The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1992

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 11 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview held on Wednesday 11th March 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the country would vote for a change].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There have been the most enormous changes throughout the last thirteen years and changes for the better in the quality of life of an overwhelming number of people in this country. The changes and improvements in the Health Service are self-evident for everyone who wishes to look at them; the change in the net disposable income – the amount of money people have to spend on their own interests and on their own families – greatly improved. In almost every aspect of life there has been improvement in the quality of life over these last thirteen years. We will campaign on that and on what we propose to do and set before people in the years ahead.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there had been an economic miracle given the current recession].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe it is untrue to say that we are in a wholly different position from that which applied in the period before 1979. Most of the structural problems that exist in our economy have now been dealt with and what has happened over recent years is that steadily we have improved our performance relative to other countries; our productivity record has been better than other countries through the 1980s; our growth record has been better than other countries through the 1980s. We have had a difficult recession; we are about to come out of that recession and as we come out of it we have the prospect of a continuing level of inflation at a low level we have not previously seen.

    We are now in pursuit of stable prices – that priceless gift for the economy and for individuals that has always eluded us in the past – so a great deal is happening upon which we can build in the 1990s to build on the increasing prosperity of the 1980s.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the timing of the General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made it clear last year that there were things I believed it was necessary to do before we could have the General Election. One of those was to get inflation down to a much lower rate; one of them was to deal with the negotiations at Maastricht, which we did very successfully I think in December of last year; we clearly needed to put on the Statute Book the replacement for the community charge – that is now law; and we needed a Budget to set the economic and taxation framework for the future. Now that has been done, I believe it is the right time to invite people to choose the next Government. A large number of businesses are waiting to invest. What is now holding them back is that they want to see the Conservative Government safely reinstalled in power. That means it is the right time to have a General Election and I have no doubt about this being the right time.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was a hung Parliament, would he consider PR].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t agree with those series of premises. I believe we will win the General Election, that we will win it with a very clear majority and I have made it clear that I do not think proportional representation is in the interests of this country. A number of countries that have it have produced very weak government over many years; a number of European countries that have proportional representation would like to get rid of it for precisely that reason. The Australians believe it is the worst decision they ever took to move to a form of proportional representation and what you actually get with proportional representation is two things: firstly, a third party – by definition the smallest of three parties – that may determine who is in government and what the policies are; there is nothing particularly democratic about that and under many forms of PR you also let many very tiny minority groups – perhaps the Communist Party, perhaps the National Front – into the House of Commons and into a national legislature. I do not believe that is in the interests of good government in this country and I am not in favour of that form of proportional representation, so there is no point in my keeping the door open. I don’t agree with it and I won’t offer it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would work with the Ulster Unionists to secure a majority].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a purely hypothetical question. I don’t believe that we will need the extra seats. I believe we will win the election with a clear majority. That is our intention, that is what we are setting out our programme to achieve, that is what I believe we will achieve and I am not going to entertain any other hypothesis.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would resign the office of Prime Minister if he failed to secure a majority].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You may deduce what you wish, John. I am not going to enter into a hypothesis I don’t believe will be correct. I believe we will win the election with a clear majority and a sufficient majority to see us through a full term of Parliament.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about his opponents saying that nothing had changed in the Conservative Party since he had become its leader].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to concern myself with what my opponents are saying. I am going to set out the programme that I think is right for this country, a programme of low taxation not high taxation, of more choice not less choice, of proper defence not weak defence, a proper position in Europe not a weak position in Europe, a proper position in the world not a position that seems indefinite. That is the distinction between the Conservative Party and our principal political opponents. That is the issue at the General Election and that is what we will place before every elector between now and April 8th.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Margaret Thatcher].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mrs Thatcher was a very great leader of the Conservative Party; she will have a very warm and honoured place in history and she was also a very fine Prime Minister of this country who will have a very great and honoured place in history. I admire her very much and she will be fighting very hard to make sure that her ideas – the Conservative Party’s ideas – are carried forward in the next Parliament as the Government.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what changes he wanted to make].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are going to build on the changes that we began in the 1980s. In health, there will be more choice for people; in education, there will be more choice for people; in taxation, we shall continue to move taxation down when it is prudent to do so, so that more choice is put in the pockets of the people.

    There are changes I wish to make in this country. I think we can make it a country that everybody in it will be very proud of. We have made some other changes, some of them you may consider peripheral but they are very important. The introduction of a lottery for example will mean more help for the arts, more help for sport, more help for heritage and more help for charities then ever we have seen before – up to £1 billion a year available with all that will mean for young sportsmen and young artists and charities. These are tremendous changes and there will be many of them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that since the parties were moving nearer to each other whether the General Election would be more personalised].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe the parties are moving nearer to one another. The Labour Party have often presented themselves in an attempt to seem responsible as a pale pink version of the Conservative Party but the differences between us on taxation, on defence, on social policy, on European policy and on world policy generally are very wide. There is a great gulf between us and a very clear choice for people to make.

    As to the style of the campaign, I want to campaign on policies, on policies for the future of this country and the sort of society we wish to see. That I can tell you is the campaign that the Conservative Party will run.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about personalities].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not in the business of dealing with personalities. I haven’t been in the past, I am not now, I won’t be in the future.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on the General Election – 11 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on the date of the 1992 General Election, made in London on 11th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Morning. I can now confirm to you that this morning I saw Her Majesty The Queen and sought her permission for a dissolution of Parliament and a General Election on 9 April. I am pleased to say that Her Majesty has given her permission for that to go ahead.

    There were a number of things, I have repeatedly said, we had to conclude before a General Election. We did need to conclude successfully the negotiations at Maastricht, we have done that. We needed to put on the Statute Books the replacement for the Community Charge, that is now satisfactorily on the Statute Book, And we needed a budget to set out the taxation and economic framework for the years ahead, that was completed yesterday in spectacular fashion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    I believe the time is now right to go ahead for a decision at a General Election. Up and down the country there is no doubt that business wants such a decision, it needs to know that the Conservative Party are safely back in government so it can proceed with its investment plans and see this country return from recession to recovery. I believe that will be able to go ahead the moment the election is concluded.

    There will be a particularly clear choice at this General Election: a Conservative Party committed to low taxation, greater individual choice, greater independence, with a clear view of Britain’s position in the world; or a principal opposition party committed to higher taxation for the high paid, committed I now understand to higher taxation for the low paid, the return of more trade union power and the return to many policies that proved so disastrous in years gone past.

    That is a very clear decision indeed for the public to make and I shall be inviting them to make it on 9 April. I can take two or three questions and then I fear there are other things to be done.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, no government has gone into an election behind in the polls, the latest poll suggests you are 3 points behind, what makes you think that it is going to be any better for you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You must wait and see until 9 April, I am utterly confident that we will win the election, that we will win the election with a clear and working majority, I have no doubt about that.

    QUESTION:

    Why have you decided to call an election at a time when if you had called it either earlier or perhaps later you would have been in a better position in the opinion polls?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As I indicated a moment or so ago, if I had called the election in the autumn we would not have concluded those vital negotiations at Maastricht, they were vital for this country, I said that throughout last year, I made it absolutely clear that I wished to see those negotiations satisfactorily through. Once we decided not to go for an election in the autumn it was the spring or the summer. We needed to complete the Council Tax Bill, we needed the Budget, all those things are done, the time for a decision has now come.

    QUESTION:

    Are you disappointed in the reaction to the budget?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I am not at all disappointed in the reaction to the Budget. I think it was perfectly clear from the reaction this morning that the Budget has been very well received. Up and down this country people will see that their tax bills are going to be reduced, every tax payer will face a reduced tax bill, three-quarters of the reduction will go to people on modest earnings and over 4 million people in future will find that all of their taxable income is taxed at 20 percent and not 25 percent. And in addition to that of course we have been able to find the resources to help many pensioners on relatively low incomes who will have a significant increase in resources from October. I think this will be a very popular Budget up and down the country.

    QUESTION:

    After 13 years is not the call going to be that it is time for a change?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have been Prime Minister for 16 months, there is a lot that I want to do in this country, there is a lot that I believe we can do to make this country an even better place to live in, to build on what has happened in the 1980s. We have got a stack of new ideas to take government closer to the people, to make sure that people have more choice, that they have more opportunity. Those are the themes that we will be putting forward to people. The fact that they should have more of their own money in their own pockets to spend as they think is right – that is one of the most important themes for any government to put before people.

    QUESTION:

    Are you defending the record of 16 months or 13 years?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had a very successful record over 13 years, the change in people’s living standards up and down this country in the last 13 years is absolutely remarkable and a tremendous tribute to what Margaret Thatcher achieved in her government. We are building on that, there is a huge amount that we will do to build on the base that has been laid in the 1980s and we are determined to do it throughout the 1990s.

    QUESTION:

    Is this going to be a very dirty campaign, the Tories have already been extremely negative in the postures they have struck before calling the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not as far as I am concerned. We have got a very positive programme to put before people, we will set it out very clearly. We faced a good deal of negative campaigning against us over the last 13 or 14 months, we have a clear idea of the sort of Britain we want to see, we are going to set it out, we are going to move towards it and after the General Election we are going to implement it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 March 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Official Visits

    Q10. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he has plans to make an official visit to Havering Atte Bower.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Essex among them.

     

    Interception of Communications

    Mr. Ian Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister whether a successor has been chosen to Lord Justice Lloyd as commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Justice Lloyd’s second term of appointment expires on 10 April. I am most grateful for his work in carrying out his duties as commissioner. I have decided to appoint Lord Justice Bingham as commissioner for a period of three years with effect from 11 April 1992.

  • PMQT – 10 March 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Is it not an appalling indictment of 13 years of this Government’s economic policy that yesterday one of Her Majesty’s coroners described the shortage of beds in one of Britain’s principal hospitals–a shortage that has led to the death of a pensioner from Southwark–as appalling due to a 2 per cent. insufficiency in gross domestic funding of the national health service? As a result of the Government’s policy, the pensioner’s widow is more than £17 per week less well off in real terms than she was when the Government came to power. Is that not an example of private wealth at the expense of public underfunding? Are the Government to continue with the same policy or enact a U-turn at the last moment?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman well knows that there has been a dramatic increase in national health service spending on any measure one cares to take, far and above the amount necessary either to keep pace with the general level of inflation or to keep pace with the level of inflation in medical costs. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case, and he also knows that there has been an increase in net spending at all levels of income in this country.

    Mr. Onslow : Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the important report on occupational pensions by the Select Committee on Social Services? Does he agree that it contains a great many lessons for many people, particularly on the Maxwell scandal? Will he give the House an undertaking that, when the report calls for action from the Government, we can rely on my right hon. Friend to take action without delay?

    The Prime Minister : I have seen the report. Our first step must be to examine it thoroughly and look at all the recommendations made by the Select Committee. It raises a number of complex and inter-related matters, some of which are for the pensions industry, some for the banks, some for actuaries, auditors and regulators. Some relate to the present legal framework. We need time to examine fully the findings of the Select Committee and to give our response. It is necessary to bear it in mind that the vast majority of occupational pensions schemes operate successfully in the United Kingdom–some 100,000 of them. The cause of the problem with Mirror Group pensioners is all too clear ; There appears to have been a massive fraud, perpetuated under the very eyes of the trustees.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I strongly recommend the report in question to the Prime Minister? I hope, it will lead, after the election, to his supporting us in putting its main recommendations into effect. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall giving the House, from that Dispatch Box, the assurance that the Government would not achieve the objective of tax reductions

    “on the back of a burgeoning Government borrowing requirement now or in future”?–[ Official Report 14 July 1988 ; Vol. 137, c. 588.] Does he still stand by that assurance?

    The Prime Minister : Nothing that my right hon. Friend does or announces later this afternoon will change our objective, or our intention of maintaining medium-term balance in the fiscal situation.

    Mr. Kinnock : I asked whether the Prime Minister stood by the assurance that borrowing requirement would not increase to pay for tax cuts, now or in future, under any Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was leader. Does the Prime Minister still stand by that opinion– yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : I did answer that question. Before asking his second question, the right hon. Gentleman might have consulted the shadow Chancellor, who said last week that– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is very unseemly behaviour.

    The Prime Minister : I am sorry that Labour Members do not like to hear what they themselves said, but I intend to repeat it. As the shadow Chancellor said last week, “I”–that is, the shadow Chancellor–

    “am prepared to go on the basis of accepting the PSBR which emerges from the Budget.”

    Clearly the Opposition have no independent judgment whatsoever.

    Mr. Sumberg : Will my right hon. Friend take time this afternoon to watch the recent interview by Mr. David Frost, which revealed the success of the Government’s health service provisions, and also that the Opposition’s figures are totally bogus? That interview revealed also that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) does not know his NHS from his NUPE.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his point extremely clearly. The bogus statistics of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) have been finally revealed.

    Without the steady drip-feed of leaked documents, clearly the hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty with his figures. As was pointed out to him in that interview, this year there has been a 7.1 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated compared with last year, which is higher even than the Government’s forecast increase in patient care. I remind the House of the so-called Cook test. The hon. Gentleman said that the success of the trusts must be measured “by the simple test of whether they do more or less work for the national health service patients.”

    The trusts have clearly passed that test, and I look to the hon. Gentleman to admit that.

     

    Q2. Mr. Patchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Patchett : Given the proposed increase in pensions, does the Prime Minister honestly feel that it is sufficient–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows what is the pensions increase. It has been announced, it is Government policy, and I stand by that policy.

    Sir Donald Thompson : My right hon. Friend will have heard in recent Question Times much about medicine in London. Will he turn his eyes to the country as a whole and to the north–to the West Riding and my own constituency, where the health service is thought to be one of the best in Europe?

    The Prime Minister : It is not only thought to be so but it undoubtedly is so, and getting better in each and every part of the United Kingdom. That is largely because of the dedication of the staff and the increased resources provided by this Government.

     

    Q3. Sir Patrick Duffy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.

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

    Sir Patrick Duffy : I refer the Prime Minister to the barrage of criticism from the Select Committee on Defence over the Government’s handling of Army cuts, and its implied call for a defence review. Is the Prime Minister aware that among right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who understand the Government’s overall objectives, there is still a genuine fear that the outcome will be overstretch in peacetime and a dangerous shortage in times of tension? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is one risk–one national lottery–which we can well do without?

    The Prime Minister : The Army of the 1990s will be structured to meet our needs in the face of a changed threat, in particular the end of the Warsaw pact and the millions of Warsaw troops who previously were geared immediately to face us. Our forward planning is designed to enable us to take stock precisely as the Select Committee advocated. I stress that we believe our proposals are right, and we set them out clearly in “Options for Change.”

    The hon. Gentleman says that all parts of the House take that view. Although I know that he does, I do not believe that all parts of the House do share that view. The occupants of the Opposition Front Bench appear to advocate 25 per cent. cuts in defence expenditure while the occupants of the Liberal Benches advocate 50 per cent. cuts in defence expenditure, both of which are irresponsible and both of which would have a devastating effect on our capacity to defend ourselves.

     

    Q4. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Evennett : Does my right hon. Friend agree that proportional representation reduces democracy and effective government? Will he confirm that after he has won the general election and is back in No. 10, he will have no intention of changing our voting system? Will he condemn the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench for using the issue in a squalid attempt to lure Liberal voters into their camp and for indulging in two- faced opportunism?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure that Liberals generally need much luring into Labour policies ; they are very similar. My views on proportional representation are well known. PR does not lead to effective government and I do not support it. Indeed, I agree entirely with what the Leader of the Opposition said a few years ago, that

    “proportional representation is fundamentally counter-democratic in any case.”

    I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has told the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman is putting down an early marker for after the next election.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jack Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Will the Prime Minister explain what compensation is available under his supposed citizens charter for the late arrival of economic recovery? Does he realise that it is not just an hour but a year and a half late?

    The Prime Minister : I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity. I can tell him precisely what will be there. It will be a very low level of inflation, lower than we have known at any time in recent years, and steady sustainable growth leading to secure jobs, sustaining the Conservative party in government for many years.

    Mr. Burns : Will my right hon. Friend tell me how best to reply to a constituent of mine who has recently completed a course of treatment at Broomfield hospital in Chelmsford and who tells me that the nurses and doctors were fantastic, that the treatment was magnificent and that he is fed up to the back teeth with the constant efforts of the Labour party to undermine and talk down the achievements of the health service?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend’s constituent speaks for many people who have enjoyed the splendid services of the national health service in the last year or so.

    I advise my hon. Friend to tell his constituent that his experience is not unusual and that it is a tribute to the service that is available from the national health service. He might add that the reforms that are bringing that about are in danger under the plans proposed by the Labour party and that nobody could guarantee the increasing support and assistance from the NHS if those reforms were turned back.

     

    Q6. Mr. Bidwell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Bidwell : Is the Prime Minister aware that the Home Office is withdrawing section 11 funding from all the colleges in the London borough of Ealing and that that adversely affects the Pathway further education centre in my constituency, where we have the largest concentration of people from the new Commonwealth? I find that totally objectionable from a Government who are shaping up to borrow and spend to save their necks.

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman raises but, as he knows, a tremendous amount of support has been made available through the Home Office and other sources to assist members of the ethnic minorities in this country. That continues to be the case.

    Mr. Thornton : With not a red rose in sight on the Opposition Benches, does my right hon. Friend realise that the traditional red rose of Lancashire is alive and well on the Government Benches? What message would my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancashire give us to take back to our constituents in the light of recent research showing that nearly 200 of the top British firms believe that the best way to increase unemployment and inflation and decrease investment would be the calamity of a Labour Government?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. I share his remarks about the red rose belonging to Lancashire. It also belongs to the Rugby Football Union, which shows the red flag on its grand slam tie that it was generous enough to send me this morning. My hon. Friend is also right about the calamity of a Labour Government, because 86 per cent. of companies in that survey thought that Labour would be bad for the economy. I am concerned about what on earth is wrong with the other 14 per cent.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 March 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Women’s Issues

    Mrs. Dunwoody : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to alter the present departmental structure for consideration of women’s issues.

    The Prime Minister : I am currently examining existing departmental responsibilities for women’s issues.

     

    Value Added Tax

    Dr. Marek : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy not to widen the scope of VAT by introducing a positive rate on those items that are presently zero-rated.

    The Prime Minister : The Government have no plans to extend the scope of VAT to any items which are currently zero-rated, and no need to do so.

     

    Nuclear Non-proliferation

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet with non-governmental organisations which specialise in non-proliferation issues to discuss the outcome of the special session of the United Nations Security Council decisions on nuclear non-proliferation agreed in New York on 31 January.

    The Prime Minister : I have no specific plans to do so. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in close touch with non-governmental organisations in this field.

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister whether the library at 10 Downing street contains a copy of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    The Prime Minister : Yes.

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the main points of the agreed United Nations Security Council special session policy to control nuclear proliferation held in New York on 31 January; indicating what plans he has to publicise the strategy agreed on nuclear non-proliferation.

    The Prime Minister : The agreed conclusions of the high-level meeting of the Security Council on 31 January are set out in the statement which I made at the time on behalf of all members of the Security Council, and on which I reported to the House on 3 February at columns 21-35. The statement has been published as Security Council document S/23500, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

     

    Scotland

    Mr. Raffan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which he has officially visited Scotland since he assumed his present office, and the engagements he undertook during those visits.

    The Prime Minister : I have made five official visits to Scotland, when I undertook a number of different engagements.

     

    Wales

    Mr. Raffan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which he has officially visited Wales since he assumed his present office, and the engagements he has undertaken during those visits.

    The Prime Minister : I have made one official visit to Wales, when I undertook a number of different engagements.

     

    National Health Service Improvements

    Mr. McCartney : To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received in the past six months seeking improvements in the national health service.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 March 1992] : I have received many representations on the national health service. The Government have increased the resources available to the National Health Service with the result that National Health Service spending has risen by 55 per cent. in real terms under this Government and next year National Health Service spending in England will rise to £618 per person, compared with £409 per head–1992-93 prices–in 1979.

    The Government’s reforms are beginning to deliver improved health care. In 1991-92, the first year of our reforms, the National Health Service is forecast to treat 5.6 per cent. more in-patients and 4.3 per cent. more out-patients than last year.

     

    Libya

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of the visit to Libya by Vasily Safranchuk, the United Nations envoy.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 February 1992] : The United Nations Secretary-General has now reported to the Security Council the outcome of Mr. Safronchuk’s recent visits to Libya. That report states that Security Council resolution 731 has not yet been complied with. We agree with that assessment. Libya must comply with United Nations Security Council resolution 731 or face further measures.

  • PMQT – 5 March 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

    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. Mitchell : As the Prime Minister savours one of his last few busy days before the deluge, will he think back to the dinner that he gave at No. 10 Downing street last November on behalf of the Tory party [Interruption.] for what The Sun –I must quote it accurately because it is from The Sun — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. No quoting ; paraphrase, please.

    Mr. Mitchell : In that case, I will paraphrase, Mr. Speaker. For The Sun told us of members of Britain’s Asian community being brought together to win the votes of that community. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nine of his 21 guests were tax exiles in this country who cannot even vote here? Will he also confirm that he was able to tell them that the loophole in the tax law which enables them to pay virtually no tax in this country will not be closed by his Government? Finally, will he tell us whether they were asked– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. It is a terribly long question.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken, and I will set out the position clearly for him. I give a number of dinners for industrialists at Downing street, and the dinner for business men was no different. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I should not have such occasions with business men. He also shows his usual willingness to exploit every leak that comes to him. He may care now to listen carefully.

    What I said on that occasion was to confirm a policy agreed with the hon. Gentleman’s own party. He has obviously forgotten that the Government decided not to introduce a tax on world income in 1989, following consultation and representations from the Labour party.

     

    Q2. Mr. Butterfill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Butterfill : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the encouragement of savings is important not simply because it gives security to the saver but because it provides funds for investment in the future of our country? Will he give an assurance that a future Conservative Government will take measures further to encourage savings? Will he condemn the narrow-minded and vindictive savings tax proposed by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I shall happily do both those things. My hon. Friend makes a good point. We shall continue to encourage personal savings by keeping income tax rates low, and through special schemes such as the tax-exempt special savings account, which has been a remarkable success. The savings tax proposed by the Labour party is one of the most poorly thought out and damaging of its proposals. It would hit widows on ordinary incomes. It would hit people taking early retirement such as miners, policemen and soldiers. Now that the Labour party has finally decided to publish its phoney budget, it should think again and drop those damaging and vindictive proposals.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning the University College hospital cancer specialist, Dr. Jeffrey Tobias, said :

    “30 per cent. of the time I have to say to my patients, Sorry, I had planned to give you chemotherapy today but that is not possible”

    because the beds are not available? Does not the Prime Minister think that that is a terrible indictment of the health policy of a Government who have been in power so long and could have made things so much better?

    The Prime Minister : But as the right hon. Gentleman knows, things have been made much better. Waiting lists are improving–are falling. More people are being treated and there are more resources for the national health service. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to swap quotes, perhaps he will listen to what Dr. David Colin Thorne, a Labour party member who stood for Parliament, said on fundholding. He said:

    “I’m aware that what we’re saying may be used but we do believe it is the most energising thing that has happened in my 21 years as a GP It has been good for care, public health and management.” That is a Labour party former candidate, a doctor, supporting our Conservative party reforms of the health service.

    Mr. Kinnock : Why does the Prime Minister never even try to answer the question? The reality is that cancer specialists are unable to treat patients because of a shortage of beds. Why do not the Government even now get rid of the tax concessions for private health insurance and put the £60 million saved straight into fighting cancer? That is what the Labour Government will do. That is the right thing to do.

    The Prime Minister : That would have more credibility if we were not spending more on the health service than the right hon. Gentleman even promised to spend. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party was not pledged to introduce a minimum wage that would cost the health service £500 million. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party would claim and set out the funding that it would provide for the national health service, which it has expressly failed to do. We have repeatedly indicated in public expenditure round after public expenditure round that we are increasing over and above inflation substantial resources for the health service–far more even than the right hon. Gentleman dared to promise.

    Mr. Kinnock : Just in recent weeks we have had public reports of a cardiologist who has had to turn seriously ill patients away because of the budget system– [Interruption.] I am telling the truth about the health– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The right hon. Member has a right to put his question.

    Mr. Kinnock : We have had other public reports of closed accident and emergency units. We have had public reports of a mortally ill little girl being unable to gain treatment in a paediatric intensive care unit. Now we have a physician reporting that he cannot treat 30 per cent. of his cancer patients because of a lack of beds. Why does not the Prime Minister address those issues of life and death instead of parading false claims about his Government?

    The Prime Minister : We have addressed those issues. That is why the waiting lists are falling by record amounts at this moment. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what was the test for our new health service reforms set by his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The standard test. The hon. Gentleman invented it. He asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health whether he was prepared to measure the success by the simple test of whether the trusts did more or less work for the national health service. They have done more work. During the first six months of operations English trusts treated 6.5 per cent. more patients than in the months before they became managed. They have treated 5 per cent. more out-patients. That is the Cook test, not mine. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept it? [Interruption.]

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

     

    Q3. Mr. Thorne : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Thorne : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the launching of the first Trident submarine yesterday, and the fact that three more are under construction, is the minimum insurance policy that the country can afford to accept in a dangerous and uncertain world? Does he further agree that, at this critical time of ordering, building and commissioning that submarine fleet, we should not pay attention to the recommendations of the two main Opposition parties, whose opinion appears to vary, not merely from day to day, but from hour to hour?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right about defence and we have no intention of gambling with this country’s defence. My hon. Friend is also right about the Opposition’s position on Trident. They have said that they would order it, they have said that they would not order it, and they have even suggested that they would order it and send it to sea without any weapons. Frankly, one has no idea what they will say next on defence. This morning the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that Labour

    “have nothing whatsoever to do with CND. We have no connection with CND.”

    What can he have meant? According to the chairman of CND more than 100 Members still belonged to it late last year. Have they all resigned? Have they all let their membership lapse?

     

    Q4. Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Wareing : The Prime Minister has made much of the citizens charter and the need for openness in Government. Does he realise that many of our citizens would like to know whether and how much Mr. Vijau Mallya, an Indian millionaire, and Mr. Adam Polemos, a Greek shipping magnate, contributed to the funds of the Conservative party?– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is very unseemly behaviour.

    Mr. Wareing : Will the Prime Minister emulate the Labour party by publishing the accounts of the Conservative party, so that citizens of this country may know the truth before the general election, about who donates to the finances of the Tory party?

    The Prime Minister : It is difficult to take that seriously from someone whose party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement. According to Labour’s own figures, in 1987 the Transport and General Workers Union gave more money to the Labour party than the whole of industry gave to the Tory party, and it gets votes for it, even on the leadership of the party.

     

    Q5. Mr. Moss : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Moss : Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the reaction of the CBI to the proposal for a national minimum wage? Has he seen its estimates, which suggest that it would increase business costs by an extra £50 million and cut 150,000 jobs? Does he agree that to propose such a policy at this time is the economics of the mad house and that the Labour party should stop it at once?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I have read reports of the CBI’s views. The Labour party claims that it listens to the views of business. The views of the CBI could scarcely be clearer than they have been on the subject of the minimum wage. As I said a moment ago, even in the national health service that policy would cost £400 million to £500 million a year. I wonder what the Labour party would cut elsewhere in the health service to make up for that loss of revenue.

     

    Q6. Mr. John P. Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mr. Smith : The crime rate in the United Kingdom is the highest ever, the detection rate is the lowest ever and our prisons are the fullest ever. Would the Prime Minister explain why he thinks that deplorable situation exists?

    The Prime Minister : I shall take lectures from the hon. Gentleman when he and the Labour party support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

    Mr. John Browne : I offer my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for the crucial personal role that he played in securing compensation for the three injured Grenadiers. Will he now look personally into the cases of some other very obvious cases of severe injuries to service men, in particular those of Mark Booth and Andy Konalyck of the Parachute Regiment and Martin Ketterick of the Royal Marines? In those obvious cases, they have not been compensated properly because they were not covered due to a lapse of cover in the law. Surely, it is time that some form of flexibility was introduced into the compensation legislation for armed services personnel who are severely injured in the course of their duties.

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of the particular cases to which my hon. Friend draws attention. He knows that wide-ranging compensation schemes are available. I will certainly ask to see the details of the cases that he mentioned.

     

    Q7. Mrs. Margaret Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

    Mrs. Ewing : Does the Prime Minister accept that, when the people of Scotland vote for independence, Scotland will become an equal partner with England in the European Community?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Lady is unwise to assume that Scotland will react as she proposes, but in any event, were that unlikely event to occur, Scotland would have to reapply for membership of the European Community. Every member state would have a vote on that application. The United Kingdom’s existing membership of the European Community would continue, but Scotland would have to apply.

  • PMQT – 3 March 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Townend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Townend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disposable income of 10 million mortgage payers is affected by two factors–income tax and interest rates? Is he aware that the Labour party will put up both–a double whammy?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right. We have brought down interest rates and we are determined to keep them low. We believe that the Labour party would do precisely the reverse. An average of 10 independent City forecasts shows that interest rates would rise by 2 per cent. immediately if there were to be such a disaster as a Labour Government. That is Labour’s message to home owners–more taxes and higher interest rates.

    Mr. Kinnock rose — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have an end to all this shouting.

    Mr. Kinnock : Has the Prime Minister seen the report from Mr. Graham Jackson, consultant cardiologist at Guy’s trust hospital, who says :

    “You put seriously ill heart patients on a list to come in but, by the time their turn comes, the contract has run out and the trust administrator says there are no funds till the next financial year”?

    Does not the Prime Minister agree that such a system, which puts cash before care, betrays the fundamental principle of the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no system that puts cash before care. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that we have provided more additional resources in this Parliament than he was even prepared to promise in his last election manifesto.

    Mr. Kinnock : But does not Dr. Jackson have a powerful point when he says that the new system– [Interruption.] This is a man working in the system. Does not he have a powerful point when he says : “The new system is run by accountants who don’t have to sit across the table from the patient and say I cannot treat you” until the new financial year? Will the Prime Minister recognise now that it is tragically wrong for treatment for seriously ill people to be determined by money rather than medical need?

    The Prime Minister : The view that the right hon. Gentleman attributes to that surgeon is certainly not shared by, among others, Nye Bevan’s nephew. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government’s role in health is twofold : first, to provide the resources and, secondly, to make them work better for patients. The resources are at a record level, as the right hon. Gentleman must concede, and the new system is making sure that the resources work better for patients. There is no other way to improve health care and there is no doubt that the new system, across a range of treatment, is improving health care.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister is going to borrow to fund tax cuts. Does he understand yet that the priority of the British people is to use all available resources for health and other essential services? The Prime Minister wants to bribe, they want to build–why does not he listen to them?

    The Prime Minister : In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, perhaps he will tell us two things : how much extra would he provide for health, and where does health come in Labour’s order of priorities? Labour has a long list of priorities : a £3 billion pledge on pensions–presumably health comes after that ; health presumably comes after Labour’s £1 billion recovery programme and it presumably comes after Labour’s £8 billion housing pledge. What else does it come after? The right hon. Gentleman’s priorities do not add up and he knows it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot put a cost on his compassion, for it is bogus.

     

    Q2. Mr. Lee : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.

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

    Mr. Lee : Since the Government came to power, my Pendle constituency has gained two new enterprise zones which are bursting at the seams, one new motorway and a brand new community hospital. Currently, 55 per cent. of employment is in manufacturing–the highest level in the country. Modesty prevents my asking my right hon. Friend what message he will send to the electorate of Pendle in the coming election. However, what message will he send to the electorate in the whole of the north-west?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly reiterate fully the message that I delivered when I visited the north-west a few days ago. The future and prosperity of the north-west are best served by a Government who are determined to keep inflation down, who want to keep taxes down–and will not let interest rates rise as the Opposition would–and who recognise that the level of strikes is at its lowest for more than a century. In the north-west, we will continue to encourage domestic and inward investment and we will not discriminate against it.

    Mr. Ashdown : Now that we know what it means, will the Prime Minister reflect on the “double whammy” that he received from the other place on the Education (Schools) Bill last night? When will he accept that the best thing to do with that damaging and foolish Bill is to ditch it?

    The Prime Minister : I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to providing more power for parents in relation to schools. I note that it is the Liberal Democrats’ policy to take power away from parents and governors and to give it to centralised bureaucrats, and that is precisely like the Labour party policy as in so many things.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bill Walker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.

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

    Mr. Walker : Does my right hon. Friend recognise the dangers inherent in introducing unworkable proposals for devolution for Scotland? Does he accept that if such proposals were implemented, they would lead to a separatist, socialist, nationalist Scotland, enormous loss of jobs and the closure of military bases? The jobs that currently go to the military in the United Kingdom would be lost from factories in Scotland.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the risks of the devolution proposals which have previously been put before people. The Act of Union has served Scotland well and it has served England well. It has provided an essential cement for the whole of the United Kingdom. The devolution proposals that we have seen thus far would damage that union and separately damage Scotland, England and the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand the emotional pull that devolution has for people in Scotland, but I hope that every Scot will examine very carefully what it would mean in practice for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom.

     

    Q4. Ms. Short : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Ms. Short : Has the Prime Minister seen the report on “World in Action” last night, which showed that one of his Ministers has been involved in smearing a private citizen? Does not this place give the Prime Minister the chance to show whether he is really against the smears that have been organised against the Labour party, or is he getting others to do his dirty work for him? Will he sack the Minister concerned?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Lady were sensible, she would look in the backyard of her own party.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Hill : Will my right hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

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

    Mr. Faulds rose —

    Mr. Speaker : Sit down.

    Mr. Hill : Will my right hon. Friend continue vigorously and robustly to negotiate the British contribution to the European budget and, at the end, submit it at a level which the House of Commons and the country can accept?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir. The Community’s budget is already £40 billion a year. The existing own resources ceiling has plenty of room for further expenditure without increased resources being committed. It is the Government’s view that the Commission should be thinking of ways of saving taxpayers’ money, not justifying fresh reasons for expending it. It cannot justify increased expenditure on the scale that it proposes, and we are not prepared to renegotiate in any way the present rebate to the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Tom Clarke : Is the Prime Minister aware that the parents of Carly Reavill and everyone else know that he was misinformed on the circumstances concerning that child’s tragic death? Will he accept that there is indeed an acute shortage of intensive care beds for children? Will he tell us precisely what action he intends to take so that never again will desperately sick children be turned away from hospitals which do not have the money to provide emergency treatment?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know, for he takes a close interest in this matter, that from next year, there is an extra £2.7 billion for the health service in its next budget, in a few day’s time–up another 5 per cent., including efficiency gains. That is the most tangible way to demonstrate our concern for the health service and to continue to improve the service available to everyone in this country.

     

    Q6. Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Bottomley : My right hon. Friend has been successful in building on the work of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in bringing the constitutional parties together. Will he accept that we are asking the Social Democratic and Labour party and the unionists to work more closely than parties normally do in Great Britain? Will he send a message to the Provisional IRA and the disloyalists that the mindless, aimless use of bullets and bombs will not be as successful as parliamentary debates and normal political election campaigns?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the whole House will share my hon. Friend’s view on the latter matter. I warmly welcome the decision of the Northern Ireland political leaders to start their talks again. It gives a clear and very welcome signal to all the people in Northern Ireland of their determination to find a political solution. That is very much needed. It also gives a very clear signal to the terrorists that the people of Northern Ireland will not be bullied by guns, by bombs or by any other form of intimidation. That goes for everyone on the mainland as well.

     

    Q7. Sir Patrick Duffy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Sir Patrick Duffy : As the restructuring of the armed services proceeds, the displaced and redundant service men will continue to be treated with the utmost care and sensitivity, as the Prime Minister is well aware. But if that policy is not extended to the displaced workers in the defence industries, does the Prime Minister accept that our high-tech base will be damaged, perhaps irreparably? Certainly, we can ask questions about the future of certain design teams and skilled and professional workers.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we still have substantial orders for defence equipment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a further statement shortly.

     

    Q8. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Colvin : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if he or my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment had a meeting with business leaders to discuss the policy of the minimum wage, they would tell both the House and the country what business leaders had to say about the damaging effect on jobs that such a minimum wage would have? Does my right hon. Friend think that the shadow spokesman on employment should do likewise?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The minimum wage policy has been condemned by everyone from The Guardian to Goldman Sachs. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is apparently the only person in the country who does not yet believe that the minimum wage would cost a substantial number of jobs if it were implemented. The only debate about the national minimum wage is not whether it would put people out of work but how many hundreds of thousands more people would be unemployed, wholly unnecessarily as a result of partisan dogma on the part of the Labour party.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 March 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lord Chief Justice

    Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will describe the procedure whereby the Lord Chief Justice is appointed;

    (2) if he will list the parties consulted before the nomination of the new Lord Chief Justice was submitted;

    (3) what consideration was given to the custom and practice that an outgoing Government should not seek to bind its successors before appointing the new Lord Chief Justice.

    The Prime Minister : As with other senior appointments to the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister following confidential consultations in appropriate quarters. It has never been the practice to list the parties consulted nor to reveal the nature and source of any advice or recommendations received.

     

    Secondees

    Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the external secondees among the personnel of the efficiency unit, the “next steps” unit and the citizen’s charter unit, together with the seconding organisation or company where appropriate.

    The Prime Minister : The external secondees working in these areas are :

    |Seconding organisation |Location

    ————————————————————————

    1. R. Cribb |Unilever |Efficiency unit

    Dr. I. V. Howell |British Petroleum|Efficiency unit

    1. R. Ross |Bass |Efficiency unit
    2. Purbrook |Ernst and Young |Next Steps unit

     

    Alice Hyde

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister how he proposed to respond to the petition from Alice Hyde.

    The Prime Minister : I have acknowledged Alice Hyde’s petition on the effect of the proposed east London river crossing on Oxleas wood and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will arrange for a full reply to be sent shortly. It will confirm that the impact of the road on the wood was carefully considered at the public inquiries held in 1985 and 1986, and subsequently by the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment before they approved the line of the road.

    The route has been aligned to preserve the largest part of Oxleas wood intact. The slopes of the cutting through the wood, and the new area of open space to be given in exchange for that required for the road, will be landscaped to recreate, as far as possible, the woodland habitat that existed before the road was built.

    The Government place much weight on environmental matters. However, we have to balance the environmental impact of measures associated with road schemes with the benefits of those schemes in order to reach decisions that are in the best interests of the community as a whole. We believe that the right decision was made in this case.

     

    Mirror Group

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the committee representing the staffs of Mirror Group Newspapers in regard to the recovery of pension assets from the banks which are holding them; if at an early date he will meet a deputation from the committee; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have recently received a request to meet a deputation and it will be considered in the usual way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, and other ministerial colleagues met representatives of trustees of all Maxwell pension schemes on 6 February.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    South Africa

    Mr. Caborn : To ask the Prime Minister if he raised at the meeting with Mr. De Klerk on 1 February, the proposition of giving the white electorate a veto on any agreement reached at the Conference for Democratic South Africa or otherwise over the negotiating process.

    The Prime Minister : For President de Klerk to continue with his reforms, he has to have the support of the whole electorate. I discussed these reforms with President de Klerk on 1 February. I believe that the path of reform on which South Africa has embarked under President de Klerk’s leadership is the only course which will allow her reintegration into the international community and enable her to attract the investment she needs for economic growth. That economic growth is in the interest of all South Africans.

  • PMQT – 27 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Loyden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

    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. Loyden : Will the Prime Minister come out of his ivory tower across the road, put his photo calls on hold and face up to his responsibility for the past 13 years of Government mismanagement, which has culminated in the worst economic crisis since the 1930s? How long must we go on, how many more jobs are to be lost and how many more families are to be dispossessed of their homes? Will the Prime Minister now put it to the test through the ballot box and let the people decide on his record?

    The Prime Minister : It is the hon. Member who is wrong. We grew throughout the 1980s better than any other major European country except Spain : we received the highest growth in manufacturing productivity of any Group of Seven country and faster growth in business investment than any other G7 country except Japan. By contrast, the hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind that Labour’s plans for an extra £37 billion a year and policies of higher taxation, higher inflation and higher interest rates would drive this country into perpetual slump.

     

    Q2. Mr. Devlin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Devlin : Does my right hon. Friend agree that higher taxes and minimum wages would put up the costs of British businesses, making them uncompetitive and costing them jobs? Does he agree that such twin torture is the very last thing that British business needs at the moment?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Only the Labour party could plan to cripple industry with both a national minimum wage and substantial tax increases when trading conditions are so difficult. Let me give my hon. Friend a quote :

    “If our costs rise more rapidly than others’ costs, particularly German costs, then British producers lose markets at home and abroad.”

    Those are not my words–they were the words of the Leader of the Opposition. If that is what he thinks, he should withdraw his tax plans and withdraw his minimum wage plans and do so today.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recall saying that a “promise to cut taxes AND increase public expenditure is dishonest and absurd”?

    When the right hon. Gentleman wrote that, did he think that he would end up making exactly that “dishonest and absurd” promise himself?

    The Prime Minister : It is quite staggering to everyone who listens to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) how terrified he and his party are of tax cuts. He still thinks that tax cuts are immoral. The Labour party has opposed every tax cut that we have introduced and now it threatens to raise taxes if we cut them. The right hon. Gentleman wants people to let him spend their money rather than spending it themselves. Labour opposes tax cuts when the economy is growing and when it is not.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister heads the Government who have imposed the biggest tax burden in British history. Perhaps he will now try answering the question. The Government have promised to increase public expenditure and are promising to cut income taxes. Is that not, in the Prime Minister’s own words, truly a “dishonest and absurd” promise?

    The Prime Minister : If the tax burden is so high, why does the right hon. Gentleman propose to increase it still further? When it was pointed out to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that his taxes would rise, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed surprised : what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, in effect, was that taxes under Labour would “only” rise higher than those in any other G7 country–lower, perhaps, than taxes in Albania, but higher than those of all our competitors.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister, in the last couple of weeks left to him in that office, try answering the question? Does he not recall that he has promised to increase public expenditure, to cut taxes and to balance the budget? His promises do not add up. He was right– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister has made all those promises. He was right : those promises are dishonest– [Interruption.] I am quoting the Prime Minister, and he will hear this again– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have an end to this pointing across the Chamber.

    Mr. Kinnock : Even deliberate disruption will not stop the country hearing this. The Prime Minister has described promises to cut taxes and raise public expenditure as “dishonest and absurd”. He was at least right about that–and right about the Government who are making such promises.

    The Prime Minister : In the 1980s we did cut taxation and raise public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman makes an absurd point. Under the Labour Government, borrowing averaged more than 6 per cent. of national product ; since 1979, it has averaged not 6 per cent. but less than 2 per cent. Before the right hon. Gentleman starts to give lectures on borrowing, he should get his facts right. In one year under Labour, borrowing reached a crippling 9 per cent.–the equivalent of £55 billion today. That was the Labour party’s half decade of debt and now they plan another £37 billion worth of expenditure. Which would it be : £37 billion of extra taxes or £37 billion of extra expenditure?

     

    Q3. Mr. Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Hill : On the eve of the first anniversary of the Gulf war, will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing our gratitude to our armed forces, our commitment to the independence of Kuwait and our determination to ensure that Saddam Hussein and his generals comply with all international sanctions or suffer the consequences?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right. The whole country is proud of the role that our armed forces played in the liberation of Kuwait. The way in which Saddam Hussein still behaves is unacceptable to us, to the United Nations and to the international community, and we shall continue to keep pressure on him.

    Mr. Ashley : Is the Prime Minister aware that something far more valuable than the woolly citizens charter was brought before this House recently–a Bill to improve the rights of disabled people–but was talked out by Conservative Members? Will he now undertake to rescue the Bill? Or is this yet another example of the Government and their supporters talking up human rights in theory and knocking them down in practice?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has done a great deal during his period in the House for disabled people and everyone in the House admires him for what he has done, but he must know that there have been dramatic improvements in recent years in the scope, range and value of benefits and in the number of disabled people who receive them. No doubt there is still more to do, and it will be done in due course, but the right hon. Gentleman ought not to deny what has been done.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bellingham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Bellingham : Does the Prime Minister recognise that, because of privatisation, the water companies are spending £28 billion on improving water quality, including schemes in west Norfolk to upgrade drinking water and clean up our beaches? Is he aware that renationalising water would cost the taxpayer £8 billion and that the whole of this investment programme would be put at risk? Is that really what the Labour party wants?

    The Prime Minister : I suspect that it is. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Yesterday, Labour’s spokesman made the point that nationalising water was a priority–yet another priority–which would cost £8 billion. There was no sign of where the money will come from, and no sign of any advantage from the policy–just sheer blind dogma.

    Mr. Ashdown : With British industry burdened by record debt and Britain’s trade deficit at its highest for a year, will the Prime Minister explain why tax cuts which will suck in more imports are right while public investment in the kind of things that Britain needs for the future is wrong?

    The Prime Minister : There was a time in the history of the Liberal party when it trusted people with their own money and believed that they could make their own decisions. I note that, yet again, the Liberal party is aligning itself with the Labour party on social and taxation matters. The whole country will note that, too.

    Mr. Kilfedder : I am sure that the Prime Minister will join me in expressing the utmost admiration for the Australian people and the great commonwealth of Australia. Will he therefore do his best to defuse the present unhappy situation and assure the people of that great continent that, although they may be on the other side of the world, they are close to the hearts of the people of the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly undertake to do that. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend on that matter.

     

    Wallsend

    Q5. Mr. Ted Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Wallsend.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to return to the north-east in the midst of those plans.

    Mr. Garrett : I would like the Prime Minister to visit Wallsend because he visited the neighbouring Conservative-held constituency and saw the destruction arising from the Meadowell riots as a result of 13 years of Thatcherism. The Prime Minister would be most welcome to visit the Wallsend part of North Tyneside where he would have an opportunity to visit Swan Hunter and see a dedicated work force, a dedicated management and, above all, the pride of the people in Wallsend in building and refitting ships for the Royal Navy. He would also learn about a series of problems, the main one of which is the unfair subsidies to ship building companies in the European Community which are handicapping the British ship building industry in terms of merchant shipping orders.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I have considerable sympathy with what he says about that. The Government’s plans for the future naval fleet, including those recently announced for amphibious forces, will provide excellent opportunities for Swan Hunter to bid to obtain more orders. On the subject of equitability across Europe, our aim is to establish that and competitive conditions for all United Kingdom ship builders as soon as possible at national and international levels. We shall certainly keep up the pressure to achieve that, in the interests of Swan Hunter and many other fine firms in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : On his way to Wallsend, will my right hon. Friend visit the north-west of the United Kingdom, and the borough of Macclesfield in particular?

    If he does, he will find an area ready to respond to the sound foundations of the economy that he and the Government have established.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very warm support. I had the opportunity to visit the north-west on Monday, where I found a good deal of buoyancy and confidence in the future of the north-west and of the country as a whole.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Skinner : Does the Prime Minister not have a guilty conscience about his role as an ex-social security Minister? Does he remember the period after 1985 when he came to the Dispatch Box and abolished the death grant and took away maternity grant and income support for 16 and 17-year- olds, while all the time pensioners were losing £14 a week? What is all this claptrap about a classless society and a citizen’s charter? The pensioners need more than that–and not that load of hypocrisy from the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about claptrap, he should listen to what he has just said. If he examines the record, he will see that for people in need I dramatically increased the amounts available for the death grant.