Tag: Inflation

  • PMQT – 27 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert : Does my right hon. Friend agree that a vast expansion of the Common Market regional fund would do little or nothing to bring about a convergence of the European economies, but would merely make the poorer parts of the Community dependent on hand-outs from Brussels? Is he able to say how much such a proposal, which is supported by the Labour party, would cost the average British family?

    The Prime Minister : I am not able to give my hon. Friend a costing on that, because it would depend on the scale of the funds transferred from north to south, but I can confirm that expanding regional funds would certainly involve increased taxation in this country and in a number of other northern countries. The only credible way to bring about economic convergence is control of inflation and the right economic policies.

    Mr. Kinnock : In view of the fact that the Bundesbank decided today not to raise German interest rates, does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to cut British interest rates?

    The Prime Minister : That is an odd question from the right hon. Gentleman, when the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said only last Thursday :

    “we will not be using interest rates for controlling demand.”

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister should try to answer a very basic question–especially since every responsible organisation and person concerned with the fate of British industry and British home buyers is calling for a reduction in interest rates. Did the Prime Minister read the reports published earlier this week from Shelter and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, stating that repossessions are at a record high, that hundreds of thousands of families are in deep mortgage arrears and that, in the words of the council’s director, “Worse is yet to come”?

    The Prime Minister’s policies are hitting every class of people and every corner of the country–[ Hon. Members :– “Speech.”] Yes–on behalf of every mortgage payer in Britain. How can the Prime Minister justify continuing with policies that punish the British people for the failure of his own policy?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that, because we have succeeded in reducing inflation and have moved prudently, we have been able to cut interest rates five times, by a total of 3.5 per cent., without risking an inflationary devaluation in the exchange rate mechanism. That has meant about £50 a month off the average mortgage for mortgage holders.

    Mr. Kinnock : Unemployment is rising, firms are closing and the recovery about which we have heard so much is now going to take longer and be much slower than anything the Prime Minister has promised. How many more homes and how many more enterprises must be lost before the right hon. Gentleman stops pushing the country further into a slump?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should return to the real world and recognise the commitments that he made when he committed himself to the fact that the exchange rate mechanism was the right policy. On the one hand, the right hon. Gentleman wants to say that it is right to have exchange rate stability, but on the other he makes the inconsistent claim that he wishes to reduce interest rates whenever he finds it convenient to do so.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : When my right hon. Friend goes to speak to the women’s Conservative conference later this afternoon will he bear it in mind that its delegates are delighted with the measures that the Government have been taking to improve the lot of women? The steps that we have taken include flexible working hours, more flexible nursery arrangements and better tax arrangements. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government continue to acknowledge the great contribution that women make to this country, not least by increasing women’s representation in the honours list —

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. We do not refer to the honours list in the Chamber.

    Mrs. Gorman : Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister realise that, in recommending women in this country for honours he assures the women of Britain that the Tory party is a girl’s best friend?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the vast range of policies that we have followed in the past few years clearly shows the importance that we give to the contribution made by women to this country. We shall continue to promote such policies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Mitchell : As the Prime Minister struggles to get his deck-chair up in a busy day of deck-chair wrestling, will he think about this week’s trade figures, which show a large and increasing deficit? Can he cite any country which, when in the depths of a recession, showed an increasing balance of payments deficit?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman should know, first, the trade deficit is on an improving trend and secondly, the underlying export volumes in the quarter to May were at an all-time high–3 per cent. up on the previous quarter and double the rise in import volumes.

     

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

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

    Mr. Mans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is Conservative policies of competitive tendering, housing action trusts and the abolition of the national dock labour scheme that are coming to the aid of the city of Liverpool and clearing up the mess that successive Labour and Liberal administrations have inflicted on that city?

    The Prime Minister : Conservative legislation certainly offers Liverpool a much better deal. What has happened to Liverpool has been because it followed Labour policies for so long–often, I fear, with the assistance of the Liberal party. The effects of that can be seen by everyone in Liverpool and beyond.

     

    Q5. Mr. Morley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Morley : What hope can the Prime Minister give to constituents who work for as little as £1.70 per hour? Why is it that under the Government boardroom fat cats like the chairman of Wessex Water have had their salaries increased from £47,000 to £100,000 per year while the charges for consumers have increased by 28 per cent? Is Majorism simply extortion by the few and exploitation of the many?

    The Prime Minister : A few days ago I made perfectly clear my opinions of people who provide themselves with undesirably large increases. As for people on very low incomes, a minimum wage would leave them with no income but unemployment.

    Mr. Peter Griffiths : Has my right hon. Friend had time today to note the report in the press of a Nottinghamshire miner who earned £35,000 last year, being among the one in three in that area who earned more than £20,000 last year, much to the credit of the miners, their union and their work rate? What would be the effect on that miner’s take-home pay if the Labour party’s spending plans were put into practice?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly aware of the very high earnings of many Nottinghamshire miners, which I welcome. Much of that is the result of increased productivity, and it is well earned. It is unfortunate that those miners would face extra taxation as a result of their hard work and success if the Opposition’s tax policies were ever put into operation.

     

    Q6. Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Fatchett : Further to the Prime Minister’s reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the report in today’s issue of The Daily Telegraph that John Baker, the chief executive of National Power, has enjoyed an increase of £115,000 since 1 April, which is an 85 per cent. increase in his salary? The Prime Minister has condemned such increases. Will he use the powers in the Government’s prospectus for the sale of National Power and PowerGen, or is the right hon. Gentleman yet again all talk and no action?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should read the prospectus more carefully. It makes it perfectly clear that we have given an undertaking not to interfere in the commercial decisions of a company. It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman thinks it a light matter to break the contract into which we have entered.

     

    Q7. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is widely accepted that minimum wage legislation would destroy upwards of 1 million jobs? Will he also confirm that such minimum wage legislation would have an impact upon the weakest in society–the disabled, the unskilled and the young, precisely those sectors of society which Labour professes to champion but which it is now so cynically betraying?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think that the vast majority of people also agree with him. The latest staging post for the Opposition’s stance on this matter was set out rather hilariously in a letter this morning from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said :

    “I have not accepted that the minimum wage will cost jobs … I have simply accepted that econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact”.

    Those words would make a weasel blush.

    Mr. Wigley : Is the Prime Minister aware of the dismay in Wales last week when the Government published their Green Paper on the future structures of government? That dismay arose because there was nothing in the Green Paper about the all-Wales level of democracy, despite the fact that the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Association of Welsh Districts and every political party in Wales except the Conservatives support that, and that three of the six Welsh Conservative Members also support such a policy. Will the Prime Minister look at this again to try to get some all- Wales democracy?

    The Prime Minister : I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, our policy has not been to go in the direction that he proposes. I shall examine and discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, but it is unlikely that we shall change our present posture.

     

    Q8. Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Bottomley : Will my right hon. Friend turn his mind to the fate of 12-year-old Maria and 10-year-old Anna Gordievsky? Will he continue to take every opportunity to make plain to the President of the USSR, to visiting Russian Members of Parliament and to the world’s press that one of the ways in which we shall judge the new USSR is whether the KGB will let those two young children come to Britain to join their father?

    The Prime Minister : I assure my hon. Friend that I have personally taken this matter up with President Gorbachev in the past. I shall do so again when next we meet, and the matter is frequently raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with his counterpart and at official level with the Soviet authorities.

    Mr. McMaster : Is the Prime Minister aware that in a recent answer to a parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibilities for industry, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), revealed that 76 per cent. of manufacturing jobs in the Paisley postcode area had been lost between 1979 and 1989? He will be aware that things have become far worse since. Does he agree that that is an unacceptable level of economic and social disaster, or does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is a price well worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : All levels of unemployment are a matter for distress and regret. The only way to ensure that we create jobs that are permanent and are sustained is to have the right economic policies to get inflation down, and to keep it down. There is no other way of ensuring job security for the future. It may sometimes be difficult and uncomfortable, but it is the right policy, and it is the policy to which we shall stick.

     

    Q9. Mr. Cash : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Cash : Does my right hon. Friend accept that he will go to the summit tomorrow with the good wishes and goodwill of all Conservative Members? Given the clearly expressed views of the House yesterday and his own views against the federal super-state, does he agree that the Opposition abdicated their national duty by dividing the House on the matter yesterday?

    The Prime Minister : I am always grateful to have my hon. Friend’s support on these matters. I agree about the irrelevance and irresponsibility of the position that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen took yesterday. It was adequately described in many national newspapers this morning.

  • PMQT – 18 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

    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. Pike : Can the Prime Minister define the term “Majorism”? Does it mean reducing inflation from the level that the Government have created? Does it mean increasing unemployment to more than 2.5 million? Or does it mean failing to invest in our manufacturing industry? What is Majorism?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to read the speeches that I made at Scarborough, Southport, Swansea and elsewhere. It involves extending choice and opportunity more widely, bringing quality to our public services, a strong economy with low or nil inflation, letting people spend more of their own money in their own way, maintaining firm defences and giving choice back to people, which is where it should be.

    Sir Giles Shaw : Does my right hon. Friend agree that negotiating vigorously and directly with our European partners is the best way to arrive at a common approach to those political and economic issues that are in the best interests of Britain? Does he further agree that such an approach should be based on what is practical, realistic and evolutionary rather than engaging in rhetoric or working on a blueprint for federalism?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A European super-state would not be acceptable to me or to the House–and in my judgment it would not be acceptable to the country.

    Mr. Kinnock : Would the Prime Minister say that the large fall in manufacturing output over the past 12 months was evidence that his policies are working?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the best possible future for manufacturing industry is to ensure that the economy has the lowest possible inflation and the prospect of growth again. That is where the prospects for manufacturing industry come from ; without that secure base, manufacturing industry would face problems for a long time.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister not yet realise that by keeping on with his high interest rate policies he is making his recession deeper and longer, and causing a permanent loss of capacity in British industry? What sort of preparation does he think that that affords for the completion of the single market next year?

    The Prime Minister : The single market would not have come about but for the efforts of this Government, and there has not been a great deal of support from the Opposition. There are no good prospects for any part of the economy without low inflation. We are now delivering low inflation in a way that the right hon. Gentleman’s policies never could.

    Mr. Kinnock : At what point, then, will unemployment have increased enough, investment have fallen enough, enough companies have been closed and manufacturing output have fallen low enough to justify the Government cutting interest rates, which are the cause of the loss of capacity that threatens British industry?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman’s prescription is wrong. He will recall that on many occasions in recent months Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have suggested that 1 per cent. off interest rates would make a material difference. We have had 3.5 per cent. off interest rates in the past few months–and inflation has moved towards half what it was some months ago–and the figures are still coming down.

    Mr. Hayes : As this Government are the first in history to spend more on health than on defence, does not my right hon. Friend find it deplorable that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in his keynote speech to the Confederation of Health Service Employees, personally attacked–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he must ask a question that falls within the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

    Mr. Hayes : Should not the country know that the national health service trust in Bradford means an additional £1 million in health care for patients, and that at Guy’s hospital the trust means more patients treated? The minimum wage that the Labour party offers would starve the health service of £500 million.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend’s strictures are all correct. There is an increasing wealth of good news about the activities of national health service trusts, and the second wave of trusts in due course will bring even more good news and better service for the patients in the national health service, which is our intention.

     

    Q2. Mr. Maclennan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Maclennan : Does the Prime Minister agree with the view of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), propounded in Chicago yesterday, that a single European currency would take the heart out of the purpose of this Parliament?

    The Prime Minister : If this Parliament believed that, it would not vote for it and it would not happen.

     

    Q3. Mr. Quentin Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Davies : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the example of Liverpool provides in microcosm the most salutary lesson of the consequences of a Labour Government?

    The Prime Minister : I would most certainly agree. It is an illustration of Labour government in practice which I believe the country will observe and not like.

    Sir Patrick Duffy : Is the Prime Minister aware that whatever pillars may be involved in the construction of the European temple, a defence pillar is not yet considered practical and workable within western alliance parliamentary circles and nor is it considered desirable in eastern Europe? Does he agree that nothing which might cut across NATO’s rule or duplicate its military structure is desirable?

    The Prime Minister : First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his well-deserved honour in the Queen’s birthday honours list. I entirely agree that our defence interests are such that they must be based on NATO in the future, as they have been in the past. NATO has served us outstandingly well over the past 40 years and it will, I trust, serve us equally well in the future.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Marshall : In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the consequences of the abolition of aaaaaaaqqqqqqathe dock labour scheme, which will lead to much greater activity in scheme ports such as Liverpool, giving them the chance to prosper again ? Is it not significant that those who were loudest in their objections to the abolition of the scheme are now silent in its defence ?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly consider the consequences of the abolition of the dock labour scheme, and I believe that they are very attractive. The House will recall that the abolition of that scheme was passed through the House in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party. Yet in Liverpool productivity has improved by at least 20 per cent. since the abolition of the scheme and will improve similarly elsewhere in the country. What we have seen in Liverpool, not only in the dock labour scheme but elsewhere, is the clearest possible illustration that the Labour party is locked in the past and has no place in the future.

    Mr. Anderson : What is the Prime Minister’s reply to those who argue that the Government’s current troubles are due to indecisiveness at the very top ?

    The Prime Minister : I can be wholly decisive and tell them that they are wrong.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert B. Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will resist every attempt, whether from Europe or from the Labour party, to pressurise us to have a minimum wage ? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in addition to the extra unemployment that it would create, it would particularly hit those who find it difficult to find jobs now, such as the disabled, women and ethnic minorities–a lesson which is understood by Mr. Eric Hammond, even if it is not understood by the leader of the Labour party.

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend a categoric assurance on that. The Labour party may continue with its policy of a minimum wage, but it has few friends left for it. As Mr. Hammond said just the other day :

    “It would damage workers desperately and unless Labour can win the votes of such people, they will not win and will not deserve to.” He is right on both counts. They will not win and they certainly do not deserve to.

     

    Q6. Miss Lestor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Miss Lestor : Bearing in mind the previous Prime Minister’s commitment to give the highest priority to children’s rights, as agreed at the summit last year, the Government’s failure as yet to ratify the convention on the rights of the child and the almost daily reporting of the violation of children’s rights in some form or another in Britain, will the right hon. Gentleman now give a pledge to implement the Gulbenkian recommendations to appoint a commissioner for children as the Labour party has pledged?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady should recognise that the Children Act 1989 is the best Act for the future of children that this Parliament has ever passed.

    Mr. Tim Smith : In the light of a possible rail dispute, will my right hon. Friend have another look at employment legislation and, in particular, the possible introduction of measures designed to protect the consumer and the general public against strikes called overnight and at very short notice?

    The Prime Minister : I shall be happy to do so.

     

    Q7. Mr. Wallace : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Wallace : Has the Prime Minister yet had time to consider the letter sent to him last week by the chief executive of the Scottish Salmon Growers Association describing the present plight of the industry due to the dumping on the European market of Norwegian salmon? In the past, the European Community has been slow to deal with these matters. As the future of many businesses are at stake, what steps do the Government intend to take to inject some urgency into dealing with the crisis?

    The Prime Minister : I understand the problem of the Scottish salmon industry, which we are examining at the moment in the light of the letter that we have received. I propose to discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and then I will reply fully.

    Sir Robert Rhodes James : My right hon. Friend commanded great support and confidence for his policy for safe havens for the Kurds. Is he aware that some of us are becoming deeply concerned about the possibility of the abandonment of the Kurds? Would not it be a good idea if British politicians speaking to American audiences reminded them of their responsibilities rather than talking drivel about Europe?

    The Prime Minister : First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James) on his well-deserved honour bestowed in the Queen’s birthday honours list. As my hon. Friend will know, our purpose in creating safe havens in northern Iraq was to provide immediate humanitarian relief in conditions of safety, and to create the confidence for the Kurds to return safely to their homes. I believe that had we not done so, many thousands and perhaps many hundreds of thousands of Kurds would have died. Happily, many of them have now returned safely home and the safe havens continue in being, for the purpose for which they were originally set up.

     

    Q8. Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Alton : In the absence of refuse collection services in some parts of Liverpool for the past three months, does the Prime Minister agree that it is scandalous that Liverpool residents have been sent bills for £70.99 for poll tax unpaid by other people in that city? Does he agree that that offends against every principle of natural justice and that, in connection with the new local tax, there ought to be a provision in law to ensure a right to redress in such circumstances for citizens hit in that way?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman points out yet another example of the sheer inefficiency of the present Liverpool council, and the way in which the people of Liverpool have been extremely badly treated as a result of its activities. Residents’ bills in Liverpool are undoubtedly a good deal higher than they need to be because, as the Labour leader in Liverpool has admitted, it costs four times as much to pick up litter in Liverpool as it does elsewhere. The conclusion for the people of Liverpool must be obvious–no Labour Members and no Labour council.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at 1991 Welsh Conservative Party Conference – 14 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1991 Welsh Conservative Party Conference in Swansea on Friday 14th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is my first opportunity to speak to the Welsh Conference as Prime Minister. I look forward with pleasure to many more. The Conservative Party is giving a clear lead in Wales, setting the agenda for all the other parties. Much of the credit for that goes to David Hunt and his team. They are doing a superb job. I am lucky to have them. And so is Wales.

    Their work and their commitment makes me even more determined to lead this Party forward in Wales. Not only to win back Monmouth, Brecon and Radnor and Ynys Mon. But to take other seats as well. And, with your help, when the day comes we will achieve it.

    In politics – as in life – it is easy to miss the turning-points. Only afterwards are we able to say: this was when it was clear the struggle was being won. This was when determination, grit and patience began to yield their rewards.

    I believe, right now, that we are at one of those turning-points. For we have seen, over the past week, an unmistakeable advance in this country’s toughest economic battle – against inflation. We learnt in the 1980s how easily it can counter-attack against economic prosperity. And we know how painful it can be to force it back again.

    Over eighteen months ago as Chancellor my first action was to set a course against inflation. So I take particular pleasure in the signs of success we are now seeing. It is not merely that the all-important inflation headline has fallen sharply this week – and is now down over five percentage points since last autumn’s peak. Today’s figure is an encouraging 5.8 per cent.

    But more important is what this week’s figures say for the future. New realism in pay bargaining, which has brought the average increase down sharply this spring. And a new flexibility and variety in settlements. At the same time we have seen long-awaited evidence of a slowdown in price increases charged at the factory gate.

    The message of this week’s figures is of real success. On any sensible measure, underlying inflation is coming down. We are coming into line with the best of Europe. We are learning how to compete, and to win. And we can be more confident still that our forecast for the end of this year – an inflation rate of only 4 per cent – will be met. And it will fall further next year. It has been a hard battle against inflation, fought during a world recession. But the news this week shows that we are succeeding.

    Six months ago, three urgent tasks faced us:

    – to prepare for a possible Gulf War and to steer Britain through whatever crisis arose;

    – to sort out what seemed then to be the insoluble problems of local government finance, and;

    – to reverse rising inflation and interest rates and set the economy back on the road to recovery.

    GULF WAR

    It did come to war in the Gulf despite all our efforts. In that war our Armed Forces, including many young men and women from Wales, performed superbly. They were well armed, well trained and well supported. We can be proud of what they did – and how they did it.

    But now there are some who argue for concessions to be made to Iraq. I am not among them. So long as Saddam Hussein stays in power, we will maintain our firm line. We will veto any UN resolution to drop sanctions on Iraq. In the last six months we have driven Saddam out of Kuwait. His weapons of mass destruction are being destroyed. Of course he will lie and cheat – he is doing. But we will dog his footsteps. By whatever means it takes we will not allow Iraq to rebuild its nuclear, biological and chemical arsenal. So there should be no doubt. Iraq cannot return to the international community of nations white Saddam Hussein remains in control.

    At the war’s end, when we saw the tragedy of the Kurds unfolding, it was Britain who took the initiative to help them. Again, some derided our efforts to bring help to the Kurds. But we continued to press our “safe havens” proposal. And first the European, then the whole international community accepted our ideas. The ‘safe havens’ were established and a human tragedy of enormous proportions was avoided. We can be proud that it was Britain that took the lead in bringing support to the Kurds.

    COUNCIL TAX

    Meanwhile, at home we were tackling a second acute problem that faced us last November. To cut through the divisive problems of local government finance.

    Norman Lamont’s reforming Budget dramatically eased the burden of payment on local taxpayers. It made a £140 cut in headline charges. And gave extra help where it was most needed.

    Then, in April, we published detailed proposals for a new Council Tax. It avoids the disaster of a return to the rates against which this Party rightly campaigned for so long. We are now converting our plans into legislation for the very next Session of Parliament, while Labour are still floundering, trying to fathom out just how their unrealistic rates policy will work.

    COMING OUT OF RECESSION

    The third great task we faced last November was to lead Britain out of the world recession. That recession is not unique to this country. It has hit economies as strong as the United States and as far apart as Canada and Australia. But as we come out of recession, we need to look to the future. We need a stable framework for the 1990s that will keep inflation down so that the problems of the last two years will never occur again.

    That is why last autumn we took Britain into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Since then we have had five cuts in interest rates in just seven months. We have lowered interest rates by 3 per cent from their peak last autumn.

    A STRONGER ECONOMY IN WALES

    We are now reaping the rewards that flow from co-operation in Europe. No-one in Wales should need convincing of that. Our central role in Europe has been the prime reason for the massive flow of foreign investment into Wales over the last 12 years. In that time we have set out a new course for Wales, reversed its decline, and opened new prospects for the future.

    In doing so, it has not been the State on which we have relied. It is the choices and ambitions of millions of men and women that lead our country forward. The Conservative Party stands for variety and for independent action. In that it is akin to the natural instincts of the Welsh. The cultural, religious and practical inheritance of Wales bring a special quality to the character of the United Kingdom. We have done much to nurture the Welsh language and sustain Welsh traditions. We have swept away attitudes that patronised Wales, and brought new life to the Welsh economy. Where once it was dependent on old and declining industries, it now has new industries, new confidence, and jobs with a long-term future. It offers wider opportunities to its young people than ever before.

    In Wales we have also seen a revolution in investment. Companies from around the world have been attracted here. Bosch from Germany, Delanair from France, Matsushita, Toyota and Sony from Japan among many others. I tell you this. None of those companies would have come here if we had stood outside the European Community, as Neil Kinnock himself demanded we should, year after year until he became Leader of his Party.

    This investment drive continues. Take just the last few weeks. At Bridgend Sony, backed by Government support, creating some 1,400 jobs in television and computer display. And in the same period the 50th and 51st German-backed companies investing in Wales. Nine important new job announcements were made in Wales in May – with more to come in the pipeline. In the last financial year alone nearly 70 investment projects from overseas have been announced in Wales, totalling almost £300 million and creating or safeguarding over 8,500 jobs.

    I know that the recession has pressed hard on businesses – large and small – in Wales. But I also know that Wales is now in a stronger position than ever before to confront it. It is sought out as an investment base more today than at any time in history. This Government can be proud of that.

    Government support for Wales goes much further than promoting inward investment. Remember the unnecessary delay and obstruction over the planned Cardiff Bay barrage? How typical it was of many in the Welsh Labour Party to complain about job losses in Wales and then hold up a project to create 25,000 jobs. The very day after their members had filibustered for hours in the House of Commons to block new opportunities for 25,000 people, Labour had the sheer effrontery to launch a bogus policy document called ‘Opportunity Britain’.

    But we were not prepared to let Wales be filibustered. So we stepped in and gave full backing to the Cardiff Bay project. We will now make sure, through our own Government Bill, that the Cardiff Barrage and the thousands of jobs it will create will go ahead. And so will the housing for people on low incomes, many elderly and disabled, that go with this scheme.

    When we look at the progress made since 1979 in Wales as elsewhere, we see a picture of a nation transformed. There are three reasons for this.

    The determination and skills of a whole generation of people.

    The leadership in Wales that Peter Walker and David Hunt have given. That has been outstanding. They have fought to open up new opportunities for Welsh business and families. As a result more people than ever before now have homes, savings, shares, pensions. They have a stake in the present and the future. Many of them didn’t dream that was possible in the 1970s. Now it’s an everyday reality.

    EUROPE

    But the third reason for Wales’ revival has been our membership of the European Community.

    I have said before that I want to see Britain at the heart of Europe. A Europe which has seen, over the past two years, historic changes. A Europe in which the barriers of half a century have broken down. A new and wider Europe of free nations.

    Throughout the twentieth century, Europe has inflicted its worst wounds on itself. Now we must ensure that the years of division and hostility are finally put behind us.

    To secure our future, we need not abandon our past. Or accept the imposition of uniformity on the nation states of Europe. But we must not – cannot – turn our backs on the construction of the new Europe. That is where our history points; and our interest lies.

    There have been times, in our island story, when we have turned aside from Europe. But we have always been drawn back to Europe. There are still those, today, who argue that Britain should step off our chosen path. They seem to believe that Harold Macmillan was wrong to make our first application to join the European Community. That Ted Heath’s government was wrong to sign the Treaty of Rome. That the British people were wrong to vote overwhelmingly for Britain in Europe. And that Margaret Thatcher’s government was wrong to sign the Single European Act. I do not share those views. Sulking on the fringe of talks about the destiny of Europe cannot be the right role for Britain. Europe is not a battle between “them” and “us”. It is our continent, too.

    Of course, there are frustrations in membership of the European Community. Things on which one member will disagree with another. Things we fail to get right. But the opportunities dwarf the disappointments. We have gained much; we can hope to gain more from membership of a thriving Europe.

    There are people, of course, who readily admit we need a place in Europe, but suggest we might leave the Community for EFTA. What an irony, when so many EFTA countries are preparing themselves for membership of the Community. Indeed, this very morning Sweden announced its application to join. They want to be at Europe’s top table – where we already enjoy our rightful place. What a folly it would be to leave a party in full swing, to join one whose other guests are departing.

    In years to come, the European Community will have far more members than it has today. It must be in our interest to be an architect of that wider Europe.

    Our presence in the Community has helped to shape its development so far. Britain’s free market principles have been a powerful force for good. The single market, free of national barriers, will be the clearest expression of our contribution in Europe.

    And these same principles govern our approach to the Community’s long term objective. An objective formally approved by our Conservative Government in 1985, in the preamble to the Single European Act: the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union in Europe.

    For we bring another distinctive contribution to the European debate: a habit of asking how ideas will work in practice. A habit of subjecting them to hard-headed tests of their effect on our freedom and prosperity. That is the contribution we are making, yet again, to the current – critical – negotiations on the future of the Community. There are inevitably some faint hearts who think the outcome of these negotiations is bound to be bad for this country. I am not among them. And for good reason. We are negotiating vigorously. Positively. Clear in our aims, and confident of our position.

    Let me make one thing quite clear. There can be no change in the Treaty of Rome taking us towards economic and monetary union unless all members – Britain included – agree. We could say no. If we cannot find common ground, we may have to say no. And if necessary we will. But no-one should imagine that our European partners would simply abandon their ideas. That Europe would remain fixed in aspic. Or that we could insulate ourselves from the effect of what the rest of the Community decided to do.

    I do not intend to let Britain be sidelined. The potential damage to our trade, to the City of London and to our future prospects would be immense. Moreover, the rest of Europe does not want to sideline us. We all want to find common ground. There has been much talk recently of offers and compromises. But we are not interested in a fudge – in the kind of waffle we have heard from Neil Kinnock on Europe. So let me make the Government’s position clear.

    I will not agree to a treaty on economic and monetary union unless it is practical and workable. It would not be in our interests, or in the interests of our partners, to endorse economic nonsense.

    I will not put to the House of Commons a treaty unless I believe it conforms with our free market principles, and unless I believe it is in the interests of Britain to sign.

    I support the idea of a common currency, which all Europeans could use if they wish. But I am wholly opposed to the imposition of a single currency.

    I am not alone in Europe in my appreciation of how economically damaging it would be to put widely divergent economies into the straitjacket of a single currency. Act in haste; repent not at leisure, but in failure. I believe the whole European Community will come to see the need for caution.

    But I do not rely solely on this belief. I will promise you one thing more. We may, by the end of this year, have before us a treaty. A treaty that could, amongst other things, allow Europe to develop a single currency at some time in the future. If so, such a treaty would have to contain the following clear provision. The British Government and the British Parliament would only move to a single currency if they took a further, separate and explicit decision to do so. Not just when to do so. But whether to do so at all.

    That is a question that would not arise in this parliament. It might not even arise in the next parliament. But if or when it arose, it would be for Parliament to decide. Parliament will not be committed in advance. In no circumstances will I agree a treaty which does not contain that safeguard. Of course, that safeguard is not all we require. I have spelt out today a number of other important considerations. In long and complex negotiations, many issues arise.

    I believe the interests of this country lie in negotiating toughly and forcefully. Europe’s aim must be to achieve a treaty on which all can agree. This may not prove possible. But for my part, I believe the chances of successful negotiation are greater if it is clear where we stand.

    So, as you would expect of us, this Government will do what is right for the future of Britain. And I know that this Government and only this Government is capable of completing these negotiations and building the new Europe in the way that our country needs. So we intend to lead this country through to the conclusion of these talks later this year. That is my position. That is the Government’s position. That is the Conservative Party’s position. That is where we stand.

    LABOUR’S KEBABBLE

    Mr Chairman, I have today set out our position on Europe and set it out clearly. Just compare that with the sheer babble we heard from Mr Kinnock earlier this week when he was asked to explain where Labour stood. He claimed that there was “real understanding” of his ideas among European Socialists. Frankly, if they understand that, they’ll understand anything.

    Of course, Mr Kinnock never likes being asked to explain what Labour’s policies are. He calls it being “kebabbed”. Do you remember? When he refused to go on with an interview because he didn’t like the questions. Mr Kinnock was kebabbed alright on Europe this week. And his Euro-kebabble can’t hide the absence of a policy. He should be under no illusions. Over the next few months we’re going to put the search-light on Labour and expose Kinnock’s kebabble, not only on Europe but on every other issue as well.

    SOCIALISM – THE ROAD TO NOWHERE

    For there is only one thing that could stop the progress Britain has made over the last 12 years. A Labour Government. And that would do worse than stop progress. It would reverse it.

    Just remember. Year after year through the 1980s, Labour opposed all our advances for the people of Britain. They were against lower taxation. Against home ownership. Against denationalisation and better public services. Opposed to the right to buy shares in privatised companies. Against rights for parents in schools. Against help for savings and personal pensions. Against the hope and the independence that millions of people yearned for under the bankrupt Labour Governments of the ‘70s.

    Throughout the last 12 years Labour have fought and fought and fought again, against a better future for the people of this country.

    Labour have one constant criticism of us. Whatever the issue, whatever the problem, whatever the Department, they say we don’t spend enough of your money. It might have been Wilfred Pickles’ approach to politics. Do you remember? “Give ‘em the money, Mabel”. You name it; spend more on it. That’s Labour’s approach.

    But promises have to be paid for. And people are rightly afraid that under Labour their spending commitments would mean bigger tax bills. Labour don’t have the honesty to admit that. Instead they send John Smith out into the Boardrooms of the City to say that all those spending plans can be discounted. They promise the public they’ll spend. They promise the City they won’t. That’s what Labour call Public Relations. It’s what most people call public deceit.

    It’s the same on economic management overall. Labour seem to think it is possible to run the economy by giving everyone everything they want whenever they ask for it. Pay rises. Interest rate cuts. Spending increases. They will give you whatever you want. You name it. You can have it. All at the same time. As a result Labour have no credible policy on the economy at all. None on inflation. None on unemployment. None on investment. None on growth.

    But Labour’s policies do mean something. They mean a pay explosion, a huge increase in public spending, a surge in taxes, an increase in borrowing, a loss of confidence in our currency. Glad, confident morning would be followed by growing misery, devaluation, rising interest and mortgage rates for all. ‘Vote now, pay later’ is the essence of Labour’s plans.

    And there is one other basic truth about Labour Government which has not changed. Labour Government would be trade union government. The two are indivisible.

    Just consider some of Labour’s so-called new policies. The green light to flying pickets. Secondary action in industrial disputes. New life for the closed shop. A minimum wage that would destroy up to 2 million jobs. Labour say they have changed. But who is calling the shots when it comes to Labour policy?

    Who wants to scrap competitive tendering and waste money on direct labour in Councils and hospitals more than Rodney Bickerstaffe and the National Executive of NUPE?

    Who wants to bring in a National Minimum Wage more than Ron Todd and the National Executive of the TGWU?

    Who wants a National Economic Assessment, in which trade unions would parcel out the nation’s resources, more than John Edmonds and the General Council of the TUC?

    So whose policies are they really?

    Behind the Shadow Cabinet loom bigger shadows still – the big brothers at the TUC. In a Labour Britain they would be eased back into Downing Street faster and even more conspicuously than Neil Kinnock’s wardrobe.

    What does Labour’s National Economic Assessment mean? I’ll tell you. It means a glitzy gloss on meddling by trade union bosses. It means the elected Government surrendering its responsibility to unelected union bosses. Of this you can be sure. Just so long as the trade unions go on paying for the Labour Party, a Labour Government would go on paying off the unions.

    Mr Chairman, our duty in this Conservative Party is to stop there ever being a Socialist Government. Not just this year. Not just next year. Not just in 5 years’ time. But for good. For the hard-learned lesson of the twentieth century is this. Freedom, free enterprise, personal independence and wider ownership are the roots to richer, more inventive, more varied societies. Socialism is the road to nowhere. And it is on the road to nowhere that we will ensure the Labour Party stays.

    THE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH

    Our approach is far different from Labour’s. People say to me: ‘You cannot cut tax and improve public services’. But we have. We have. We have shown over the last twelve years how wrong these people are. Cutting income tax by record amounts, but spending far more than any Government before on improvements in health. Cutting back taxation on companies, but spending more per pupil on education than any Government before. Sweeping away the last Labour Government’s taxes on jobs, but committing billions of pounds to new roads, railways and hospitals.

    We will continue that work in the 1990s. And as we do I want us to concentrate, not simply, as Labour do, on what we spend, but on what we deliver for the money that we provide. That is why we are developing right across Government our Citizens’ Charter programme. The Charter initiative will bring new pride to those who work in public services, and still higher quality for those who use them.

    The 1980s were a decade of Government achievement. But we can’t stand still now. The world has moved on and so must we. So we are developing new policies. And improving familiar ones.

    Things will be different in the 1990s as we build on the bedrock of the last decade. It will be an era in which we develop further the wider competition, the choice, and the personal opportunities we have brought in in the 1980s. But it will also be an era in which we extend a helping hand to those still not aware of, or still not able, to take the opportunities that Conservative policies bring. A helping hand to help people up. That is our way.

    Our distinctive Toryism is the polar opposite of Socialism. It rejects their policies based on envy. It rejects their attitudes which foment class division. For our belief – our Tory belief – grows from the commonsense instincts of the British. From their fairmindedness, their sense of what is right and their sense of obligations to other people. It builds on the instinctive friendliness of our people. It seeks to unite, and not to divide. I want no barriers in my Party. And no barriers in our country either.

    I want our Tory approach to strike a common chord with all generations – a Toryism based on the liberal free market but sensitive to individual needs. A Toryism that stands for a stable way of life rooted in decency. For the breaking open of closed doors in our society, whatever or wherever they may be. For a culture of generosity, public and private; respect for the contributions and opinions of others; and pride in our great national institutions. For making it easier for everyone to build up something to call their own and to pass it on to their children and those after them. For all those values that, as I believe, go to create a nation that is sure in its aims and at ease with itself. We want a Toryism that encourages and does not threaten. That is as relevant in the high rise housing estate as by the village pond.

    I want to build a nation that can put hesitation and self-doubt aside. A nation that will act confidently in the world. That will accept its obligations and defend its rights. I stand for a strong, independent Britain playing a positive part in building a better and wider Europe. And playing its part, too, as a cornerstone of NATO in the defence of peace and security.

    Only a Conservative Government can build and sustain such a nation. And together we must fight to ensure that it is a Conservative Government that leads our country through the 1990s and beyond.

  • PMQT – 13 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

    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. Amess : Does my right hon. Friend agree with many of my constituents in Basildon that although the Labour party talked about European reform when it was in power, it achieved nothing? Will my right hon. Friend continue to negotiate in the interests of this country within the European Community, as we have done so successfully in the past?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The budget rebate negotiated by the present Government was very welcome. Nothing whatever in terms of budget rebates was negotiated by the predecessor Government. I believe strongly that it is in our national interest to negotiate within Europe and to reach a conclusion that will enable the whole Community to go forward together. That clearly is the best prize for us and for the Community, and it is what we will seek to achieve.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is not it now clear that rising unemployment and deep recession provide the most accurate definition of Majorism?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am as concerned about getting unemployment down as anyone else in the House. The way in which to get unemployment down is to ensure that we get on top of inflation, as we are, and that wage demands and settlements begin to come down, as they are, so that the economy can yet again begin to grow. In the period of Conservative Government, there has been a great increase in the number of people in work and increasingly, as inflation falls, that will return to being the case.

    Mr. Kinnock : Today’s figures are the worst May unemployment figures on record and they are the direct result of the Prime Minister’s policies. Faced with that, is he still willing to say to the 2.25 million people who are now without jobs that their unemployment is a price worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should stop using the unemployed as political pawns– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : He does so not only in the way in which he conducts his politics, but in the way in which he frames his policies. He knows that Labour’s job tax would cost more jobs, he knows that the social action programme that Labour supports would cost more jobs, he knows that Labour’s strikers’ charter would cost more jobs and he knows that Labour’s minimum wage would cost more jobs. He is the last person in the House to lecture about unemployment.

    Mr. Kinnock : In the six months since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, unemployment– [Interruption.] I know that the Government do not want to hear about unemployment, but in the six months since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, unemployment in the United Kingdom has gone up by half a million. Is it not obvious that that is the true price of Majorism? It is a price not worth paying.

    The Prime Minister : In the six months since I became Prime Minister, the inflation rate has fallen from 10.9 to 6.4 per cent., interest rates have fallen from 15 to 11.5 per cent. and, as the right hon. Gentleman should know, unemployment in his constituency is 38 per cent. lower than it was at the last election.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Maureen Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mrs. Hicks : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under his leadership, the London economic summit will be an excellent opportunity to give impetus to the political and economic reforms of the Soviet Union?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with that proposition. Yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss the reforms in the Soviet Union with the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and an extremely useful and worthwhile discussion it was. He brought with him a message from President Gorbachev reaffirming his commitment to political and economic reform. I am pleased to be able to say that, after consulting the leaders of the other countries in the Group of Seven, I today invited President Gorbachev to London for discussions with the Group of Seven immediately following the London summit. I also invited him to stay on at the end of the London summit for bilateral discussions. I regret– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a very important matter.

    The Prime Minister : Most people would have thought it important, but apparently not Opposition Members.

    I propose to take the opportunity of discussing with President Gorbachev when he is here, all matters, including those of bilateral interest and the changes in the Soviet Union.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister recall telling us on Tuesday that he would speak his mind in future? Will he speak his mind today and tell us plainly, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury says that the Prime Minister is opposed– [Interruption.] When the right hon. Member for Cirencester– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. It was an understandable mistake.

    Mr. Ashdown : When the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) says that the Prime Minister is opposed not only to the imposition of a single European currency, but to the principle of a single European currency, is he correct?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) can speak for himself ; I have spoken for myself repeatedly on the subject. I have made it crystal clear to the House on a number of occasions that there is no question whatsoever of the imposition of a single currency on the House without the agreement of the House. That is, and remains, the position.

    Mr. Charles Wardle : As we move towards closer European co- operation, does my right hon. Friend agree that we all need to improve our skills in languages, perhaps even in double Dutch, so that we can translate the gibberish spoken on Europe by the Leader of the Opposition?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I have not heard any double Dutch–let us deal with the first part of the question.

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree that it would be advisable to improve skills in languages, which is something that I very much hope will happen among our young people. As to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, even if they were translated, I am not sure that they would be worth reading.

     

    Q3. Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Ross : Since the other major parties seem to agree that the United Kingdom ought to have a single currency and that there should be a federal Europe, does the Prime Minister agree that the Government have a responsibility to inform the citizens of this country of the consequences that would flow from that? Will the Government fulfil that responsibility and ensure that those issues form a major part of their manifesto–and of any referendum that might have to follow?

    The Prime Minister : I have spoken precisely about the impact of a single currency on this country on a number of occasions–not least when I set out our own plans for the hard ecu some months ago.

    Mr. David Martin : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, on his statement yesterday guaranteeing the rights of parents to see their children’s schools’ examination results? Does not that extend choice–which is at the heart of the Government’s reforms, but which is still hotly opposed by Labour?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly welcome that announcement, for parents have a right to know that information. In future, they will know it.

     

    Q4. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. McAllion : Since the Audit Commission reported this week that it costs the public purse £15 a time to collect an average amount of just £6 from those persons who are liable to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax, does the Prime Minister agree that, as well as oppressing the poor, the 20 per cent. rule is a waste of scarce public resources? Will he announce this afternoon that he intends to follow the commission’s advice and abolish the 20 per cent. contribution?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman produces only a partial comment from the Audit Commission. He neglects to mention that it supports strongly the Government’s aim of implementing the new council tax, which meets many of the objectives that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    Mr. Thornton : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government’s compulsory competitive tendering legislation is being completely ignored in Liverpool? Is he further aware that the council has admitted to lying about the figures, spending £1 million more on one contract alone than was necessary? That is not the work of Militant Tendency, but of the so-called moderate Labour party.

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure where the so-called moderate Labour party might be these days. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Councils should use competitive tendering to improve efficiency and to provide the best service to their council taxpayers. As Councillor Keva Coombs said, to some effect :

    “The council’s problems are not down to resources. It costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas.”

    That is Labour government in practice at local level.

     

    Q5. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Illsley : Is the Prime Minister aware that the unemployment statistics released this morning include a number of pub licensees who have been forced out of their public houses, and possibly on to the dole, because they cannot afford the massive rent increases imposed on them by the brewing industry? Will the Prime Minister re-examine the Government’s policy towards the brewing industry and the sale of beer, to prevent the wholesale eviction of pub tenants?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know of the views of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and I have nothing further to add.

    Mr. Andy Stewart : It is six years since the coal industry dispute ended. Over that period, the miners of this country have broken their productivity record no fewer than 50 times, and their pay has increased 68 per cent.–making the miners of this country, as defined by the Labour party, super-rich. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate British miners on those achievements, and confirm that he will never, ever, tax their earnings at the rate of 59 per cent. as Labour proposes to do?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that point to my hon. Friend. I can also confirm for him that we do not regard the super-rich as starting on an income of around £20,000 per year as the Opposition do.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Nellist : Is the Prime Minister aware of the case that I took up two and a half months ago with the Secretary of State for Health of the death of Dr. Robin Senior who started work at Epsom district hospital on 1 February, worked 110 out of the next 138 hours and died on Thursday 7 February? Will the Prime Minister confirm that today’s wholly inadequate agreement on a 72-hour working week for junior doctors will not come in until 1997? How many more junior doctors have to die or suffer stress- related illnesses before that is brought down to a sane level?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman’s party is pledged to spend no more money on the health service, he is in no position to criticise what is in fact a considerable improvement both for patients and for doctors. As soon as practicable, junior doctors’ hours will be reduced to an average of 83 a week, or fewer by the end of 1994. Those working in the busiest areas will have a maximum on-call average of 72 hours a week. That is not the time that they actually work ; it is the time that they are on call. It is a substantial reduction and if the hon. Gentleman were not so mealy-mouthed he would welcome it.

  • PMQT – 11 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

    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. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the England cricket team on the marvellous win in Yorkshire yesterday ? Does he equally welcome the sharp fall in wage increases announced yesterday and in producer prices announced today ? Does not that demonstrate that his Government’s policies against inflation have what it takes to build a long and successful innings while the whole country knows that under Labour the economy would be for ever trapped leg before wicket ?

    The Prime Minister : There are some dangerous metaphors there. I certainly welcome the producer price figures. They are extremely good. The fall in the underlying, as well as the headline, rate of inflation is very welcome news indeed. It shows clearly that we are now well on target for the Budget forecast of a 4 per cent. inflation rate this autumn. It is also encouraging that wage bargaining is beginning to reflect falling inflation and the realities of exchange rate mechanism membership. That is very good indeed for industries’ competitiveness. On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I am happy to congratulate the England team, but, in doing so, I remind him and everyone that the West Indies is a formidable side and there is a long way to go yet.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister now be asking his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to step down as President of the Bruges group?

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

    Mr. Kinnock : Is it not apparent from today’s events and yesterday’s events that what we are seeing is not Britain at the heart of Europe but deep division at the heart of the Conservative party? [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is it not the Prime Minister’s duty to clear up the confusion in the ranks of his own Government, which can do nothing but damage Britain’s interests?

    The Prime Minister : I am not quite sure what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) might think about the degree of unity that the right hon. Gentleman suggests is on his Benches. We are negotiating in the intergovernmental conferences on exactly the same basis as that on which we first started. The position on economic and monetary union has not changed in any way. I have set out repeatedly the circumstances and conditions under which we are negotiating.

    Mr. Kinnock : Can the Prime Minister tell us why 11 finance Ministers and a couple of Commissioners in a meeting yesterday with the Chancellor got entirely the wrong end of the stick?

    The Prime Minister : I can say categorically to the right hon. Gentleman, as I did a moment ago, that there is no change whatever in our negotiating position on Europe. I have repeatedly set that out over recent months.

     

    Q2. Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Adley : In welcoming the current ministerial visit to the Lebanon and in recognising the help that the Syrian and Iranian Governments are providing on the hostage problem, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he recognises an additional ingredient in the conundrum, namely, the holding by the Israeli Government of Sheikh Obeid and other Lebanese hostages? Will he please make known on behalf of his Government to Mr. Shamir that that ingredient is a problem, and that we expect the Israelis to be as helpful as possible in resolving it?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend, and can tell him that the Prime Minister of Israel is aware of my views on that matter. It is wrong for any country to take and hold hostages, and I have communicated that view to Israel on more than one occasion. Our objective is to see the release as soon as possible of all hostages, and we count on any Government with influence to use it for the return of hostages. They should be back with their families where they belong.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Beith : How will the Prime Minister respond to the demand from those of his supporters who say that he should veto a single currency here and now? Will he back a single currency when it comes before this Parliament for decision, or is he scared to say?

    The Prime Minister : There is no veto as such. There is a requirement that treaty changes can come into effect only if agreed by all member states and by their Parliaments. I have repeatedly said that we will not agree to any treaty on EMU which does not safeguard the interests of this country. I am happy to reiterate that.

    Sir Michael Marshall : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome the visit to the House of Britain’s first astronaut, Helen Sharman? Does he agree that her courage and professionalism is a matter of national pride? Will he take this opportunity to urge British industry and science to join with the Government in the careful and continued look at further opportunities for international space collaboration?

    The Prime Minister : I look forward to meeting Miss Sharman shortly and to congratulating her on her courage and on her remarkable achievement. I happily agree with my hon. Friend’s other comments.

     

    Q4. Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Sir David Steel : Is the Prime Minister aware that there are some creatures who, when removed from their settled natural habitat, can turn dangerously unpredictable in their behaviour [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Sir David Steel : Since allowing them to wander freely abroad has caused some difficulty– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Interruptions take up a great deal of time.

    Sir David Steel : –has the right hon. Gentleman any proposals to extend the requirements for muzzles and leashes to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, every hon. Member has the right and the duty to speak their mind, and that is entirely proper.

    Mr. Tony Banks : She never said that.

    The Prime Minister : That is entirely proper, and it is a freedom which I propose to exercise myself.

     

    Q5. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Now that Mr. James Baker’s middle east peace mission has fallen into serious trouble, and given that the United Kingdom was the first sponsor of United Nations’ resolution 242, would not this be a good moment for the United Kingdom and its European Community partners to start playing a far more positive role in the search for a lasting peace settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have played an important role in that process for many years, and it is right that, in the forthcoming peace conference, the European Community should play a leading role. I welcome the recent Israeli agreement that the European Community presidency should participate in the conference that will be held soon. That is a welcome advance.

     

    Q6. Mr. George Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Howarth : If the Prime Minister is so confident about the Government’s proposal on health service trusts, why is it that the Mersey regional health authority is keeping its expensively produced business plans for the second wave of opt-outs a secret? It will not even release them to Members of Parliament. Why can we not have all this information out in the open, have a proper debate on the subject and then a ballot? Let us find out what the people of Merseyside think.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that there will be many opportunities for Mersey debates in the weeks to come and I look forward to those with great relish. Every reform of the health service has been controversial, but, in due course, each has proved to be irreversible and in the interests of the health service. Our recently introduced changes will follow the same course.

    Mr. Norris : Will my right hon. Friend intervene in the local government review to look at a local authority in Britain where people wait eight weeks to have their bins emptied, where thousands of council houses lie empty and where kids have to run the gauntlet of a picket line to get to school? My right hon. Friend will know that this is not fiction ; it is Labour Liverpool under so-called moderate Labour control. If this is how the Labour party runs a city, how will it run a country?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly suspect that the whole country will have observed how Liverpool has been run and drawn appropriate conclusions from that about how a Labour Government would work on a larger scale. Whether the Labour council is far left or moderate, it has done that great city no favours, just as a Labour Government would do this country no favours.

     

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

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

    Mr. McKelvey : Will the Prime Minister give some serious consideration to the plight of two brave but unfortunate young men in my constituency, Walter and Ian Baird, of the same family, who are 21 and 16- years-old and who have contracted AIDS through blood transfusion? Although a settlement of over £45,000 for the pair of them was agreed over two months ago, they have yet to be paid. Why is it that 10 per cent. of the payment seems to be held up in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will give me precise details of the cases that he has in mind, I shall be happy to examine them and respond to them.

     

    Q8. Mr. David Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Evans : Will my right hon. Friend make sure that there are enough funds in the English Heritage budget to ensure that a certain building in the Walworth road is preserved, so that my children and grandchildren can not only read about the demise of socialism but can go and see where the last of the Bolsheviks are working, led by a leader who was a co-producer and director of a play called “Promises, promises”?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his point as only he can.

    Dr. Owen : Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is as determined to strengthen and enlarge the European Community as he is to prevent the emergence of a united states of Europe? Will he tell the European Community that positively negotiating and participating in those negotiations does not in any way surrender a final decision on the overall package to protect the best interests of this country, and that while the devil, as always, is in the detail, so can be the benefits, and that it will probably be December before we can make an overall decision on the package that is negotiated?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct in his latter point and I strongly support his remarks about a wider Europe, which I believe should involve not only the EFTA states but, in due course, the eastern European states. I agree with him that negotiations on the two conferences are of vital importance to the future of this country. Whatever decisions are made may have a profound effect on our trade and well-being. I have set out often enough to the House that the economic case for monetary union has not been made, that we cannot accept the imposition of a single currency and that any proposed changes to the treaty of Rome–a move to a single currency–would require a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament– [Interruption.] If Opposition Members do not wish to hear about the important negotiating position of the Government, that is a matter for them. Against that background, I shall negotiate with our European partners for what I believe to be right for this country. It will then be for this House to decide at the conclusion of those negotiations whether it is content to accept them.

  • PMQT – 4 June 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

    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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread concern that in certain cases banks have not been fully passing on, particularly to smaller businesses, the full very recent and welcome reduction in bank base rate?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am very concerned about the growing level of complaints from small businesses that they are being harshly treated by their banks. I discussed that matter with the Governor of the Bank of England 10 days ago and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking this forward with the individual chairman of each of the clearing banks. The banks themselves can be in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling on this, and they are as aware as anyone that their interests lie in having a sound base of small firms around for the future.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister think that recession, rising unemployment and increasing poverty will improve or make worse the health of the nation?

    The Prime Minister : The health of the nation is improving. The policies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be announcing in a few moments about preventive health medicine will also make further improvements. No one I know of with any experience or knowledge whatever doubts the improving quality, quantity or nature of health of the people in this country at the present time.

    Mr. Kinnock : I hope that the forthcoming Green Paper will therefore include specific policies to combat unemployment and poverty, although I very much doubt it. The Government have brought us two recessions in 12 years. Unemployment is higher and poverty is more widespread. As there is a very definite link between low income and high rates of death and illness in poor families, will the Prime Minister now do something effective to combat unemployment and recession instead of saying that it is a price well worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman will soon learn, there are specific targets in the health proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will announce in a few moments. We set targets in other contexts a year or so ago, which have been met by doctors in terms of improving health care, and the targets will be met on this occasion as well.

    As for unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman’s comments were rich when every time his own party has been in government, when that Government left office unemployment was twice as high as it was when they entered government. The right hon. Gentleman’s present policies would have the same effect. His minimum wage policy would destroy jobs, his penal tax proposals would destroy incentives, and Labour’s tax on savings would destroy investment. What would then happen to jobs?

    Mr. Kinnock : Clearly, when the Prime Minister cannot give a straight answer to a straight question, his last refuge is to try to sound like the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)–no wonder she said at the weekend, “I chose him.”

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, week after week, sinks to a new low. We shall see how low he can sink. We shall see how far he can sink in the months ahead.

    Sir William Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that not passing on the reduction in the base rate to small businesses is damaging to the economy? Would it not be a good idea for the British Bankers Association to make it mandatory for its members immediately to reflect any reduction in the base rate?

    The Prime Minister : A large amount of lending is, of course, tied specifically to the base rate and is therefore amended automatically. It is those loans that are renegotiated that I think cause the particular problems. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is examining that matter with the chairmen of the clearing banks.

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Illsley : In view of the horrific attacks by dangerous dogs that have taken place in the past two weeks or so, and the Government’s dithering about what measures to implement to take account of those attacks, will the Prime Minister now agree that in the interests of responsible dog ownership a dog registration scheme should be introduced? Will he introduce such a scheme at the earliest possible opportunity?

    The Prime Minister : So decisive have the Government been that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing a Bill later this week to deal with the problem of dangerous dogs. On the specific point of general dog registration, I continue to hold the view that such a scheme would be ineffective, bureaucratic, expensive to operate and difficult to enforce.

    Sir Gerrard Neale : Has my right hon. Friend seen–and, if so, will he comment on–the report by the respected City institution, the Nomura Research Institute, that if interest rates were 11 per cent. at the next general election they would rise to 16 per cent. in the unlikely event of a Labour victory?

    The Prime Minister rose–[Interruption.] I will wait for a little silence– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is taking up a lot of time. I call the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I have absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friend and the analysis that Nomura has made are right. Financial markets have no confidence whatever in Labour’s ability to keep down inflation and no confidence in its capacity to protect our competitive position. By contrast, the major independent forecasters agree with us that we shall have inflation at 4 per cent. by the fourth quarter of this year. The other point about Nomura’s analysis is very clear–it shows that Labour’s first priority would not be pensions and child benefit, but an immediate and necessary hike in interest rates and mortgage rates.

     

    Q3. Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Campbell : Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many in the House about the events of last night in Vilnius? Will he take the opportunity both now and in July to impress upon Mr. Gorbachev and his generals that western economic co-operation and assistance depend upon a recognition of human rights and an acceptance of the right of self-determination for the people of Lithuania and of the other Baltic states?

    The Prime Minister : I can say nothing more to the hon. and learned Gentleman other than that I agree with him.

    Mr. John Browne : May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to early-day motion 776–about Grenadier guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray who, in 1989, had their legs blown off in Canada–which has now been signed by more than 200 right hon. and hon. Members on a cross-party basis, including the Secretary of State for Defence of 1989? It calls on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to look personally into the case with a view to granting an ex-gratia compensation payment, thus creating a good precedent. What progress has been made in the past month?

    The Prime Minister : I am not yet in a position to tell my hon. Friend precisely what the outcome will be, but I am satisfied that the proper grounds for compensation should be on the basis of legal liability, and it is upon that basis that I shall examine the matter.

    Mr. Speaker : Mr. Hood–no, Mr. John Garrett– [Interruption.] Order. I am looking for an hon. Gentleman who has not asked a question. Let us have Mr. Garrett.

    Mr. John Garrett : Does not Britain deserve better than a lame duck Government, limping from one public relations fiasco to another?

    The Prime Minister : As it has a Government who are announcing new and fresh policies every day, the question does not arise.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Marshall : During the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend been able to read the comments of Mr. Gavin Laird about a minimum wage? Does he agree that a minimum wage would be cruel and heartless because it would lead to much higher prices and to an increase of 50 per cent. in the level of unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : I have, of course, read them. I enjoyed them and I agree with them, as do many other people. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition’s plan for a minimum wage has very few friends left : the Fabian Society has said that there would be massive job losses ; Mr. Laird thinks that the plan is nonsense ; the engineers and electricians recognise that Labour’s policy is nonsense ; and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said that himself in the past. Even the Sunday People, which is hardly a Conservative news sheet, stated in its editorial :

    “Labour’s plan for a national minimum wage is not the answer. It would only cause more unemployment and deny jobs to those who need them”–

    [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like that because they know that it is true.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister has rightly criticised the banks, but does he not accept that small business failures have increased by 68 per cent. with nearly 8,000 mainly small firms going to the wall in the first quarter of this year? The Prime Minister has criticised the banks, but does he feel any personal responsibility for this?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, very many additional small firms have grown and thrived in recent years. All Conservative Members, including myself, regret the loss of small businesses in the past year or so. However, what is essential is to create the circumstances in which businesses can thrive and survive and in which fresh businesses can be created, as has happened so widely in the past 10 years. That requires reducing inflation to a low level and keeping it there. That is the policy we are pursuing, and every independent commentator now acknowledges that we are succeeding in that policy.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert B. Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to visit north-west Hertfordshire to see for himself the £40 million worth of new investment in the national health service that has been made under this Government? Will he contrast the fact that at this very moment a new maternity unit is being completed in which babies can be born in the 1990s with the fact that, under the last Labour Government, babies had to be born in the clapped-out facilities of the former workhouse?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Capital expenditure on hospitals in England has grown in real terms in the past 12 years by 62 per cent. to £1.7 billion. In contrast, as the House well recalls, under the last Labour Government capital spending on hospitals in the national health service was cut by nearly 16 per cent. because the Labour Government lost control of the economy and inflation and would not take the necessary decisions to bring inflation down.

    Mr. Clelland : Did the Prime Minister see the recent “Panorama” programme entitled, “Scuppering British Shipbuilders”, which demonstrated how the Government have killed off merchant shipbuilding in Britain? Is he aware that unless the right decision is made about Challenger 2, “Panorama” will soon be making another programme about the killing off of the British tank manufacturing industry? Will he ensure that the decision that we now understand is to be made before the end of this month is made not only in favour of the British Army but in favour of British manufacturing and British workers?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is no, I did not see the programme to which he referred, but on his substantive point–the question of a new tank for the Army–I hope that a decision on equipment for our future main battle tank fleet will not be delayed too long. When the appropriate military conditions are right for us to make the decision, we shall do so.

     

    Q6. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Bowis : Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the report of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which shows that for the past year Britain’s strike record has been at its lowest for 56 years? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to legalise secondary strikes, unofficial strikes and flying pickets, that strike record would be undone? Is it not odd that that is precisely the policy of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is correct. It is also the case that our employment legislation, which was opposed at every step by the Opposition has helped to transform industrial relations in Britain. But the Opposition do not care about industrial relations–they are obsessed with public relations.

  • PMQT – 21 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McFall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

    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. McFall : “It ain’t working, but it’s really hurting” is what one of my constituents told me in Dumbarton High Street last Saturday. After a lifetime of work, at the age of 54 he now finds himself made redundant. When I next meet my constituent, can I tell him that the Prime Minister echoes the comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that my constituent’s tragedy and that of the hundreds of thousands who will surely follow in the coming months is a price well worth paying, or will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to add substance to his new caring image by dissociating himself completely from the Chancellor’s remarks?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has no monopoly of concern about unemployment. It is shared by every Conservative Member as well. It is precisely because we care about the impact of unemployment that we are determined to remove its cause–which, predominantly, is inflation–and we are now making substantial progress with that. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about unemployment–I return to the point that the Opposition have ducked on every occasion–may I say that the minimum wage proposal will put many people out of work.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ashby : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Ashby : In view of the recent spate of horrific incidents involving certain breeds of dogs, do the Government intend doing anything about that and, if so, what?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone will have been shaken by the attacks during the past few weeks, particularly the horrific attack on Rucksana Khan at the weekend. I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and we are persuaded that urgent action must be taken. From midnight tonight, the import of dogs bred for fighting, such as the American pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa, will be banned. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will wish to make a statement to the House tomorrow setting out further action to deal with the problem. But it is clear that such dogs have no place in our homes.

    Mr. Kinnock : I strongly support what the Prime Minister just said about fighting dogs.

    If, as the Prime Minister insists, hospital trusts are not outside the national health service, why does he refuse to allow people to have a vote on the future of their local hospital?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support on the subject of dogs. It if comes to legislation, which it may well do after my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s statement tomorrow, I hope that his support will hold good. It is a matter that the whole country will be keen to see brought to a conclusion at an early stage.

    On the subject of the health reforms, the right hon. Gentleman is aware, for he has clearly heard what has been said by many people in the health service in recent days, that he was wrong about health care outside the national health service. [Interruption.] Health trusts are outside the bureaucracy of much of the national health service, but they remain within the national health service. They will treat NHS patients. That is the position now and it will remain the position in the future.

    Mr. Kinnock : What we are hearing, Mr. Speaker, is the hysteria of defeat. The Prime Minister does not appear to understand his own legislation. The trusts are not owned by the national health service. They can buy and sell, hire and fire and make contract deals without regard to the national health service. They are not part of a national health service. [Interruption.] That is the big truth and the Prime Minister should face it.

    The Prime Minister : There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear because they know they have been wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has now been told by sufficient people who are professionals in the national health service that trusts are part of the national health service. If he is not prepared to correct the mischief that he and his party enunciated last week, that is a matter for them, but the whole country knows that he is wrong and that trusts are part of the national health service.

    Mr. Kinnock : On the subject of listening, the Prime Minister should hear what was said in Monmouth last Thursday. The people of Monmouth spoke. The right hon. Gentleman and his party were beaten fair and square, so why does he not listen to them and stop the second wave?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman and his candidate won the Monmouth by-election, and I congratulate the candidate on so doing, but I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the accuracy of the campaign that was run on that occasion. The Monmouth literature was deceptive and untruthful, because

    “self-governing hospitals continue to fulfil the crucial criterion of being a part of the NHS : they provide, free of charge, health care that is funded by the taxpayer’s contributions. What they have opted out of is the central bureaucracy of the NHS”.

    Those are not my words ; they are the words in a leading article in The Independent. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is true.

    Mr. Amery : My right hon. Friend will have noted that the dictator of Ethiopia appears to have left the country. Will he seize the initiative now and instruct our representative there to make immediate contact with the successor Administration to find out how we can help to lead the country towards democracy? Britain liberated Ethiopia from the Italians in the second world war. We now have a chance to lead the country towards democracy.

    The Prime Minister : President Mengistu’s resignation this morning is welcome. We hope that it will facilitate the peace process and enhance donors’ ability to help those in need in Ethiopia–a matter of considerable importance to us all. I urge both the Government and the opposition movements to take this opportunity to negotiate a lasting settlement of their differences and, above all, to put an end to the civil war from which Ethiopia has suffered for too long. We shall do what we can to help to bring that about.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Beith : Does the motion about Europe signed by 105 of the Prime Minister’s colleagues represent Government policy? The Prime Minister has often repeated the assertion that not this Parliament but a future Parliament must decide whether we should adopt a single currency. Is that assertion based on the belief that a future Parliament would contain more people who hold our view that Britain should take the lead in the development of Europe and its currency and fewer of the type of people who signed the motion?

    The Prime Minister : We are increasingly taking the lead in the European Community. That will become more and more evident as month succeeds month. Discussion in the two intergovernmental conferences is still at an early stage and negotiations will continue throughout the rest of this year. The Luxembourg paper that is identified in the early-day motion is but one part of that negotiation. The early-day motion rightly identifies elements in the paper that need to be changed, and will be changed, before the negotiation is complete.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Hannam : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the health service reforms are already working well– [Interruption.] –and gaining the support of most hospital staff throughout the country? Is he aware that this year Exeter health authority will purchase some 200 hip and knee operations from the London hospitals? That will reduce waiting lists and help the London hospitals. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend continue to champion the rights of the patients, in contrast to the Labour party, which champions bureaucracy and the trade unions?

    The Prime Minister : Indeed, I will, for that is the basis of the reforms. I welcome the example provided by my hon. Friend of a health authority using the opportunity of the reforms to secure better and, in many cases, speedier treatment for patients in the local area. Similar improvements are evident in many parts of the country for those who wish to look and see.

    Mr. Jim Marshall : May I take the Prime Minister’s mind back to his meetings with Ulster Unionist leaders last week? [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members should listen. Will the Prime Minister confirm that there has been no change in the basis of the discussions between the constitutional parties in the Province as a consequence of his meeting with those two Ulster Unionist leaders?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that there has been no change in the nature of the discussions. As we speak, there has been no session of the talks yet. Discussions are continuing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the hope that the talks can soon begin. For the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that all concerned will speedily find a basis on which the talks can go ahead.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the polytechnics were given control of their own affairs– [Interruption.] –they have recruited a further 36,000 students? Now that colleges of further education have been given the same freedom, what does my right hon. Friend think will be the result?

    The Prime Minister : From what I could hear of my hon. Friend’s question over the hubbub, I think that he was commending the way in which the polytechnics have flourished since they were given their independence. That is certainly the case. Any director of a polytechnic will confirm that to anyone who seeks the information.

    Miss Lestor : Referring to what the Prime Minister said about the economic consequences of the minimum wage, we do not have a minimum wage in Eccles or, indeed, anywhere else, yet unemployment increased in Eccles by 100 between last month and this month. Can the Prime Minister explain why that is happening?

    The Prime Minister : I suggest that the hon. Lady reads the Fabian pamphlet, which is about to be published, which lists a substantial number of jobs that would be lost if a minimum wage were introduced. There is no way in which the hon. Lady can get away by wriggling. The minimum wage proposals will cost jobs and it is Labour party policy to destroy those jobs.

     

    Q6. Mr. David Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Amess : My constituents in Basildon–indeed, people throughout the country–would be grateful if my right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government, in their spending plans, are able to distinguish between overriding priorities, key priorities, top priorities and urgent priorities. Opposition Members certainly cannot. [Laughter.]

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a point that is so telling that it has even caught the imagination of the Opposition. Our priorities are indeed clear, but that is certainly not the case with the Labour party. Labour’s campaign co-ordinator has said that education is a first priority ; the overseas aid spokesman has said that aid is a top priority ; the shadow Chancellor has said that manufacturing industry is a key priority ; and just this morning it happened again. Asked for Labour’s plan about “Son of the GLC”, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, “It’s a first- term commitment.” [Interruption.] I shall wait until Opposition Members are silent.

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : I am prepared to wait until the Opposition listen. The reality is that their programme does not add up. It never has, and it never will. It all points towards higher taxation, and that is what we should get.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Annual CBI Dinner – 21 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Annual Dinner of the CBI, held at Grosvenor House in London on Tuesday 21st May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well Brian, My Lords Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I think I just heard a new version of confidence and optimism in the suggestion that I am going to tell you what the election date is. I do know it has been a subject of very considerable speculation as to when the election will be. All I can say to you is anybody who knows me well would think it is most unlikely it is going to be during the middle of the England/ West Indies test series. And even more unlikely that it is going to be straight down the middle of my son’s GCSE examinations. I don’t know how we will do in the test series, and to be strictly fair, I don’t know how he will do in his GCSE examinations. But I have given him one piece of advice. However he does, I told him, “don’t ever forget how you did, because you never know, thirty years on, how important it might be, to some people.” Brian, thank you very much indeed for inviting me to join you for a second successive evening.

    I was your guest here last year, and on that occasion, Roland Smith, who is hiding here somewhere in his usual anonymous way, sent up to the top table a Manchester United scarf, I can’t think why he did that. He sent up nothing this year, I suppose they haven’t been doing too well lately. Brian, this evening I want to look at a series of themes of concern, I believe, to all of us and to look forward to the opportunities opening up for Britain as we approach the millennium. And with that in mind, for it is a very remarkable period we have ahead of us, I want firstly to congratulate the CBI on publishing a ‘New Agenda for the 1990s’: an agenda which focuses quite directly quite specifically on the challenges and the opportunities, that lie ahead. And rightly it looks at not only those opportunities, but also back at the very remarkable transformation in industry during the last decade.

    Ten years ago, the CBI gave an earlier lead. They published an Agenda for the 1980s entitled ‘The Will to Win’ and that document was one of the first signs that after the 1970s, and all the difficulties of that period, enterprise was coming to life again. And now, industry must look forward once again, raise its sights as it looks towards the year 2000, plan for it, prepare for it and in doing so remember also the lessons of the past.

    In his foreword to that Agenda, your President concludes and I quote “British business has not only shown the will to win but the ability to do so in some of the toughest markets there are”. He is right about that. And my first message to you this evening is a simple one and a clear one. Never under sell what you and British business have achieved over the last decade. Now that same document also warns that the United Kingdom must not reverse the changes we have seen in that decade nor forget what the situation was like in the late 1970s. And that is a critical message. How easy and comforting it might be to forget but how dangerous it would be. In the late 1970s, wealth was being destroyed not created as the CBI itself said failure was almost expected, success was a surprise. Industrial profitability collapsed, productivity stagnated, Britain’s share of world markets contracted, inflation escalated to a peak four times as high as the levels we are experiencing today, and spend-thrift Government was borrowing up to 10 per cent of our national income. We must never return to the policies which created those problems.

    But in the 1980s we began to regain ground. Productivity was transformed. In manufacturing, often looked down on by some, in manufacturing it grew faster than in any other large economy and output in manufacturing rose to record levels. Profitability recovered and recovered spectacularly. After years of decline, our share of world markets is holding firm, our manufacturing exports increased by nearly 60 per cent over the decade and our car production for export almost doubled over the last year.

    Now those are remarkable and successful improvements. But I understand very clearly that right now industry is facing difficulties as we bring inflation down. I know that times are tough and I am very well aware of the problems confronting many of you. But I do believe that we must keep those current problems in perspective. Your President has called them temporary difficulties. He is right. It is a British characteristic, endearing perhaps but often damaging, to accentuate the negative and overlook the positive. But we should not lose sight of the gains that you have made in the recent years. For I believe that they are fundamental and that means that we will soon be in a position to build on past successes once again, and we also need to bear in mind that in no sense are we alone.

    Growth is still slowing in Europe and in North America. Unemployment is rising there too, indeed unemployment is far higher in France, Italy, Canada and Australia, than it is in this country. And yet however international and temporary the current problems, I understand very well that is no consolation for those who lose their jobs or for the companies which are facing financial crisis. And it is for that reason that I am absolutely determined that the defeat of inflation must remain our top priority. Never again, never again must our economy have to face the painful but necessary retrenchment of the last few months. This Government’s policies are clear. We must concentrate on getting the economy right. We must conquer inflation and we must have minimum interference in industry.

    We have already removed huge burdens from industry. A whole mass of restrictive administrative red tape that tied up your employees and your business and we haven’t finished with those changes. Our deregulation initiative will continue to pursue ideas for removing more burdens from industry whether imposed at home or from Europe we will seek to have them removed where ever we can.

    We have cut corporate taxation and then cut it again and again. The main rate of corporation tax is now lower than the special rate for small businesses when this government took office and with the Chancellor’s further cuts announced in the Budget, we will have the lowest corporation tax levied by any of our major competitors.

    But we know one thing very well. We know Governments can’t run businesses as well as private enterprise can. And that is why we privatised no fewer than 44 large businesses no less than two thirds of the nationalised sector that we inherited in 1979. And in doing so, we have turned a national burden into a industrial success and brought in 28 billion pounds for the tax payer as well. And nor have we finished in that regard. We will return more nationalised industries to the private sector, including British Rail and British Coal. And we will open up more national and local Government activities to private sector skills.

    To provide a stable framework for enterprise in an unstable world involves difficult economic judgements. But no Government can hope to get those right unless its objectives are clear. Our economic objectives are clear – to drive down the rate of inflation; to reward success and enterprise by cutting and simplifying taxation on individuals and on companies; to open up markets for businesses at home and abroad; and to restrain government and make it more efficient and more sensitive to the individual citizen. Of these, of course, the reduction of inflation is the most important, and it is down – coming down. Last Friday, we saw spectacular evidence of this. The annual rate of increase in the Retail Price Index, that headlined figure of such importance in our national inflation psychology, plunged nearly 2 full percentage points to 6.4 per cent. It was the biggest monthly fall that we have seen in a decade. The rate of inflation is now 4.5 percentage points below last Autumn’s peak. Of course, that is still not good enough and not for a second would I pretend that it was. We expect to see inflation fall and fall again. We expect to see it fall to 4 per cent by the end of this year. Underlying measures of inflation are inevitably falling more gradually, but make no mistake about it, on any sensible measure, inflation is now coming down and will continue to come down. So we are winning this most crucial battle. And our forecasts point to a welcome resumption of growth in the second half of this year. It will not be dramatic or sudden but it will be secure and it will be well-based.

    The task for business in this climate is to prepare for this recovery ahead. And the task for government is to assist the recovery by maintaining the stable policy framework that we have now put in place. I believe that this framework offers a robust defence against the inflationary surges we have suffered in the past. Against a return to the miseries of the 1970s, and even against the lesser resurgence of inflation that we have experienced in the late 1980s. Inflation peaked last year at less than half the excesses of the 1970s, and yet despite that, it has proved painful to correct and we must now ensure that it never recurs.

    Our new policy framework allows for the domestic management and monetary policy within the external discipline of the exchange rate mechanism. That is a discipline on both Government and on industry, sometimes tough but necessary. And it is a discipline that delivers the two most precious requirements for industry, low inflation and stable exchange rates. Already we are seeing the benefits of joining the exchange rate mechanism. Renewed international confidence in Britain’s economic strategy. A confidence that has enabled us to cut interest rates by 3 full percentage points without de-stabilising the pound. And others predicted, you recall, that we would have to devalue within the mechanism if we were to cut rates. They were wrong and we can now see that they were wrong.

    We have stability against the currencies of our European trading partners at a time when the dollar has oscillated widely. And there is widespread confidence that within the exchange rate mechanism framework, we will see further falls in inflation throughout the year, and that interest rates can and will fall further too. I share the confidence in that judgement.

    Exchange rate mechanism membership has made explicit our need to compete. Industry must break free of the bad old habits of paying itself, on the shop floor and in the board room, a level of salary and money that it cannot hope to earn.

    The retail price index is no longer sending dangerous misleading signals to wage negotiators and I welcome very much indeed the signs that pay settlements are now coming down. The faster they do the clear the evidence that inflation is coming under control and the sooner recovery can begin and bring new jobs to our economy.

    There should be no such thing as automatic pay increases. Pay must be linked to performance and to productivity. It is a principle that helps incentives, it involves employees in their business and it is also a principle which I wish to see being applied increasingly throughout the public sector as well as in the private sector.

    And nor must productivity gains simply be swallowed up by pay rises. Each business has the responsibility to decide for itself what margin must be left to help profits, to sustain investment, to generate future growth. And it must also decide what level of wages it can afford to pay its own employees. No-one else can make that decision for a business and by contrast, any proposal from whatever source it may come, any proposal to impose a minimum wage will dramatically drive up industrial costs and massively increased unemployment.

    Any attempt to link the lowest wage to the average would set off a pay spiral that would destroy jobs and cripple industry’s ability to create incentives and raise productivity.

    I believe such policies would be an industrial and economic tragedy for this country, if they were ever to be implemented and we must ensure that they never are.

    Precisely those same principles underlie our policies for training. We prefer incentives to intervention, and choice to compulsion. As I am sure you will know, yesterday, I helped to launch three White Papers which will, I believe, come to be seen as a turning point in the history of education and training in Britain and I am very pleased to pay tribute to Ken Clarke who is here this evening and Michael Howard who I think is not here, for the enormous work and innovation that they put in to ensuring that those White Papers were produced in, the form that we were able to publish them yesterday.

    And tonight I want to make it clear that at the earliest possible opportunity we will be giving legislative force to those proposals. An education bill to start the process will, therefore, be at the heart of our legislative programme. And along with those elements of those reforms which are already underway, such as the introduction of the national curriculum, the creation of grant-maintained schools and in the training field, the piloting of a new system of credits for school-leavers. The effects of these reforms will be truly revolutionary. I believe that they represent nothing less, nothing less than the most radical reforms since the great Butler Education Act of 1944.

    And that parallel is apt. It’s apt because one of our aims is to meet a great but unfulfilled objective of that particular Butler Act. And that objective is this we are determined to improve the quality of vocational education and the esteem in which it is held. That is an ideal that has never fully been realised in post-war Britain.

    But our ambitions go wider, they are to provide new links between the school room, the college, and the world at work. We have deliberately put forward our proposals for education and training together, precisely because we see them as being complementary, and they will, in consequence, extend choice and provide new opportunities for many more young people than ever before.

    And at the heart of these reforms, is our determination to break down the artificial barriers between academic and vocational education, between blue collar worker, and white collar worker between pin stripes and overalls. Such divisions are wrong, they are outdated, they are wrong. Wrong for industry, wrong for our economy, and utterly wrong for our future. These measure we have brought forward sound the death-knell for those divisions.

    At present, we have too many young people without the skills or motivation to get off to a good start in their working life. Time was, when school leavers took up an apprenticeship. Over a period of years they required a recognised trade and that was their training for a life-time of employment. That was fine, of course, if their employment lasted a life time. But tomorrow’s employees will be different, those youngsters leaving school today will face a different world and a different environment. They may have to train, then retrain, then retrain, and then perhaps retrain again and again during their working life, if they are to keep up with the skill and speed with which skills and innovation moves in the modern world. And all that means, a different approach to training. And that’s why are embarking on a programme designed to give more choice and more training to young people leaving school; to provide greater training flexibility for young and old; to maintain standards of academic education, while bringing up vocational standards; and to end the barrier between polytechnic and university.

    I know that this audience will welcome that. The CBI has played a vital part in helping to launch the skills revolution in Britain. Your President has a strong interest in education. I am happy this evening to be able to pay tribute to his work as Chairman of the Trustees of Education 2000.

    It is employers, you, employers, who now take on the lead role in the Training and Enterprise Councils. I know looking round the room amongst those who I have met before, that many of you here tonight are involved in the detailed decisions involved in public expenditure of 2.7 billion pounds a year on training, enterprise and vocational education. And now we are planning more – much more for the future.

    We announced yesterday that we would make training credits available to 16 and 17 year old school-leavers. This ambitious programme will be based on one essential principle, to create opportunity through choice, that is the principle underlying training credits.

    Choice for young people to buy the training they need.

    Choice for employers to provide workplace training.

    Choice, locally, within the TEC’s, to set the right training priorities for the needs of business in each area.

    And we will use that power of choice in the market to deliver opportunity for the workforce of the 21st century. And the whole country will gain as a result of that policy.

    And I believe it will gain too from another policy, from the proposals we will bring forward in our Citizens’ Charter. This is no gimmick, this charter, it will have teeth, it will bite, it will change the way in which public services are delivered and in which the consumers of public services have redress against the quality of those public services. And I will tell you why it will do these things, and what our ambition is for it. I want to make the public sector more responsive to the needs of the public, more responsive by defining standards of service and putting in place mechanisms to ensure that they are met.

    I want to bring business skills into the public service, through competitive tendering for the provision of services, contracting out, privatising and market-testing those activities best supplied by private enterprise.

    I want to introduce new performance incentives for public sector employees. But there is a counterpoint to that. There must also be penalties for poor performance in the public sector as well.

    I want to give greater authority and independence to those who monitor, audit and inspect public services.

    And I want to examine way of providing effective redress to those who suffer, when standards slip.

    Those are the principles of the Citizen’s Charter that we will introduce in a White Paper before the summer recess. We are, of course, already applying many of these principles. I have spoken earlier of the momentum of our privatisation programme. We are encouraging more contracting out of public service provision – and enjoying the benefits that it provides. In Westminster, those benefits are clear. They already contract-out printing, office cleaning, leisure centres, refuse collection, street cleaning and catering. What Westminster has done, others should do. And I hope will do, in the future.

    And there is a further point. The opportunity to tender for local services has encouraged the growth of successful small businesses right around the country. But it is where the market cannot reach that we need to be most vigilant in setting standards.

    Where services remain in the public sector, they must offer the same standards of courteous and efficient service that the best private sector companies provide. The Citizens’ Charter aims to ensure that is what they do.

    But I am aware, Mr President, that it is not only officialdom that needs to listen and to respond; Government must do so too.

    A fortnight ago, the Department of Trade and Industry set out, as one of its formal objectives, its requirement to listen to the concerns of business and consumers – and see that these are genuinely taken into account in the development of government policies. I would like to take this opportunity to endorse that new role for the department.

    Communication between government and industry will grow in importance as we approach the conclusion of Europe’s single market programme. The deadline of January 1 1993 is fast approaching. And there is much still to do. The single market will not exist until all its measure have been introduced, then implemented and then enforced in every country in the Community. And I emphasise the implemented and enforced. We must ensure that Community legislation is not approved but then ignored in countries throughout the Community. In this country, we put into effect the legislation to which we have committed ourselves. Let me say this evening, we expect no less from every country throughout the Community.

    Mr President, the Single Market will be an example of the benefits that can come from removing unnecessary regulation. The same must apply to what is called the “Social dimension” of the Community. We will continue to make clear to Brussels the dangers involved in ill-considered regulation. Employment and prosperity flow from free markets, not from bureaucracy and imposed uniformity.

    I have made clear on a number of occasions my absolute determination to place this country at the very heart of the European Community. And business, I know, has an unparalleled determination to compete with Europe’s best and to win in that competition, both in the Community and beyond the Community. And that is why our struggle against inflation is not just a matter of short-term economic tactics but a matter of priceless importance and of long-term strategy.

    Inflation is a distortion. Inflation is a handicap we cannot afford in the 1990s. If we have it and others don’t, we lose our markets our prospects and our prosperity. That is what is at stake as we battle to get inflation down to a very low level, at least as low as elsewhere in the Community. So we must reduce inflation to the point where it plays no part in people’s decision-making, no part in where or when they invest, how they plan for the future, with whom they have the confidence to compete in business, we cannot be satisfied with anything less than that.

    In recent months, we have brought our inflation rate down closer to the European average. But we must go further, and find for ourselves a place amongst Europe’s best. Then we will be well-placed to fight for free markets and firm counter-inflationary disciplines in the year ahead.

    Your President has rightly called this decade, the decade of Europe – one of opportunity and challenge. Both Government and industry have the chance to set themselves on a course that will yield the benefits of stability, growth and prosperity.

    I have every confidence, every confidence in industry’s ability to rise to that challenge – to plan, to invest, to succeed. That is what you are about as businessmen. That is what we expect you to do; that is what we know that with the right environment you can do and you have done in the past. That is what we invite you to do in the future. Mr President, I cannot overestimate the importance of the success that is necessary for business in this country upon your success as businessmen and as businesses, upon your success rest our country’s prospects for the future. I hope you appreciate, as I am sure that you do, how crucially important that is. So is it my pleasure and privilege tonight, Mr President, to propose tonight’s toast to British business. I propose a toast willingly and with fervour, I propose a toast in the belief that we have the best business disciplines in the world and that with the right economic climate we can capitalise upon those disciplines and storm markets in every part of the world. So my toast tonight is to British business and I will invite you to rise and drink that toast, a toast to British business, may it prosper and profit in the years ahead.

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

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You work harder. Good. You pay more.

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

    What folly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    People build success

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

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

    Winning hearts and minds

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

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

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

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

    Scotland’s revival

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Lanarkshire

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

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

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

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

    Labour’s tax on skills

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

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

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

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

    Economic revival

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

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

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

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

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

    Local government

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

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

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

    Citizen’s charter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Health

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

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

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

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

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

    European Council

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

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

    Scottish Assembly

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

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

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

    Britain in the world

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Opening of Smith New Court – 1 May 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made at the opening of Smith New Court in London on Wednesday 1st May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The last time I came to the City was in fact the day I became Prime Minister. I am not entirely sure how you are going to beat that and I hope on this occasion at least you won’t try. I am very grateful to you Sir Michael for the invitation to join you today. It is always a splendid thing to be able to declare open magnificent new offices like these. And also to congratulate a successful British enterprise. Because of its importance both domestically and internationally it is especially welcome to be able to do so in the City.

    I am particularly pleased to be opening these new offices for a special reason. I believe they do symbolise the continuing growth and global interests of the City of London. In the last twelve years or so, in my judgement, no one can deny that the City has thrived. It has been a success story. It has secured London its prime international position. That is the position that everyone in this room and beyond it in the City must keep.

    The achievements of London and the City are formidable and some-times I think we overlook them and push them to one side. They deserve a far greater importance than many people will sometimes give them.

    – London has built up the largest foreign exchange market in the world.

    – It is second only to Tokyo as an international banking centre.

    – It was the birthplace of the Eurodollar. The Eurobond market could have settled anywhere, but although the world’s bankers and brokers looked everywhere around the world, in the end they chose London. London is now the base also for three quarters of the trading in Eurodollar bonds.

    – London has long been a world centre for insurance and for fund management, a role it is of course happy to share with the Scottish financial centres. It remains, well perhaps not quite happy, but it will jolly well have to be happy because the Scottish financial centres are extremely good too!

    – It remains by far the largest centre in the world for international equity trading.

    – More foreign companies choose to be listed in London than anywhere else in the world.

    – In 1990 the turnover on the London Stock Exchange was the third highest in the world behind only Tokyo and New York. Of that turnover almost half was in overseas stocks. A far higher share than any other mainstream stock exchange.

    That is a very remarkable record and one that London can be proud of. London’s markets are growing day by day, all the time. In only a few years we have become a leading centre for futures and options and that will be reinforced When LIFFE merges with the London Traded Options Market.

    I think we may occasionally ask ourselves why is it? Why is it that London has been so successful? I believe that answer is clear cut and simple. It is the skill and innovation available in the City that has made London so pre-eminent. I think there is a second reason too, that I hope you will forgive me if I mention.

    That is that Government policy on many occasions has been vital to that progress. From the abolition of exchange controls in 1979 right the way through to the other changes in the 1980’s and the corporation tax reductions in the latest budget, Government policies have clearly contributed to the success that we have seen in the City. By de-regulating and by privatising and by reducing the burden of taxation, Government has created the freedom which has allowed the financial sector to flourish. At the end of the day it is the enterprise of the City, your enterprise, that has actually grasped that freedom and turned it into the success that London has been over the last decade.

    There are I believe two recent developments which will have a particularly vital role in strengthening London’s position and long term prospects.

    Firstly, our decision to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism last November was in my judgement a matter of enormous importance to our future prosperity and our efforts to stay competitive in Europe and beyond Europe. Second, and in consequence of that, we are achieving real success in the battle against inflation. Already the headline retail price index figure is down by nearly 3 per cent since last October. The April figure to be released later this month will show a further dramatic fall from the present level and inflation will then go on falling throughout this year and into next year.

    There is an important message there for the future. The initial impact of a financial deregulation, which caused the surge in lending and distorted the statistics we need for economic management, has now worked its way through. We have put in place measures to improve those statistics. But most important of all we are now members of the Exchange Rate Mechanism with all the anti-inflationary discipline that that entails. With those barriers against inflation, we are now better equipped than ever before to prevent a recurrence of inflationary trends and I regard that as being of immense importance.

    Looking to the future, London is well placed to benefit from new challenges. Not least the challenge immediately in front of us, indeed in many ways here and now, of the European single market. There is no way whatsoever that we can rest on past achievements, unless of course we wish to stagnate. In a world of highly competitive, highly mobile markets, even the achievements that outlined a moment or so ago in no way guarantee our future. Competition has become more intense in the last few years and yet despite this I am confident London will be able to compete, to build on its role as Europe’s financial centre of the future.

    We are looking forward in Europe both to the single market in finance and to the global market that is developing around us so very rapidly.

    – We already have in SEAQ the cornerstone of a pan-European market in shares. It is a market created not by and for Government but by and for the users and suppliers of capital.

    – London’s stock market has created European share indices. London will soon be trading futures on those indices, opening up a pan-European market in derivatives. All remarkable moves forward in London.

    – London too is already the centre of the cross border market in bonds. We were, after all, trading Eurobonds decades before the 1992 programme was ever thought of. We will be able to dedicate this expertise to the increasing integration of domestic bond markets.

    – We can look forward to growing business links with Eastern Europe as those countries join the commonwealth of market economies. The opportunities that exist at present and will be there throughout the 90’s and beyond are very substantial indeed.

    London in my view is more than just a financial centre for the European community. The Eurobond market should remind us that financial services are now truly international. The Eurobond market is a global capital market. Banking and insurance of course have long been global. Securities and other sectors are now clearly going in the same way. We cannot, and we should not, try to draw arbitrary lines around one country or even a group of countries, even those as important and influential as the European Community.

    There are now well over 500 foreign banks in and around the Square Mile. They are most welcome. Of course I am gratified to read of the success of British companies, but it is the cosmopolitan nature of the city that I believe is its true glory. The City and Government collectively issue an invitation to the world: come to London and compete here in London against the best there is in the world. Many have accepted our invitation. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, a very welcome addition which arrived only last month, is the latest to do so. I hope that many more will follow.

    The Government has been working hard to develop links with New York, Chicago, Tokyo, links to change regulatory systems and facilitate cross border business. Now Michael, I of course am only too well aware that there is still too little understanding of what the financial services sector really does. The enormous contribution that the City makes to the economy. That contribution is, and I use this term literally, immense.

    It is easy enough to quote the bald figures showing the net contribution of financial and other services to the balance of payments – between £6 billion and £9 billion in recent years. All the main sectors make a positive contribution.

    One perhaps in another way could quote the contribution of the financial sector to our national income: together with other related services it provides one job in every eight and an even larger share of GDP. Beyond that there is a deeper sense in which the role of financial services needs to be understood: as a support system to the rest of the economy. To manufacturers, retailers and to ordinary people in their daily lives.

    Imagine for a moment and I invite you to stretch your imagination. Imagine for a moment a world without banks. I saw in some sectors a shudder of apprehension at the thought. But imagine a world without banks. All your money stuffed in a mattress. A world without fund management or pensions. It would have to be, you can see, a very large mattress indeed. A world without insurance as well. So it had better be a very well guarded mattress indeed.

    Imagine then a world without securities. No one would be able to raise funds for investment, except by traipsing round the world begging from each and every wealth-owner. Without commodity markets we would still be at the mercy of the harvest and acts of God. Without shipbroking we would never know whether our goods would ever reach us. A modern economy needs a healthy financial services sector. Of course the City and industry don’t always see eye to eye. It would be odd if they did. But neither side should ever question their inter-dependence.

    There are perhaps as many reasons for London’s success as there are firms that have settled here. There are London’s long standing virtues: an enterprising tradition, an international outlook, a concentration of expertise in all the main areas of financial activity. There is a willingness to innovate and take up new challenges. In addition to that there is the very tangible gains of having the international language of business, English, and a tradition of probity based essentially on English Law.

    All those are important. The City offers a host of contemporary advantages as well. Freedom from exchange and capital controls. Sympathetic tax treatment of new financial products. A firm but flexible system of supervision. And a Government committed to de-regulation and liberalisation. As an example of this perhaps I may mention Britain’s lead in developing an advanced telecommunications system on which so much of modern business depends. Now I could continue upon that theme, though you will be familiar with many of the matters I would raise.

    London can boast the world’s largest urban regeneration project. Four new international air terminals in the last four years. New railway connections to the heart of the City are now being planned. All of those collectively, and indeed individually, help to give London the edge over other financial centres. The City combines a tradition of service and enterprise with the very best of modern technology and professionalism. These impressive new offices, formally being opened today, demonstrate Smith New Court’s determination to equip itself with nothing but the best.

    In recent years the City has undergone a revolution. A time of change in which talented people have seized opportunities, worked to compete and taken the lead in financial innovation. In financial services Britain continues to lead the world. Not through the imposition of Government plans, nor by sheltering behind protective national barriers or clinging to outdated practices; but by tapping our own enterprise in the City and by challenging the rest of the world to meet it.

    That is a very remarkable achievement. Those people who think the glories of the City lie in the past should look at what has actually been achieved in the period of even just the last decade to see how inaccurate that would be. This pattern of innovation, of change and raising and changing one’s mind to move ever ahead with the new technologies and new ideas that come before one: that must be the way ahead in the 1990’s. It was, it is and will be in my judgement the only way ahead for us in the 1990’s.

    That is the spirit of the Britain that we need to create if we are to compete successfully in an ever more competitive world. Michael I am delighted to have had your invitation to join you here today. For this simple reason. This building symbolises that attitude. I am delighted to be here today, to be part of this occasion and to formally declare it open.

    MICHAEL HARKS – CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF SMITH NEW COURT

    Smith New Court is part of what has become to be called The Securities Industry. It is an important industry for Britain and one of the few industries where we have a legitimate claim to be a world leader. This, I suggest Prime Minister, is acknowledged by your presence and your speech here today. On behalf of us all, thank you.