Tag: 1992

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

  • PMQT – 11 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Andrew MacKay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

    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. MacKay : In the light of yesterday’s public sector pay settlements, which were particularly welcomed by teachers, will my right hon. Friend give the House some broad indication of just how many teachers will now be earning more than £20,280 a year? Will he also use this opportunity to give a categorical pledge that under no circumstances will he lift the ceiling on national insurance contributions, because that would, in effect, claw back the extra pay that teachers gained yesterday?

    The Prime Minister : I can tell my hon. Friend that well over 120, 000 teachers exceeded £20,000 a year even before yesterday’s pay increases. We anticipate that something over an extra 50,000 will now do so. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we will not remove the limit and impose an extra 9 per cent. national insurance on those teachers.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister join me in reaffirming that no group either using or supporting violence will be allowed by any Government to bomb its way to the conference table? Does he agree that when terrorists inflict danger and disruption on ordinary people anywhere–in Britain, Northern Ireland or anywhere else–they are not so much demonstrating their support for any cause as demonstrating their hatred and opposition to every community?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir. I am happy to agree without reservation with the points put to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. If terrorists believe that incidents like this morning’s will deflect our policy on Northern Ireland, they are mistaken. They have not been successful in the past, and they will not be successful in the future.

     

    Q2. Mr. Andy Stewart : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Stewart : When I last had the opportunity to question my right hon. Friend, he confirmed that under the Conservatives, miners and other earners in my constituency would not pay a higher rate of income tax. Can he confirm that he will not extend national insurance contributions to savings, because a large number of my constituents took early retirement from the coal industry and use their savings to supplement their income?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that guarantee. Conservative Governments have reduced the taxation on savings. We have abolished the investment income surcharge, and have cut the standard rate of income tax to 25p in the pound. We have introduced savings schemes such as TESSAs, and we believe that excess taxation is iniquitous when we seek to encourage people both to save and to invest in our economy.

    Mr. Lewis : Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1986 he announced the closure of DHSS resettlement centres and gave a firm promise that they would not close until alternative accommodation was available? Is he now aware that four centres, including the Walkden centre in my constituency, will close next month and that alternative provision is not yet available and will not be available? Is the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, going to allow the Resettlement Agency to rat upon his pledge or is he not?

    The Prime Minister : I set out at the time the details of the areas where we would see new and better facilities reopening, and those better facilities have reopened. In addition, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Government are also spending very nearly £100 million over three years to provide accommodation for people who are homeless in London. So far nearly 2,000 extra bed spaces have been provided, and the number of people who are out on the streets is substantially lower than 12 months ago. The hon. Gentleman would do well to acknowledge those facts.

     

    Southampton

    Q3. Mr. Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit the city and port of Southampton.

    The Prime Minister : Tomorrow.

    Mr. Hill : When my right hon. Friend visits the port of Southampton he will realise that two Conservative policies have changed the position of the port from stagnation to prosperity. The first policy was privatisation and the second the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. All the hospitals in Southampton have been rebuilt over the past few years. There is only one fly in the ointment– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let the hon. Gentleman ask his question–but briefly please.

    Mr. Hill : My right hon. Friend will know that there is a Labour-controlled council. Not only are its policies extremely wasteful, but one of the companies that it set up is just collapsing, insolvent, and this is costing £8 a head to every community charge payer in the area.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend puts his point with great clarity and in some detail. Southampton is already part of a highly successful privatised group of ports. In some of the privatised ports, ending restrictive practices has led to an improvement in productivity of 50 to 100 per cent.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Jack Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Is the Prime Minister aware that, after a little local difficulty in the House, there was a meeting this morning between the Engineering Employers Federation and the northern group of Labour Members, at which one of the representatives of the federation said that the Department of Trade and Industry suffered from inertia? Will the Prime Minister consider removing this inertia from the DTI by sacking his Secretary of State?

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ian Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Taylor : Does the Prime Minister agree that there is an increasing role for responsibility and involvement of individuals in improving their career prospects, whether through training credits for young people or through performance-related pay? Are these not better ways of improving the skills of British industry than the rigid structures favoured by the feudal barons of the trade union movement?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with the training credit principle which puts buying power in the hands of the people who seek training. If my hon. Friend will be patient, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly have some comments which will please him.

    Mr. Robert Sheldon : Has the Prime Minister seen today’s Financial Times ? If he has, has he noted the three pages of advertisements by receivers and administrators of companies that have failed? The exercise is repeated in the columns of the Financial Times three times a week. Is it not clear that, in the light of all these industrial failures, it is the failure of the Government which really needs to be brought to account, and that it is the Government’s task to put things right?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the essential basics to make sure that things are right are to keep inflation down, to keep interest rates down, to have the right tax structure and to continue with the improved industrial relations that we have had in recent years. With his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will also be interested in the views of the CBI. If he is, he will know that the CBI opposes absolutely the reintroduction of the labour laws that the Opposition propose, the tax changes that the Opposition propose and the minimum wage that the Opposition have in mind. Each of those policies would be deadly to the future of British industry, British jobs and British companies.

     

    Q6. Sir Anthony Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Sir Anthony Grant : Will my right hon. Friend warn other world leaders, especially in the United States, of the dangers of a wave of trade protectionism and the catastrophic effect that it can have on the world economy in a recession? Will he emphasise to the Americans in particular the need to reach sensible agreements within GATT?

    The Prime Minister : I have had the opportunity of discussing that with President Bush on a number of occasions, and he is as committed to a speedy conclusion of the Uruguay round as we are. I believe that that is vital. The paper set out by Mr. Dunkel provides a basis round which the United States, the Cairns group and the European Community could rally to provide a satisfactory settlement. That settlement is as vital for the future of the international trading organisation as any other matter under consideration.

     

    Q7. Mr. Martlew : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Martlew : In a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on Thursday, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would not be supporting the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which will come before the House on Friday, but did not clarify whether he is in favour of a ban on fox hunting. Will he take this opportunity to tell the House and the country whether he favours such a ban?

    The Prime Minister : We always examine legislation before the House with great care. The Bill before the House is not adequate.

    Dame Jill Knight : In connection with an incident that my right hon. Friend has mentioned already, is he aware that hon. Members and staff were unable to work in their offices at 1 Parliament street between 9.30 and 12.30 because of three IRA bombs placed in Whitehall? Is he further aware that immediately the road was made safe, but before any traffic was allowed to pass, there was a demonstration by IRA supporters, well equipped with banners and placards? Does he not feel that, as they were so ready to move and so well equipped, they knew all about the IRA bombs and probably the timing as well? Will he ensure that the police are given the photographs of that demonstration, taken close up by the media?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware–I have not yet received reports–of that demonstration, but I believe that it is ironic that the IRA and its supporters should at the same time be enjoying the privileges of democracy and using the methods of terrorism. I can assure them that they will have no progress until they renounce violence and terrorism. I believe that that is the united view of all the parties in the House.

     

    Q8. Mr. Grocott : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Grocott : Does the Prime Minister recall that it is now more than 12 months since he first started dithering about the election date, since when 750,000 people have lost their jobs? Is it not about time that he said to the 44 million voters who are sick and tired of the phoney election campaign that the general election will be on 9 April? When will he have the courage to say that?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know that in the last year we have also cut interest rates seven times and halved inflation. I have no doubt that when we come to the election the electorate will have spotted that as well.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is the first Prime Minister in history to attend the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union? Is he aware that the warmth of his reception was genuine, as the farmers very much appreciate his understanding of their difficulties with the planners and with marketing? Is he aware that they welcome his determination to do all he can to improve their lot, both at home and abroad?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly enjoyed my attendance at the National Farmers Union meeting this morning. I was able to talk to the farmers about the difficulties that their industry faces at the moment, the need for reform of that industry and the importance that farming will undoubtedly have in the future of our country.

     

    Q9. Mrs. Irene Adams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mrs. Adams : Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), recently wrote to him pointing out that the Paisley post code area lost 76 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs between 1979 and 1989 and a further 3,600 jobs since then? Does he recall that he replied that he did not consider those circumstances grim enough to undertake an economic initiative for Paisley? Will he now change his mind or shall we have to wait for the people to do that for him?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Lady ought to be clear about what she means by assistance. When the Labour party speaks of incentives it means subsidies. Perhaps the hon. Lady will remember the success rate of the National Enterprise Board. It invested in 102 firms, of which one third went bankrupt or went into receivership. Less than one third of those firms returned the taxpayers’ investment. The right way to help manufacturing industry is to produce the right level of inflation and the right economy for people to make their own decisions.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 February 1992

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Clearance Procedures

    Dr. David Clark : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 1991, Official Report, column 94, whether those employed in executive agencies are also required to seek clearance before taking up posts with outside organisations and companies; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Yes, where appropriate.

     

    Iraq (United Nations Inspections)

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty’s Government received the appeal from the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency for supplementary funds to continue the United Nations special commission on inspection in Iraq; and what response was made to the appeal.

    The Prime Minister : No appeal has been received.

     

    Nuclear Non-proliferation

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by Her Majesty’s Government to halt the geographical proliferation of nuclear weapons by nuclear-armed states to their military allies.

    The Prime Minister : As a depositary power for the treaty on the non -proliferation of nuclear weapons–NPT–the United Kingdom has consistently worked to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to encourage other states to accede to and abide by the treaty.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the actions taken by Her Majesty’s Government to support and strengthen each article, respectively, of the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    The Prime Minister : The information is not centrally recorded and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. In our role as a depositary power for the treaty, the United Kingdom has strongly supported the NPT since its inception, and has been consistently active to this end.

     

    South Africa

    Mr. Robert Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in regard to South Africa on (a) the need for transitional arrangements for the Government during the negotiating process, (b) the continued detention of political prisoners, (c) the implementation of the national peace accord, (d) the introduction of regulations banning the carrying of weapons at political rallies and (e) the proposal to give the white electorate a veto through a referendum on any agreement reached at the convention for a democratic South Africa.

    The Prime Minister : I welcome the negotiations which are taking place within the Convention for a Democratic South Africa-CODESA. I have discussed them with President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela in meetings this month. It is for the South African people to decide on constitutional issues and any transitional arrangements.

    We have urged the release of all political prisoners throughout South Africa : more than 1,000 political prisoners were released last year.

    I welcomed the national peace accord when it was signed last year. Since then I have urged all parties to work for its implementation. I welcome all measures designed to reduce the risk of violence. The South African Government have proposed a referendum to obtain the views of all South Africans. The procedure for this is a matter for discussion in CODESA.

    Mr. Robert Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the National party proposals published on 5 September 1991 on constitutional change in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I welcome the National party’s intention to negotiate a democratic constitution which is non-racial and based on universal suffrage. These issues are being discussed in the Convention for a Democratic South Africa.

     

    President de Klerk

    Mr. Robert Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with President de Klerk on 1 February.

    The Prime Minister : I met President de Klerk on 2 February. We discussed the constitutional talks in South Africa. The President expressed his determination to see them through to a new constitution. On township violence, President de Klerk said that national peace accord measures were in place and beginning to prove effective. The Goldstone commission was examining allegations against the South African defence force. The President explained the progress made in integration in sport, and said that unification of control of rugby should be concluded by late March. We agreed to keep up our dialogue.

     

    Dietary Supplements

    Mr. Fearn : To ask the Prime Minister who will represent Britain at the meeting to be held between the European Commission and the member Community states on a draft Council directive on dietary supplements.

    The Prime Minister : The meeting to which the hon. Member refers will be attended by officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health. I should add that no Council directive on dietary supplements has yet been drafted : the meeting is to examine a Commission discussion paper.

     

    Pay Review Bodies

    Sir Anthony Meyer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest reports of the pay review bodies.

    The Prime Minister : In 1992 reports of the review bodies on the pay of the doctors and dentists, the professions allied to medicine, nursing staff, midwives and health visitors, the armed forces and school teachers have been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are grateful to the members of the review bodies for the time and care which they have put into the preparation of the reports.

    The following table shows the increases recommended by the review bodies for each group, and their cost.

    Review body |Pay bill |Range of |Public

    |increase |increases |expenditure

    |1992-93<1> |cost

    |per cent. |per cent. |£ million

    ————————————————————————-

    Doctors and dentists

    (DDRB) <2> |6.0 |5.5-8.5 |<3>314

    Nurses and allied professions (NAPRB) <2>

    -nurses and midwives |5.8 |5.6-6.0 |<3>435

    -professions allied to medicine (PAMs) |6.3 |6.2-6.5 |<3>48

    Armed forces (AFRB)<4> |5.9 |5.9-7.9 |274

    Schoolteachers (STRB)<5> |7.8 |7.5 |765

    <1> Percentages by which the awards would increase the estimated 1992-93 pay bill.

    <2> Great Britain. Northern Ireland health service pay normally follows Great Britain but is described separately.

    <3> Includes cost of staff in NHS Trusts.

    <4> United Kingdom.

    <5> England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate pay regimes for school teachers.

    The Government accept these recommendations and propose to pay them in full from 1 April 1992. The cost of implementing them will be met from within the public expenditure planning totals published in the autumn statement.

    The Government recognise that the cost of the health service awards could not be met in full from present health service provision without adversely affecting services to patients. The Government will therefore provide an extra £149 million from the reserve for next year. The Government also accept that local education authorities would have difficulty in absorbing the full cost of the teachers’ pay award, and have therefore decided to finance from the reserve an additional £60 million of grant to local authorities. The cost for the armed forces will be absorbed within the defence budget.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on a Nation at Ease With Itself – 9 February 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on his phrase of a nation at ease with itself, made in an interview on 9th February 1992.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked to explain what he meant by the phrase a nation at ease with itself].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I mean by that is to make sure that everybody has the same opportunities whichever part of the country they come from, to achieve whatever it is they wish to achieve.

    That people have the right to self respect, they have the right to dignity, they have the right to good service, and of course much of that, to take one part of it, much of it is reflected in what we’re trying to do in the Citizen’s Charter; to make sure that people, when they’re dealing with public services, are treated as individuals and offered the quality of service, and individual service to which I believe they’re entitled.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how that objective could be achieved during a recession].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But if, if I may say so, that is the time when it is most important to have a nation that is at ease with itself. But of course it is important, whatever stage of the economic cycle you’re in, clearly at the moment as we come out of the recession, I think we’re beginning to show signs of doing that, as we come out of the recession it will be easier to make some of the policy changes that are necessary. But that it is important that people have those opportunities, those individual choices, I believe is undoubted.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he could comment on Neil Kinnock’s claim that as Prime Minister he has presided over a deep recession].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, Mr Kinnock has many virtues but I’m not entirely sure that a deep understanding of the economy is amongst them. We have economic difficulties in this country, that is certainly true, and I have never made any secret of that, that is why we have worked so hard to get inflation down from 11%, down to just over 4%. Mr Kinnock of course said it would go up above 11%. That is why we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism to stabilise Sterling.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the 1992 Young Conservatives Conference – 8 February 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Young Conservatives Conference in Eastbourne on Saturday 8th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, it’s good to be back at your Conference. It has been an important year. I’ve seen the UN in New York, the EC in Maastricht, and now the YCs in Eastbourne.

    And by the way, there’s something else I can tell you about

    1992 … it’s the year the Conservative Party will win the next General Election.

    We will win that Election. And win it clear and well.

    A National Party

    Mr Chairman, let me tell you why we’ll win – and what we’ll do. About what we stand for – and what we don’t stand for – and what we won’t stand for.

    Why should people give us their trust? Because our ideals meet the hopes of people in every walk of life. And in every age group. Because we don’t see good fortune for some as injustice for others. We don’t scorn the successful. We don’t preach envy. And we don’t trade on division.

    For us each person counts. We never forget those with their foot on the first rung of the ladder of opportunity. Or those who have been knocked off it by misfortune. The Government I lead will always protect their interests.

    And that means taking decisions that are right in the long- term, not easy and popular in the short-term.

    Holding firm on the economy

    Mr Chairman, the world economy is showing greater strain now than it has for a decade. That doesn’t make it easy for Britain, as we work our way out of recession. A quick fix is the wrong way. It calls for steadiness. Keeping inflation down. Keeping strikes out of fashion. And keeping faith in policies that are the only sure foundation for our recovery.

    You may have heard what our opponents suggest. A poisoned chalice. They want to raise taxes on incomes and savings. Raise National Insurance. They want us to put new levies on business. And bring in a minimum wage.

    We know where that would lead. We’ve been there before. Higher interest rates, higher mortgage rates, higher taxes, more unemployment, a longer recession, and the re-invention of the Brain Drain.

    Not one of their policies would help our recovery. They would mean perpetual recession and terminal decline.

    If we had had the high taxes and the strikers’ charter that Labour demand, I can tell you this. We wouldn’t have had Nissan investing nearly £900 million at Sunderland.

    We wouldn’t have had Honda investing £300 million at Swindon.

    Wouldn’t have had Toyota investing £700 million at Derby.

    And wouldn’t have had, in the five years to 1990, twenty billion dollars of United States investment in Britain.

    The conditions which attracted this investment are what Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman, Gerald Kaufman, condemns as a sweatshop economy. Sweatshop economy?

    Last year Japanese firms invested £3,600 million in Britain – more than half all the Japanese investment throughout the European Community. Under Labour all that would have been at risk. “Alien investment”, their union friends call it. They would rather have unemployment in Britain than investment from overseas.

    Mr Chairman, Britain simply can’t afford Socialism. What an absurdity it would be, as the world ditches it, for us to let it to creep back in this country. Labour’s attitudes are old hat. And its prescriptions are yesterday’s prescriptions. We live in a harsh and competitive world today – the most competitive decade we’ve ever known. And unless we’re able to compete we’ll face a harsh future.

    A Nation at Ease with Itself

    Mr Chairman, when our Party honoured me by making me its leader I was asked what my aims for Britain were. I had no doubt the first of these was to create a nation at ease with itself.

    That sounds a simple idea. But for me it is fundamental.

    We live at ease with others when each of us has the same choices. The same opportunities. Peace of mind. Simple human dignity. We’re all entitled to that.

    But what is our path to these things?

    For our young people, the chance of a good education. Up to date skills. Qualifications that mark their achievements.

    For workers, freedom from trade union pressure. To feel a part of their enterprise. To be able to earn more and keep more for their families.

    For the sick, to know that there is – and always will be – a free National Health Service which develops and grows.

    For older people, to know that inflation will not destroy their security. That the State will not confiscate their savings. And that the streets must and will be kept clear of crime.

    For all to know that their contribution – whatever it may be – is respected and valued. And crucial in binding every local community together.

    These are the things that bring security and self-respect. And self-respect breeds respect for others. An old lesson of history, long understood in Britain, before Socialism began to eat it away.

    Any Government can aspire to these aims. But it’s only the Conservative philosophy that is able to secure them.

    So what is it that is special about the Conservative way?

    The Principles of Modern Conservatism

    Let me tell you. The principles of modern Conservatism are the principles of choice. Of opportunity for all. Of ownership. Of responsibility. Those four themes run through every part of our programme for the 1990s. And everyone’s policies should be judged against them. For they are the foundations of a free society.

    The Power to Choose

    Of these four great ideas, I put choice first.

    There are those who say that choice is selfish. Or that some people are too foolish or too stupid to choose. That the safest choices are made by the State. By other people who know better than you.

    Those who say that are the people who defended the closed shop. Resisted the Right-to-Buy. Pushed up tax levels in Britain until it wasn’t just the pips that squeaked. It was the whole fruit-stall.

    You know who they are. The people of Britain know who they are. The shifty men – who once proclaimed their Socialism in public, but who now phase out the hymns they once sang with such gusto.

    Of course it all depends on which Labour shadow you’ve been listening to. They talk about “lime for a change”. What do they mean? They mean it’s time for Neil Kinnock to change John Smith’s policies. Or vice versa. Cometh the dinner, cometh the fudge. A blinding conversion on the road to Luigi’s.

    Mr Chairman, the harder they fought us, the more our policies of choice put power in people’s hands.

    We’re putting it back where it belongs:

    With the individual. Not the trade union.

    With the customer. Not the controller.

    With the citizen. Not the State.

    We’ve widened choice by breaking down nationalised monopolies and opening up markets. Giving tenants and parents more say in their lives and those of their children. Above all by keeping taxes down.

    It’s no good looking at the mail order catalogue, the holiday brochure, or even the take-away menu, if a tax demand from a Socialist Chancellor has left you no money to pay for it. Your modest hopes are swallowed – in his huge ambition.

    So be on your guard. 35 per cent basic rate income tax? They denied it before; and they did it before. They deny it again. But, given the chance, they’d do it again.

    Extending Choice

    Mr Chairman, once again our Party is bubbling with new ideas. Widening choice in all sorts of ways. We are giving council tenants even more rights. We’ll bring private sector skills more into public service. And we’ll be acting to end – once and for all – the monopoly power of arrogant Labour councils over the management of housing estates.

    And there will be more choice in the way we travel. We’re going to end the public monopoly of London’s bus services. We’re going to ensure better service on the railways. Break up the huge, inefficient monopoly that is British Rail. When you’re young you want to travel and see the world. Well, we’re going to challenge the cartels and the cosy deals that keep too many international airline prices far too high.

    Mr Chairman, last year at this Conference, I told you that education was top of my agenda. Since then we have pressed on with a tide of reform. One by one the citadels of the trendy left are tumbling down.

    We are insisting on new standards in the curriculum. We’ve given parents more power. But, as we’ve made clear in our Citizen’s Charter, choice is meaningless if, like millions of parents in Britain today, you never see the school’s results, and you’re never sent a school report.

    So we are now bringing in – for the first time ever – systematic inspection of all schools. The results will go to every parent. And – again for the first time – league tables will be printed showing how different schools compare.

    Free choice must be informed choice. That way you can help us to secure our foremost aim – higher standards. For every child. In every classroom. In every school.

    More Accountability

    In the next Parliament we intend to put on record the performance of every local authority in the country. There must be no more municipal cover-ups. No hiding place for uncaring and incompetent councils.

    Labour don’t like league tables. And you can all guess why. Who doesn’t collect rents? Southwark and Lambeth. Who costs the public most? Lambeth, Haringey, lslington and Bristol? Who keeps the most homes empty? Hackney, Liverpool, Newham and Salford? Where are maths results the worst in England? Bradford, Newham, and Sandwell? No wonder Labour don’t like league tables. There would be Labour councils at the bottom of every list.

    You didn’t hear any of that at Labour’s local government conference yesterday. Of course they attack our Citizen’s Charter. They’re terrified at what the public will be told.

    I believe that where the public have no choice, the inefficient must be held to account. That’s why we also want more independent inspection in key public services. Like the police. Or social work.

    Too often eccentric theories and slack management have escaped proper scrutiny, undermined public confidence, overshadowed the dedicated service of tens of thousands of social workers.

    I want to see rigorous and independent inspection of social work. Some of the most vulnerable people in Britain depend on it. And in the next Parliament we will see to it that it is provided.

    Choice where we can bring it. Accountability where we can’t. People’s rights. That’s what the Citizen’s Charter is all about.

    Ownership and Wealth Creation

    Mr Chairman, alongside choice there is a second great foundation to the Tory approach – ownership. And with it goes wealth creation, which is the only way to provide for those who need help. Wealth creation and welfare hand in hand – those are the central pillars of the Tory temple. So it’s in everyone’s interests to have low taxation on business. Regulation which promotes competition and open markets, and doesn’t stifle enterprise. That’s what’s wanted. Low inflation, freedom in the workplace, and reforms in education and training to bring out each person’s skills.

    We also need low income tax. Incentives to save. The chance to inherit. Wider ownership. These things broaden and deepen our freedoms.

    Those are not Labour’s priorities. Labour believe that taxes should be higher and promotion penalised. That shareholders are second-class citizens. That Whitehall knows how to run industry. And that trade unions should call the shots.

    Millions of people in Britain think differently. They know that the homes, shares and pensions they own were won despite bitter opposition from Labour. They fear the impact of Labour taxes on the housing market. Labour regulation on the stock market. And sheer Labour hostility to personal pensions which over three and a half million people in their 20s and 30s now have.

    Mr Chairman, ownership is at the very core of Conservatism. It gives people pride. Spurs on their efforts. Offers them security. Satisfies their hopes and dreams.

    There is nothing wrong with the wish to have something of your own. Or to pass it on your own. There is no other party which believes in making ownership easier across the generations. But we do. We want more people to gain more, own more, leave more. Yes, and inherit more. I make no apology for that. For if families get richer, so do we all.

    Savings

    In recent weeks a lot has been said about Labour’s policies on income tax and National Insurance. By everyone – except Labour. But in all the comment on their damaging and vindictive proposals, there is one which has yet to be given the attention it deserves. Their carefully calculated plan to hit out at personal savings.

    Any one with more than £3,000 a year from their savings – a worker taking early retirement, a businessman selling a corner shop, a child inheriting a home, would be clobbered by a new Labour surcharge on savings. How can you trust a Party that calls for investment and attacks the investor?

    Mr Chairman, after the success of the home-owning democracy, we must move on. We are a Party that believes – as no other believes – in savings, in shares, in pensions for all. I am proud that as Chancellor I introduced the tax-exempt savings schemes, the TESSAs that are proving so popular. People are showing in their millions that they want, and believe in, Tory savings policies. Saving regularly, with the tax incentive to do so. Partnership with the investor – not the confrontation that Labour would bring.

    Pensions

    People have also shown in their millions that they want Tory opportunity in pensions and share ownership, too. I simply don’t understand why Labour are so hostile to savings. They now say they would scrap help to those with personal pensions. Force them back into the State system. So let me assure you of this, the next Conservative Government will go on encouraging personal pensions and reduce long-term reliance on the State.

    Labour talk of increasing pensions for all. But they say nothing about the obstacles they’d put in the way of people saving up for old age. Nothing about the folly of pushing up taxes to pay out £1,000 million across the board to those in the top half of the income bracket. And nothing about policies which would increase inflation and hit the pensioner hardest. This Government has protected the pensioner, lifted the fear of inflation, and concentrated help where it is needed most. We will stand by our pledges in the 90s.

    Shares

    Another question for Labour – wholly unanswered – is how far they would tamper with or take away the rights of owners of shares. Where they wouldn’t renationalise, they would interfere. Force down dividends. Cut the values of shares. There are 8 million new shareholders who have entrusted their savings to investment in privatised industry through shares. Not one of them – not one of that 8 million could feel safe if Labour crept back.

    For us the question is different. How can we extend share ownership further? My ideal is to see every worker in every firm with a real personal interest in its success. And how can we make it easier to own shares? I want it to be as natural to deal in shares as it is to invest in a building society or bank. It will take time. But that’s the way this country must go.

    Responsibility

    Mr Chairman, our Conservative ideas are the right ideas for the ’90s. The tide is running ever more strongly against the fading grip of the Left. Labour is awash. Adrift. And sinking. Everywhere, all over Europe, the sandcastles of Socialism are slipping away.

    Mr Chairman, there is one responsibility that this Conservative Government, the next Conservative Government, every Conservative Government will always fulfil.

    To defend our nation. No ifs. No buts. No small print. No Kaufman quibbles. Defend our nation. Week by week. Year by year. Quiet. Careful. Cautious. But always on our guard.

    Of course, we want peace. Of course, we want to see more resources available to health, education, and the protection of the weak. In recent years we have shown that, with our policies, we can modernise our defences, and still provide the quality services the nation needs. But for us, defence spending is an insurance premium that, as long as any risk remains, we will continue to pay.

    You don’t need me to tell you the risks that remain. Even in recent years you have seen twice how suddenly an aggressor can strike. In the Falklands. And in the Gulf. In those wars the young men and women of our armed forces – many of them at school or college with you – fought superbly.

    I hope that no-one, ever again, will have to lead this nation in time of war. There is hope of a new spirit in the world. Nine days ago I signed an historic declaration with President Yeltsin. And last Friday we brought the Security Council together at Head of Government level, for the first time in 47 years of UN history. These were both British initiatives. But they offer hope for the world. And whatever it is in our power to do, to strengthen this positive spirit, that, I promise you, we will do.

    But let me also be blunt. There are still dangers ahead. The future is uncertain. The collapse of Communism has brought great opportunities. We will do all we can to help democracy take root in the new Russian Republics. But there is still dangerous instability. And, in the wider world, Saddam Hussein is not the only dictator longing to lay his hand on a nuclear trigger.

    In such a world, as Boris Yeltsin has acknowledged, it is essential to maintain a minimum level of nuclear deterrent. Labour don’t want a nuclear deterrent. They just see it as something to bargain away. But will never take risks with Britain’s defence.

    We will keep a deterrent – a minimum deterrent. Britain must have the capacity to keep a deterrent at sea. Labour don’t want to build it. But I can assure this Conference. We will. The next Conservative Government will complete, and deploy, the fourth Trident submarine.

    Conclusion

    Mr Chairman, in the last two years we have seen 400 million people cast off Communism as the ideals of the free market spread across the world.

    Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried. Now the whole of Europe is throwing it out, neck and crop. Well, let me tell you this. Here in Britain it’s not coming back.

    I know the ambitions you have for our future. The high hopes. I share them.

    The right policies will help us achieve them. The wrong policies would destroy them.

    That is what is at stake at the election.

    For your generation. For every generation. Soon it will be time to choose. And I look to you to be in the vanguard when we win the coming election.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Harris : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the names of all persons who have served as special advisers to Ministers, by Department (a) from June 1987 to November 1990 and (b) since November 1990; and if he will indicate where possible the individual’s prior profession or employment.

    The Prime Minister : Information on the names of special advisers, including part-timers, and their Departments is as follows. Information on prior employment or profession is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Special advisers serving from June 1987 to November 1990

    Name |Department

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

    1. Adams |Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
    2. Gueterbock |Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
    3. R. Blackwell |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)
    4. D. Bourne |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Sir P. Craddock |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    1. J. Dunlop |Cabinet Office (including No. 10) (formerly Defence)

    Miss R. Z. Finlay |Cabinet Office (Chief Whip’s Office)

    Mrs. T. Gaisman |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Professor B. Griffiths |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    1. R. J. Guise |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)
    2. D. R. Harris |Cabinet Office (including No. 10) (formerly Lord President)
    3. Harris-Hughes |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)
    4. E. Hartley-Booth |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)
    5. J. O’Sullivan |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Mrs. A. Ponsonby |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    1. K. Whitehead |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)
    2. B. Wybrew |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)
    3. R. Simpson |Defence
    4. Kerpel |Education and Science

    Mrs. E. Laing |Education and Science

    1. M. Lightfoot |Employment
    2. Derrick |Energy
    3. D. Martin |Energy
    4. Black |Energy
    5. Collins |Employment (formerly Environment)
    6. Marsh |Environment

    Professor D. Pearce |Environment

    1. J. Rock |Environment
    2. D. Fergusson |Foreign and Commonwealth
    3. Fraser |Foreign and Commonwealth
    4. Houston |Foreign and Commonwealth
    5. R. Liddington |Foreign and Commonwealth (formerly Home Office)
    6. Turner |Health and Social Security
    7. H. Hill |Health (formerly Trade and Industry)

    Mrs. T. Keswick |Health

    Miss M. Libby |Social Security (formerly Health and Social Security)

    1. Stewart |Social Security
    2. S. C. Bickham |Home Office
    3. P. Godfrey |Home Office
    4. Simmonds |Home Office (formerly Trade and Industry)
    5. Taylor |Home Office
    6. Teasdale |Lord President (formerly Foreign and Commonwealth)

    Dr. E. Cottrell |Privy Council Office

    1. J. Carter |Scottish Office
    2. Young |Scottish Office
    3. Hendry |Trade and industry (formerly Health and Social Security)
    4. James |Trade and Industry
    5. Luff |Trade and Industry
    6. Mayhew |Trade and Industry

    Mrs. K, Ramsay |Trade and Industry (formerly Environment)

    Sir J. Sterling |Trade and Industry

    Miss E. Buchanan |Transport

    Professor B. J. Hoskins |Transport

    1. Call |Treasury

    Mrs. J. Chaplin |Treasury

    1. J. Cropper |Treasury
    2. M. Lightfoot |Treasury (formerly Employment)
    3. G. Tyrie |Treasury
    4. Richards |Welsh Office

    Special advisers serving since November 1990.

    Name |Department

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

    1. Adams |Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    Sir P. Craddock |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Mrs. R. Z. Finlay |Cabinet Office (Chief Whip)

    1. Harris-Hughes |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)
    2. H. Hill |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Mrs. S. Hogg |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    1. Rosling |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)
    2. True |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Miss B. Wallis |Cabinet Office (including No. 10)

    Ms. S. Hole |Cabinet Office (Chief Whip’s Office)

    1. Moman |Cabinet Office (Privy Council Office)
    2. R. M. Gardner |Defence

    Mrs. T. Keswick |Education and Science

    1. L. Ruffley |Education and Science
    2. Collins |Employment
    3. Wilton |Employment
    4. Black |Energy
    5. Burke |Environment

    Miss A. Broom |Environment

    Professor P. Hall |Environment

    Dr. A. Kemp |Environment

    Sir P. Levene |Environment

    Professor D. Pearce |Environment

    Lady Strathnaver |Environment

    1. Bickham |Foreign and Commonwealth
    2. Fraser |Foreign and Commonwealth

    Ms. L. Campey |Health

    Mrs. K. Ramsay |Health

    1. J. Marsh |Health (formerly Environment)
    2. Kerpel |Home Office
    3. M. Grantham |Home Office
    4. Caine |Northern Ireland Office

    Mrs. E. Laing |Privy Council Office (Lord President)

    Ms. S. McEwen |Privy Council Office (Lord Privy Seal)

    1. Young |Scottish Office
    2. Stewart |Social Security
    3. Anisfield |Trade and Industry
    4. Mayhew |Trade and Industry
    5. J. E. Miller |Transport

    Dr. P. W. Robinson |Treasury

    1. Ross-Goobey |Treasury
    2. M. Lightfoot |Treasury
    3. Richards |Welsh Office

     

    Eggs

    Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the respective responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Health in ensuring that foreign imports of eggs are free of salmonella infection and satisfy the quality requirements of United Kingdom produced eggs.

    The Prime Minister : The Secretary of State for Health has lead responsibility for the Imported Food Regulations 1984 which contain measures for the protection of public health in relation to imported food, including eggs. Responsibility for the enforcement of the regulations lies with local authorities and port health authorities. The Minister of Agriculture acted jointly with the Secretary of State for Health in the making of the regulations.

     

    Members’ Correspondence

    Mr. Rowlands : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what specific procedures he has laid down for Ministers and Departments for the answering of hon. Members’ urgent correspondence;

    (2) what response times have been or will be established for departmental replies to hon. Members’ letters under the citizen’s charter;

    (3) what is the average time taken by Ministers to reply to hon. Members’ letters in each Department.

    The Prime Minister : Following the publication of the efficiency scrutiny of ministerial correspondence in December 1990, the Government have reinforced their efforts to ensure that letters from hon. Members receive proper consideration and replies within a reasonable time. These include extensive use of targets for reply times, monitoring and publication of performance against targets, and more efficient ways of dealing with letters within Departments and agencies. Departments will each publish their performance against targets for replies to ministerial correspondence.

     

    Data Information Systems

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister what data information systems his Office has (a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Cabinet Office and 10 Downing Street each have data information systems.

    We have not been consulted with a view to taking part in other data information systems, and there are no current or planned links to the police national computer.

    A X400 electronic mail link is planned between the networks, and in due course to other Government Departments.

    The Data Protection Act applies to both systems and appropriate registrations have been made.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    VAT

    Mr. Molyneaux : To ask the Prime Minister if he will indicate the provisions (a) under which the EC could propose an increase in the VAT rate in the United Kingdom and (b) under which the United Kingdom may veto the proposal.

    The Prime Minister : No such proposal exists. Under the provisions of article 99 of the treaty of Rome, the Commission of the European Community could, in theory, propose for example, a minimum standard rate higher than that in the United Kingdom. However any such proposal, in common with all fiscal matters under article 99 of the treaty, would be subject to unanimity and thus the United Kingdom retains an absolute right of veto.

     

    Peru

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the President of Peru on biodiversity in the Peruvian rain-forest and its protection.

    The Prime Minister : I discussed with President Fujimori the forthcoming UN Conference on Environment and Development. I emphasised the importance we attach to effective conventions on climate change and biodiversity, as well as an agreement on principles for the sustainable use and management of all types of forest.

     

    RECHAR

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty’s Government will make a study of the differences in United Kingdom and Italian practice in the use of regional funds, such as RECHAR.

    The Prime Minister : Members of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Community visited Italy in October 1991 during their inquiry into EEC regional development policy. Their report has been published and is available in the Library.

    Italy is not eligible for RECHAR.

     

    Communist Party (Meetings)

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all meetings by (a) Ministers and (b) officials of Her Majesty’s Government with (i) Ministers, (ii) diplomats and (iii) other Communist party officials of the former Soviet Union since May 1979 in (1) the United Kingdom and (2) elsewhere; and what were the purposes of the ministerial and diplomatic meetings.

    The Prime Minister : Detailed information of this kind is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There are, however, frequent contacts with Ministers and officials of the former Soviet Union at all levels on questions of mutual interest.

     

    Disarmament Paper

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for the library at 10 Downing Street a copy of the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs topical paper No. 5 (1991), “Conversion : Economic Adjustments in an Era of Arms Reductions” (Volume II).

    The Prime Minister : The publication is available from the United Nations documents section in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from where copies will be obtained as required.

     

    Engagements

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

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

  • PMQT – 6 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Anthony Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Sir Anthony Grant : Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he was eight and I was a little older, Her Majesty the Queen acceded to the throne? Will he join me in expressing our deep respect, our loyal affection and our good wishes to Her Majesty on the 40th anniversary of her accession?

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Queen has set a shining example of steadfast service over four decades of momentous political and social change, and will he wish her many more years of a great and glorious reign?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to accept my hon. Friend’s invitation. The Cabinet discussed the matter this morning, and the whole House may care to listen to the message that the Cabinet agreed to send Her Majesty :

    “At the Cabinet meeting today, Your Majesty’s Ministers agreed that I should convey to Your Majesty our warmest good wishes on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Your Accession to the Throne. This was in recognition of the incomparable contribution Your Majesty has made to the life of our nation throughout your Reign.” I am sure that those are sentiments that the whole House would wish to endorse.

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I join the Prime Minister–and, I am sure, the whole House–in sending good wishes to Her Majesty, and in expressing the admiration that I know is felt throughout our country, the Commonwealth and, indeed, the wider world for the wisdom, strength and dedication that Her Majesty has invariably shown throughout the four decades in which she has been our sovereign?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for all our millions of fellow citizens.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I– [Laughter.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Mr. Kinnock.

    Mr. Kinnock : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    When the Prime Minister told us on Tuesday that, like the British economy, Japan’s economy was, as he put it, in recession, had he overlooked the fact that last year, while our economy shrank by 2.5 per cent., Japan’s economy grew by 4.5 per cent.?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of countries around the world are in recession, are heading towards recession or are coming out of recession. According to the latest figures, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden are at the moment in recession. In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, the worst of the recession is over ; in West Germany and Japan, growth has slowed and is slowing.

    I noted this morning that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) now at last admits that there is a world situation which is on a downturn. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will also have the courage to admit that.

    Mr. Kinnock : There are economies that are slowing ; ours is in reverse because of the Prime Minister’s policies.

    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that Japan was in recession. It is worth reminding him of the fact that Japan’s economy grew by 4.5 per cent., and ours shrank by 2.5 per cent. Japan’s unemployment is at 2 per cent., while ours is at 9 per cent. Is it not now obvious that, because of his policies, the Prime Minister is reduced to imagining recovery at home while inventing recessions abroad?

    The Prime Minister : Every one of the right hon. Gentleman’s policies would lead to a continuing recession, and that is well known. The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that I head a Government who have cut interest rates seven times in the past 12 months, halved inflation in a year and built up the best industrial relations in half a century. The reality, I fear, is that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the economy or how it works. The right conditions for economic growth are low taxes, the right hon. Gentleman wants high taxes ; low inflation, the right hon. Gentleman would engender high inflation ; and good labour relations, the right hon. Gentleman would reintroduce the old, bad trade union practices. Everything that the right hon. Gentleman proposes would lead to the perpetual recession of which I spoke on Tuesday.

    Sir Bernard Braine : May I revert to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant)? I speak as Father of the House. Is it not a matter of great rejoicing, wherever we may sit in the House, that throughout the past 40 years, which have seen such momentous changes as the peaceful transition from empire to Commonwealth, the ending of the cold war and the coming together of former enemies in the European Community, Her Majesty has presided over this nation unfailingly, with a dignity and devotion to duty for which we are all greatly thankful?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend is right and speaks with the authority of many years’ membership of the House. One of the most striking facts of the Commonwealth, as I saw clearly at the Commonwealth conference in Harare, is the immense affection and admiration that exists for Her Majesty the Queen among all Commonwealth leaders and countries.

    Mr. Ashdown : May I associate myself, my right hon. and hon. Friends and our party with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister on the 40th anniversary of Her Majesty’s accession to the throne?

    On the more unhappy subject of Northern Ireland, in the light of the appalling horrors which last night added to the seemingly endless litany of tragedy in that unhappy Province, does the Prime Minister agree that the first condition for defeating terrorism in Northern Ireland is to ensure that the politicians there get together and work together?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the whole House will share the right hon. Gentleman’s view on both the matters that he raised. The recent activities–the shooting of five men and the wounding of others the other evening–were another terrible and unnecessary scar on the history of Northern Ireland. It would greatly assist the activities in Northern Ireland and the search for peace if the clearest possible lead was given by all politicians in this country and Northern Ireland.

    Sir Alan Glyn : I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his message from the Cabinet and Government. Is he aware of early day motion 580, already signed by 165 hon. Members, which expresses the views of Back Benchers and their loyalty and congratulations to Her Majesty? It does not include members of the Cabinet or Government, or of the shadow Cabinet, and, unfortunately, is not even allowed to include Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Will my right hon. Friend please convey that message to Her Majesty?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend expresses sentiments that are shared by the whole House.

    Mr. Molyneaux : May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tribute paid by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen, and may I join in the other congratulations already expressed?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall ensure that Her Majesty is aware of what has been said.

    Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Queen Elizabeth II? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that if politicians in Northern Ireland had been sitting at a table, the awful atrocities that we have witnessed in the past few days would not have taken place? If he and this House believe that, there is no hope for Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s words about Her Majesty the Queen.

    The point that I was seeking to make a moment ago–I reiterate it now–is that I think that it is to the advantage of everyone in Northern Ireland for the politicians of Northern Ireland, of all shades of opinion, to come together, to talk and to express their mutual wish for peace in Northern Ireland.

     

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

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

    Mr. Eastham : The latest year for which figures are available on the number of new houses built in the United Kingdom is 1990. A comparison with 1980 shows that 38,000 fewer houses were built in 1990. Why is it the policy of the Government to build fewer houses?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might more accurately have asked which local authorities had the highest number of vacant dwellings. I shall tell him : numbers of vacant dwellings are highest in Liverpool, then in Manchester, then in Salford, then in Burnley, then in Brent, then in Hackney, then in Tower Hamlets, then in Knowsley, then in Newcastle and then in Wolverhampton. The characteristic of all those areas is that for a long time they have been Labour controlled, although Conservatives have been in control in Brent for the past year and the Liberal Democrats have recently been in control in Tower Hamlets. There is no doubt which party fails people on housing.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the remarks of Sir Brian Corby, the president of the CBI, who said that to sign the social charter would be an act of remarkable lunacy? Does he agree that, if we signed the social chapter, employers’ costs would rise and jobs and foreign investment would disappear, all of which would be bad for this country?

    The Prime Minister : I most certainly agree with that view, which is why I declined to sign the social chapter. I believe that it would cost jobs and cost prosperity in this country. It is noticeable that a number of other politicians abroad have made it perfectly clear that this country becomes a more attractive place for investment–and therefore for jobs and prosperity–because we are not committed to the costs of the social chapter.

     

    Q3. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Why have pensions dropped from 20 per cent. of average earnings to 16 per cent. under the Tories? Does the Prime Minister believe that pensioners were paid too much in 1979, or will he express regret at that meanness and raise pensions in line with Labour’s plans?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should look at history. If he talks about pensioners, he should let the facts speak for themselves : under the previous Labour Government, the real average income of pensioners rose by only 3 per cent. and their income from savings fell by 16 per cent. The Labour party had no place for pensioners in the past and no promises that it can properly meet for the future.

    Sir Ian Lloyd : The Prime Minister will no doubt have noticed the interesting exception that President Bush made in his state of the union message to Congress, when he said that his Government were too big and spent too much. The exception was that he proposed to maintain research expenditure at the record level of $77 billion and to make permanent the fiscal allowances for research and development. If my right hon. Friend should be considering with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor any largesse over the next two or three weeks, will he ensure that a few crumbs from the Treasury table fall in that direction?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will know that there was a real- terms increase in the science and technology budget this year, a point that has been readily acknowledged by scientists up and down the country. As for potential largesse, there is no lack of applications for any that there might be.

     

    Q4. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

    Mr. Banks : May I thank the Prime Minister for allowing his Ministers to vote as they wish on the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill on Friday 14 February, St. Valentine’s day? If the Bill is passed, it will stop the massacre of harmless creatures like deer, hares and foxes.

    No one expects the Prime Minister to be here to vote on Friday 14 February, but will he tell the House and the country whether he supports the abolition of fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing? I hope that his answer is yes.

    The Prime Minister : It is a matter for the individual conscience of every hon. Member, which is precisely why I am allowing a free vote by my Ministers on the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill in question goes a good deal wider than just the matters that he has been addressing. Because it goes a good deal wider, I will not myself be supporting it.

     

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

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

    Mr. Colvin : Will my right hon. Friend send a message today to the leaders of the National Association of Local Government Officers who are spending some £2 million on a shoddy and inaccurate advertising campaign, telling them that their policies of abandoning competitive tendering, abolishing the Audit Commission and introducing a minimum wage would be acceptable only to a party which has already sold its soul to the trade union bosses?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a very sound point. It is clear that the advertisements appearing today show that now, as in the past, the Labour party remains in hock to the trade unions.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Peru

    Mrs. Clwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss human rights in Peru when he meets President Fujimori of Peru on 5 February.

    The Prime Minister : I look forward to wide-ranging discussions with President Fujimori about matters of mutual concern including human rights.

     

    Nuclear Weapons (Interviews)

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all interviews he has given to the press and broadcasting media since 26 January on nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament.

    The Prime Minister : The information is as follows :

    BBC World Service, London

    29 January 1992 Press Conference in Downing Street with 30 January 1992 President Yeltsin

    BBC TV/Radio, Sky TV, ITN-en route to 30 January 1992 New York

    Doorstep interview on arrival in New York 30 January 1992 CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC in New York 31 January 1992

    Press Conference in New York with Mr. 31 January 1992 Boutros Ghali, United Nations Secretary General

    ITN in New York 31 January 1992

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 January, Official Report, columns 503-4, how many of the Ministers listed, other than the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and himself, took part in party political activities during their visit in addition to their official duties.

    The Prime Minister : This information is not centrally recorded and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Further to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 28 January, at columns 503- 4, the list of ministerial visits omitted the visit to Hong Kong of Lord Brabazon, Minister of State for Transport, in February 1991.