to the truth – that, if devolution for Scotland came, it must inevitably call into question the whole relationship between the different parts of our Kingdom.

    Devolution is not – as some may fondly imagine – a safe option that wouldn’t, or couldn’t, lead on to separation. It would raise tax levels in Scotland and freeze out investment. It could also lead to calls in England for a fresh look at levels of finance, and demands for reduced Scottish representation at Westminster, leaving Scotland’s members with a second-tier status in the Union Parliament. If that were to happen, bitterness and conflict would be the certain result.

    And where would that bitterness and conflict end? What began as a dalliance with devolution could end as the disaster of separation. Three hundred years of achievement together. The most influential voice for good in the dangerous world of today. Undone in a single careless moment. The Conservative Party must point out the dangers of that disastrous road. We have a responsibility to history. We must stand for the union. Fight for the union. And win for the union. For if we don’t the whole of the United Kingdom – every part of it – would be the loser, and our future the poorer.

    And let me be crystal clear about another constitutional matter. Our voting system has served us well over the years. It has given us strong Government, capable of difficult decisions at difficult times. I have no intention of changing it. There is no need. Those who call for such changes should examine their motives. There will be no deals with those opportunists who stand for nothing except their own political self- interest. Who would sign up for anything, if it meant a seat at the Cabinet table. The flavour-of-the-minute politicians who’d be for night if it suited them and day if it didn’t.

    We’re not playing their game. We’re going to show up their PR campaign for the sham that it is. The Government of smoke-filled rooms. No longer the MP of your choice, but a Party appointee. Not proportional representation, but permanent representation – for a minority party in control of our affairs. ‘PR’ is no principle. ‘PR’? What does it stand for? It’s Paddy’s Roundabout. Well, we won’t be joining him for the ride.

    We stand on the threshold of a new era. Years which will be decisive not only for Britain, but the world. We have seen momentous changes in our continent.

    It is nearly 80 years since Sir Edward Grey said the lamps were going out all over Europe. That they would not be lit again in his lifetime. Well, over the last two astonishing years we’ve seen those lamps coming on once again.

    Historic nations reborn. Historic freedoms regained. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, the Baltics. All free again. It is the end of the age of empires. The last imperial power is gone. We have a chance in our lifetime that no previous generation has had. To unite our continent. To spread ever wider the free market principles on which the prosperity of the West is based. It is a time for vision. To lift our eyes beyond our domestic concerns. A time to open Europe up, not shut its other half out.

    That’s what we were arguing for at Maastricht. For a wider Europe, not a United States of Europe; a Europe looking outwards, not in on itself. We want progress in the European Community; but we want progress outside it as well. We were told that the Summit at Maastricht would be high noon for Britain in Europe, a big shoot-out, certain defeat. They said we couldn’t do it, we wouldn’t do it. We did it. We won the right deal for Britain. And the right deal for Europe. All of Europe. Does anyone seriously believe that would have happened if Messrs Kinnock and Kaufman had been speaking for Britain? Not on your Douglas Hurd, it wouldn’t.

    The greatest virtue of the European Community is not economic. Twice in the lifetime of our most venerable fellow citizens, conflict in Western Europe has brought the whole world to war. Now the peoples of Western Europe are bound together by the mutual self-interest of their economies and trade.

    Those bonds make it inconceivable that war between them should ever again bring the world to ruin. That is a prize more valuable even than the greater prosperity those trade links have brought.

    But we need to extend that security further. We must open the borders of the community to bring the new democratic states in the East. To extend the community until it reaches Russia itself. It may not happen in our political lifetime – but it will happen. And when it does we will have created a more secure future for our continent than it’s ever known before.

    We in Britain are in a special position to make it a reality. We have a special place in the world. We’re leaders in Europe; members of the Commonwealth; allies and friends of the United States. And, as Boris Yeltsin has said, especially trusted by the government of Russia. And with good reason. We stood by them in their hour of need during the coup last summer. And we’ll stand by them still, as they take their place once more in the family of nations.

    Does anyone think that a free Russia that has just ditched socialism would turn to a socialist Britain? The thought’s absurd. Socialism is what Eastern Europe has fought for generations to get rid of.

    In the great decisions on the future of our continent, only a Conservative Government can carry the weight that is Britain’s due.

    But there is another reason why the security of our country depends upon a Conservative Government. And that is defence.

    Whatever is needed to defend our country the next Conservative Government will do. There will be no escape clauses. No fudges. No ifs. And no buts. Just a cool-headed judgment of the resources that Britain will need. There are still great dangers. We would be naive to imagine that we could for a moment lower our guard. Keeping the peace is a full-time challenge. And it means a full-time commitment. The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm. This Conservative Government, which I am privileged to lead, will discharge that duty, whatever the pressures may prove to be.

    I give you this promise. We will stick to our principles. There will be no chopping and changing to catch the prevailing political tide. While others retain nuclear weapons, we will do so. And while the man who currently rules Iraq and his kind are plotting new capabilities, we will modernise our own. That includes building the fourth Trident submarine. We will order it. We will build it. We will arm it. And we will deploy it. Let the British people have no doubt where we stand.

    What of Labour? What is their stance? What are their plans? Mr Gerald Kaufman tells us that Labour have nothing to do with CND. Nothing? Really? That’s odd. Late last year 100 Labour Members of Parliament were still members of CND. Have they all followed their leader, and let their membership – what was the word? – ‘lapse’? Their attitude to our nuclear deterrent can be summed up in four words – ‘can’t say, won’t say’. But they must say.

    So let them tell the British public – just where do they stand on the fourth Trident that Britain’s security needs? They’ve said they would order it; they’ve said they wouldn’t order it; they’ve even said they would order it and send it to sea without any weapons. A toothless Trident. A ghost ship. A sort of underwater Flying Dutchman. Going round and round in circles for ever and never getting back to base. You never know where you are with Labour on defence.

    It’s time for them to stop the ducking and the weaving. So let’s hear it from Labour. Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, will you build the boat?

    The defence of Britain takes commitment. Caution. Coherence. Conviction. And none of those words begins with a K.

    These last 16 months have been an immense privilege. Much has been done.

    Reversing the invasion of Kuwait along with our allies. Throwing the barbarous dictator out. Leading the world in the safe havens initiative for the Kurds.

    We in Britain were the first to denounce the coup in Moscow, the first to recognise Russia, and the first to call for her to be admitted to the IMF.

    We were the first with a Commonwealth declaration on human rights. The first to propose a debt write-off for the poorest countries. And the first to propose the register of conventional arms sales that has now been adopted by the United Nations.

    Why does this Election matter so much? Yes, it matters because of health, education, Europe, inflation, tax, and defence. All these things.

    But more than anything it matters because it will determine the kind of country we will build for our children.

    I want ours to be a country that is confident. A country in which we can look people in the eye and know we’ve treated them fairly. A country that others will look to with renewed respect.

    I want our nation to stand proud in the world – quiet in voice, firm in action, united in resolve.

    I want Britain to be a byword in every language – for decency, for leadership, for trust, and for hope.

    I want Britain to be seen as the best – not only in our eyes, but in the eyes of others.

    First and first again – a world leader – that’s where I want us to be, and to stay. And that’s where Britain will stay – under the next Conservative Government.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Departure of Speaker Weatherill – 12 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the 12th March 1992 giving thanks for the work of the departing Speaker of the House of Commons, Bernard Weatherill.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : With the permission of the House, I beg to move.

    “That this House tenders its warmest thanks to the right hon. Bruce Bernard Weatherill for the skill and distinction with which he has maintained the traditions of the Speakership through momentous changes in the practices of the House; thanks him for the genial and wise exercise of his authority; records its appreciation of his fairness and tolerance in dealing with all Members; and unites in wishing him a long and happy retirement upon his departure from the Chair and from this House.”

    For almost the last eight years, Mr. Speaker, every formal speech or intervention which each of us has made in the House has been directed to you. In many of those cases, you have been the innocent medium for a message targeted elsewhere. On this occasion, however, I–and I know others if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye–wish to speak to you directly and personally.

    The end of this Parliament is an especially momentous one, marked as it is by the departure of so many distinguished right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is made all the more momentous by the departure of our Speaker.

    There is no office within the House more important than yours, Mr. Speaker. It is an august and ancient role. You are, I understand, the 154th Speaker. More than 600 years of history loom at your back–at your back, but never on your back. That sense of the past could easily have overwhelmed a lesser man. However, we in the House know that it has not done that to you. It has not prevented you from developing your historic position to respond to the conditions of the present, and you have always done so in your own very individual way.

    As no one knows better than you, Mr. Speaker, you have to govern the House in accordance with a host of rules, some laid down in the minutest detail, some apparently set in stone. But so much of the smooth running of the House depends on a wise interpretation of those rules. You have provided, over many years, the necessary wisdom to keep the House on the right path.

    You have known when to turn a blind eye and when to be eagle-eyed. You have known when to be stone deaf and when to swoop on a muttered sedentary interjection at 50 yards. You have known when to exercise a short rein and when to use a long lead.

    Above all, Mr. Speaker, of vital importance to the House, you have preserved the rights of the individual Member, however new, however junior, and from whatever party. Your impartiality has shown that, despite your long and honourable service in the Whips Office–an institution for which I retain the greatest affection–you have shown that one need not be terminally tainted by that pit of partisans when one leaves it.

    When you were first elected, Mr. Speaker, my noble Friend Lord Colnbrook, then the hon. Member for Spelthorne, said of you as Deputy Chief Whip :

    “never did I hear him get angry, lose his temper, or even raise his voice, even though sometimes the provocation was great”.–[ Official Report, 15 June 1983 ; Vol. 44, c. 3.]

    I think that even after eight years, Mr. Speaker, I can say the same : you never got angry, never raised your voice and never lost your temper–well, as W. S. Gilbert might have put it, hardly ever. It has been your privilege, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps sometimes your penance, to preside over our first televised proceedings. You were the first television Speaker and, as a result, you have become a star–if not of stage, certainly of screen. Your appearance, your voice, are known throughout the world, and in wig and knee breeches you are recognised from Perth to Patagonia, from Teesside to Tuvalu. Most tellingly, not only are you known : you have become respected all over the world as well.

    The arrival of television must have added immeasurably to your responsibilities, but you have borne them lightly and with dignity. I believe that your performance has enhanced the reputation of the Mother of Parliaments in scores of countries and among hundreds of millions of people around the globe.

    The job of Speaker is a lonely one. You have had to shun the camaraderie of the Tea Room and the Smoking Room in almost monastic fashion, and it must therefore have been all the more important that you had the active support of Lyn, “Mrs. Speaker.” Your joint hospitality in Mr. Speaker’s Apartments has been a notable feature of your time in residence here, bringing immeasurable pleasure to all of your many guests. May I, Mr. Speaker, through you, tender our thanks to Lyn as well as to yourself?

    Closer to home, it is not only we who will miss you, but your constituents in Croydon, North-East, whom you have served loyally since 1964. Despite the pressing demands of your Speakership, I know that your constituents have had no cause to feel neglected.

    In future, you will have more time to spend on the good works that you support, on your favourite golf and tennis, and on the hobby that you list in “Who’s Who”–playing with your grandchildren. I know how much you must look forward to that. None the less, I suspect that you will be sad as you prepare to lay down the Speakership. We, too, regret your going–but you have made your decision and we must respect it. As you depart, I hope that you know that you do so with our respect, admiration and affection. You, Mr. Speaker, may miss the House; we, Mr. Speaker, shall certainly miss you.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 March 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Income Tax

    Mr. McCartney : To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received in the past six months calling for cuts in the standard rate of income tax.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations on a range of taxation issues.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the number and purpose of each of his and his predecessor’s visits to Liverpool in each of the years 1979 to 1991 inclusive.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Liverpool among them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made four official visits to Liverpool.

     

    Mirror Group Pension Funds

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 March, Official Report, column 31, to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, if he has now made a decision on whether to meet a deputation from the committee representing the staffs of Mirror Group Newspapers about the recovery of pension assets from the banks which are holding them ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will be writing to Mr. David Thompson, chairman of the committee representing the staff of Mirror Group Newspapers, very shortly.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 12 March.

    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.

     

    Northern Region

    Mr. Trotter : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will list the Government’s achievements in the northern region since 1987 ; and whether he will list by Government Department the principal aid given to the northern region since 1987.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 March 1992] : The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 16 December at columns 22-25.

  • PMQT – 12 March 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Does the Prime Minister agree that the forthcoming election will be won by the party that can best convince the British people that it can end the recession, reverse the catastrophic decline in investment, and modernise our industry? Does he agree that those issues cannot be debated by sound bites and photo opportunities, but require the party leaders to meet and debate intelligently? As the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are prepared to take part in that debate, is the Prime Minister also prepared to do so–or has he lost the confidence to defend his own economic record?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the hypothesis about leading the country out of recession. The Conservative party will lead the country out of recession and will sit on the Government Benches after the general election. As the hon. Gentleman knows, every party politician who expects to lose tries the debate trick, and every politician who expects to win says no.

     

    Q2. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Which does my right hon. Friend think will do more for low-paid people in Swindon–tax cuts, which will increase their earnings and their incentive to work, or a national minimum wage, which will soon strip them of their jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Labour party now opposes measures to help the low paid and puts forward policies that would force low-paid people and others out of work. It is now official : the Labour party wants to put up taxes not only for those on high incomes, but for those with low incomes, too. It strikes oddly against Labour’s proposals for a minimum wage, which was allegedly meant to help the low paid. We now know that Labour does not want to help them but wants to force them out of work and increase their tax by one quarter.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister has given a pathetic excuse for not engaging in a televised debate. Since he has been Prime Minister, 50,000 companies have gone out of business, 75,000 families have lost their homes and 800,000 people have lost their jobs. Why will he not debate that record? Is it because he is ashamed of it, or because he is afraid of it?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman tries to whip a little fervour into this old chestnut. Bearing in mind how long it takes the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and I would be lucky to get a word in edgeways. We have set in place the foundation for recovery, the Budget builds on them and, after the election, we shall carry through our policies.

    Mr. Speaker : Mr. Ralph Howell.

    Mr. Kinnock rose–

    Mr. Speaker : I am sorry–that was entirely my fault.

    Mr. Kinnock : I am grateful Mr. Speaker. This is obviously a day for novelties. Whipped chestnuts are a new one on me, but we heard it from the right hon. Gentleman. As he believes that his only difficulty would be getting a word in, I give him an undertaking that I would give him plenty of time. Why does he not join me and the leader of the Liberals and say to the broadcasting organisations, “We have nothing to fear from the British people. Let’s have a debate. Let’s fix a date. Let’s get on with it”?

    The Prime Minister : We have better than a debate–we have a general election, at which the case can be taken to the people. If I accurately recall my Shakespeare :

    “He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument.”

    Appropriately, that quote comes from “Love’s Labour’s Lost”–and Labour will lose– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is the public debate.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister reads quotations from Shakespeare. Let me give him one from the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) : he is frit.

    The Prime Minister : Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of something else. Throughout this campaign, I shall be holding daily press conferences at which I shall face the national press. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will this year face the national press, unlike his action during the last general election, when he hid from them.

    Mr. Ralph Howell : I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on their excellent, responsible and far- reaching Budget. I am pleased that maximum help has been concentrated on the low paid, low-income pensioners and small businesses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by resisting those changes, the Labour party has proved that it is the party of high taxation of the poor and is unfit to govern?

    The Prime Minister : That is undoubtedly my view today, and it will be the country’s view by 9 April. At least we now know what the Labour party stands for : tax rises for the rich and tax rises for the poor as well. On Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) seemed to have doubts–until the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) prompted him with the answer that he was proposing to put taxes back up for the poor. The right hon. Gentleman would abolish the 20p tax band, tax savings more heavily, raise national insurance contributions, and raise tax for 25 million people. He has changed his mind on everything, but the public will not change their mind about him : the right hon. Gentleman sits on the Opposition Bench, and there he will stay.

    Mr. Ashdown : Has the Prime Minister noted the reactions of the markets to Tuesday’s Budget–the worst fall since the Soviet coup? If he will not tell us in a television debate, will he tell us now why the Prime Minister does not know what every business man knows–that to borrow to invest is the route to success, but that to borrow to spend is the road to ruin?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, no party in history has as good a fiscal record as ours has had in office. Nothing in my right hon. Friend’s Budget will not bring the budget back to balance.

    Mr. Atkinson : May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to a letter that I received recently from the managing director of a major retail firm, Beale’s, in my constituency, telling me that if a national minimum wage of £3.40 per hour were introduced he would be obliged to consider dismissing about 5 per cent. of his work force–27 of my constituents? Is that not further proof, on top of the disastrous experience of the last two Labour Governments, that the Labour party is no longer the party of the working man?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the Labour party has no solid basis of support anywhere in the country, and there is no doubt about the impact that the minimum wage would have. Everyone in this country knows that, except Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It would cost jobs–the jobs of people on low incomes–just as Labour’s increased taxation policies would.

     

    Q3. Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Cohen : If the Budget was such a success, why have not interest rates been cut immediately, instead of the Chancellor reserving his right to lower them during the general election when the polls go against him? Is not that ploy as bent as a £28 billion coin?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, interest rates have been reduced by 4 per cent. in the past 16 months ; as and when it is right to do so, we will reduce them further. For the first time in a generation, our interest rates are almost down to German levels because of the successful manner in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has managed our affairs.

     

    Q4. Mr. Dykes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Dykes : Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents will warmly welcome the remarkable cut in income tax and the resulting increase in money, particularly for the less well-off pensioners? Does he agree that our money increases will go to those who need the help most, while Labour’s would be dissipated hypocritically, thinly spread and eliminated by inflation?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right about that. Once the increases announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have been carried through, we shall be spending nearly £700 million a year more than in 1989, over and above inflation, on the less well-off pensioners. Pensioners, too, care about inflation. They know that we are in pursuit of stable prices ; Labour would be in pursuit of higher inflation.

    Mr. Clelland : If neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor is responsible for the recession, and if the Secretary of State for Health is not responsible for the deterioration in our health services, the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not responsible for the underfunding of our schools, the Secretary of State for Transport is not responsible for the deplorable state of our public transport, and the Secretary of State for Employment is not responsible for high and rising unemployment, who is running the country?

    The Prime Minister : In almost every area of endeavour in the past few years, there has been an improvement in services, an improvement in prosperity, an improvement in net disposable income, an improvement in educational opportunity and an improvement in the number of people treated in health care. If the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that, where has he been for the past 12 years?

     

    Q5. Mr. David Shaw : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Shaw : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Dover and Deal who fought alongside America in World War 2 share the view of President Bush that my right hon. Friend provides superb leadership in an uncertain and dangerous world? Will he also accept that my constituents are concerned that, in this general election campaign, people should be aware that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to pull us out of NATO, to abandon our nuclear deterrent and to destroy– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : If we had followed the advice of the Labour party and the Leader of the Opposition, we would be out of Europe, out of NATO, and out of respect. We would be living in an underprotected, overtaxed socialist backwater on the edge of Europe. The Leader of the Opposition has been wrong on every substantial issue in recent years. Once upon a time he wanted to tax the rich to help the poor–now he proposes to tax the rich and tax the poor.

     

    Q6. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Beith : What would it take to get the Prime Minister to revert to the view that he once held about the advantages of a fair voting system–more careful study of countries that have prospered by it, or the prospect of a spell on the Opposition Benches?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows my view on the voting system. The advocates of proportional representation should understand that it leads to weak Government and spawns faction and minority parties. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), with his international pretensions, knows the damage that it has caused overseas. For all his high mindedness, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) argues that case for his own partisan party advantage and not for the advantage of the constitution, and he knows that that is the case.