The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Liverpool

  • 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 – 20 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    NATO

    Q1. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet the leaders of other NATO member states to discuss, inter alia, the membership, structure, functions and policy objectives of the organisation and related matters ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : NATO Heads of State and Government will meet in Rome on 7 and 8 November. Our main task will be to conclude the review of NATO’s role, strategy and force structures set in hand by the summit in London last July. Good progress has already been made. The reformed alliance will continue to provide the essential basis for our security in the 1990s.

    Dr. Godman : I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but may I point out to him that, in Scotland, there is growing concern over what appears to be a piecemeal and fragmented restructuring of the armed forces of all the NATO countries, including the United Kingdom? Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the rapid reaction force will never be deployed outwith mainland Europe unless and until it receives the specific authority of the United St United Nations. [Interruption.] I said the United Nations and not the United States as I never want to see young Scots, or young men from anywhere in the United Kingdom, being turned into cannon fodder at the behest of an American President skilfully exploiting the sycophantic support of NATO leaders.

    The Prime Minister : Let me say first how much I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom will command the future NATO rapid reaction force. That is a key role for the British Army and one which I think it will perform splendidly, both in the interests of this country and of NATO. The specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised is quite clear. The purpose of the rapid reaction corps is to defend NATO territory ; it is not a signal of a more interventionist NATO approach elsewhere.

    Sir Robert McCrindle : When the Prime Minister comes to consider these matters, will he also take into account the enormous advantage of the participation of the United States and Canada in NATO, mapping it out, in the opinion of many of us, as a much more effective medium of western defence than any of the alternatives recommended?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. The presence of north American forces in Europe is absolutely essential; by that I mean US conventional and nuclear contributions, both of which are irreplaceable. They are here now and I hope, trust and believe that they will be here in the future.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister know precisely how much, in pounds and pence, a single old-age pensioner has on which to live for a week? Does he regard it as adequate?

    The Prime Minister : It would depend on his individual circumstances : whether he received income support, whether he had any state earnings- related pension supplement or a raft of other special payments.

     

    Q3. Mr. Roger King : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

    Mr. King : Will my right hon. Friend give a pledge to the House that he and his Government will never increase funding for various aspects of Government by plundering the wage packet of the British working man and woman? Will he further compare his Government’s spending– [Interruption.] –spending policies with those alluded to by the Opposition, whose policies of spend, spend, spend– [Hon. Members :– “Spund, spund, spund.”]–have no regard to how they will be paid for?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that people in this country need only look at our record on cutting the direct rate of taxation to be clear about the fact that we would not be in favour of increasing it. The Labour party, by contrast, is in favour of much higher spending, which can be met only by much higher taxation, not just for the well-off, but for those on the standard rate of income tax. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has shown that vividly this morning.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recognise that in their recent comments, both of his Tory predecessors were only trying to help him? Which of them did he find most helpful?

    The Prime Minister : The greatest help that this party often receives is from the right hon. Gentleman himself.

    Mr. Kinnock : That must be why we are 10 points ahead and are winning by-elections. Why will not the Prime Minister tell us? It is a straightforward question–is he closest to the last leader of the Conservative party or to the last but one leader, or is he just piggy in the middle?

    The Prime Minister : I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I can tell him that I have no intention of being distracted from the policy on Europe which I have set out clearly and repeatedly in the House.

    I shall continue to negotiate in Europe for an outcome that I can safely recommend to the House. It will then be for the House to decide on it.

    Mr. Waller : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider what the implications for taxation and public spending would be if the privatisation programme were to come to an end? Furthermore, what would happen if British Telecom, the water industry and the electricity grid were to be renationalised?

    The Prime Minister : The privatisation receipts are about £5.5 billion a year. That is the equivalent of nearly 3p on the standard rate of income tax, so clearly to abandon those receipts would lead either to higher borrowing or to higher taxation. There can be no doubt about that.

     

    Q4 . Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

    Mr. Bennett : I am sure that the Prime Minister would want to be fair. If he is so keen to have everything costed, has he had Majorism costed, or is he merely sending the bill for that to the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman plumbs new triviality with each question that he asks. In the past decade, conservatism has delivered a far higher standard of living for the people of this country than ever before and so it will in the next decade.

    Sir Ian Stewart : When my right hon. Friend goes to the European Council, will he accept that he carries with him the good wishes of all Conservative Members and our gratitude for the constructive and responsible way in which he has tackled serious and important constitutional issues? Will he take the opportunity to point out to his colleagues in the other European countries that any rapid move to a single currency, before the economies of the various countries in Europe are very much closer in performance, would produce disastrous consequences which would be far more likely to blow the European Community apart than to lead to greater unity?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with every word that my right hon. Friend has said. I have made the point consistently over the past 15 months that until and unless there is proper convergence of the European economies, it would be utter folly even to contemplate a single currency.

     

    Q5. Mr. Loyden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Loyden : The Prime Minister will be aware of the stand taken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the threat to ICI. What will the Prime Minister’s stance be in the event of a hostile bid being made by Hanson to take over ICI?

    The Prime Minister : There has been no such takeover bid and it would, therefore, be entirely inappropriate for me to comment.

     

    Q6. Mr. Beaumont-Dark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 902, which is an all-party motion tabled by, among others, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? It concerns Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray. Through no fault of theirs–whoever’s fault it was, they were not on a holiday jaunt–they lost their legs in a tragic accident. With his well-known compassion and concern for individuals who have problems, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will look at the problem with that compassion so that we can come to the right decision, which is to care for the individual who serves this state?

    The Prime Minister : This is a very tragic accident. I am sure that the whole House feels that deeply and we offer our sympathy to the guardsmen concerned. The board of inquiry has examined the matter carefully and has reached the conclusion that it was a tragic accident and that no one was culpable for the dreadful affair. I am examining the matter, but I must do so on the basis of legal liability.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister agree with his predecessor when she said that joining the exchange rate mechanism relegated Ministers to the status of innocent bystanders at an accident? If he agrees, how would he describe himself–as the bystander or the accident?

    The Prime Minister : We entered the exchange rate mechanism last year when my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister and I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was right to enter the mechanism then ; it is right for us to be members of the mechanism now. I made it absolutely clear at the time that I felt that that was the best way in which to ensure that we not only got inflation on a downward trend, but kept it on a downward trend. We are in the exchange rate mechanism ; we are staying in it. In due course, we shall move to the narrow bands.

     

    Q.7 Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list he official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Coombs : In considering local government matters in the light of the appalling record of the past eight years of the Labour administration in Liverpool–the appalling inefficiency, massive debts and uncollected refuse there, and the impending gravediggers’ strike–does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition that the Labour council there–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is not the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

    Mr. Coombs : –with the statement made yesterday that the council there is merely trying to provide– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Coombs : When considering the reform of local government, does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling inefficiency of Liverpool should be rate-capped and in future should be avoided by local government reform, or is the statement of the Leader of the Opposition merely pie in the sky?

    The Prime Minister : The whole country will observe what has happened in Liverpool over recent years and will be perfectly well aware where the blame for that lies. As the Labour Co-ordinating Committee has written about Labour councils :

    “They demonstrate as far as the public is concerned, what a Labour Government would be like”.

    Mr. Ashley : Is the Prime Minister aware that when considering the future of Britain the volatility of a couple of Prime Ministers is a trivial sideshow compared with the potential volatility of £84 billion sterling hot money as a result of the Government’s incompetence? How far can the Prime Minister say that he is confident that there will be no sterling crisis before the next general election?

    The Prime Minister : If there were to be a sterling crisis, it would occur only if there were no longer a Conservative Government.

     

    Q.8 Mr. Quentin Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 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 even marginal increases in taxation can have a serious effect on incentives and that even marginal increases in Government borrowing can have a serious effect on inflation and interest rates and that to increase borrowing and taxation by something like £35 billion would have catastrophic effects on the British economy?

    The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt about that. In practice it would mean either dramatically higher borrowing with consequentially much higher interest rates and mortgages, or it would mean up to an extra 15p on the standard rate of income tax to 40p in the pound. With a policy of adding national insurance contributions throughout the income scale, that would make us one of the highest-taxed countries in the industrial world.

     

  • 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.