The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Inflation

PMQT – 19 November 1991

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th November 1991.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent report of Lancaster health authority, a copy of which I sent him, showing the immense progress that it has made during the past year–all within its budget? Is he aware of the vast increase since 1979 in the number of hip operations–from 60 to 197–in knee operations–from 16 to 90 –and in cataracts of 216 to 685. Is he aware that when the hospital becomes a trust it will make even more rapid progress being run by local people for local people?

The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that excellent report to my attention. I think that patients can see that the reforms are working–there are better clinic hours, with evening and out-of-hours clinics, and improvements in service and the patients’ environment. Such improvements are taking place in Lancaster and elsewhere, and I have no doubt that they will continue to take place everywhere.

Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to join me in expressing joy at the release of Terry Waite and Tom Sutherland from their long and terrible captivity? May I also express–as I am sure he will –boundless admiration for the great courage and inner strength shown by the two men and all the other released hostages. Those qualities were brilliantly manifested yet again in the remarkable speech by Terry Waite at RAF Lyneham at lunchtime today. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking everyone, including the service given by the British Government, who have worked and still work to secure the release of hostages? I particularly thank the United Nations Secretary-General and his envoy, Mr. Picco. Does the Prime Minister agree that the statement by Terry Waite’s captors that they now recognise that they did wrong and that what they did has served no useful purpose should be understood by all those who engage in the vile practice of taking hostages, anywhere?

The Prime Minister : I agree unreservedly with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and believe that they will be echoed throughout the country. This morning I spoke briefly to Terry Waite while he was on board the aircraft returning home and was able to express the delight that I and the whole country felt at his safe return and at Mr. Sutherland’s release. We owe a great deal to the United Nations Secretary-General and to Mr. Picco who have worked tirelessly with others to secure the release of the hostages. In welcoming the release of Mr. Waite and Mr. Sutherland, may I express the hope that none of us forget that there are still more hostages whom we wish to see speedily returned to their homes. The developments that we have seen vindicate the policy of not doing deals with hostage takers. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view about the remarks by the hostage takers. Let us hope that the lesson has been learnt and that never again shall we see this vile practice recur.

Q2. Mr. Colin Shepherd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Mr. Shepherd : During his busy day, will my right hon. Friend take time to look at the Harris poll in last Sunday’s issue of The Observer which clearly showed that two thirds of the people of this country, including 60 per cent. of Labour voters, support my right hon. Friend’s policy of reducing the standard rate of tax from 25p to 20p in the pound? Is it not clear that at the next general election the public will face a clear choice between lower personal taxes under a Conservative Government or swingeing increased taxes under Labour?

The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend certainly puts the point crisply, and I entirely agree with him. Conservatives believe that people should be left with as much as possible of their own money to spend in their own interests, in the clear belief that they will spend it better in their interests than any Government will do for them. We leave it to the Opposition to advocate higher taxes. That is not our view.

Mr. Watson : Is the Prime Minister aware that under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, to which this country is a signatory, all Governments are obliged to provide asylum to those fleeing from serious human rights violations? Given that the Asylum Bill will deny genuine asylum seekers entry to this country,–[Hon. Members :– “No”.] Yes it will, and the few who slip through the net will be denied legal aid to argue their case. Will the Prime Minister tell us how his Government will meet their obligations under the convention?

The Prime Minister : The Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not deter genuine asylum seekers. It will prevent the misuse of asylum procedures while protecting the position of genuine refugees. It seeks to accelerate decision making, and it will find strong support in the House and in the country.

Q3. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Mr. Evennett : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not agree to binding minimum rates of income tax in Europe, which have been advocated by the Socialist Confederation in Europe and are supported by the Labour party in this country?

The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. If the Labour party has signed European documents to that effect, I hope that it will have the courtesy to place them in the Library so that we may all see them. It is clearly Labour’s vision to have high tax rates, but it is the hope of the people of this country to have the lowest possible tax rates, and that is what we shall offer.

Mr. Matthew Taylor : Does the Prime Minister agree that the draft proposals on economic and monetary union and on political union involve far-reaching constitutional change to our present arrangements? If he does, why does he reject the sovereignty of the British people in taking the final decision on the matter in a post-legislative referendum?

The Prime Minister : Because we are a parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Gregory : Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the importance of the popular music industry and its contribution to overseas earnings? Would he echo the view of music lovers everywhere about the release of a certain rap record which shows the statesmanlike approach of the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend’s suggestion is tempting, but I have not heard the record and I am not sure whether it ought to be released.

Q4. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Mr. Skinner : Does the Prime Minister recall that, in 1962, when he packed up work to look after his parents, he received unemployment benefit under the terms of the legislation introduced by the Labour Government of 1945-50? Is he aware that anyone placed in that predicament today, and who decided to go on the dole so as to look after his sick parents, would not receive a single penny piece? Who is the person responsible for that change? It is none other than the Prime Minister who, as Minister for Social Security, introduced measures to prevent people from receiving benefit in those circumstances. Coming from a man who claims to be in favour of the classless society, is that not hypocrisy?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should, for once, get his facts straight and stick to them. I remind him that great improvements have been made not only in the amount of assistance that is available to people who are unemployed, but in the amount of assistance to ensure that people receive training so that they can get back into work. When the last Labour Government left office– [Interruption] –there were 6,000 training jobs. There are now 350,000.

Several Hon. Members rose–

Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us settle down.

Mr. Gale : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in sharp contrast to the open-door policy apparently espoused by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his party, the measures contained in the Asylum Bill will be fair and of great benefit to genuine asylum seekers?

The Prime Minister : Yes, I am happy to confirm that. It is necessary to provide a proper asylum law to make sure that genuine refugees can be dealt with speedily and adequately. Without the Asylum Bill, that would no longer be the case.

Q5. Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Mr. Barnes : Why is it that £22.50 is spent on advertising and publicity for each expatriate voter who chooses to record his vote in this country, while only one tenth of a penny is spent in the United Kingdom encouraging people to vote? Is this one of the reasons why 1 million people are missing off the electoral register? What does the Prime Minister intend to do between now and a general election to put those 1 million people back on the register?

The Prime Minister : Both at home and abroad, the intention is to ensure that the people who are entitled to vote are aware of that fact. The hon. Gentleman should ask himself why he is so keen to see people who are entitled to vote not able to do so.

Q6. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Mr. Arnold : Has my right hon. Friend noted the vote of parents in Gravesham, in the case of one school by a margin of nine to one, to take control over the management of their schools through grant-maintained status? Has he also noted the Labour party’s policy proposal to reverse the decision of the parents and to claw back the education funds concerned to a centralised bureaucracy?

The Prime Minister : There is nothing surprising in the Labour party’s policies on that. It dislikes choice and parents having authority and power. We are determined to give both choice and power back to parents and that is why more schools are becoming grant maintained. After the general election, an avalanche of schools will seek to become grant maintained.

Q7. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Mr. Dunnachie : In what circumstances would the Prime Minister contemplate using nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister : The Government’s position has always been clear –nuclear weapons are there as a deterrent. The difference between our position and that of the Labour party is that people accept that we would be prepared to use nuclear weapons and know that Labour Members would not be, so they would not have a deterrent. That is why the Opposition’s defence policy is incredible.

Q8. Sir Anthony Durant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

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

Sir Anthony Durant : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction of the inflation rate to 3.7 per cent. is extremely good news for business, for householders and for those on a fixed income, and will he continue the policy of reducing the inflation rate?

The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that that is our intention. The present inflation rate is, of course, precisely one half of the inflation rate when it was at its very lowest–just briefly–under the previous Labour Government.

Rev. Martin Smyth : This nation has been a nation of volunteers. How can we encourage volunteering if we cut community volunteering and the numbers engaged in the territorial volunteer reserves?

The Prime Minister : We are examining and consulting on the particular position of the Territorial Army. As for volunteering generally, the hon. Gentleman will know that there has been a vast increase in volunteering in the whole range of voluntary services in the last decade. That has been a continuing trend. I welcome that and we encourage it.

November 19, 1991
Mr Major’s Speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet – 11 November 1991

Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, held at the Guildhall in London on Monday 11th November 1991.

PRIME MINISTER:

My Lord Mayor, My Late Lord Mayor, Your Grace, Lord High Chancellor, Your Excellencies, My Lords, Aldermen, Sheriffs, Ladies and Gentlemen.

May I begin by thanking you for your toast this evening to Her Majesty’s Ministers. And My Lord Mayor, I would like if I may also to congratulate you both on your recent election and on your speech, nothing I believe could be more apt than the theme that you have chosen for your Mayoralty – serving Europe.

You said a few moments ago that you had started in the City in 1960. I started in the City in 1959, alas my career never took off. I enjoyed your joke, My Lord Mayor, about Arthur Wood, but I hope you will forgive me if I finish it. He did get to the wicket with 770-odd runs on the board, he then scored half a century, as I recall, and returned to the pavilion when the score had advanced around 870-odd for 7. He then turned round in the dressing room to the England team and said: “Fifty-three runs, always at my best in a crisis.”

My Lord Mayor, we owe Sir Alexander Graham a very special debt of gratitude for hosting the welcome home parade for our troops who performed so magnificently in the Gulf. It was a day I believe that the City can look back on with pride and your predecessor can look back on his whole year of office with equal pride, he has served London magnificently.

I am delighted to make my debut on this platform with His Grace, The Archbishop of Canterbury. Our predecessors forged a long and popular double act, may we too be yolked together for many years to come. Your Grace, if you speak for God I promise to speak for Mammon, and I must say, I wonder which of us has a majority here this evening.

My Lord Mayor, you have expressed your determination to safeguard the economic prosperity of London and of those who live and work in our great city. London is by far the largest city in Europe, its population three times that of Paris. It is a giant in the world of finance, it is Europe’s largest equity market, leader in the Eurobond market and the world’s largest foreign exchange market.

It scores also in its variety of attractions, its theatres, its music, its galleries and museums, its historic buildings, its parks, its shops. It is the most visited city in the world, overseas visitors spent 4 billion pounds here last year.

You spoke, My Lord Mayor, of transport. In the last few years the government has approved plans for eight new rail and tube links for London – the East-West crossrail, a new line for Heathrow, the Jubilee Line extended to Docklands, and in addition we have chosen a route for the Channel Tunnel rail link which approaches London from the East, and that I believe is where so much of London’s future development will lie.

Tonight I can announce one further step. Less than three miles from here a third London city is rapidly emerging in Docklands, its success depends upon good transport, the immediate key to this is the Docklands Light Railway. The best way to put the DLR into the hands of a body with a single clear objective – that is the way forward, that is the way to make a success of Docklands – and we have decided therefore with that in mind to transfer responsibility for the DLR to the London Docklands Development Corporation. And I am delighted to tell you this evening that one of your Aldermen, Sir Peter Levine, has agreed to take over as DLR’s Chairman in addition to his other responsibilities.

And this transfer has another advantage, it will enable London Transport to concentrate on its massive investment programme, now totalling 3.5 billion pounds over the next three years. My Lord Mayor, we are determined that London shall have a transport structure which meets its needs and marks its status as the world’s finest city.

Just a few days ago the Chancellor delivered the traditional Mansion House address on the economy. Many of you were in this room to hear it then so I will be brief this evening in case I say too many of the same things or perhaps, even worse, say something different.
In the Autumn Statement the Chancellor set out our spending plans for the next three years. He was able to announce some carefully targeted expenditure on priority areas, such as transport and health, as well as the necessary increases in programmes which tend to arise at this stage of the economic cycle.

At the same time he was also able to demonstrate that prudence in fiscal affairs which has been the hallmark of this government and that has earned us over the years the support of the financial markets.

As a proportion of national income, public expenditure will still be sharply lower, some 5 percentage points lower, than it was in the early 1980s at a similar stage in the economic cycle. And I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that with steady growth in the years ahead we will see that proportion decline further. While sticking to our policy of balancing the budget over a run of years, we will be able once again to cut direct taxation.

Ask any businessman what he really needs from government. I think I know what he will say: certainty, low inflation and a stable currency.
Against that background I have no doubt about the most important economic development of the last year – our historic decision to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism. The City had long supported our membership, events I believe have amply justified our membership. Our inflation rate has been more than halved, at 4 percent it is now below the European Community average. Interest rates have been cut eight times while sterling has remained stable. Our trade has flourished with record exports to the Community and a much reduced deficit with the rest of Europe and the world. For the third year running our share of world trade expanded.

The speed and the scale of these achievements are rightly recognised. But I often wonder whether their economic and social significance has yet been grasped. For the first time in 50 years, we are now in a position to achieve on a lasting basis that greater certainty that businessmen want. That is a great prize, it has been hard won and it must not be thrown away.

The opportunities in the 1990s will be unprecedented, so will the competition, not least from Eastern Europe, the Pacific Rim and even South America. Those who backslide on inflation will lose orders and lose markets, their growth rate will falter, there will be fewer jobs. The competitive atmosphere will be unforgiving and the lesson to be drawn from that is unmissable.

I make no apologies for our crusade to get inflation down and keep it down. The 1990s present us with a simple, stark challenge, to create the jobs we need and the just society we want we must keep inflation down permanently, there is no other way.

My Lord Mayor, in the last few months we have witnessed one of the most dramatic revolutions of this century, the Soviet Union has shaken off 70 years of tyranny. In September, when I went to Moscow, there was a tremendous sense of euphoria, a feeling that oppression had had its last desperate throw. There was real belief that democracy would now take root.

Since then, I have received a succession of leaders from the Soviet Union and the republics at 10 Downing Street. I am told that there are 120 languages in the Soviet Union but these visitors spoke a language that was unknown there a few years ago, the language of democracy and free markets. They are wrestling with the strong forces of nationalism on the one hand and the need for a continuing central structure on the other, the need for a single army, central control over nuclear weapons, a single market, a coordinated foreign policy.

There is no easy transition from tyranny to freedom or from an inefficient command economy to a free market. The people of the Soviet Union have chosen democracy but it is not yet stable democracy. Whether the Soviet Union survives as a recognisable entity or breaks up into individual republics must be a matter of negotiation, not coercion. The situation is volatile. The August coup failed because the Free World refused to accept what had happened and because the Russian people refused to be cowed but a number of leading representatives from Russia and other republics have expressed to me their fears for the future, fears of a renewed attempt to overthrow legitimate government if lack of food, lack of goods, old rivalries and lack of political leadership overwhelm that euphoria that followed the August events.

We cannot dictate what happens in the Soviet Union. We can and we must help create the conditions in which stable democracy has a chance to succeed. That is why with our G7 and European Community partners we have launched a $10 billion lifeline of food and medicines to be drawn on this winter as necessary; that is why the special association status of the Soviet Union with the IMF agreed in principle at the London Economic Summit here in London in the summer has now been made a reality; and that is why the G7 countries and the IMF are urging the Soviet authorities and the republics to move decisively towards economic reform. If they fail to do so, all our plans to help them will be undermined.

The Soviet Union is looking for help with its foreign debt. For their part, the republics must assume their responsibility for servicing that debt; this and the pursuit of reform are essential for future credits and for the continuing support of the international community. The republics must honour too those international agreements signed by the Soviet Union, especially treaties on arms control and proliferation and they must exercise restraint in developing their own military forces – that too will be a condition of our future assistance.

The events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe pose perhaps the greatest challenge to the West since World War II. The republics of what was the Soviet Union have a chance to join the Western family of democracies but there is a risk, a risk that they could fall into a dark abyss of political conflict and economic hardship. If we are to avoid the tragedy of Yugoslavia on a larger and more dangerous scale, we have to adapt the political structures of the West to accommodate the new democracies of the East. The changes that we have made in NATO, the development of the CSCE have both helped but it is the European Community which offers them the best prospects for political and economic stability.

It is right for the European Community not to neglect its own development but it would be foolish to be so preoccupied with internal development that it became an end in itself. We have to hold out to the countries of Eastern Europe and perhaps to some of the new republics in the Soviet Union as well the prospect of closer association with the Community and in due course membership of the Community.

My Lord Mayor, the shape of the Community they join is being set now in the negotiations under way in Europe. Those negotiations are important for the Community but no more important than the Community’s obligations to the rest of Europe. We will never create a genuine European union if we exclude those countries that most want to join, countries which for the first time since World War II are free democracies. It would be unforgivable if when they are ready to join we made it impossible for them to do so [applause] and it would be tragic if twenty years from now there was an economic iron curtain across Europe, an iron curtain forged by the wealthy member states to keep out our democratic neighbours to the East.

The influence of the European Community has never been greater. Some see that as a threat but truly it is an opportunity. Its attraction was shown in the recent negotiations with the EFTA countries. They were prepared to accept the rules of the Community, which they had no part in drawing up, in order to attain the prize of access to the Single Market. To maintain its influence, the Community must continue to look outwards and be a liberalising force in world trade.

In the GATT talks, we have a unique opportunity to create a free and open trading structure that will last well into the next century. Our future prosperity depends upon the success of this effort. The completion of the Single Market would be undermined if we had meanwhile unleashed a world trade war of unprecedented proportions. Success in the GATT talks, too, is crucial for the world’s poorest countries. There is something immoral in the fact that they lose more from the distorting effects of subsidies than they gain from aid from the West. If you give a man a fish, you give him food for a day; if you teach him how to fish, you give him food for a lifetime; but if you teach a man how to fish and then stop him selling his catch, you create injustice, hardship and resentment and we should not do that. There is as much at stake in the GATT talks as there is at Maastricht.

My Lord Mayor, the European Council at Maastricht is only a month away; the issues are momentous. We have an opportunity to take decisions which will carry the Community on a sound basis into the next century. Yesterday in Bonn, I discussed these matters with Chancellor Kohl. We are both aware of the opportunities and the risks that lie ahead, of the responsibility to take decisions which will enable the Community to give a lead to the whole of our continent as it emerges into democracy, decisions which underpin the vital relationship with the United States, decisions which avoid narrow nationalism but which safeguard the best traditions of our national life.

Good progress has been made in the negotiation of the treaty on economic and monetary union. There is some way to go but I hope it will be possible to reach an agreement. There has been increasing recognition by our partners of the point we have consistently made, that to move to a single currency without the convergence of national economies would be an economic catastrophe. That is why we are negotiating a treaty which would permit economic and monetary union only when strict economic conditions on convergence are met and that treaty must also allow the British Government and the British Parliament to take the decision on whether to join such a single currency when the option is a realistic one. Only then can a balanced judgement be made.

When that moment comes, we shall need to weigh carefully the issues of sovereignty and accountability raised by a single currency against the potential impact on our influence and prosperity were we to take a different decision from our principal competitors. It would be wrong to decide now to join a single currency but it would be equally wrong to decide now that in no circumstances will we ever do so.

We still face huge problems in working for an agreement on political union. No-one should assume that simply for the sake of agreement we could accept some of the propositions now before us – we couldn’t.

Much of the debate centres on defence and foreign policy. I welcome the idea of Europe doing more for its own defence – it should – but we have to remember that we are not writing a new policy on a blank sheet of paper. There are existing organisations, NATO and the Western European Union, which have successfully provided for our defence for over forty years. It makes sense to take our existing defence structures and enhance them with increased European cooperation. I can agree to that. I could not agree to undermine them with a new competing and therefore damaging European defence structure. The same message came through loud and clear from others at the NATO Summit last week.

In foreign policy, we have increasingly developed the habit of cooperation and common action among the Twelve – it has worked well. Common action cannot work miracles but it magnifies our influence. Consensus is a strength and not a weakness. It would be a serious mistake to replace that habit of consensus on common action by majority voting – we might take more decisions but we would wield less influence – nor is it conceivable that we would give up our right as a nation to take vital foreign policy decisions. [Applause].

But there are areas such as the environment, which transcends national frontiers, where it may make sense to extend the competence of the European Community but we should not be afraid to say “No” to the general clamour for wide-ranging extensions of Community competence.

I am thinking especially of the social area. Under existing Community rules, we are already faced with unnecessary intrusive and costly proposals. The proposed Working Time Directive would cost British employers 5 billion pounds in the first year. That proposal is more than unnecessary – it is damaging. It would blunt our competitive edge. It would not be European workers who would benefit but those in the United States and Japan. It is not in the interests of Europe and we cannot allow the Community to extend its power to burden business with unnecessary proposals. [Applause].

The principles that must apply are those of subsidiarity and accountability. The Community should not interpose itself in areas best dealt with at national level. The Commission is unelected; it must be made more answerable to elected members of the European Parliament. [Applause].

My Lord Mayor, our partners know there are certain principles that are vital for us in these negotiations. They equally know that the British Government will go on working over the next crucial weeks for an agreement at the European Council in Maastricht.

Maastricht will be an important stage on the road to ever closer union among the peoples of Europe. I believe that the basis for an agreement can be found but it has to be an agreement which all twelve member states accept – that will require give and take on all sides. We have to find an agreement which will command the support of twelve national parliaments and which all member states not only support in theory but will actually implement in practice. An agreement of that kind is in our interests. It is in the Community’s interests. It would be the best outcome in these negotiations for our own country and for the Europe we hope to build together. [Applause].

November 11, 1991
PMQT – 5 November 1991

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th November 1991.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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. Hinchliffe : Is the Prime Minister personally in favour of a single European currency–yes or no?

The Prime Minister : At this moment, in these circumstances, no.

Mr. Onslow : Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is general support for the emphasis that the Foreign Secretary has placed on the importance of keeping the European Commission out of the nooks and crannies of our national life? Will he, in any negotiations with our European partners, give the highest priority to getting the European Commission under some sort of genuine parliamentary control?

The Prime Minister : I share the views expressed by my right hon. Friend yesterday. One of the things that we shall be seeking to do in the negotiations on the political union treaty is to try to ensure that the Commission–at present under no effective control–increasingly comes under the control of the most appropriate Parliament, in this case the European Parliament.

Mr. Kinnock : Since the Prime Minister acknowledges convergence to be a matter of considerable importance in the development of the European Community, why is it, now that the Engineering Employers Federation, the Confederation of British Industry and his noble Friends in the House of Lords have all made cause for new investment incentives for British industry, that he and the remainder of the Government refuse to take such initiatives in order to support this very best way of securing recovery?

The Prime Minister : On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, convergence is not just important ; it is absolutely vital if there is to be any success whatsoever, or any prospect of a single currency that would not damage the whole of Europe. The most effective way of ensuring that there is investment in this or any other country is to ensure that we have low inflation and the right economic environment.

Mr. Kinnock : When unemployment has risen by 800,000 in Britain during the last year, when 50 per cent. more companies are in receivership and when manufacturing investment is down by 19 per cent., how can the Government justify taking such a listless attitude to the needs of British industry? Why do the Government refuse to give the same backing to British industry as our European Community competitors give to theirs?

The Prime Minister : It is not all that many months ago that the right hon. Gentleman was saying to the House and to people beyond it that the most important thing was to get inflation down from its then level of 10.9 per cent. and to recreate the conditions in which people would feel secure to invest. I agreed with the points that he made then and that is precisely what we have done. We are now reaching a position in which growth and investment will reoccur and, as we saw throughout the complete period of the 1980s, there will be a growth in the absolute number of jobs.

Mr. Kinnock : Since the Prime Minister said that it is important to create the conditions for economic and industrial success, will he listen to the CBI which, in its report asks the Government to take proper account of the interests of manufacturing industry instead of pursuing the policies that they are pursuing? After 12 years, is there any hope of the Government ever taking the interests of manufacturing industry properly into account?

The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had paid more attention to the CBI yesterday, he would have heard the director general say that since the crash of October 1987, real take-home pay is up by 11 per cent., manufacturing productivity is up by 20 per cent. and manufacturing exports have increased by £76 million for each and every working day.

Mr. Sayeed : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two essential components for a policy of nuclear deterrence are that one possesses the capability and that a potential enemy does not doubt one’s willingness to use it in order to defend oneself? Does he agree that a few weasel words in a newspaper do not constitute a policy of nuclear deterrence, particularly when the leader of that party has stated clearly that he would never use nuclear weapons, even if Britain were under nuclear attack?

The Prime Minister : I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. The fact that we have had a nuclear deterrent for a number of years has added materially to our security and I believe that we should continue to sustain that deterrent. It is a matter of regret that the Opposition’s commitment to that deterrent is not generally accepted. The words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), “If we change to win, we could change when we have won”, show that British people will not trust the Opposition with defence policy.

Q2. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November?

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

Mr. Flynn : Why is the Prime Minister trying to turn the national health service into a family business for card-carrying Conservatives? Why did he appoint two Tory ex-Ministers, the sister of a Tory Minister, the wives of two Tory Members of Parliament and the husband of a Tory Member of Parliament to run opted-out hospitals? Is that what the Prime Minister means when he says that he believes that Conservatives want to use the national health service? They are using it–milking it for their own financial gain.

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has clearly forgotten that, for example, Lady Callaghan was an excellent chairman of Great Ormond Street hospital and a number of other wives of eminent people in public life have held that position. It is extremely odd that the Labour party should propose that women should be barred from jobs because of their husband’s position in public life. Among those whom the hon. Gentleman has maligned is someone who has a decade’s experience of working in the NHS. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is a proper contribution to the health service or a proper qualification for the job that she holds, I am very surprised indeed.

Q3. Mr. Viggers : To ask the Prime Minister to list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

Mr. Viggers : Will my right hon. Friend anticipate the Chancellor’s statement tomorrow to the extent of confirming that funds will be made available to ensure that our armed forces, although smaller, are even better equipped? In particular, will he confirm that conventional submarines will continue to play an important role and that the story broadcast by the BBC last night as a hard fact–that the HMS Upholder class of submarines is to be sold–is completely untrue and without foundation?

The Prime Minister : I can confirm my hon. Friend’s last point. We have shown our commitment to better equipment by our recent purchase of the Westland helicopter and our decision to re-equip the Army with the Challenger II tank. Both were expensive but necessary purchases to ensure that our armed forces have the best possible equipment. That is our policy and will remain so. I am bound to say that that does not seem to be the policy of the Opposition. The principal Opposition party is committed to cutting defence expenditure by a quarter, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is committed to cutting it by a half.

Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister insists that even if the other 11 go ahead he is prepared to reject an agreement on Europe at Maastricht. Will he describe how he sees the future of this country, should he allow that to happen?

The Prime Minister : I have repeatedly made it clear in the House and beyond that I am working to seek an agreement at Maastricht that will be acceptable to the House and this country. That remains the position. I have set out our determination to work for that agreement and the principles on which the agreement will need to be based. I have arranged a two-day debate in the House so that I may express that clearly and listen to the views of the House. If I judge that the agreement is in the interests of this country I will sign it. If I judge that the agreement is not in the interests of this country, it would not be right for me to sign it and I will not sign it.

Q4. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

Mr. Paice : As this is the first Prime Minister’s Question Time since the Commonwealth conference, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his constructive and positive approach to the issues? Will he confirm that he was not detained or locked up and was widely recognised as the leader of this party–unlike the experience of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) after four years as Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister : I can confirm that it was an excellent Commonwealth conference. The Commonwealth came closer together than it has been for a long time. There was substantial agreement on changing policies on South Africa, which I much welcome, and there was a warm welcome for our decision to implement the Trinidad terms arrangement, which, if fully implemented by every member, will relieve the poorest countries in the world of $17,000 million of debt.

Mr. Harry Ewing : Is the Prime Minister aware that just over an hour ago I received a letter from British Alcan, which has a factory in my constituency at Falkirk, informing me that 169 of the work force will lose their jobs, not because they are inefficient but because the machinery on which they work is 50 years old? If that is not proof of lack of investment, what is? Is the Prime Minister further aware that those men like their jobs and that, with his help, they would be able to keep them, but he is not prepared to help them? Try telling men in Falkirk that the economy is on an upturn.

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is clearly under the misapprehension that I have been Prime Minister for 50 years–not yet.

Q5. Mr. Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

Mr. Hannam : When my right hon. Friend next meets the British Medical Association, will he raise the success of the first wave of national health service trusts, particularly the success story of the South Devon Healthcare trust? In the past year, it has increased the number of patients by 10 per cent., the number of doctors and nurses by more than 50 and reopened two wards. Will he congratulate the BMA on its wholesale condemnation of the latest Labour party smear leaflet that has been distributed at the Langbaurgh by-election?

The Prime Minister : I am happy to join my hon. Friend in those remarks and to join the BMA in its scathing remarks about the Labour leaflet. The BMA said that the leaflet was in bad taste, and it must be very frightening to the people of Langbaurgh. Like my hon. Friend, I read the report of Labour’s latest scare story about the NHS. I hope that people will realise that what Labour is saying is inaccurate. It is a tissue of falsehoods. I hope that people will look at the real record of improvement in the NHS, not the misrepresentations that they get from the Labour party.

Q6. Mr. Strang : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

Mr. Strang : Has the Prime Minister noticed that the major issue in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election is the widespread public opposition to the application by Foresterhill hospital in Aberdeen to become a self- governing trust? As the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland clearly favours trust status and as the Conservative candidate has come out publicly against it, will the Prime Minister tell the House who he agrees with–his Health Minister or the candidate?

The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the application for that hospital to have self-governing status has been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has an obligation to study that application and to determine whether it is in order. That is what he is doing. When he has done that, he will announce his decision.

November 5, 1991
Mr Major’s Contributions During Commons Debate on the Loyal Address – 31 October 1991

Below is the text of Mr Major’s contribution during the Commons Debate on the Loyal Address, held on 31st October 1991.

PRIME MINISTER:

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I join the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on their splendid speeches in moving and seconding the Loyal Address. I am also grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his generous remarks about Alick Buchanan-Smith which will have been much appreciated by his family and by all of us on the Conservative Benches. The right hon. Gentleman’s tribute to his colleague George Buckley was moving. We share that tribute and express admiration for his courage.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has been a distinguished Member of the House for 30 years and he was a Cabinet Minister for almost half that time. To all the posts that he held he brought not only an acute mind, but an intensely independent one. He brought genuine concern to the problems that he faced. Twenty years ago when my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for the Environment and I was a local councillor, I saw those qualities at first hand in Lambeth and I am happy to thank him for them all these years later.

I was intrigued by my right hon. Friend’s reference to Oliver Cromwell’s ill-treatment in Worcester and by his subsequent invitation to visit his constituency. I will reflect on that invitation and recall that Cromwell was the Member for Huntingdon and perhaps take some care.

More recently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester served as Secretary of State for Wales. At the time, some thought that that appointment was surprising, but it turned out to be inspired–both for my right hon. Friend and for Wales. He developed a great affection for the Principality and found that it was reciprocated. He got to know Wales extremely well in a series of unscheduled visits. On one occasion when a startled shopkeeper said to him, “You don’t half look like Peter Walker”, my right hon. Friend replied, “A monstrous slander.”

When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury I learnt that Wales was the first priority of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. Public spending control came perhaps a narrow second during those turbulent years. It was therefore always a relief when he applied his powers of persuasion overseas to attract record levels of inward investment to the Principality. He attracted the money and then he opened the factories. He opened so many that when I visited Wales recently, I heard him referred to affectionately as “Peter the Plaque.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South ably seconded the Loyal Address and, as he said, followed a family tradition. His father, Sir William Aitken, proposed the Loyal Address 29 years ago and referred to a subject in terms that may be familiar to the House today. He referred to it as

“a matter of controversy in the days, weeks and months to come.”–[ Official Report, 30 October 1962 ; Vol. 666, c. 11.] He was referring to Britain’s negotiations with the European Community–plus ca change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South implied earlier. [Interruption.] Travel broadens the mind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South is also something of a political forecaster. In his book many years ago, “The Young Meteors”, he picked as rising stars three men then aged 30 or under. They are now my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Leader of the House. My hon. Friend’s percipience was very remarkable so many years ago. It says something, perhaps, of my hon. Friend’s independence of mind that, although he has sometimes taken a sceptical view of politics, he has always taken a very vigorous stand for the interests of his constituents, of this House, of Britain and of Europe. I believe that he showed that again today in his remarkable speech.

I will refer to the substance of the Queen’s Speech in a few moments, but before I do so, I wish to respond to some of the points which the Leader of the Opposition made. He said, as he has said on a number of occasions in recent weeks, that he would like to have an election. But what is he going to tell people about his programme? Who was it who said in 1983,

“If we were to abandon the definition of our Socialism and the policies that go with it there is no reason why anybody should vote for us”?

It was the right hon. Gentleman. So upon that test, does he still believe, as he said then,

“We want out of Europe”?

There was some hilarity a few moments ago as the right hon. Gentleman tried to reconcile his past with his present on that subject. Does he still believe in what he referred to as

“a major extension of public ownership of control”,

or has he ditched that as well? Does he still say :

“We do not subscribe to the effective defence of our country by the possession of nuclear weapons”?

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he still believes those things– that he is still an anti-European nationaliser who believes in unilateralism? If not, is there any reason why, in his own words, anybody should vote for him because of what he said earlier? We have heard today the speech from a Front Bench that is prepared to surrender any principle, abandon any commitment, and promise anything to anyone and, indeed, everything to everyone. Opposition Members can promise, but, when it comes to the election, they will not deliver. That is not our way, for we will keep to our principles and the lasting values that underpin them.

Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian) rose–

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose–

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) rose–

The Prime Minister : I shall give way a little later.

We will keep to an enterprise economy, the power to choose and the right to own, for our philosophy has not collapsed around the world, as has the right hon. Gentleman’s socialist philosophy. Our philosophy is getting stronger while socialism disappears in the dustbin of history. Our policies emphasise our belief in personal ownership.

Mr. Eadie rose–

The Prime Minister : I shall give way later.

We must give each and every person the chance to build up for themselves and for their families something of their own–their own home, their own pension, their own shares, their own stake in the future–a stake that they can pass on without fear of penal tax rates, soaring inflation or interference by the state. It is that principle which most clearly distinguishes this Government from that Opposition. The Opposition fought the right to buy and conceded defeat only grudgingly. They fought against the campaign for personal pensions and they threaten them still. They campaigned against privatisation while they bought their shares on the quiet. The right hon. Gentleman says today that he believes in choice, but he would never have given the choice to people and they would never have been able to exercise it.

Mr. Eadie rose–

The Prime Minister : No–[Hon. Members :- – “Give way.”] No. The Labour candidate in Hemsworth–not just any old candidate, but the candidate who was specially selected and imposed in a flying visit by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)–bought BT shares, and good for him. But why?

Mr. Eadie rose–

The Prime Minister : Just a moment. The hon. Gentleman can intervene when I have finished this point.

But why did that Labour candidate buy shares? His minder told us why. He said :

“He bought them when they came on offer because he has a family of four and wanted that security.”

But what about the security of the 8 million people who have bought shares and who the Labour party will threaten with its policies at the next general election? The Labour party’s motto is clear. It is, “Don’t do as I do, do as I say.”

Mr. Eadie : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Based on what he is telling the House about the confidence that he feels in his Government when he compares their policies to those announced by the Opposition, can he tell us why he decided to announce to the nation in that clandestine way that he would not hold an election in November if he is so confident about what he is telling Parliament today?

The Prime Minister : It comes ill from a party that is now committed to fixed Parliaments to complain that we are going on–[Hon. Members :– “Answer.”] I have just answered. Let me pursue the point that I was dealing with–[Hon. Members :– “No, answer that point.”] I have, and this is germane to that point. I have here a leaflet that will help us during the campaign and– [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister.

Hon. Members : Answer.

The Prime Minister : I have here– [Interruption.] Perhaps in a moment the Leader of the Opposition will answer this point– [Interruption.]

Hon. Members : They do not like it.

The Prime Minister : The Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends may not like it, but they are going to get it. I have here a leaflet that is a remarkable endorsement of Conservatism. It states :

“Many people today are wealthier than they imagine, especially those who have been able to buy their own home.”

I am very glad to have that endorsement of Conservative success. It comes from the Labour party. But the people of this country might feel more reassured if that same political party was not at the same time threatening to increase taxes on ordinary people–on their income, on their savings and on their wealth. The leaflet– [Interruption.] Let me just refer to the leaflet– [Interruption.] I am prepared to wait until Opposition Members will listen. The leaflet– [Interruption.]

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you in a position to know whether the Prime Minister is quoting from a Labour party leaflet or from some brief that he has been given by Conservative Central Office? Is he quoting or not?

Mr. Speaker : That is not a point of order. The House should now get on and settle down. I call the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister : I shall show the House a leaflet explaining how legacies can help the Labour party. It states :

“Whatever the size of your donation to the Labour Party, no inheritance tax whatsoever is payable on it.”

Of course, what Labour does not state is that under its plans inheritance tax would be paid on smaller legacies and at a higher rate than today. So now we know ; under Conservative legislation, one can pass on one’s wealth to the Labour party–that is permitted–but under Labour plans, someone passing it on to his children would be taxed and taxed and taxed again.

A year ago this month Britain entered the exchange rate mechanism. In the debates which followed, the shadow Chancellor made it clear that he accepted that we were right to join the ERM. He agreed with the rate at which we entered. He asked me to forecast the benefits of membership and posed two perfectly fair questions. “Was it my judgment”, he asked,

“that the rate at which we agreed to join is sustainable?”–[ Official Report, 15 October 1990 ; Vol. 177, c. 930.]

We now know the answer. Sterling has remained firm against other Community currencies and the mechanism has given business the exchange rate stability that it wanted.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked whether the balance of payments deficit would be progressively reduced. Yes again. Our exports to the rest of the Community have shot up. Our imports have fallen. Our trade deficit with Europe has been slashed and manufactured exports, far from declining, recently hit record levels.

Of course, some of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen’s colleagues were less cautious. The Leader of the Opposition asserted that inflation was still rising. Wrong. I said that we would bring it down. We have done so and we will carry on doing so–down below the Community average ; down to the levels of the best in Europe. When we joined the ERM and cut the interest rate the Leader of the Opposition called it a cynical expedient. That was distinctly odd, for three days before he said that we should “cut interest rates” and

“be negotiating entry into the ERM”.

What changed in those three days other than that we did what he had advised us to do? What changed was the right hon. Gentleman. He may or may not have changed his mind. But he certainly changed his tune.

Mr. Foulkes : The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a major announcement yesterday that there had been an increase–a seasonally adjusted increase–in optimism. How do the Government measure optimism and how do they seasonally adjust it?

The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman looked at the surveys from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry, he would see the return of confidence that is coming and the way in which it will lead to a return of growth. During the past year our policies within the exchange rate mechanism have brought inflation down to 4 per cent., allowed eight reductions in interest rates, reduced our balance of payments deficit and kept sterling stable. That has set the basis for steady growth with low inflation in the years of Conservative government that lie ahead.

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : Not at the moment.

Getting inflation down is not easy. It is painful. But the measures are unavoidable and necessary for stable growth in the future. It is always tempting to call for interest rate cuts and the easy course, but that carries great dangers. We are not prepared to play fast and loose for some short-term gain, for we know that inflation is the tax which bears hardest on those in society least able to afford it. As inflation falls we are moving out of recession and back to stable growth. The Opposition need not just take my word for it. They should listen to British industry and what the chambers of commerce and others are saying. As the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has said :

“The country is unmistakably experiencing a turnround in economic performance commerce and industry is on the road to recovery”.

The Institute of Directors says the same and so does the CBI. The CBI’s latest survey shows business confidence up, more businesses expecting new orders, more businesses expecting to increase investment and more businesses intending to take on new workers. The International Monetary Fund also forecasts that our growth next year will be as good as or better than that in France, Italy and Germany.

Mr. Bell : The House is listening with great interest to the Prime Minister on the state of the economy and our relations with Europe. If things are so good, why cannot he give us an election date?

The Prime Minister : Things will get better and then the hon. Gentleman will get one. Britain is getting back on track again, back to the growth that provides the only way of putting people back in permanent work so that we can add to the 800,000 extra jobs that we have created since 1979.

Mr. Bell : Jobs are being lost.

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman talks about jobs. We will turn to that. The Leader of the Opposition says that he is concerned for the unemployed. Let us test it. Let us put it into action now. He could persuade his own union, the Transport and General Workers Union, to drop its boycott on youth training, employment training and the training and enterprise councils. Will he do it? No, he will not. Let me try him on another point.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) rose–

The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman could tell the Trades Union Congress that it was wrong to boycott employment action even before the scheme had started. Will he? The right hon. Gentleman will not.

Ms. Primarolo rose–

The Prime Minister : Perhaps most importantly of all, the right hon. Gentleman could drop his plans for a statutory minimum wage.

Ms. Primarolo rose–

The Prime Minister : The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) says that no jobs would be lost as a result of that policy. But that is not what every independent commentator says. It is not what the CBI says. The CBI says that the first phase would cost 200,000 to 300,000 jobs. “Oh, no”, says the hon. Member for Sedgefield,

“it will make industry more competitive”.

There is a gem of Labour newspeak–adding to one’s costs makes one more competitive. That is Labour’s understanding of the economy.

Ms. Primarolo rose–

The Prime Minister : We hear a lot from Opposition Members about the supply side. When they are not lecturing the CBI or threatening to sack the Governor of the Bank of England they are keen to quote those sources. Earlier this year they were very keen to quote the CBI as saying that we were in recession. They can update that. They can tell us who said recently :

“There is at present one economy in Western Europe where manufactured exports have been increasing faster than world trade ; where import penetration remains below that in West Germany ; where investment in skills and innovation is at record levels and still rising ; where private sector inflation is under 4 per cent. and falling.”

Opposition Members do not like to hear such words because they can only talk the country down, but those were the words of the director-general of the CBI.

Ms. Primarolo rose —

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, South) rose —

Mr. Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister is not giving way, so the hon. Lady must resume her seat. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to participate in the debate. Let us get on with it.

The Prime Minister : I shall give the hon. Lady her chance in just a moment. The words that I quoted were those of the director-general of the CBI and the country about which he was speaking was Britain, a country which attracts more investment from America and Japan than does the rest of Europe put together.

Ms. Primarolo : Earlier this week the Prime Minister revealed his deeply held conviction that it is necessary to further the equality of women in our society. If that was a firm pledge, why are there no legislative proposals in the Queen’s Speech to further women’s equality, such as a proposal to introduce universal child care?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady should not doubt our commitment on that issue. She had better wait and see.

The Opposition like to talk about investment. What they usually mean by investment is more public spending of taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Cryer : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends had the opportunity to intervene on several occasions. I invite him to wait a while.

It is interesting that the principal paymaster of the Leader of the Opposition, the TGWU, refuses to welcome investment from Japan, especially in Scotland and Wales. What do they call it? [Interruption.] What do they call investment from Japan? They call it “alien”. That is what Japanese investment in Scotland and Wales is called. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us : does he personally think that Japanese investment in Scotland and Wales is alien? Does he want to see the £4 billion that Japanese investment adds to our trade balance, and the 400,000 new jobs that it could bring to this country, or not? Which does he back : the TGWU–his paymasters–or Japanese investment? Let him tell us.

Mr. Kinnock : I had the great good fortune to have the first Japanese-owned factory in Wales, Takiron, opened in my constituency back in 1973. Since then, as the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and others know, I have worked assiduously to secure such inward investment. I am delighted to say that Aiwa is flourishing in my constituency. I should like the Prime Minister to introduce policies on retraining, transport, technology, research and development, and science that would make our country more attractive not only to Japanese investment but to British investment.

The Prime Minister : It is under our policies that that investment has come here. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman now condemns the TGWU motion.

The House and the country face a clear choice on the supply side. The Opposition propose new levies, new regulations and new quangos. We believe in lightening the burden on new business. The Opposition want to extend new powers to the unions–enforced recognition and complete immunity from dismissal for strikers. Those are powers which even the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) dared not introduce in the 1970s. In contrast, we believe in giving managers the right to manage and in giving the unions back to their members. The Opposition propose a new tax on savings. We know that savings are the fuel for the very investment that they claim this country needs. They propose higher taxes on earnings. We accept that that would enrich industries and laboratories, but it certainly would not enrich them in this country. It would just send scientific and managerial talent abroad.

The Opposition still believe in nationalisation–the only party east or west of the old iron curtain that still does. We know where that policy ends. The private sector of industry would be the bit that the Government controlled and the nationalised sector would be the bit that nobody controlled.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : Not at the moment.

In the months ahead we have a full programme for a Session of Parliament. Within it, we intend to carry forward the citizens charter, to extend parental choice, to raise education standards and to establish a stable and lasting relationship between local and central Government.

First, the citizen’s charter. The best guarantor of effective service to the consumer is competition. That is why we have already extended competition in telecommunications and why we are taking powers to end the monopoly in gas and we are increasing competition in the water industry. The legislation will also bring the powers of all the utility regulators up to the level of the strongest, so that they can set guaranteed service standards and secure compensation, if those standards are not met. The legislation will also include enabling powers to resolve disputes between the utilities and individual customers about the accuracy of bills.

The legislation will put more power in the hands of the individual. That is the essence. That is central to the citizen’s charter. The charter applies not just to the privatised utilities, but throughout the public services. We do not intend public service to mean second-best service.

Several Hon. Members rose —

The Prime Minister : I have given way amply.

As well as making the big utilities more responsive to their customers, we shall give parents a greater say in their children’s schools and make local councils provide a better service to their electors.

This Session we can put to the test the Opposition claim to care about public services.

Mr. Frank Cook : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : I have said to the hon. Gentleman, who appears not to understand, that I do not propose to give way to him now. We will wait with interest to see how the Labour party votes. Will it vote with us for the charter and for the public or against us, as usual, and for the trade unions and the second rate?

We shall introduce three Bills on education this Session. We will require the publication of local league tables on exam results, staying-on rates and truancy rates for all schools. Parents have a right to that information and they will get it. They also have a right to short, clear reports on their child’s school prepared by independent inspection teams, and they will get that, too. [Interruption.] I must say, Mr. Speaker, that if the public at large could see the behaviour on the Opposition Benches, they would know why Labour Members are unfit for government. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the Opposition not to point across the Chamber. It is very bad behaviour indeed.

Mr. Skinner : The Prime Minister has sent the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) off to sleep.

The Prime Minister : This coming year we will begin to introduce national vocational qualifications to schools, bringing in the high calibre technical qualifications that have been missing in education for so long– [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not regard further and higher education as importantly as we do–[Hon. Members : — “Hurrah.”] Perhaps they could cheer this. We will give further education colleges and sixth form colleges the same freedom from town hall control as we gave to the polytechnics. [Hon. Members :– “Hurrah.”]

I wish that we could get the support of the Opposition for those policies, but I doubt that we can. The Opposition voted against the teachers’ pay review body and in favour of strikes. They voted to take schools out of the hands of head teachers and governors and to put them back in the hands of NALGO officials. They voted against the national curriculum and against simple tests. There is no doubt that they will vote against parents getting reports on their child’s school. For the Opposition, parental ignorance is bliss. They simply do not trust parents to have the interest in their children that we believe parents should have.

In the national health service we will put patients first. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) may care to listen as he professes such an interest in the NHS. The Opposition fight our reforms because they believe that compassion and efficiency are incompatible. In that they are wrong. Compassion without efficiency is mere sentimentality. Compassion with efficiency delivers more and better health care. That is not a new principle ; it is an old principle. It was understood very well 140 years ago by Florence Nightingale, but if the Labour party had been around then, it would undoubtedly have opposed her reforms with the same vehemence as it opposes ours.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North West) rose —

The Prime Minister : For our part, we will continue with our reform of the NHS because only by doing so will patients get the best possible care from the resources that we devote to the NHS. No one can honestly doubt the Government’s commitment to the NHS. It is a commitment to the 1 million patients who use the service each day. It is a commitment that is re-emphasised in the patients’ charter, published only yesterday. It is a commitment reinforced by our determination to modernise the service. We are modernising the service and have no intention of abandoning it. Labour Members know that modernisation is necessary, but they have no policy whatever to achieve that.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : Not at the moment.

As a result, the Opposition trot out the old canard about privatising the NHS.

We have seen that sort of trick before previous elections. Colleagues may recall the scare that we would reintroduce conscription, that no roads would be built in Britain and that we would stop raising pensions in line with inflation. Then in 1983 from Labour’s health spokesman came a real scare–that if the Conservatives were re-elected we would, within five years of 1983, end the NHS. Well, it is now 1991, and the health service is going strong, with £32,000 million worth of resources from the Conservative Government. If the right hon. Gentleman does not have the grace to admit that Labour were wrong before, does he have the grace to accept it now when I say that there will be no charges for hospital treatment or for visits to the doctor and that there will be no privatisation of health care in whole or in part? Does the right hon. Gentleman have the grace to accept that?

Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister at last acknowledge that where there were once free services, and those free services are no longer available, so that people are obliged to purchase, because of the pressures of the system, he is privatising the health service and will continue to privatise it?

The Prime Minister : Were the Labour Government privatising in 1951 when they introduced charges? The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no privatisation actual or intended in the national health service and that he is deliberately trying to scare people again and again.

The right hon. Gentleman’s retreat on privatisation has been matched only by his creeping retreat on funding. Last month the Labour health spokesman affirmed that party’s commitment to restore fully what he called the

“underfunding of the past decade”–

an amount that Labour has not identified and cannot identify. They have slithered back from that. Now the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) says :

“We very much hope to”

and

“we will seek to”.

Even that is too much for Labour Treasury spokesmen, who say that only “some” of the alleged underfunding could be put right. What weasel words.

Even that game of grandmother’s footsteps came to an end when the hon. Member for Livingston admitted :

“We shall do it next time because we did it last time”.– [Official Report, 21 October 1991 ; Vol. 196, c. 673.]

What did Labour do last time? They put up waiting lists, cut nurses’ and doctors’ pay and slashed the hospital building programme.

The Conservative party has increased the share of the nation’s wealth given to the NHS. I give the House this further pledge now : in each and every year the NHS will, under us, get a real increase in its resources for patient care. That is what a Conservative Government can promise. Labour cannot promise, for their record shows that they cannot.

Mr. Allen rose–

The Prime Minister : I have given way enough already.

Our local government legislation will put the council tax in place. That system will reflect ability to pay and ensure that most people contribute something to council services. It will be certain and fair. It will be in place from 1993 and bills will be restrained. When we introduce the council tax my only regret will be that my former colleague Richard Holt, who played such a part in helping us to frame so many of the proposals, will not be here to see them carried through. We shall all miss him very much.

We shall extend competition into more council services and give new powers to the Audit Commission so that it can name names, authority by authority and service by service, so as to spread best practice and root out incompetence. We shall reform the structure of local government to give people councils with which they can identify, to which they can feel loyalty, and which deliver good services at a reasonable cost.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the council tax legislation will include the existing provision in the poll tax legislation for the imprisonment of non-payers? Is he aware that of the 84 people who have so far served a prison sentence, many have been pensioners? The oldest such person is Richard Northover, who, at 80 years old, was sentenced to 30 days in Her Majesty’s prison in Dorchester, although he had paid his poll tax. He was the first person, at 80 years of age, to be sent to prison for not having filled in the registration form two years earlier.

As the Prime Minister voted to abolish imprisonment for debt under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, will he now give a commitment to transfer that measure to England and Wales and stop this medieval barbarity?

The Prime Minister : That question comes ill from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who has played such an ignoble role in encouraging people to get into debt and not to pay their bills. Much though we may sympathise with the hon. Gentleman at the way in which his Front-Bench colleagues have treated him, he should not give such a bad example while he sits in this House as a law-maker by encouraging people to be law-breakers. The law is set and it must be obeyed or the penalty paid.

The Opposition like to pretend that services do not have to be paid for– the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East is living proof of that. However, too many of the Opposition and their councillors do not pay. Even as those councillors were setting inflated bills for others, they would not pay–but not any more. We propose to stop that abuse and to do so in this Session– if they can’t pay, they won’t vote. That will happen this year.

Recent years have brought home to people the simple truth that high bills do not always mean better services, usually the reverse. Some councils are excellent, but too often standards are unacceptable. Shoddy service comes with the ready-made excuse, “We have special problems”. Let us look at two services that the social composition of a borough does not affect.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

The Prime Minister : No, not even to a friend.

Why does it cost nearly three times as much in Labour Camden to empty the bins as it does in Conservative Wandsworth?

Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : I have heard nothing that is out of order. What is the point of order?

Ms. Gordon : I want to check whether I heard the Prime Minister say, “If they can’t pay, they won’t vote.” I want to make sure that Hansard does not alter that.

The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady knows exactly what the policy is ; if people won’t pay–

Mr. Nellist : The right hon. Gentleman said “can’t”.

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has set a standard of stupidity in this House that is rarely excelled. He knows what the policy is. He should not try to follow the lead of the Leader of the Opposition in another area and try to pervert what that policy is. Why does it cost seven times more in Lambeth to issue a library book than in the most efficient councils?

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : I have heard nothing out of order. Is it a matter with which I can deal?

Mr. Wilson : It is a genuine point of order arising from the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). The House is not interested–nor, I am sure, are you, Mr. Speaker- -in what the Prime Minister meant to say. What we and the Hansard writers are interested in is what the Prime Minister did say. There is no doubt that he said “can’t pay, won’t vote”.

The Prime Minister : Let me make this quite clear to the hon. Gentleman so that he will not find himself in the position of being able to scare people over this matter. The policy applies to councillors. That is perfectly clear and it is well known to the House. I am happy to reiterate that now. If, by a slip of the tongue, I said otherwise, I am happy to correct it in the interests of ensuring that the Opposition do not, as has been their habit elsewhere, seek to scare people with what is expressly not Government policy. Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are referring to councillors. We are also referring to people who are in a position to pay, but do not. There is a full range of rebates in the scheme we propose.

Mr. Allen : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way–on rebates?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will not tempt me. The Opposition are clearly determined, if they can, to disrupt as much as they can. I think that that will be evident to anyone listening to this debate.

In the Labour party’s own words, it says that Labour councils “demonstrate as far as the public is concerned what a Labour Government would be like”.

There can be no more awful warning for people as we come to the next general election.

On developments in the European Community–

Mr. Haynes : Will the right hon. Gentleman give me further consideration?

The Prime Minister : Tempting though the hon. Gentleman is, I wish to discuss the European Community and Britain’s place in forthcoming developments.

Britain belongs to the mainstream of Europe and must remain at the heart of the Community. In the past 20 years, despite many frustrations, we have gained enormously from our membership–

Mr. Frank Cook rose–

Mr. Speaker : Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he puts his place on the list in jeopardy if he continues to interrupt in this way.

Mr. Cook : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the deepest respect for you and for your position in the Chair, I remind you that the Prime Minister said that he had no intention of giving way to me at the moment. He said nothing about giving way later. He said that at 4.19pm.

The Prime Minister : I believe that it is within the knowledge of the House that I have given way rather more often than the Leader of the Opposition did. I now wish to consider something that I believe is of acute importance to every Member of the House and to millions of people beyond it –the negotiations in which we are currently engaged on the intergovernmental conferences.

In the past 20 years we have gained enormously from our membership of the Community. I believe that the Community has gained also from our membership because Britain has determined its direction in so many ways–on budget reform, on reform of the common agricultural policy, on the single market, on free competition within Europe and on free trade with the rest of the world. Too often we overlook the extent to which Britain leads the Community and too frequently we recall the difficulties we sometimes face in it.

Mr. Frank Cook : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

The Prime Minister : I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman at the moment; not in this speech.

I do not doubt that over the next 20 years the Community’s evolution will be as marked as it has been in the nearly 20 years since we joined. We cannot dictate what our children will make of the Community, but we must leave them in a position where they can effectively influence the shape of Europe, and that Europe must be one in which we retain our distinct national identity.

The intergovernmental conferences now under way raise vital issues for the future of this country. They involve hard judgments of where our best interests lie. In our approach to those negotiations, we have been guided by the views expressed in debates in the House. We have made progress in a number of areas. We are working to achieve an agreement at Maastricht in December, but it must be an agreement that I could make in the confident expectation that I could commend it to the House.

On economic and monetary union, it would be irresponsible for any Government to ask the people of Britain to decide now that we should adopt, at a future date, a single European currency which will have far-reaching implications for the conduct of monetary and economic union. A move to a single currency that was not backed by convergence between the two economies of the member states of the Community would be a recipe for economic disaster. That is not in the interests of this country, or of our partners in Europe.

This country is in the first rank of the European Community and will remain so. But I am not prepared to commit our country to a single currency. We must be able to judge nearer the time–Parliament must judge nearer the time–whether a single currency is in the interests of Britain. We should not achieve what is best for Britain or the Community by giving up now our right to independent judgment then.

There is still some way to go before we have an agreement on economic and monetary union, but the discussions so far have shown that it is possible to thrash out a sensible position in negotiations. It is our aim to do the same on the draft treaty on political union. The issues raised are more diverse and just as difficult. They include the conduct of defence and foreign policy, and the powers of the European Parliament, the Commission and the European Court. We have to satisfy ourselves that, if we reach an agreement, it is an agreement in the overall British interest. It must be in Britain’s interest to work more closely with like-minded European countries on foreign policy, defence and security.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

The Prime Minister : I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.

It would not be in our interests to set up new defence structures that would undermine the role of NATO in safeguarding our defence.

Mr. Ashdown : As the Prime Minister has been commenting on changes in policy, I congratulate him and the Government on having moved so far on Europe since the summer. On the subject of defence, may I remind him that less than a month ago he signed an agreement containing the following words :

“Political union implies a common foreign and security policy and stronger European defence identity with the longer term perspective of a common defence policy”?

The Prime Minister said that on 5 October this year. Will he confirm that it remains the Government’s objective?

The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is taking that statement out of context and is not listening to what I am saying. I shall be explicit in a moment and then again later on these points. It makes sense to co-operate with other European countries on judicial, police and immigration matters; but at a time when more and more member states are concerned about illegal immigration, the spread of drugs and the threat of terrorism it makes no sense to agree to measures that would weaken the unique and effective controls in this island. It makes sense to recognise that the European Parliament, directly elected, will have an increasing say in the conduct of European business, but it would not make sense to give the European Parliament powers of decision-making equal to those of the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament should have a larger role in curbing the undemocratic powers of the Commission. Commissioners are answerable to the Commission, not to the Governments who appointed them. The Commission is effectively answerable to no one. It must be answerable to an elected body and that body can only be the European Parliament. The European Parliament must be able to make its influence felt, but it must be the Council that decides on the Community’s policies for the future. At Maastricht the issues may not be laid out in black and white ; there will he hard judgments to be made. The crucial judgment for the Government will be to determine what is in the best interests of Britain and acceptable to this House. That is why we are arranging a two-day debate on 20 and 21 November. I and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out in detail the issues at stake and where Britain’s interests lie. This will be a vital opportunity for Members to set out their views. It will also be an opportunity for the Opposition to let the people of Britain know where they stand, if anywhere, on issues vital to the future of our country.

The Labour party has consistently sold Britain short in Europe. Out of Government, its members opposed membership ; in Government, they bungled the negotiations on fair terms for our country. Now the Opposition have gone to the other extreme–“If it’s made in Brussels, it’s good enough for the Labour party.” No money back and no questions asked.

Nowadays the Opposition try to pass themselves off as modern and moderate. They say that they now accept the agenda which we set through the 1980s and which we will continue to set through the 1990s–but who can believe them? Who could trust them? Are they political chameleons or political turncoats?

We know that what this country needs is sound money, competitive industries, accountable public services, the extension of ownership and choice, and strong defences–and everyone knows who can be trusted to provide these things : not the half-hearted, reluctant converts among the Opposition, but a Government who genuinely believe in these things, a Government who will do what is right for this country without flinching, this year, next year and for years to come. That Government will remain on the Government side of the House after the election.

October 31, 1991
Mr Major’s 1991 Conservative Party Conference Speech – 11 October 1991

Below is the text of Mr Major’s 1991 Conservative Party Conference Speech, made on the 11th October 1991.

PRIME MINISTER:

Earlier this week this Conference welcomed Mrs Thatcher. You gave her the most tumultuous reception. She deserved it. She led our country for over 11 years, our Party for over 15. We owe Margaret a great debt.

The Britain she left us is immeasurably stronger than the Britain she found. Above all, she helped others to believe in us and us to believe in ourselves. And on those foundations she laid three great Election victories.

It’s good to applaud; it’s grand to cheer. But the greatest tribute we can pay her is to do as she did. To win, and win, and win again. At this Conference – and what a successful Conference it’s been – you have heard how the next Conservative Government will secure the best future for Britain.

We’ve heard some cracking speeches this week. From the right team. A young team – in fact the youngest Cabinet this century. A professional team.

Just think for a moment. When the going gets rough in international affairs, who would be the first person you would send for? Gerald Kaufman? No. He would be the second person. The first person would be anyone but Gerald Kaufman. But far and away the best person would be Douglas Hurd, one of the finest Foreign Secretaries this country has ever had.

Of course, Labour’s Captain tries to talk up his team. “A winning team” he calls them. After three election defeats? Well, it goes to show that there must be more than one way to look at history. Take waterloo. You thought Wellington won Waterloo? No, Waterloo was a smash hit for Napoleon. But we can help Labour to win one thing – the record for the longest run of election defeats. Played four. Lost four. And a probable vacancy for team captain.

Last week at Brighton we had speech after speech about a fairy-tale future for the British people. In Labour’s Never-Mind-the-Cost-Never-Never Land. Then there was singalongaleader. It was all good fun if you like that sort of thing.

But while this was happening out front, there was something thoroughly nasty seeping from under the platform. I refer, of course, to what Labour pretends to believe are the Government’s plans for the National Health Service. There’s only one way to deal with a lie: nail it to the wall of truth, as William Waldegrave so conclusively did yesterday. We have all been brought up with the Health Service. We use it. We cherish it. We are proud of it.

I know that for millions of people in this country the National Health Service means security. I understand that. Because I am – and always have been – one of those people. I know that even when you’re fit and well, it brings peace of mind – just to know it’s there. It is unthinkable that I, of all people, would try to take that security away. A genuine belief I can respect, even when I profoundly disagree with it. But deliberate lies – repeated, repeated and repeated – merely diminishes its authors.

The Health Service has been in existence for over 40 years. And who has been in Government for most of that period? We have. For 29 of those years it has been a Conservative Government. It has been under Conservative Governments that the National Health Service has been built up, enlarged and improved. And our reforms will carry that right through into the 1990s. So let me say now, once and for all, and without qualifications – under this Government the National Health Service will continue, to offer free hospital treatment to everyone.

And so that no-one can misunderstand the position – and I hope the whole country is listening – let me make it even clearer. There will be no charges for hospital treatment, no charges for visits to the doctor, no privatisation of health care, neither piecemeal, not in part, nor as a whole. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not after the next election. Not ever while I’m Prime Minister.

And if, after all I have said, there are still those who set out to frighten the vulnerable, the weak, and the old, with carefully calculated smears, then the public will know where to find them – in the gutters of public debate. Such people are not friends of the Health Service. They are the parasites that live on its back.

No Conservative need be defensive about the Health Service. On the contrary, every Conservative has the right to share my disgust at what is said. Go to your local hospital. What do you find? You’ll find Conservatives. In the hospital shop. Serving with the League of Friends. Working on the wards. They are not just friends of the Health Service. They are part of the Health Service.

The National Health Service doesn’t belong to the Labour Party. As its name makes clear, it belongs to the Nation. And – in both senses of the phrase – Labour isn’t going to get away with it. The Health Service is not a political football to be kicked around in the hope that, somehow or other, it will reopen the door of Downing Street to a Labour Government. It won’t. Neither by hook or by Cook.

This is the first Conference I have addressed as Leader of the Conservative Party. It is hard to explain how I feel about that. It is a long road from Coldharbour Lane to Downing Street. It is a tribute to the Conservative Party that that road can be travelled.

Perhaps at the back of this hall today there is another young man or woman who stands where I did 30 years ago. Who knows few people here. Who feels it is a long road to this platform, too.

They should remember the last two leaders were a builder’s son from Broadstairs and a grocer’s daughter from Grantham. We don’t need lectures in the Conservative Party about opportunity. We are the Party of opportunity.

This Party is open to all. And to all those who may be watching, wherever you come from, whatever your background, I say simply this, “Come and join us”. There are no barriers in our Party, just as there will be no barriers in the Britain we are building together.

Some people ask whether we will have a different sort of Conservatism in future. Of course we will. We all bring our own beliefs, our own instincts, and our own experiences to politics. And I am no exception.

But the fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, those beliefs that brought me into this Party, are the beliefs that Chris Patten expressed so brilliantly on Tuesday. They remain as strong today as ever. Old though our Party is, the values behind it are older still. They are rooted in the instincts of every individual. And it is through our policies that we make them come alive.

What is it that we offer? A strong Britain, confident of its position; secure in its defences, firm in its respect for the law. A strong economy, free from the threat of inflation, in which taxes can fall, savings can grow, and independence is assured.

I want to give individuals greater control over their own lives.

– Every mother, every father, a say over their child’s education.

– Every schoolchild, a choice of routes to the world of work.

– Every patient, the confidence that their doctors can secure the best treatment for them.

– Every business, every worker, freedom from the destructive dictatorship of union militants.

– Every family, the right to have and to hold their own private corner of life; their own home, their own savings, their own security for their future – and for their children’s future.

Building the self-respect that comes from ownership. Showing the responsibility that follows from self-respect. That is our programme for the 90s. I will put it in a single phrase: the power to choose – and the right to own.

Do you know what Labour believes? That choice is something for them. They just can’t accept that choice is something most of us can be trusted with. You might make mistakes, they say. What arrogance. As if the State have never made mistakes, in our name, with our money. Try telling that the tenants of the crumbling tower blocks that disfigures our cities.

And tell that to the citizens of Eastern Europe, who have risked their very lives for these freedoms, for the right to own, and for the power to choose. Ordinary values – for which ordinary people have, in our time, fought an extraordinary fight.

During the summer I did quite a bit of travelling – Headingley, Edgbaston, Trent Bridge, Lord’s, the Oval. Also Moscow, Peking, Hong Kong and Kennebunkport. Wherever I went abroad, I found the same story. Britain is respected again. We don’t always realise the admiration and affection for Britain abroad.

We’ve earned it, because when others have hesitated, we have always stood firm and given a lead. As we did again this year. In defence of freedom in Kuwait. We didn’t want that war, its waste, its suffering, its grief. But to achieve greater security in the world, we had to reverse the annexation of Kuwait. And to keep that security we must destroy Iraq’s nuclear weapons capacity. They are still trying to cling to it, still cheating, still lying.

They cannot be permitted to succeed. One way or another that nuclear capacity must go. I hope it will go peacefully. If not, it must go by force. But go it will. In January I flew by helicopter over our army in the Gulf. I can still see the scene below me. A great convoy of troops and heavy equipment moving forward across the sands. For mile after mile. You could only marvel at the organisation and planning involved.

But down on the ground, I had a different impression. Dug into position each unit seemed almost alone. Young men – mostly very young – thousands of miles from home in the wastes of the desert. Let me tell you what was in my mind when I met them. What would they think? Here was a new Prime Minister, unknown to them, untried, asking them to prepare for battle, perhaps not to return. How would they respond to that? And would they understand the reasons why they were there?

Whatever doubts I had soon disappeared. They knew why there were there. They knew the cause was right. And they knew that they could do the job. They asked only to be allowed to get on with it. And, when they did, my goodness, how they proved their point. They really were the best of British.

I learned something else from that extraordinary war and especially from that precision bombing that amazed the world. It’s this. If our troops are to do the job we ask, it is absolutely vital that their equipment and their training are the best.

That is why in the last few weeks we have bought the new anti-submarine helicopter from Westland – the best. Why we are moving ahead with the new Challenger tank from Vickers – the best. And that’s why we will keep our own independent nuclear deterrent, Trident. The best security for Britain.

And we will take with just a little pinch of salt the conversion of those who campaigned for CND for the past thirty years – and then suddenly let their principles ….what was the word? … lapse? What principles? First, peace at any price. Then power at any price. I know what this country will say to that. Never at any price. For a man who with no fixed view on the defence of Britain, there can be no fixed abode in Downing Street.

As we saw again in the aftermath of war, a confident Britain is a force for good in a troubled world. If we had not created those safe havens in Iraq, hundreds and thousands of Kurdish people would have died last winter in bitter, freezing mountains. We spoke out strongly for human rights in Peking and spoke out first against the return of tyranny in Moscow.

Alone among all the nations of the world we stand at the hub of three great interlocking alliances. Of NATO, which is and must remain the core of our defence. Of the European Community. And of the Commonwealth, which meets in conference next week. There we must persuade 50 nations, some – frankly – with a chequered political history, to a formal commitment to democracy and human rights.

And in the 1990s I hope to see one former member of the Commonwealth once more take its rightful place. We have always fought for an end to apartheid. But we have worked just as consistently for the long-term goal of a fully free and prosperous South Africa. I believe that both goals are now in sight. And when they are reached I want to see South Africa back where she belongs – as a fully-fledged member of our Commonwealth of nations.

A great debate is now underway in Europe. One in which the Conservative Party can speak with authority. Harold Macmillan first sought to take Britain into the Community, Ted Heath finally led us there, and Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act – with its vision of ever closer union between states. Closer union between states. Not a federal merger of states. That is still our policy.

I believe strongly in partnership in Europe. Britain, as a great European power, has gained from our membership of the Community. That is the verdict of those people in our country who live by business, banking and trade, the very people on whom our prosperity and jobs depend. But it must be the right Europe. Let me set out for you the objectives that I have in mind, the principles that I will fight for, and the propositions I will resist.

First we want a Community that will in time embrace the new democracies of the East. We have the chance to heal the scar that divided and disfigured Europe for two generations. The nations of Eastern Europe – Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States – need to know now that when their economies are ready for the Community, the Community will be ready for them.

Second, I want a genuine single market, open for business right across the Community. It must have common rules. And these rules must be obeyed. When we sign up to something, we put words into actions. Some of our partners, I fear, are keener on making new rules than on keeping them. We need a system that can deal effectively with those who call themselves good Europeans, but who hijack lorries or hold up free trade.

We are now negotiating new Treaties on political and economic union. I am always ready to listen to new ideas. But they must be workable ideas. Ideas that make sense for Europe, and for Britain. There are vital issues at stake. They involve hard judgments of where our true interests lie. The idea of a single European currency is one with enormous ramifications, both practical and political. At best it is an uncertain prospect. And treaty must provide for a separate decision to be taken – not now – but at a future date by the British Government and the British Parliament. It’s our decision. A single currency cannot be imposed upon us. And I would not accept, on behalf of Britain, any treaty which sought to impose a single currency – at however distant a date.

We already work closely with our European partners in financial affairs. So, too, in foreign policy and defence. When national interest and Community interest coincide, then common action is only common sense. But in no circumstances – not now, not at Maastricht – will a Conservative Government give up the right, our national right, to take the crucial decisions about our security, our foreign policy and our defence.

We are working to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December. But I cannot guarantee that our negotiations will succeed. For it is no easy task to get 12 nations to agree. And for my part, I shall put the interests of our country before any agreement. Not any agreement before the interests of our country.

I hope we can reach agreement. If we do, I will submit that agreement to parliament. For it is here in Britain that the crucial decisions must be taken. Not in the European Parliament. Not in the Council of Ministers. Not in the Commission – certainly not in the Commission. It will be for Parliament to decide on behalf of the people of Britain who elected it.

So far I have spoken of alliances. Of how much we can achieve if we work with other nations. But when it comes to the search for new markets, even our closest allies remain our competitors. I have never accepted the craven argument that Britain can’t compete with Germany or Japan. And I have contempt for the defeatists who run down our country and write of its future.

Those who said we couldn’t compete in Europe when we led Britain into the Exchange-Rate Mechanism.

Those who said that we would have to push up interest rates. And that our inflation was bound to stay far higher than the rest of the Continent.

All that was just a year ago this week. And look what has really happened since.

We have cut interests rates – eight times.

Our exports to the rest of the Community have shot up. Our imports have fallen. Our trade deficit with Europe has been almost wiped out. And in case you haven’t heard this morning’s news, our inflation rate has fallen to just 4.1%. For the first time in a generation we have brought inflation down to German levels.

They said we couldn’t do it. We did it. And in just one year. Let me remind the sell Britain short brigade of just a few facts. We attract more American investment than any other European country, and twice as much investment from Japan.

Only two years ago, this country had a 17,000 million pound deficit on manufactured trade. This summer, we had a surplus. Our manufacturers sold more abroad than ever before. They didn’t sell Britain short. They sold for Britain. And they had to fight for their markets when the going was hard.

I know times have been tough. Unemployment has risen. Many people have faced great difficulties. I know how they feel – what it’s like for a family when a business collapses. What it’s like when you’re unemployed and when you have to search for the next job.

I have not forgotten – and I never will.

It is because of that that I will never play fast and loose with the economy. Many have pressed us to do so this past year – siren voices, urging us on to the rocks of inflation, and off the course to recovery. The Chancellor and I ignored those voices. And, as he told you, we can now see the way ahead out of recession, to the recovery that will bring investment. To the investment that will bring jobs.

And the clearer the signs of recovery, the louder the Labour Party complains.

Look how they rounded on the Governor of the Bank of England. All because he dared to confirm what everyone else was saying. That recovery is on the way. When he said there was a recession – they cheered him. When he said it was coming to an end – they called for his head. What are they going to do with those hundreds of businessmen telling the CBI exactly the same thing? Will Labour threaten to sack them too? All of them?

Do Labour realise what their policies would do to business?

– Stab it in the back just when it’s winning the battle for trade

– Impose new levies

– Pile on new costs

– Bring back union power.

It may be true that a Labour Prime Minister would no longer get his marching orders over beer and sandwiches at No 10. In these days of designer socialism, he’d get them over a G&T – down at the Old T&G.

A minimum wage would create the very unemployment they claim to care about. New burdens would drive business out of markets. Higher taxes would drive business talent abroad. Above all, inflation would drive our economy out of the future and back to the past.

Remember who suffers from inflation.

– Infant businesses

– People on fixed incomes

– Pensioners

Inflation is a tax paid by those least able to protect themselves. It is Labour’s invisible tax. It wouldn’t come through the letter box, though there are plenty that would.

They have eight new taxes lined up already.

Well, that’s not surprising. We’ve costed Labour’s spending promises. 35 billion pounds extra and still rising. Of course, they say there would be hardly any more tax for hardly anyone. But that’s hardly credible.

The next Labour Manifesto will be the biggest tax demand in history. They love nationalisation. High taxes nationalise choice. It won’t be a case of ‘you pays your money, you takes your choice’. It will be – they take your money, they take your choice.

High taxes would enrich the businesses, the laboratories, the the universities of American and the rest of Europe at the expense of the businesses and universities of Britain. We’d be back with something we haven’t heard of for twelve years – the brain drain. Our low tax policies have built up a brain bank for Britain.

Our Party has always kept personal tax rates down. And in the next Parliament we will go on doing so.

Lower taxes don’t just mean richer people. They mean a richer life. A life with wider horizons, in which people can develop their interests. Support their favourite charity, pursue their hobbies. Go fishing or to a football match, the theatre or the cinema, or just save up for a holiday.

But lower taxes give people more powerful choices, too. The chance to save for the long-term, to invest in the future. Building up a pension. Starting a business. Giving their children a good start in life – and passing on to them the fruits of a lifetime’s work.

In the 1980s we began a great revolution. Our aim was a life enriched by ownership, in which homes, shares and pensions were not something for others, but something for everyone.

We can now see the lifeblood of ownership – of wealth – running through the veins of the country. Nearly four million more families now own homes. And eight million people more own shares. And four and a half million people now have personal pensions.

But this revolution is still not complete. In the 1990s we must carry it further. We must extend savings and ownership in every form. And we now have the chance to make enduring change. For people in their middle years are inheriting homes, businesses, farms on a scale never before seen. The pioneers of the property-owning democracy are the parents of the capital-owning democracy to come.

We Conservatives have always passed our values from generation to generation. I believe that personal prosperity should follow the same course. I want to see wealth cascading down the generations. We do not see each generation starting out anew, with the past cut off and the future ignored.

So, in the next Parliament, I believe that we must go much further in encouraging every family to save and to own. To extend every family’s ability to pass on something to their children, to build up something of their own – for their own.

Labour have their eyes on the money stored in the homes in which millions of people now live – and in the businesses they have created. But I believe that what people have worked to build up in life, the State should never destroy.

As Harold Macmillan once memorably put it, people walk in public gardens, but they tend their own. I want to build a pride in our common inheritance of town and city, coast and countryside. In the very fabric of our nation.

I want to foster ownership in its widest sense. In making people feel that public property belongs to them. Giving them more say – at the local level – in how things are run. Giving them a choice. Putting them in control.

That’s the idea behind our Citizen’s Charter – about which Francis Maude spoke so well yesterday. It will be a centrepiece of our policies for the 1990s. I want to see public services in which the passenger, the patient, the parent can have confidence. And in which public servants can have pride.

I see that Labour are now trying to copy my ideas. I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised at that. Even the Labour Party has to have some good ideas amongst all the bad. It’s just that they filch the good ideas from us. The bad ones of course they think up for themselves. They don’t even hide it when they steal some of my clothes. Did you see how many of them were wearing grey suits last week? Have they no shame?

The test for Labour will come in the next session of Parliament. We will be legislating on the Citizen’s Charter. We shall be giving parents a greater say in schools. Making the big utilities more responsive to customers. And as Michael Heseltine promised us yesterday, exposing incompetence in the council chamber.

And how do you imagine Labour will vote? With us? For the charter? And for the consumer? Or against us? For the trade unions? For the old ways? For the past? But it’s not just a matter of changing the way we run things. It’s a matter of breaking down the false and futile divisions, based on class and envy, that have been around for generations. They are wholly artificial. Labour fosters those divisions. It thrives on them. Our task is to end them for good.

I spoke of a classless society. I don’t shrink from that phrase. I don’t mean a society in which everyone is the same, or thinks the same, or earns the same. But a tapestry of talents in which everyone from child to adult respects achievement; where every promotion, every certificate is respected, and each person’s contribution is valued.

And where the greatest respect is reserved for the law. There can be no harmony in a lawless society. The recent outbreaks of violence in some of our council estates involved a brutal disrespect for other people and their property. Such behaviour cannot be excused and will not be tolerated. In the face of such violence, I know that this Party will give the police the support that we always have. We admire the bravery and the professionalism of those young policeman and women who have been the front line against violent attacks. This Conference must leave no shred of doubt. Rioting is a crime – a serious crime. And it will be dealt with as such.

But dealing with crime is not just something for other people – the police, or the courts, of the Government. It’s a challenge to everyone. And the way to fight crime is to change the attitudes that lie behind crime.

The attitudes of people who say that theft of vandalism are somehow less serious. They call it property crime. Property crime? Tell that to the widow who has been robbed of treasured mementoes of her past life. That’s not a property crime. It’s a personal wound which can never be healed.

This Government is going to crack down on crime, as Ken Baker made clear this week. Let me give you an example. What the irresponsible call joy-riding, we know as simple theft; dangerous driving, a disregard for human life, and the destruction of other people’s property. Some of these people are too young for a licence. We will ensure that when they reach driving age they can be banned from the road.

As for those parents who stand by and watch while their children commit crimes, they are going to be held responsible for their children’s actions. Those in authority – parents and teachers as well – should use their authority to teach a sense of respect for others, for their rights, not just your own; for their opinions, their welfare and their possessions. Without respect for others, there can be no proper respect for the law.

We don’t help our children by excusing bad behaviour, we betray them. And we lead them into worse behaviour. Sometimes it’s right to say no.

A great deal has been written about my education. Never has so much been written about so little. Perhaps that’s why I am so keen on the subject. I believe that Ken Clarke’s programme of reform is a turning-point in education. It will mean that parents and pupils come first, that the key subjects are studied properly, and that the status of teachers is restored.

Some have said that Ken Clarke and I are wrong to insist on simple pencil and paper tests for children in schools. Well, I’ll tell you what marks I would give to people like those. Nought out of ten for concern. Nought out of ten for interest in our children. Nought out of ten for commonsense. And, so long as there is a Conservative Government, they’ll get nought out of ten for influence in our schools.

What Labour Governments did, and what all too many Labour Councils are still doing, is unforgivable – the years of levelling down; the destruction of good schools; the harassment of good teachers; the kicking away of the ladder of opportunity by those who climbed up it themselves; the setting of the union rule book above all other text books; the neglect even of spelling. That is where the long march of the Left in education has led us. Well, we are now rooting these ideas out. We are giving parents more influence in schools. If we want them to exercise responsibility for their children, we must give them a say in the education of their children.

I will fight for my belief in a return to basics in education. The progressive theorists have had their say. And they’ve had their day.

In the last twelve months we have seen the Socialist philosophy collapsing in ruins. Who will ever forget those days of high drama in the Soviet Union last August? Or the three young men in Moscow who gave their lives for reform.

When I visited the place where they died, I was struck by the number of young people who pressed in around me. They had copied Western fashions, wore Western gear. For decades they and their parents had been taught that Socialism was the destiny of their future. That the Soviet Union would bury the West. But it wasn’t the West that the Socialist system had buried, it was the hopes and dreams of their own people.

Socialism has gone in Czechoslovakia, gone in Poland, gone in Hungary, gone even in Sweden. And here in Britain, I’ll tell you what you’ll see over the next few months. You’ll see the Red Flag dying here. It’s going. Going. Gone. Suddenly, it’s just so old fashioned, so irrelevant, so out of date.

What I owe to this country and to its people is difficult to put into words. My greatest wish now is to give back something of what I have been given.

I want to work for a Britain that is the best educated and the best governed.

Where schools and universities are the finest and accessible to all. Where inner cities don’t mean deprivation, but communities that bind and belong. And where no-one has to go in fear at night.

I should like to live in a world where opportunity is for everyone, where peace is truly universal, and where freedom is secure.

If that is what you believe in, then go back to your constituencies. Tell them what we stand for. Tell them what we care for. And ask them to choose.

October 11, 1991
Mr Major’s Speech in Aberdeen – 9 September 1991

Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech in Aberdeen, given on 9th September 1991. [Parts of the transcript were unclear, and are marked with ….]

PRIME MINISTER:

Can I say thank you for the opportunity of meeting you all here this evening. I have spent the day in Aberdeen and the area and it has been a very worthwhile day. One of the pleasures of being Prime Minister is that you are able to escape from London and I do belong to those species of politicians who do not believe that the world begins and ends in the Greater London area.

So it has been an intriguing day from the Cardon [phon] distillery, to schools, the Chamber of Commerce, the lunchtime speech to the Aberdeen Press and Journal and also to open Grampian Enterprise’s new building where they are going to produce all these splendid … and other ideas of Scottish enterprise that are going to provide so much training for us in the future.

So I have had the opportunity of getting a very clear bird’s eye view of much of what is happening up here and from my point of view it has been an immensely worthwhile occasion.

Let me just say a brief word or two about one or two of the matters that are still to come in the months … the rest of this year. And no I am not going to talk about the general election.

Let me say a word about the progress of the economy as where I think we now are. Across the United Kingdom as a whole the recession has been quite deep, it has been deeper I think it is fair to say than we anticipated at the start or indeed had anyone anticipated, it has been uneven. Contrary to the pattern in recessions that we have seen almost as far back as you can go, the deepest part of it has been in the south and the east because predominantly that was where the largest borrowing was and that therefore was where the largest impact was with the monetary policy as we sought to end it.

The way it now happens I think is for a sufficiency of months to be absolutely certain … but I think it has been happening for a sufficient number of months to be absolutely certain about it … is that we are I believe increasingly clear that we are through the worst of the recession and that we can now look forward to the regeneration of confidence in the months ahead.

There are several things I believe that makes that perfectly clear and the first of those is the direction of inflation and by inflation I do not just mean the Retail Price Index, important though that undoubtedly is, I mean the trend of underlying inflation as well. That has been dropping now for some months and it is clear we have it by the scruff of the neck and it will go on dropping in the months ahead. It is very likely that we will have a lower inflation rate than Germany at some stage between now and the end of the year and we have not had that for very many years indeed.

The second matter which I think is increasingly impacted upon the business mind if not the public mind is the effect of having joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism. In the last year, since we joined it when I was Chancellor last October – and I am bound to say it seems longer, I cannot think why – but in the year since we joined it last October we have seen interest rates in the United Kingdom come down by 4.5 percent, we have seen them rise in Germany and many other parts of Europe, and yet sterling, despite this dramatic narrowing of interest rate differentials has stayed absolutely stable around its central point of 2.95 deutschmarks.

Not many people expected that to happen but I believed that it would and thus far at least events have shown that that was the right judgment.

So we are increasingly getting to the position where we have a stable exchange rate, which is one of the key ingredients that the business sector repeatedly have said to governments that they need, they need to be clear where they are on the exchange markets, increasingly that is the case. We now have inflation coming down as well so we have two key ingredients that are critical to business confidence.

The third one is where we have had so much problem in the months that have immediately gone past, there has been a decline in consumer confidence and consequently in spending and consequently in the market for your products whether in the retail sector or in many parts of the country though that is so I know in Aberdeen for other reasons in the construction industry.

But there are signs now that consumer confidence is reviving, this morning’s figures I think tend to indicate that, but there have been other leading indicators as well. And if that is correct, and I think the balance of probability is that it is correct, we will be having another of the ingredients in place that we need to return to sustainable growth and that is the return of consumer and investor confidence.

Now if those three factors are in place – the stable exchange rate, the falling and thereafter low inflation rate and the return of consumer confidence – we are going to find ourselves very well placed indeed for an upturn in the economy in the year ahead.

Some people say will it be speedy? Well I would say to you, though it will seem to you I daresay a curious thing for me to say, I hope not too soon because what I do not want to see is the economy coming so speedily out of the recession that we have had that we create that hump and collapse that we have seen so frequently in the past, that boom and stop scenario. I do not want that, I want a gentle and sustainable, sustainable, growth out of recession in the months and the years ahead and that is what we are gearing policy to achieve.

But apart from the fact that I think that is the most stable way to move the economy out of recession, it is also the most sensible way if we look at what we actually need to achieve in the 1990s. Out there is a more competitive world day by day than we have ever known before in our history as a great trading nation. All over the world people who were tame and happy recipients of our products and expertise years ago are now our principal competitors, all the way across south-east Asia you see the most immense changes in attitude, in producing techniques, in management skills, areas where we had huge markets and now we must fight not only for those markets but against those people for other markets.

And then you see the changes there have been in Latin America and elsewhere. We are in a world where the most competitive and the most efficient have tremendous horizons and where the uncompetitive and the inefficient have no horizons whatsoever because these days if you are not efficient and you are not competitive and you do not provide what people want then you will not survive let alone thrive in the 1990s. In Europe there is a special point to be made and that is the fact that we will soon have the Single Market completely in operation, we will have an open more liberal market across Europe than we have ever seen before, it will not be perfect but it will be a good deal better than anything that has been in place. And the countries and the businesses that will scoop the pool in that huge and rich market are the efficient ones that a stable economy, sustainable investment, sustainable growth, low inflation and the right business climate in order to have the confidence to go out and seek and win those markets.

That I believe is a huge prize, it is a prize that I am not prepared to take any risks with and that is the essential reason that I say we must come out of this bitter and nasty recession at a sustainable pace to give industry and commerce the right climate to capitalise on those opportunities in the 1990s.

It is interesting, is it not, … I gave you some illustrations a moment ago in terms of what is happening in other parts of the world but we have seen politically as well the huge changes that are taking place in Eastern Europe and the great changes in terms of technology, many of the things that people will buy as their everyday consumer durables by the turn of the century, probably the majority of those things that they will buy have not yet been invented in the early 1990s. That is the pace of change and particularly technological and innovative change that we are actually seeking to live with at the moment and the environment in which we have to ….

So it is an exciting time, it is a time when the opportunities are different and a time when if we get the economic management wrong you will not be able to take advantage of those opportunities, that is why I will be cautious in bringing us, with Norman Lamont, out of the recession. But I do believe we are coming out of it in the right way and I think because of the survey released this morning, added to the earlier evidence we have seen, are the clearest opportunity that that is actually what is happening.

So 4 percent inflation by the end of the year is a target, a target that now I am confident we will meet and perhaps beat .. and that is I think a very happy and worthwhile development.

So let me just say in conclusion how pleased I have been to have the opportunity of speaking to some of you and soon to have the opportunity of meeting more of you. I am aware of the work of the Chamber of Commerce out in the area, I know how many companies are members, I know the opportunities that you will have to work with the Chamber of Commerce to exploit the export markets that I have mentioned.

I would just say to you opportunities are there if we have … and the skill and the enterprise and the courage then we must take those opportunities and build for ourselves in the 1990s a business structure and a prosperity structure for this and the next generation on a scale we previously had not imagined and had not seen. I wish you well.

September 9, 1991
Mr Major’s Speech to Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce – 9 September 1991

Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce Dinner on Monday 9th September 1991.

PRIME MINISTER:

Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introductory remarks.

It is a great pleasure to be with you this evening. I very much welcome this opportunity to meet representatives of the business community here in North East Scotland.

This Chamber is well-known as a sturdy champion of local business in Aberdeen and Grampian. Firms in this area benefit substantially from the high standard of service which the Chamber provides for its members. I am particularly impressed by the way that the Chamber has capitalised on the economic opportunities which have come to Grampian in recent years.

A Chamber of Commerce that makes the most of these opportunities is truly serving the interests of its members and the wider local community.

But industry in Grampian – even the international oil and gas industries – can only flourish in a strong domestic economy. And a strong domestic economy requires the defeat of inflation. Control of inflation has been and remains the Government’s main economic objective. We promised we would beat inflation. It is a battle we are winning and will go on winning.

Headline inflation has been virtually halved since last October. It is now down to 5.5 per cent, the lowest figure for 3 years. Moreover, the underlying rate of inflation has also fallen dramatically – down by 2 3/4 percentage points since last autumn. Make no mistake: inflation will continue to fall in the months ahead. We are now firmly on course for inflation of 4 per cent by the end of this year.

Over the last year, inflation has risen in most other EC countries. In the UK it has fallen significantly. And by the end of this year I expect our inflation rate to be below the EC average. Indeed, our inflation rate may well be lower than that of Germany.

As inflationary pressures have eased, so interest rates have come down. Not just once or twice. But 8 times since last October. Only last week, the conditions were right for a further 1/2 per cent cut. That took our base rates to 10 1/2 per cent – the lowest level for over 3 years. Even before the latest reduction is passed on these cuts will have been saving business £5 billion a year. And the typical £30,000 mortgage payer is £65 a month better off than last year.

If the Government had predicted last autumn that inflation would be halved; that sterling would remain strong against the deutschmark; and that domestic interest rates would fall from 15 per cent to 10 1/2 per cent, we might have been accused of excessive optimism. Indeed, our opponents might well have put their scepticism in stronger language. For that remarkable combination of a steady exchange rate, falling interest rates and falling inflation is just what we have achieved.

Yet the battle against inflation is being won at a time of great economic difficulty for many. The United Kingdom economy has been passing through recession. It has been painful for many individuals and many businesses. That recession is of course by no means confined to the UK – North America, France, Italy, Australia have also seen falling output. Yet, however international its coverage, that is no consolation for all those who have been hit hard here at home.

We cannot be absolutely sure whether the recovery has started because we only get the figures some time after the event. However, there are some encouraging, if still highly provisional indications, that recovery is now underway. A number of recent press articles have drawn attention to the pick-up in retail sales, the excellent recent growth in exports and to higher than expected sales of cars. And even before the latest reduction in interest rates business and consumer confidence has been steadily improving. I remain confident that we will see a recovery in the second half of this year.

The Scottish economy is of course closely integrated with that of the United Kingdom as a whole. And it would be surprising if wider trends at United Kingdom level were not observed here in Scotland. Yet the pattern is by no means the same. All the evidence suggests that the current economic downturn will be shorter and shallower in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Over recent years, the Scottish economy has achieved remarkable success. Between 1986 and 1989, Scotland had a faster rate of economic growth than Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Denmark. Final figures for 1990 are not yet available. But independent forecasters take the view that Scotland out-performed the United Kingdom economy in that year. It is likely to do so again in 1991 – convincing evidence of the strength of the Scottish economy and its resilience in times of difficulty.

There are many reasons underlying Scotland’s economic success. The calibre of its people. A unique highly-respected education system. Its independent financial sector. A long tradition of skill, innovation and enterprise. But let me focus on just two striking features of recent performance.

First, inward investment. Two years ago, the value of new projects attracted to Scotland reached an all-time high. Over the last year, Scotland has secured inward investment decisions worth some £400 million and 10,000 jobs. In a year when we were hit by the Gulf War and the slowdown in the world economy that surely speaks volumes about the attractions of Scotland to international mobile industry. I am confident that that proud record will continue in the years ahead.

Second, the resurgence of offshore oil and gas activity, centred here in the North East.

The rapid growth in North Sea activity last year set new records. Exploration and appraisal activity on the UK Continental Shelf reached its highest ever level. Spending committed to new projects was also at a new record. And so was the value of new orders placed for goods and services. Despite increasingly intense competition – particularly from Europe – UK companies’ share of that total was also a record. It rose by 50 per cent in a year to £4.78 billion.

The pace of recent developments and the continued high discovery rate means that a new peak in combined oil and gas output is now expected by the middle of this decade, with welcome implications for Grampian, Scotland, and the wider UK economy.

Last year, gas production hit a new record [of some 50 billion cubic metres]. Output is now expected to continue to grow strongly for the rest of the decade. With completion of the new gas pipeline tying the Beryl and Brae fields to St. Fergus, and the development of the large gas condensate Bruce field, gas supplies landed through St. Fergus will increase substantially within the next couple of years. The development of central and northern North Sea gas condensate fields like Bruce and East Brae signals a wholly new phase in the development of the UK’s gas resources.

Oil exploration so far this year remains at very high levels: I am told that the North Sea has now overtaken even the Gulf of Mexico as the highest area of offshore drilling activity anywhere in the world.

And oil production is expected to pick up again following completion of the outstanding safety work associated with the Cullen Report. The Piper field itself is now expected to be back on stream ahead of schedule by early next summer, with a new platform incorporating all the safety and engineering lessons learned from the Piper Alpha disaster. As other significant new oilfields like Saltire and Scott come on stream, total oil production should climb steadily over the next three to four years towards a second peak very close to the previous record set in the mid-1980s.

Until comparatively recently it was still widely assumed that Britain’s self-sufficiency from oil production in the North Sea would be lost by the early 1990s, and that production would fall away steadily thereafter.

These developments provide a clear vindication for our approach to the oil and gas industries. A flexible and attractive tax regime. Non-intervention – leaving the market to make the necessary adjustments to oil price changes. By our approach I believe we have helped ensure that the UK will remain a major oil and gas producer until well into the next century. We helped to create the conditions which have enabled Scotland’s offshore supplies industry to write one of the most remarkable technological success stories in the history of this century.

But there is of course more to Grampian than oil and gas. Long before oil was discovered in the North Sea, Grampian was justifiably noted for the quality and natural produce from its countryside. The Aberdeen Angus, the golden Glenlivet malts, the fish harvested from the dangerous waters of the North Sea. I have seen some of these products already today when I paid a most useful and enjoyable visit to the Knockando Distillery on Speyside. So interesting was it that my staff are encouraging me to sample (and I choose my words carefully) the distillery again – and again – and again.

Industries such as these provide crucial employment in rural parts of Grampian and elsewhere in the North of Scotland. We in Government recognise the importance to those areas of the continued success and prosperity of a range of industry.

Earlier today, I launched formally Grampian Enterprise Limited, the local enterprise company for the North East. I was struck by the feeling of purpose and commitment which I sensed. The calibre and enthusiasm of Ian Wood and his colleagues are impressive. The staff are clearly committed to Grampian too. I am delighted that through the Scottish Enterprise initiative, the Government have provided the opportunity – and the resources – to enable business people to give a grass-roots lead to training and economic development in Scotland in this way.

The opportunity is indeed immense. It gives business people the chance to shape the provision of economic development and training programmes to suit local needs. But it is potentially much more significant. The initiative puts business in the key position to lead the skills revolution which our economy needs. It provides an opportunity to influence the thinking and the planning – and thus the competitiveness – of the myriads of companies which make up our economy and which determine its performance.
Governments cannot do that. But we can provide the resources – the Scottish Enterprise budget for this year is £450 million – for business people to deliver the results. I know that those who have given so much of their time to get the enterprise companies off the ground can rely on their colleagues throughout industry and commerce to feed in ideas, support, and fresh perspectives. I am sure that you will play your part in making the initiative a success.

Mr. President, there is much more that could be said about the economy of Scotland and of Grampian in particular. You may well be relieved to hear I do not plan to say it.

But there is one strand which sums up the message I would leave with you tonight. It is this; Grampian and Aberdeen have certainly had a great deal going for them – perhaps even more than other parts of Scotland. But their success is not, I believe, due to that alone. It is because they have made the most of their opportunities. The efforts of individual people and individual businesses have been paramount. That is why, Mr. President, I have very much enjoyed being with you and your members this evening. It is precisely the qualities which I see around me here that I want to foster not only in Scotland, but in the rest of the United Kingdom and indeed in Europe.

I thank you, Mr. President, for your hospitality, and wish you and the members of the Chamber every success for the future.

September 9, 1991
Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 6 September 1991

Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview on board a plane from Hong Kong to London on Friday 6th September 1991.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked whether there would be a November General Election].

PRIME MINISTER:

I think there is bound to be this sort of speculation as we move into the fifth term of Parliament, but I am in no particular rush. I am confident that the economy is beginning to turn round; the early signs are there. As we have always said, we expected the recovery in the second half of the year and I think it will increasingly become apparent that that judgement is right.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked if he wanted his own mandate].

PRIME MINISTER:

I will have the verdict of the country at some stage before next June; whether it happens to be this autumn or whether it is next spring, isn’t really material. I think one has to pick the right moment for an election; there are many things to consider and I will consider them all very carefully.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked if he was being cautious].

PRIME MINISTER:

I think you would be very surprised if I wasn’t. In due course we will have an election but I’ll announce when it is when I am ready to do so.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked if Britain was leaving recession].

PRIME MINISTER:

I don’t think it is surprising that people are beginning to feel a little better about the economy. It has been a tough recession and I understand that; a number of people have been hurt by the recession and I am very well aware of that but what is now happening is I think people have perceived that interest rates have fallen from 15 percent to 10.5 percent, inflation has just about halved from 10.9 percent to 5.5 percent; I think there is now an expectation that inflation will continue to fall and I agree with that expectation, but now business itself and the consumer are beginning to sense that a recovery is now no longer very far away. I agree with that judgement and that, of course, explains the economic optimism.

It isn’t going to be a sudden bound into a great boom and now would that be good for the economy, but I think that our judgement was right. We have seen the worst of the recession behind us. I think it will become apparent that we are moving out of the recession.

September 6, 1991
PMQT – 18 July 1991

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1991. John MacGregor responded on behalf of John Major.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have been asked to reply My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is conducting bilateral discussions with President Gorbachev.

Mr. Hinchliffe : In view of the embarrassing revelations that the Secretary of State for Employment knew in June 1990 of possible embezzlement and fraud at BCCI and that the Department of Trade and Industry stated that it has not received the letters which the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he sent to it on the matter, will the Leader of the House, as a matter of urgency, set up a full and independent inquiry into the whole sorry affair?

Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment received a letter from the BCCI staff which primarily expressed concern about redundancy arrangements at the bank. He received also a copy of a covering letter which the association sent to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on these matters and, as far as I know, the right hon. Gentleman did not come back to him on them.

As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary question, I understand that the matter is being looked into at this very moment.

Sir Fergus Montgomery : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Fergus Mongomery : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a member of the Cabinet was accused publicly by his colleagues of being unwise, unprincipled and responsible for confusion, he should do the decent thing and resign? If he agrees with that principle, and if he has noticed an item on the front page of The Guardian, should not the shadow Foreign Secretary resign?

Mr. MacGregor : I say to my hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that the supplementary question was in order.

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot imagine any of my colleagues saying such a thing about any member of the Cabinet. If my hon. Friend is referring to the comments in the press this morning of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), I was interested that he said,

“Everybody knows”–

this is the statement on defence–

“it’s a policy change, but no one is admitting it.”

If the right hon. Gentleman says, “We will not get rid of nuclear weapons under any circumstances”, that really is a change. This demonstrates that the Labour party– [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. The Lord President should relate his reply to Government policy.

Mr. MacGregor : Government policy is very clear on the nuclear question, but the Opposition cannot, even now, give a simple answer to a simple question about their defence policy.

Mr. Hattersley : I look forward to receiving a simple answer to a simple question. Does the Leader of the House share the view expressed by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry on the “Today” programme this morning that Britain is no longer suffering from a depression but from a slump?

Mr. MacGregor : I share the view– [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. This takes up a lot of time.

Mr. MacGregor : I will give the right hon. Gentleman a simple answer to his question. The CBI’s director general said on the “Today” programme this morning :

“The manufacturing side of our economy is in much better international shape than it’s been for many years.”

That is a much simpler answer than the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have given on the nuclear issue for many months.

Mr. Hattersley : It may have been a simple answer to someone’s question, but not mine. Can the Leader of the House attempt to justify his evasive answer having seen, as I suspect he has, the European Community’s judgment on the British economy? It is that British investment will fall next year, while German investment will increase by 6 per cent. ; and that unemployment in Great Britain will rise to more than 3 million next year, accounting for more than half the total increase throughout the whole Community. If that is not a slump, how would the right hon. Gentleman define one?

Mr. MacGregor : We made it clear in the Budget forecast that recovery would begin in the second half and that view is shared by the CBI and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. As to the European Commission’s predictions on unemployment, I point out that it does not have a good record of making accurate forecasts. It indicated that unemployment in Germany would rise and it has not; and that employment in France would grow and it did not ; and it asserted that training skill levels for school leavers were lower in West Germany than in Greece–and I do not think that anyone else believes that. I suspect that the Commission’s unemployment forecast will turn out to be as accurate as that of the right hon. Gentleman in the 1983 general election, when he forecast that unemployment in this country would rise to 4 million–and it never did.

Mr. Hattersley : The Leader of the House does not seem to have a good record when it comes to remembering the Prime Minister’s forecasts. In the House last week, the Prime Minister revised his forecast for recovery from the second half of this year to round about Christmas. Is not the truth that now that the glitz and glamour of the G7 summit is over, we are back in the real world of Britain’s economic situation–and that real world is a catastrophe, caused by the Conservatives’ policy of the past 10 years?

Mr. MacGregor : The most important things for long-term prosperity and for jobs are to get inflation down, as we are doing and which Labour singularly failed to do, and to keep public expenditure under control and at reasonable levels, which Labour also singularly failed to do. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that at the last general election, he committed Labour to increasing public expenditure by some £34 billion. Labour is at it again and that would be a real recipe for disaster for growth in the early part of the 1990s.

Q3. Mr. Bevan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Bevan : While we welcome the impending nuclear disarmament that will emanate from the G7 summit, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent would be put at risk, and could lose all credibility, if we cancelled the fourth Trident submarine–as Labour proposes to do?

Mr. MacGregor : I share my hon. Friend’s strong welcome for the agreement on the START negotiations that was reached yesterday and I am sure that the House shares that welcome. However, my hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the sham of Labour’s defence policy. Not only is it totally confusing, but although they will keep nuclear weapons for negotiations, on the other hand they totally undermine the credibility of our deterrent. Four Trident submarines are essential to ensure that one is on station all the time.

Mr. Madden : Why are the Government trying to gloss over the background to the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Why are they refusing to hold an inquiry into the Bank of England’s role? What advice did the Treasury give to local authorities around the country? Most of all, what did the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) do with the correspondence alleging corruption and negligence inside the bank which he apparently received from the present Secretary of State for Employment?

Mr. MacGregor : There is absolutely no glossing over. Obviously, we are all concerned about what has happened to a number of small depositors and borrowers at BCCI. The important thing now is for the Bank and the liquidator to get on with the practical arrangements and to move as fast as possible. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that he will be reviewing what happened and will see what lessons can be learnt from it. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will be aware that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is meeting next week and that the Governor of the Bank of England will give evidence to it. Obviously many questions can be asked about what has happened over that period. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of trying to cover up and no question of a sham.

Q4. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 18 July 1991.

Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nicholson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the European regional funds, from which businesses in my constituency are unlikely to benefit significantly, were massively increased, the result would be a heavy cost to the British taxpayer? Does he also agree that it would be the height of irresponsibility to recommend such a policy without working out or stating honestly its cost? Is not that what we have come to expect from the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Labour party?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is referring to some of the practical issues that arise out of moving very quickly to convergence and why it is right to take the view that the Government take in relation to economic and monetary union and moving to a single currency. If one moved to convergence very quickly and that required a very big increase in regional funds very early, it would mean taking more money from taxpayers in Scotland to give to Sicily.

Q5. Mr. Salmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 18 July 1991.

Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Salmond : What information, if any, was supplied by the Bank of England to Treasury Ministers, including the present Prime Minister, on the contents of the October 1990 Price Waterhouse report indicating serious fraud in BCCI? Does the Leader of the House accept that if it can be established that Ministers or the regulatory authorities had knowledge well before June this year of serious fraud in that bank, the Government cannot continue to wash their hands of the financial disaster facing depositors and local authorities?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to the Price Waterhouse report of March 1990. He said October, but I understand that it was in March. We are probably talking about the same report. The Bank had given the Treasury explicit assurances that although previous audit reports showed evidence of poor banking standards and losses–this applies to all these reports–they provided no evidence on which it could act in respect of the widespread fraud that was subsequently uncovered in the section 41 report. The evidence of bad banking standards and losses was being tackled by injections of capital from shareholders and by substantial management changes. It was the change in management that ultimately led to the discovery of extensive fraud, which led to the section 41 investigation. That was the first time that the Bank had evidence of serious and widespread fraud on which to take action.

Mr. Knapman : Does my right hon. Friend recall the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on Tuesday and the slur and slander by the general secretary of the Labour party on the President of the United States and particularly on the President’s manner of election? Has my right hon. Friend received any indication from the Leader of the Opposition that he wishes to dissociate himself– [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. This matter is not the Government’s responsibility. [Interruption.] This is taking time. Let us move on.

Q6. Mr. Douglas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Douglas : While not being too thirled to statistics, although they are important, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom and Scotland is dramatically high and is producing great suffering? Will the Government and the right hon. Gentleman in particular stop behaving like a cross between a pit bull terrier and a Scot–a Scots terrier– [Interruption.] –the type of dog which would ravage us first and then scurry away to get the ambulance. When the ambulance man comes along, he pours on the iodine and says, “If it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working.” It is hurting, but it ain’t working because it is producing great suffering on the part of the people of Scotland and many unfulfilled opportunities.

Mr. MacGregor : Obviously we regret any increase in unemployment, because it affects families very substantially, but it is important to keep the matter in context. If one looks at the other side of the coin, one will see that there are 1 million more jobs than there were in 1979. We have more jobs in this country than most other countries as a proportion of the working population.

We are taking extensive measures to deal with unemployment, particularly the longer-term unemployed. It is significant that about half of all the unemployed find jobs within three months. It is also quite reasonable to point out that a wide variety of the measures that the main Opposition party is putting forward would increase unemployment, destroy part-time jobs, impose extra burdens on industry and therefore make the position much worse.

July 18, 1991
PMQT – 4 July 1991

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

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Beaumont-Dark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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. Beaumont-Dark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that strikes are now at a 30-year low and that, except for a few wretchedly greedy people in privatised monopolies, most people are now accepting wage restraint? Would not all that be upset by a minimum wage policy, which the trade unions and the next Labour Trade Minister have set and which would add two points to inflation and at least 600,000 to the unemployed? How can that be good for Britain?

The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The recently announced record on strikes is excellent news, the figure having fallen to a very low level indeed. It is also extremely good news, particularly for those without jobs, that wage settlements are falling to a level that the economy is more able to bear. The economy could certainly not bear a minimum wage–not least in the West Midlands, where, as the Reward Group pointed out just overnight, it would cost very many jobs right in my hon. Friend’s own backyard.

Mr. Kinnock : When the Prime Minister supported the establishment of private water monopolies, did he realise that he was agreeing to the establishment of private monopolies that would turn out to be machines for printing money for their chairmen?

The Prime Minister : The share options to which I assume the right hon. Gentleman is referring–[Hon. Members– : “No.”]. If the right hon. Gentleman is really referring to salaries, I remind him that we have discussed that matter on more than one occasion and he knows very well that I disapprove of those salary increases, but it is not the policy of this Government to act to legislate upon everything with which we disagree, as would the Labour Government. That is the way to give maximum centralist control and that is why socialism is such an outdated philosophy.

Mr. Kinnock : Since privatisation, customers’ bills have increased by an average of 30 per cent. and chairmen’s salaries have gone up by 50, 70 and even 119 per cent. Against that background, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the conduct of the private monopolies amounts to a public scandal?

The Prime Minister : I am very happy to join debate with the right hon. Gentleman on utility prices. It was, after all, the last Labour Government who put up electricity prices by 2 per cent. every six weeks. Under this Government, electricity, gas and telecommunications prices have fallen.

Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister says that he condemns the huge salary increases. He does that in words, but, in practice, he actually condones them. If he says that he does not have the power to put right that which he says is wrong, why does not he get the power?

The Prime Minister : The difference between those of us who believe in a market economy and those who do not is that we recognise that it means giving people responsibility for their actions even if they exercise it in ways of which we do not approve. The right hon. Gentleman makes it clear once again that any prospect of a Labour Government means that they would seek to control the whole of the private sector centrally. We saw what happened when he did that last time and we know with his minimum wage policy what would happen again.

Sir Thomas Arnold : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to re-emphasise the importance of compulsory competitive tendering for the provision of local services? Would not that be the best way of delivering that provision in Liverpool?

The Prime Minister : I entirely agree. I think that compulsory competitive tendering in Liverpool, Lambeth and elsewhere would be very much in the interests of the people in those areas. The difficulty with the Opposition is that they do not know whether they support competition or not. In a recent interview, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said first : “I am against privatisation.” Then, when he was asked why it was necessary in Liverpool, he said :

“Because the Liverpool people deserve a proper service.”

If it is right in Liverpool, it is right everywhere.

Q2. Mr. Patchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

Mr. Patchett : After 12 years of this Government, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports today that Britain is at the bottom of the league for growth, employment and investment. Does the Prime Minister agree that if Britain were a football team, the manager would be sacked?

The Prime Minister : Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, even the legendary Bill Shankly would be proud of a record that had us top of the European growth league through the 1980s and that is where we will be in the 1990s.

Mr. Pawsey : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent education speech yesterday? It underlines the difference between the achievements and intentions of this Government and the failures of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are very concerned about choice, diversity and standards. We have the policies to ensure that they improve.

Q3. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

Mr. Bennett : Does the Prime Minister recall that when the Labour Government introduced equal pay legislation in 1974 there were a large number of Jeremiahs in the Tory party who predicted that equal pay would decimate the catering and retail industries and cost about 1 million jobs? Will the Prime Minister confirm that that did not happen? On the basis of that evidence, and following his criticisms, why will the minimum wage produce the same problems? Might it not, like equal pay, simply produce social justice in this country?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may be unwilling to take my views on a minimum wage, but he might consider the views of many external commentators, including yet another overnight–Phillips and Drew which show that the first stage of Labour’s policy would add 1 per cent. to the rate of inflation and destroy 400,000 jobs and that the second stage would add 2.5 per cent. to the rate of inflation and destroy 1.25 million jobs. Those are not my views, they are Phillips and Drew’s. The hon. Gentleman might also ask the long list of Labour trade union leaders who also attacked the minimum wage policy.

Mr. Butcher : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the German secondary school system is still predominantly based on selection and that pupils are allocated, according to their ability, to technical schools, grammar schools or to high schools? At the heart of the system is the realschule or technical school. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in due course we, too, should have in every town in this country a state-funded technical school?

The Prime Minister : I certainly wish to see a very dramatic growth in the number of state-funded technical schools. There is no doubt–and it is most clearly illustrated by the demand from parents for places in them that the city technology colleges have been an enormous success and will be a greater success in future. It is interesting that the Opposition deride a policy for which the parents vote with their feet.

Q4. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

Mr. Michie : When will the Prime Minister wake up to the reality that, without a strong manufacturing base, there is no way in which we can compete with our competitors abroad, which means that the economic decline will continue, bringing poverty, homelessness, joblessness and hopelessness? Will he accept that he has no idea about how to stop the rot, and will he go to the country while we still have a nation and stop us being a sitting duck for overseas predators?

The Prime Minister : Everyone seeks to improve the position of manufacturing industry. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman when manufacturing was in decline–it was when the Labour Government lost control of inflation.

Q5. Mr. Squire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

Mr. Squire : Will my right hon. Friend consider tightening the law to protect those hon. Members who might otherwise be intimidated by the press? I refer to the Liverpool Echo, which has tried to force the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) to state which Labour party they are supporting in today’s by-election in Walton.

The Prime Minister : That is certainly an ingenious proposition. I have been following the by-election in Liverpool with some interest. I was also interested in the answer given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) when he was asked for whom he would vote. He replied

“I am not prepared to answer a ballot is a secret thing.”

And so it is. If the Leader of the Opposition is serious about Militant, he should start by withdrawing the Whip from the Militant members on his own Back Benches.

Mr. Loyden : The Prime Minister may be aware–he should be aware– that the problems facing Liverpool are deeply rooted in the policies that have been pursued by the Tory Government for the past 11 years. Does he agree that it is a pity that the Tory party did not pay the same attention to Liverpool that it has paid it during the past week or two when it took £62 million out of the coffers of the city of Liverpool, thus causing the problems that exist there today?

The Prime Minister : The problems of Liverpool over the past 11 years are certainly deeply rooted, but which party–perhaps I should say parties–have been in control of Liverpool for the past 11 years? Why is Liverpool such a unique shambles? It is because the Labour party, whether under Militant control or, as it now likes to claim, under moderate control, has made a complete shambles of the lives of the people who live in Liverpool.

Q6. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

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

Mr. Nicholson : Given the tragic evidence this week of instability and uncertainty in eastern Europe and the continuing power of tyrants outside Europe, which is why Royal Marines from my constituency still remain in northern Iraq, will my right hon. Friend pledge that during the current reviews the Government will do all that they can to maintain the effectiveness and the morale of our armed services, which will ensure that the Conservative party can show strength on this issue, compared to the weakness of the Opposition parties?

The Prime Minister : I am entirely happy to give my hon. Friend that copper-bottomed assurance–and that applies both to conventional forces and conventional weapons, and to nuclear weapons. That is in sharp contrast to the Labour party with its policy of placing all Britain’s nuclear capability into disarmament negotiations with the intention of eliminating it in concert with action taken by the super powers–in other words, Labour Members remain unilateral disarmers.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I wish that were true.

Mr. Ashdown : Is the Prime Minister concerned that even after a period of recovery–whenever that might come–unemployment is predicted to rise to 2.8 million, and stay there? Does he intend to do anything about that, or will he simply abandon the unemployed to pay with their jobs for his failure?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke more effectively about Labour’s defence policy than his Front Bench does.

The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) well knows our concern about unemployment. He is aware of the mitigating measures that we have introduced, and he should be aware that the greatest single destroyer of jobs is inflation. We are getting on top of inflation and bringing it down, and I am not prepared to take short-term action that would cost jobs tomorrow. Our policy is to get inflation down to ensure that there is growth and also secure, sustainable, permanent jobs tomorrow in every sector of industry.

July 4, 1991