Tag: Local Government

  • PMQT – 26 April 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th April 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

    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. Morgan : Does the Prime Minister agree with the words of the Home Secretary to the Institute of Directors convention this morning, when he said that the police, the courts and the prison services were having to pick up the pieces for the failures of others? Does he agree that the word “others” may include those who have been governing this country for the last 15 years?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen the text of what my right hon. and learned Friend said, but I am sure that he was seeking to convey that the causes of crime are many and varied; that it is not possible to let all the aspects of crime simply be dealt with by the police and others; and that everyone in authority, whatever that authority may be, may have to, and should be prepared to, take their share of responsibility.

    Mr. Rathbone : Will the Prime Minister send a special message of encouragement to South Africa as the democratic elections continue there in order to welcome this final step away from apartheid ? Will he continue to bend his energy to bringing South Africa back into the Commonwealth?

    The Prime Minister : I think that people around the world welcome the elections that are taking place in South Africa and hope that they can be concluded without any more of the violence that has scarred events in the last few days. When the election is concluded and a new multi-racial government is formed, I very much hope that South Africa will decide to rejoin the Commonwealth. As far as this Government is concerned, it will be a very welcome entrant.

    Mr. John Smith : How can the Prime Minister justify his Government’s spending £500 million of taxpayers’ money in fees to private consultants when, as is revealed in today’s Financial Times, only £10 million was gained as a result?

    The Prime Minister : Let me set out some of the points related to that, because I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may tend to agree with much of what I have to say about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking questions that I myself asked, which is the reason why the scrutiny was established in the first place. It was set up because of the growth in expenditure on consultants and in order to find out whether it is good value for money or whether better value for money can be obtained. If it confirms that the expenditure is producing good results, we will maintain it ; if not, we will make the changes required.

    As far as savings are concerned, the spending is on specialist advice to support programmes. It is not a search to find savings especially.

    Mr. John Smith : In other words, it is true : another grotesque waste of taxpayers’ money has occurred. Is not the Prime Minister’s game to delay this and any other bad news until after the local and European elections are over? Why not tell the truth for once before an election?

    Hon. Members : Withdraw!

    Madam Speaker : Order. I believe that I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly and found nothing unparliamentary in what he said, but would he care to repeat it so that it is clear to all of us?

    Mr. John Smith : What I suggested to the Prime Minister was that for once he should tell the truth before an election.

    The Prime Minister : If there was an intention to hide anything, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could explain why we established the scrutiny in the first place–it is precisely to determine that the expenditure is conducted properly. However, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to judge without having seen the report, before the report is completed and without any understanding of the report or what is in it, let me give him a little more information. The examination of where the money is spent includes matters such as helping to design and evaluate weapons systems for the armed forces–not something that the civil service could do–and conducting feasibility studies on technical aspects of the road programme, which is not something that could be done without specialist advice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should find out some facts before he smears.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister realise that families all over Britain–the real quiet majority–who are now paying huge tax increases imposed by his Government will bitterly resent this further example of the Government’s now legendary incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House will have noted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to criticise, was wrong and was not prepared to apologise. I am glad at last that he is taking a closer interest in value for money and efficiency. I hope that he will apply the same test to Labour local authorities up and down the country–every single one he knows. If he were really concerned about tax, perhaps he would indicate what aspects of public expenditure restraint he would support. If he were concerned about local authority tax, perhaps he will explain why he and his party oppose compulsory competitive tendering despite the savings that it has made in councils up and down the country. Every single thing that he has said today is bogus.

    Mr. Rowe : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite having inherited a remarkably sound economy and having driven up the council tax quite unnecessarily, the Labour-Liberal coalition which runs Kent has decided to cut the police budget? Will he comment on the amazing gap between the statements of the Front-Bench spokesmen of the two Opposition parties and what they do when they have office?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has made the point very clearly. I am not familiar with the particular illustration that he produced, but there are many similar illustrations of which the House is well aware.

     

    Q2. Mr. Callaghan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Mr. Callaghan : Is the Prime Minister aware of the statistics that have just been produced by the North West health authority which show a 60 per cent. increase over three years in the number of youngsters aged 18 and under who have to attend hospital for treatment for drug abuse? In view of those alarming figures and the fact that there is a connection between serious crime and drug abuse, as evidenced by the number of murders in our cities, will the Prime Minister tell the House exactly what he intends to do to combat the evils of drug abuse and serious crime?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman touches on a very important matter and I am pleased to respond to him. The sum total of expenditure by the Government on drug-related programmes and other matters related to drugs now exceeds £500 million a year. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Lord President to bring together the expenditure all across Government to make sure that we can target it at the right Departments and at the right problems to begin to cope with the problem of drugs, which exists right across the world but which I think every hon. Member would wish us to tackle at the roots as speedily as possible.

     

    Q3. Sir George Gardiner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Sir George Gardiner : In the course of his day, my right hon. Friend may have time to look at the final draft of the Conservative manifesto for the European elections. When he does, will he make doubly sure that it emphasises the crucial choice that faces our people in those elections– between Conservative resistance to further moves towards Euro federalism, while we protect British jobs by staying out of the social chapter, and Labour and Liberal eagerness to sign up to anything, to hand over control to the Eurocrats in Brussels and to saddle us with employment costs that would hit directly at British jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a sharp contrast between our policies on Europe and those of both the main Opposition parties, whose policies are almost indistinguishable. We believe in a free trade, deregulated, outward-looking Europe of independent nation states–unlike either of the Opposition parties, both of which want regulation, intervention and more high spending in a federal European state. That is not for us and I do not believe that it is the wish of the British nation either.

     

    Q4. Ms Quin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Ms Quin : Following the previous question, and as the Prime Minister feels that he has a lot in common with the four countries that hope to join the European Union next year, will he tell the House how many of them have supported his Government in requesting an opt-out from the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister : I think that one will find that across Europe– [Interruption.] Across Europe, as the hon. Lady knows, countries are recognising that Britain is more competitive because we had the courage to stand up and say that destroying jobs in Europe was not a good idea. There are 19 million people unemployed in Europe; only in this country is unemployment falling. Only this country is becoming more competitive, and that is because we were prepared to say no to policies that destroy jobs and yes to policies that create jobs.

     

    Q5. Mr. Kynoch : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Mr. Kynoch : Although controlling inflation is not an end in itself, does my right hon. Friend agree with me and the many business men in my constituency that it is, however, a precondition for falling unemployment, low interest rates and, ultimately, sound and stable economic growth?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The necessity to get inflation down is self-evident, as is the necessity to keep it down to have the economy growing steadily. As a result of the disinflationary policy that we have followed, we have now had growth for eight successive quarters, unemployment has fallen by a quarter of a million and we have a higher growth pattern than any other nation in the European Community. A CBI survey published this morning showed business optimism continuing to rise. That is a scenario which most other nations in Europe would be pleased to have.

     

    Q6. Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Mr. Williams : On this historic day in South Africa, will the Prime Minister congratulate Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress and everyone else involved in the anti-apartheid movement for bringing democracy at last to South Africa?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to extend my congratulations to Mr. Mandela, to President de Klerk and to everyone else who over the years has worked towards a non-racial South Africa. That will be welcomed by people across the world, and I hope that it will bring greater stability for South Africa in the future.

    Mr. Jonathan Evans : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the recent extensive and co-ordinated press attention to concerns about the Government’s proposals to deal with new age travellers? Perhaps I can tell my right hon. Friend that the quiet majority in my constituency very much support the Government’s plans as contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which will give them real protection from those unlawful activities.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. New age travellers have been an immense nuisance, not least, of course, in the west country over recent years. The legislation proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will give the police far more powers to deal with them. In view of the difficulty that there has been in the west country, I am surprised that we have not had more support from the Liberal Democrats on that matter.

     

    Q7. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

    Mr. Enright : How does the Prime Minister square the suppression of the sleaze about Westminster on the “Panorama” programme with his aim of open government?

    The Prime Minister : No Government have ever been more open than this one and there is no suspicion of sleaze.

  • PMQT – 19 April 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th April 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Garnier : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

    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. Garnier : During his many meetings with business leaders, has my right hon. Friend ever been asked by even one of them to introduce a minimum statutory wage?

    The Prime Minister : No, in my many meetings I have not yet been asked to introduce a statutory minimum wage, but a number of employers have expressed concern at the prospect. They believe that it would cost jobs and harm competitiveness, and I agree.

    Mr. John Smith : Given the threat of fatal catastrophe that now hangs over Gorazde and the undoubted confusion that sadly attends the efforts of the international community in Bosnia, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a clear statement of future policy objectives is urgently needed. I propose that they should include a redoubling of efforts to secure a ceasefire at Gorazde ; the reaffirmation by this and other countries of their political, military and humanitarian commitment to the area ; and a clear decision by the international community to make safe areas safe, in the knowledge that the United Nations will require to be given sufficient resources to perform that task, but also in the knowledge that those safe areas may offer the only haven to the victims of a brutal civil war.

    The Prime Minister : I have a lot of sympathy with much of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. There is no doubt that our objectives in Bosnia have not changed. Last week’s setback in Gorazde–as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear to the House yesterday, it was a setback for the United Nations–does not alter the fact that we wish to secure a complete ceasefire in Bosnia. It should not be forgotten by the House or others that we have established a ceasefire between the Croat and Bosnian forces in central Bosnia as well as in Sarajevo. However, as latest events have tragically shown, the negotiators have not yet been able to extend that ceasefire elsewhere in Bosnia. At the moment, we are considering both here in the United Kingdom and with our partners precisely what needs to be done next. There will of course be meetings among NATO allies tomorrow.

    Mr. John Smith : May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of safe areas? Will he undertake to discuss this fully with our partners? The United Nations, having resolved to create safe areas as havens for the victims of war, should resolve to make them possible by committing itself to that purpose and by using the necessary means to achieve it–Britain’s contribution included, of course.

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we are concerned, and have been for a long time, to secure, as far as it is practicable for us to do so, the safety of people in areas of Bosnia, in Gorazde or elsewhere. Before we make any blanket assurance, we have to consider whether the practical will, not just in the United Kingdom but in other countries as well, exists to release the resources to enable us to do that. We have to be careful before we make any practical assurances.

    Clearly, the objectives that the right hon. and learned Gentleman sets out are objectives that any sensible person would want realised ; but we have to consider what in practice can be done and whether the resources to deliver the objectives set out are likely to be available.

    Mr. Tracey : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the unacceptably high levels of local council debt, particularly among councils controlled by the Opposition parties? I refer to Liverpool and Manchester and to councils in London such as Islington, whose debt amounts to £5,500 per adult in the council’s area. That adds unacceptably to the council tax. What will the Government do about it?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend turns to a point that will be much in evidence during the local authority debates and during the whole local election campaign over the next few weeks. Irrespective of the equitable method of funding local authorities, there is no doubt about which local authorities, under what political control, run up substantial debts : we know that those that are in debt are Labour local authorities. We also know that those that do not adequately collect rents are Labour local authorities. I believe that many people will see the connection between the first and the second.

    Sir David Steel : Returning to the question of future policy for Bosnia, may I ask the Prime Minister to take this opportunity to make it clear that sanctions against Serbia will not be lifted and will not be open to negotiation until there is a full and secure peace settlement in Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister : We have no proposals to change the present sanctions regime, which has been in hand for some time. We have consistently said that the sanctions are in place to try to encourage people to act moderately and reasonably in the future. I have no present proposals to change them.

    Sir Ivan Lawrence : Has my right hon. Friend seen that the reported crime rate for over half the police areas in England and Wales is falling? Is not that evidence that the Government’s law and order policy is working? And is not the fact that the courts have been imposing longer sentences evidence that, by taking the worst offenders out of circulation, the Home Secretary was right to say that prison works?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. and learned Friend is right. There is no doubt about the immense public concern about crime and no doubt about the desire of all parties, in the House and elsewhere, that it should decrease. It has been most encouraging recently to note that, in a number of areas, innovative policing ideas–Bumblebee in the Metropolitan area, but operations in other areas, too–seem to have had a material effect on the crime statistics.

    The most encouraging aspect of the statistics released today is the fact that the drop in crime on a quarterly basis appears to be accelerating. These are just one year’s figures, and we must view them with a degree of caution, but the trend is certainly more attractive than any for some years.

     

    Q2. Mr. Turner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

    Mr. Turner : In the excitement of last week’s Question Time, the Prime Minister completely failed to answer my question. May I therefore ask it again? In the aftermath of his defeat in the local and European elections, will he continue to limp along with his battle-weary Government, or will he take the honourable path and resign?

    The Prime Minister : I look forward to answering the hon. Gentleman’s questions for a long time to come.

    Mr. Cormack : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past few days, some 12 foreign correspondents have had their accreditation withdrawn by President Milosevic, including Sky Television’s chief correspondent, Mr. van Lynden? Is not that further evidence of the evil nature of the Serbian dictatorship and does not it show that it would be a very good thing if my right hon. Friend could meet Presidents Clinton, Mitterrand and Yeltsin at the earliest opportunity?

    The Prime Minister : I know of the expulsions that concern my hon. Friend and I deplore that restriction of press freedom. We have made the Belgrade authorities aware of our views. As for the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, I see no likelihood of an early meeting ; but I assure him that we are in very close touch with each of the Governments and Heads of Government whom he mentioned.

     

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

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

    Mr. Olner : Why has not the Prime Minister properly consulted and listened to organisations such as the Royal British Legion and other veteran associations when preparing the events in commemoration of D-day?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There has been a great deal of consultation and discussion; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage met members of the Normandy Veterans Association and the Royal British Legion this morning, and–as the hon. Gentleman may or may not know–Field Marshal Lord Bramall is part of the committee discussing and organising events for D-day.

    Mr. Evennett : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the national health service will continue to be available to all, irrespective of age or ability to pay? Will he condemn Opposition Members who are scaremongering, and worrying elderly people in particular? Is not the national health service for everyone in the country who needs health care?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and many millions of patients who are treated each day can attest to that. It is undoubtedly the policy that the national health service should in no way discriminate on grounds of age in allocating treatment. It is up to the clinicians concerned, in consultation with colleagues, to decide on the appropriate course of treatment for any patient, whatever that patient’s age; but any patient, whatever his or her age, is entitled to the treatment that he or she needs under the national health service.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

    Mr. Evans : Will the Prime Minister join me in deploring the decision of SmithKline Beecham–which made a profit of £1.22 billion last year–to close a factory that has stood in St. Helens for more than 100 years, sack 500 workers and transfer their employment to a non-union, low-pay firm in Devon? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me, and with the people of St Helens, that this is the unacceptable face of multinational capitalism?

    The Prime Minister : I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have no detailed knowledge of what has happened with SmithKline Beecham, and I am disinclined to comment on any case of which I have no such knowledge.

    Mr. Day : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest threat to the things that we hold dear in this country–such as social services and the national health service–comes from the growth of highly competitive economies in the Pacific basin? Do not our party and my right hon. Friend’s approach to Europe provide the only way of dealing with that competition, both for this country and for Europe in general?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. We are now operating in an increasingly competitive world. Nowadays, many parts of the world that were once readily prepared to accept British exports are manufacturing the same goods and competing with us in world markets. Unless we become as competitive as possible and keep that competitiveness, we shall lose jobs, income and influence, both economic and political.

     

    Q5. Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

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

    Mr. Barry Jones : Will the Prime Minister give stronger backing to Britain’s manufacturing industries? Will he, for example, give help to the British steel industry in the European Union, where the German, Italian and Spanish Governments are cheating? Does he agree that Britain’s steel communities have made their sacrifice in the form of tens of thousands of redundancies and many plant closures and that now is the time for the right hon. Gentleman’s Government to back British steel?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that we have raised a number of cases of suspected illegal subsidies with the Commission –the most recent being that of the bankrupt German company, Saarstahl. The Minister for Industry will raise that case again on Friday in the Industry Council in Luxembourg.

    On the more general point raised by the hon. Gentleman, we will continue to press for the fulfilment of existing commitments from the Commission and from member states to end all illegal subsidies in the steel industry. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Commission has a formal obligation to enforce the treaty of Paris and it has undertaken to pursue actively the monitoring commitments of a number of European Community countries.

    Mr. Hayes : Will my right hon. Friend congratulate SmithKline Beecham on investing £200 million in Harlow, which is good news for this country and which will be the largest project, after the channel tunnel, in Britain?

    The Prime Minister : I see rather earlier than I expected the wisdom of not responding to the question from the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) without having the details of the case in front of me. In view of what has been said by both hon. Gentlemen, I will certainly examine the matter.

  • PMQT – 14 April 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th April 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Duncan Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

    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. Duncan Smith : Is my right hon. Friend aware that my socialist-controlled council of Waltham Forest, which is now being investigated by the ombudsman for malpractice, set a council tax for band D of £587, supported by the Liberal party, whereas the Conservative group would have set one of more than £100 less? Does not that demonstrate clearly, first, that people pay in bands, not averages, secondly, that Conservative councils would cost people less and…

    Madam Speaker : Order. I am determined that this should be Question Time, not speech time. I therefore appeal to all hon. Members for brisk questions and answers.

    The Prime Minister : Well, my hon. Friend is quite right. Whatever bands they may be concerned with, council tax payers will pay more under Labour and Liberal authorities than they would under any Conservative authority. I am sure that voters will note that on 5 May.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is not it a scandal that, because of the changes that the Government have made in the health service, elderly people are being denied the right to hospital treatment on the ground of their age?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady is either ill-informed or scaremongering. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said this morning, the reports to which the right hon. Lady refers, no doubt from this morning’s “Today” programme, are wholly irresponsible. Neither patient in the BBC report had been refused treatment; both had been offered better options. It is utterly wrong of the right hon. Lady to raise the matter in that manner and to continue to cause needless anxiety to millions of people.

    Mrs. Beckett : What is scaring people is not what we are saying but what the Government are doing with the health service. The Prime Minister should know that people are being refused treatment because of what the British Medical Association calls the “undeniable fact” that there is now a two-tier health service. The GP of one of the people to whom the Prime Minister referred said :

    “Since contracts were introduced, this kind of predicament arises all the time.”

    What is that but a two-tier health service?

    The Prime Minister : Despite the fact that the right hon. Lady has peddled an untruth and continues to do so, there is no policy

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

    Madam Speaker : Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister will reflect and I hope that he will withdraw that last remark.

    The Prime Minister : Despite the fact– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I will have order in this House.

    The Prime Minister : Despite the fact that what the right hon. Lady says is inaccurate and she has just been told so again– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I do wish that the House would listen to the comments that are being made and not make such a row. I have asked the Prime Minister politely to reflect and I hope that he will withdraw what he said. [Interruption.] Order. I am sure that if the House were to listen, it would hear him do that.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady is aware, from what I said a few moments ago, that in both cases she has misled the House. [Hon. Members :– “Withdraw.”] In neither instance was treatment withheld from those patients. In both instances, they were offered better treatment. I hope that the right hon. Lady will now withdraw the imputation of a few moments ago.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

    Mrs. Beckett : I am not aware that I have misled the House. Indeed, there is a letter from one of the hospitals concerned apologising for the way in which the patient in question was treated. That does not sound to me like something which did not happen. I ask the Prime Minister : why will he and his colleagues not recognise reality? Elderly people are being clobbered by VAT on their gas and electricity and when they are ill they are being refused treatment in hospital. What has the Prime Minister got against the elderly?

    The Prime Minister : The fact that the right hon. Lady changed tack shows most clearly that she knows that she is wrong. Once again, the Labour party is needlessly alarming people, precisely as it did before the election by claiming that we would privatise the national health service. The Labour party will use any scare, at any time, for any reason, providing it believes that it will help its own party-political ambitions.

    Mr. Robathan : What action will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that taxpayers’ money is not wasted on ludicrous pay-outs to former service women who joined the armed forces on the understanding that they would be obliged to leave should they become pregnant?

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers, but, as he has raised the matter, I will ask my right and learned hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to examine it and report to me about it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Turner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

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

    Mr. Turner : Does the Prime Minister have any plans to visit Wolverhampton in the near future? If he has, I am sad to have to tell him that the good folk of Wolverhampton are completely brassed off with his Government’s policies and, I am sad to say, with him. I have to ask the Prime Minister whether, if the local elections go badly for him, he will do the noble thing with his Government and resign.

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman would want his constituents to know the truth about matters, so perhaps he might mention to them that, under this Government and the last few years of my predecessor’s Government, unemployment in his constituency fell by 23 per cent. Perhaps he could tell his constituents that. Perhaps he could tell them that there is now no one waiting for more than two years for health service treatment as there once was. Perhaps he could tell them about the extra millions of pounds allocated to the health authority to help reduce waiting lists. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman carried some of those messages to his constituents in Wolverhampton at the next election he would no longer be here.

    Mr. Hawkins : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the Labour party, where it is in office in local government, is to be judged on its record? Will he also agree with me that Manchester, under socialism, now owes nearly as much as El Salvador–a country which has been ravaged by 10 years of civil war?

    The Prime Minister : If the Labour party in local government is judged on its record it will not be in power any longer in local government.

     

    Q3. Mr. Keen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

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

    Mr. Keen : Is the Prime Minister not ashamed to appear to take so lightly the accusations that, in this year when we are specially remembering those who gave so much 50 years ago in the last war, because of the Government health reforms the people who made those sacrifices are now being denied the treatment that they so desperately need?

    The Prime Minister : What the hon. Gentleman says is wrong. Perhaps he might reflect that, although the elderly population has risen in numbers in England and Wales by about 9 per cent. since 1979, expenditure on elderly people has risen by approximately 40 per cent. over the same period. That is to accommodate the fact that more treatments are now available, better treatments are now available, waiting times are shorter and no one is denied proper treatment at any stage in the national health service.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

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

    Mr. Evans : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Janice takes quite a lot of interest in this place and she would like to know whether it was a Conservative party that won the last four general elections, with a record 14 million votes in the last election? Could he also tell Janice whether it was a Conservative Government who imposed a higher rate of tax in 1978? Was it 40p? [Hon. Members :– “No.”] Was it 60p ? [Hon. Members :– “No.”] Was it 70p ? [Hon. Members :– “No.”] Was it 90p ? [Hon. Members :– “No.”] Was it 98p? [Hon. Members :– “Yes.”] And if it was not a Conservative Government, was it that lot opposite ?

    Hon. Members : Yes.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the answer is yes, and I think that my hon. Friend can safely tell Janice that.

    Ms Glenda Jackson : Is the Prime Minister aware that the chief executive of the Royal Free hospital trust in my constituency today issued a statement apologising for the fact that, as a result of the Government’s obscene internal market policies, a 70-year-old man was denied treatment at that hospital? Is he inferring that the chief executive of the Royal Free is attempting to mislead the House and the country and is scaremongering?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to tell the House how many more patients the Royal Free has treated since the health service reforms. Perhaps she would like to do that and stop mis-stating matters.

     

    Q5. Mr. Gallie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

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

    Mr. Gallie : Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of doom, gloom and condemnation–the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)–at the time of the Leyland DAF collapse a year or two ago? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the successful rebirth of the activities previously undertaken by that company? Is he aware of the considerable increase in axle sales from Scottish Stampings in my constituency of Ayr as a consequence?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of that and I think that it is extremely encouraging. It is part of what I believe to be a bright future for the Scottish economy. Equally, it shows how right we were to resist the demands from all the Opposition parties to spend extra money on Leyland DAF. They still have the same old interventionist, corporatist, 1960s policies. Leyland DAF has done far better without the sort of help that they would have forced down its throat.

    Mr. Mullin : Has the Prime Minister had a chance to read yesterday’s report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the funding of political parties, particularly the minority report that starts on page 38? Is No. 10 Downing street still being used for Tory party fund-raising dinners? If so, is not that a misuse of public property?

    The Prime Minister : I use Downing street to meet business men in the same way as the Labour party used Downing street to meet the trade unions.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q6. Mr. Heald : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north Hertfordshire.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Heald : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Letchworth Garden City on its 90th anniversary, which is currently being celebrated with a musical extravaganza called “Why Aren’t We All Dancing?”? Does he agree that, with unemployment down by 13 per cent. in the last year, with house prices up by 4 per cent. and with a council tax half that of the neighbouring Labour-controlled Stevenage borough council, people in Letchworth and north Hertfordshire have every reason to be dancing–dancing on the Labour party in May and June?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a compelling case, and I have no doubt that that is what local people will do on 5 May.

  • PMQT – 12 April 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th April 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Austin-Walker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

    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. Austin-Walker : Does the Prime Minister recall that not a single vote was cast in the House on Second Reading against the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and that 231 hon. and right hon. Members voted for it? Will he assure the House that nothing will be done by the Government side to obstruct the passage of that Bill and that an early opportunity will be found for the Report stage and Third Reading?

    The Prime Minister : As I have indicated to the House before, we share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. We have done a great deal for disabled people in recent years and will do yet more, both in this Parliament and the next. What we need to do in Committee and thereafter is to look at the practical implications of the Bill, and that will be done.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Following his recent success in encouraging and welcoming the introduction of Russian ground troops into the former Yugoslavia, as part of the United Nations Protection Force, will my right hon. Friend try to use his influence to improve communications between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and President Yeltsin, so that the Russian President will not feel excluded from the implementation of resolution 836, for which Russia voted in the Security Council on 4 June 1993?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend clearly indicates, Russia has a very important part to play in the peace process and I very much welcome the actions by the Russian deputy Foreign Minister during the past 24 hours to support the ceasefire negotiations. As far as the recent close air support is concerned, UNPROFOR and NATO acted in accordance with the Security Council resolution that my hon. Friend mentioned. Both resolutions 836 and 844 were at the time accepted by Russia. In that instance, the close air support operation did not require further consultation with any Government and in those circumstances it was correctly authorised by the Secretary-General’s special representative, but clearly, where it is militarily practicable, it is wise to seek the support of those countries that supported the resolution.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is the appearance of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at yesterday’s manifesto launch of Westminster city council–a council that the district auditor said wasted £21 million of taxpayers’ money–an admission that the Government are happy to condone waste and incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : Yesterday, I had the pleasure of spending some time in Birmingham, which I much enjoyed. If the right hon. Lady wishes to talk about waste and incompetence she might look at some of the activities of Birmingham city council in recent years.

    Mrs. Beckett : What is the country to make– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mrs. Beckett : What is the country to make of the fact that the Minister in charge of the nation’s purse-strings openly endorses a council that sold three cemeteries for 5p each, which had to be bought back at a cost of millions of pounds, and that the district auditor says has wasted £21 million of public money? What kind of standards are these?

    The Prime Minister : I should be more impressed with what the right hon. Lady has to say if she applied precisely the same criteria to many Labour authorities, not just Birmingham– [Interruption.] –that I have mentioned. Some of my hon. Friends have just mentioned others and there are many to draw from.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does not the Prime Minister understand that he and his Government deceived the public about the poll tax, deceived the public about income tax and deceived the public about value added tax, and are now trying to deceive the public about council tax and about their record on local authorities, that no one believes the Government any longer and that that is why the local elections and the Euro elections will be a referendum on the record of the Prime Minister and his whole Government?

    The Prime Minister : I am bound to say that that was just a touch laboured. If she wants to talk about deceit on taxation, the right hon. Lady might look at her hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who, on the council tax, was forced to admit after weeks of prevarication that Conservative councils were noticeably less expensive to the council tax payer than Labour authorities. Whatever band of council tax one takes, the answer is the same : Labour councils tax more than Conservative councils.

    Mr. Fabricant : Is my right hon. Friend as alarmed as I am at the unusual comments made by Vladimir Zhirinovsky in France this morning when he spoke about the possibility of a nuclear attack on France? Does he agree with me that now is not the time to talk about nuclear disarmament as some Opposition Members have done?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. There should be no doubt that we will maintain our nuclear deterrent in its strength, quite unlike Opposition Members who for many years have been prepared to abandon it unilaterally.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister reaffirm that apart from the action taken by the United Nations being consistent with UN Security Council resolutions, as he has suggested, it was also necessary to support the authority of the UN and it was required for the protection of UN peacekeepers? Does he also agree with me that now is the time to keep our nerve, maintain our military determination and increase diplomatic pressure on the Serbs in order to persuade them that they have more to gain from returning to the peace process than from aggression or from further challenges to United Nations authority?

    The Prime Minister : On this occasion, I am able broadly to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Close air support will remain available to the UN commanders, and they will be able to call on it again if they consider it necessary under either resolution 836 or resolution 844. I hope that those who may be prepared to attack UNPROFOR will draw the appropriate lesson from what has happened so that further use of close air support is unnecessary. As regards keeping our nerve, we are determined to do whatever we can to try to bring about a full settlement. A huge amount has been achieved in the past eight weeks or so. We need to build on it in the weeks ahead, and there will be no loss of nerve here or, I hope, anywhere else.

    Mr. Bates : Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest edition of Plant Location International which has carried out a poll of the world’s best regions for foreign direct investment in which Shenzhen, China is third, Cape province, South Africa is second and the northern region is first? Does not this excellent news demonstrate how the economic fortunes of the north-east have been transformed since 1979 under the present Government?

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that that particular publication was not part of my Easter reading, but I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has to say and I certainly share his view about the renewal of prospects, not just in the north-east, but in the whole of the northern part of England.

     

    Q2. Mr. Donohoe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

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

    Mr. Donohoe : Making reference to the statement made earlier by the Prime Minister in connection with Birmingham, will the right hon. Gentleman condemn the lies and deceptions contained in last week’s Tory party broadcast?

    The Prime Minister : I never condemn reality and truth. The reality is that we could have given a whole series of illustrations, not just of Birmingham city council, but of a series of other councils–Coventry, Waltham Forest, Derbyshire. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) knows all about Derbyshire and the chairman of the finance committee.

    Mrs. Beckett indicated assent.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady may contemplate that before she asks me again about Westminster or any other Conservative authority. So I think that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) ought to consider the depth of corruption and despair that there is as a result of Labour local authorities.

     

    Deregulation —

    Q3. Mr. Steen : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with other European political leaders about deregulation in respect of European directives.

    The Prime Minister : The Commission has said that it will bring forward proposals that will involve the simplification or repeal of about 25 per cent. of Community legislation.

    Mr. Steen : In view of the Prime Minister’s success in persuading the Commission of the need for greater deregulation, will he try and persuade the other European leaders of the need to embark upon a compliance cost assessment before any directive is implemented, so that every country in Europe knows the cost to its taxpayers before a directive is enforced and implemented?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of compliance cost assessment, and we are actively encouraging other member states in the Community to introduce systems similar to our own. We are seeking to strengthen the Commission’s systems, so ensuring that all proposals for Community legislation are justified in terms of their costs and of their benefits, because the only rational way for Europe to behave in terms of its future legislation is to ensure that Europe becomes more competitive and avoids unnecessary on-costs and over- regulation.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. O’Hara : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

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

    Mr. O’Hara : Talking of Westminster, Library statistics tell us that Tory Westminster spends £78 more per capita than Liverpool and yet it manages to do that on a band D council tax which is less than one third of Liverpool’s. What possible justification can the Prime Minister give for such flagrant politically motivated gerrymandering of central Government support to Westminster?

    The Prime Minister : One of the great differences between Westminster and many of the local authorities that the hon. Gentleman is so fond of is that Westminster collects its rents, for example. If one were to consider– [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman were to examine the list of local authorities that have a bad rent collection record, he would find Labour local authorities heading that list and running right down it. He would find the same if he considered local authorities in debt, and the same with local authorities who have empty dwellings. The reality is, on any realistic measure of local authority performance, the worst local authorities are socialist local authorities.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q5. Mr. Brandreth : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the city of Chester.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Brandreth : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the city of Chester is one of the great cultural capitals of Europe, the home of two fine theatres and the place where the first movie was shown in this country, in 1890? Will my right hon. Friend join me in saluting the extraordinary contribution of film and theatre to this country’s economy and standing ; a contribution best exemplified by the unique career of Sir John Gielgud, who is visiting Westminster today and who celebrates his 90th birthday this week?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in his tribute to the film and variety industry, to the city of Chester and to Sir John Gielgud. I did not myself hear it, but I gather that those who did hear his remarkable King Lear over the weekend regarded it as one of the finest Lears that they had ever heard. He will be very welcome in Westminster, and I should like to add my congratulations to Sir John on his 90th birthday.

     

    London (Policies)

    Q6. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the policies of Her Majesty’s Government which have been assessed as the most popular in London.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Member will see the best of London local government if he looks at the outstanding services offered by Conservative boroughs throughout London.

    Mr. Hughes : If the Prime Minister is unwilling to change his most popular policies, which have reduced his support from more than 45 per cent. to 26 per cent. in the capital, would he like to consider changing his least popular policies and not close hospitals such as Guy’s which have now been shown to be part of a health service in which there is no surplus of beds, no surplus of resources and a huge amount of still unmet London-wide need?

    The Prime Minister : What the hon. Gentleman either fails to understand or fails to mention is the fact that the changes in the hospital structure in London are mirrored by changes to primary health care that will deliver very dramatic improvements in primary health care for all Londoners. There is no doubt that that is necessary and that, as a result of these changes, Londoners will both deserve and receive the standards of health care that I believe they should have and that are enjoyed elsewhere.

  • PMQT – 29 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Byers : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the work force at the Swan Hunter shipyards on Tyneside, who, despite the fact that the company is in receivership, have continued to produce a high- quality product on time for the Ministry of Defence with the receiver close to securing a new owner, but with work running out? Will the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, consider steps that the Government can take to safeguard the future of shipbuilding on the Tyne and thereby retain 1,000 highly-skilled manufacturing jobs?

    The Prime Minister : I support what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the workers at Swan Hunter. As he will know, officials are continuing to support the receiver’s efforts to sell Swan Hunter as a going concern.

    I know that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) have been active on its behalf. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has told the company that foreign ownership would not preclude Swan Hunter from bidding for MOD work. As the hon. Gentleman will know, all MOD work is bid for on a competitive basis.

    Mr. Trotter : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the bid from France is successful, the new owners intend to use Swan Hunter to obtain substantial additional export orders for Britain and that the continuation of Swan Hunter in those circumstances would be good not only for the Royal Navy–by maintaining competition–but for Britain–by obtaining additional exports–and for Tyneside–by retaining an excellent work force?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it would be the collective wish of the House that Swan Hunter should continue its work in the future. I very much hope that it will be possible for a buyer to come in, so that Swan Hunter may be able to continue.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary, who told the House yesterday that the blocking minority in the enlarged Community would be 27?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, I shall make a statement on that matter in just a few moments. When there is dissent between 22 and 27, there will not be automatic– [Interruption.] Between 22 and 27, there will not be automatic agreement, and I shall set out the circumstances then in a few moments.

    Mr. John Smith : I am aware that we shall have the opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman more detailed questions, but I asked him about what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in the House. Is not it the case that, if no agreement is reached in the Community, the blocking minority is 27? That is a fact, is it not?

    The Prime Minister : If no agreement is reached in the Community, the blocking minority at the moment would move to 37. That is the point at issue. After agreement is reached, if agreement is reached and everything proceeds satisfactorily in the next 24 hours, the position would be that, if any country was part of a blocking minority that did not reach 27, but was over 22, that is 23 to 26, it would not automatically be 27. There would be a considerable delay and much further discussion.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the clear point this : that after the delay has expired, the blocking minority will be 27? Yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands– [Hon. Members :– “Oh!”] I am afraid that he misunderstands, as the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) did yesterday. There is no time limit.

    Miss Emma Nicholson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that enlargement of the European Community is in Britain’s best interests and that the four strong and stalwart possible new members will not be put off by the knowledge that to fight hard for national interests is still possible when one is at the heart of Europe?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, we have been the foremost proponents of enlargement of the Community, because we should like a larger and more loosely knit Community. I very much hope that all the four applicant nations will win their referendums and become members of the Community from 1 January next year.

    Mr. Ashdown : May I put the question to the Prime Minister a different way? I disagreed with him at the time, but does he recall saying last week that the principle to which he would wish firmly to adhere was that the Governments representing 30 per cent. of Europe’s population should have an unqualified right of veto over the rest? Will he now confirm that that principle has been abandoned?

    The Prime Minister : No, the right hon. Gentleman is misquoting what I said last week–but he is absolutely right that I am concerned about the legitimacy of Community decisions as an ever-larger part of the Community can be overridden under qualified majority voting. That is precisely why we have reached the safeguards in the past 24 hours and precisely why we have now obtained an absolute assurance that both the thresholds and the voting weights will be reconsidered and redetermined in 1996.

    Mr. Devlin : Will my right hon. Friend take time during his busy day to send a message of sympathy to the staff, pupils and parents at Hall Garth school in Middlesbrough, which a considerable number of my constituents attend and which was the scene of the awful tragedy yesterday? Will he also send a message of commendation to the teaching staff for their prompt and effective action in dealing with the madman who broke into the classroom?

    The Prime Minister : Not only would I be happy to do that, but I think that the message would have the unqualified support of every right hon. and hon. Member. I believe that all hon. Members would wish to send their deepest sympathy to Nikki’s family and to the school. The event was horrendous–the sort of random act of madness that it is almost impossible to guard against–and for the families and pupils involved it leaves a legacy of horror that will take a long time to wash away. I congratulate the teachers and others for the way in which they behaved yesterday. Clearly, we shall have to see whether any further guidance can be given to schools in view of that tragic incident.

     

    Q2. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Dunnachie : Does the Prime Minister realise that by ignoring the wishes of the people of Strathclyde, who overwhelmingly rejected the idea of water quangos, he is going against his own citizens charter ?

    The Prime Minister : I answered two questions on that subject last week and the hon. Gentleman will know that I do not agree with the way in which Strathclyde set up its referendum. It was not possible to retain the previous methods of controlling water authorities and we have chosen the method that we believe is most apt for the future.

     

    Q3. Lady Olga Maitland : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Lady Olga Maitland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that council tax increases in Liberal-controlled counties are well above the rate of inflation? Indeed, in Somerset the rate of increase is twice the rate of inflation, in Dorset it is three times the rate of inflation and in Hampshire it is five times the rate of inflation.

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of that in the case of Hampshire and in the case of Richmond in London, and I suspect that if we were to examine the situation we should find a very high level of council tax under Liberal authorities everywhere. It is clear that if people want a lower level of council tax, they ought to vote Conservative.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Hanson : Is the Prime Minister aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has now admitted that the average family tax rise from April will be £9 to £10–double what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it will be, and more in line with Labour party predictions? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whom he now believes–the Chancellor or his Chief Secretary?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was talking about the average wage earner; my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was showing what the impact on the average family would be. They are both correct.

    Mr. John Marshall : May I, as the chairman of the all-party friends of the Northern line group, welcome today’s announcement about new trains for the Northern line? Is not this good news for 400,000 Londoners who travel daily on that route? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be particularly welcome in the London borough of Barnet?

    The Prime Minister : That does depend on successful bids from the private sector. What has happened today is that the Government have given permission for London Underground to hold a competition for the provision of privately financed rolling stock for the Northern line. We shall be looking to the private sector to take on some of the risks of ownership, but I am confident that the use of that competition will pave the way for greater use of private finance in the future.

     

    Q5. Mr. Keen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Keen : I congratulate the Prime Minister, not just because it is his birthday but because some of my constituents are impressed by the quality of the answers that he gives. However, people often point out to me –I have to agree–that many of the right hon. Gentleman’s answers are unconnected with the questions. I think that that has to do with the random access file from which he reads. Would not the random nature of the question-and-answer session be reduced if the right hon. Gentleman were to read all the answers first and then we were to ask questions?

    The Prime Minister : Yes.

    Mr. John Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the management and work force of Slingsby Aviation in Kirkbymoorside on securing the contract to supply more than 100 training aircraft to the United States air force? The factory is being visited today by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Does not that order prove that small firms in Britain can compete in the toughest market anywhere in the world?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware until now of that contract, but I am very happy to congratulate Slingsby. It is certainly the case that a large number of both small and medium-sized firms are now exporting a high proportion of their turnover. That reflects both their efficiency and the fact that the British economy is now acutely competitive.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Roche : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mrs. Roche : Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor, who has described national insurance as “not a tax”, or with his former Chancellor, who thought that it was?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Lady is being very selective in her quote. The reality is as my right hon. and learned Friend has stated.

     

    Q7. Mr. Haselhurst : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Haselhurst : Does my right hon. Friend accept that a traditional feature of life in British towns is their main post office? Is he aware of the consternation created in places such as Saffron Walden when the post office is threatened with having its services franchised out to a side-street newsagent? Will he undertake to review Government policy towards the Post Office with those concerns in mind?

    The Prime Minister : I agree that post offices should remain very much a part of life in our towns and villages. That is why the Government are committed to maintaining a network of post offices across the country. What is important is the quality of service that customers receive, and that is what the Government want to see improved in Saffron Walden, as elsewhere. I will certainly reflect on the points made by my hon. Friend.

     

    Q8. Mr. Rooker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

    Mr. Rooker : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), whose constituents last week, for the first time ever, welcomed the election of a Labour councillor?

    The Prime Minister : Given the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in Birmingham, if the electors did elect a Labour councillor, it certainly cannot be on the back of the record of the Labour Birmingham council.

    Mr. Burns : Will my right hon. Friend please have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to see whether it is possible, before the Easter recess, to have a statement on the road-building programme in the hope that he will announce the abandonment of the hated proposed M12 from the M25 to Chelmsford, which no one in south and mid-Essex wishes?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard the plea from my hon. Friend; I will ensure that it is drawn to his attention.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Central Council – 26 March 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to Conservative Central Council, held at Plymouth Pavilions in Plymouth on Saturday 26th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The First Three Years

    Someone once wrote of me that, when faced with a problem, I would take a piece of paper – draw a line down the middle – on one side I’d list the problems and on the other the objectives.

    That’s true. It’s an old habit.

    The other day I was looking for a note I wrote on the day I became Prime Minister. On the left hand side, under “problems”, I had written:

    Inflation

    Interest rates

    Unemployment

    November 1990. Inflation was almost 11 per cent. Interest rates were stuck at 14 per cent. And unemployment was rising fast.

    That day – three and a half years ago – they were our biggest problems.

    Today?

    Unemployment: down by 220,000 in just over a year. That’s a city about the size of Plymouth back in work.

    Interest rates are at their lowest for over 20 years.

    Inflation has been under three per cent for over a year – we haven’t seen that for a quarter of a century.

    Taken together, our present economic position offers tremendous opportunities for the years ahead.

    If I’d said in 1990 that we’d achieve those objectives so comprehensively in just three years, people would have said that I simply didn’t understand the extent of Britain’s problems.

    ‘He’s new,’ they’d have said, ‘he’ll soon grow out of it.’

    But I haven’t grown out of it. Britain has.

    And now exports are up, retail sales are up, productivity is up. Our economy is presently growing faster than any other leading European country – and that is expected to continue. So it’s time to start writing Britain up – and stop writing Britain off.

    No-one else will get that message across. We must do it. So we must junk the jargon and put our case across in straightforward terms that everyone can understand.

    Changing lives: schools

    Take grant-maintained schools. You’ve all read the Central Office literature.

    It’s very good literature. It gives all the information you need. It tells you we now have nearly 900 GM schools. But it doesn’t make the policy live. Doesn’t tell people what being grant-maintained really means.

    These are local schools, funded by government. Voted for by local parents, run by local people – for local children.

    And there are now over half a million children in them.

    ‘Trust the people’ is an old Conservative maxim. And that is exactly what we’re doing. Shifting power from Whitehall and from Town Hall – and back to local communities.

    Our opponents seem uncomfortable with people having more choice. They don’t trust them with it. Where we decentralise they demoralise.

    Well, I know who I admire. Not the Labour and Liberal education authorities who’ve tried to stand in the way of these local schools. But the Governors, parents and teachers who, in the teeth of sometimes bitter opposition, have had the courage and the vision to create them.

    Changing lives: hospitals

    And just look at this, a Liberal leaflet dealing with another policy where we are taking power from the centre and giving it to the people – health.

    Do any of you remember the Kincardine by-election? I do.

    The local hospital wanted to become self-governing within the NHS. But the Liberals wanted people to think the hospital was leaving the Health Service.

    So they said the Trust was a dangerous first step towards privatisation. Simply untrue.

    People were worried. And they voted Liberal in the by-election. But the Trust went ahead. And what happened? Well, I’ll tell you what didn’t happen – privatisation didn’t happen.

    And I tell you what else didn’t happen. Something that’s owed to people in that part of Scotland and to that hospital – an apology from the Liberal Party.

    Since then that self-governing hospital – freed from Health Service bureaucracy – has treated a record number of patients.

    Waiting times and lists are down. And it has new services it never had before.

    And, at the General Election, the seat came back home to the Conservatives.

    But, what happened in Kincardine has happened right across the Health Service.

    Since the reforms we are now treating 1,000,000 more patients a year than we did before. One million more. Don’t just glide over that. Behind every one of that million lies a personal story of care given and hope revived.

    So don’t worry about partisan criticism. It is in the nature of politics at the moment. It will pass. And time will root out the truth.

    And the truth is that a Labour Government may have set up the Health Service. But it’s Conservative Governments that have built it up.

    Changing lives: public service

    We are sweeping out the cobwebs of the public sector. Sometimes what we find is uncomfortable. But we’re right to expose poor service – so we can improve it.

    That is the aim of the Citizen’s Charter. It’s a ten-year programme to transform the quality of public services.

    That’s why every one of the 24,000 schools in the land is being inspected in just four years. Under the old system it would have taken 200 years to inspect just the primary schools. Now reports are sent out on every child. Exam results – and truancy tables – are published for all to see.

    Every hospital in the land is setting times for appointments. We have reduced the time people wait for hip, knee and eye operations. Three out of every four people are now treated within three months.

    And those in genuine need of key benefits have seen the time taken to deal with their claims cut by a third.

    These are real changes improving real lives.

    I belong to the school of thought that believes that people should get as good a service in the public sector as if they’d gone to the private sector and paid cash on the nail. And we are determined they will.

    Looking forward

    These are some of the things that have been achieved in the last three years. It’s time to lift our heads above the parapet and say so.

    We have to look to the future. So let us travel forward for a moment.

    And then look back from – let us say – spring 1997. I pick that date at random, of course.

    By then we will have had 48 months of steady economic growth. More new companies up and running. More people back in work. More families better off.

    Why? Because we’ve got the fundamentals of the economy right today.

    In 1997 we’ll see British industry manufacturing more. Selling more. Exporting more. Proving that British firms can make at home and sell abroad.

    Why? Because British companies are now more competitive than anywhere else in Europe. And they’ll stay that way, so long as we keep the Social Chapter at bay.

    We’ll see more people owning their own homes. More people living in decent housing, not anonymous tower blocks.

    Why? Because we’ll press ahead with the Right to Buy and private renting, and we’re going back to housing on a human scale.

    We’ll see more children in nursery education. New apprenticeships. And more young people going on to colleges and universities.

    Why? Because we’re not just interested in raising standards in the schools. We want better education for all – for life and through life.

    We’ll see more being spent on the arts, on charity, on sport. And we’ll see more people taking part in them.

    Why? Because we’ll have a national lottery, raising billions of pounds for good causes and the national heritage.

    And I also hope we’ll see more team sport back in our schools. I have no time for those Left-wing ideologues who oppose competitive sport.

    Put children together and what do you see. They run. They jump. They fight. They compete. It is their natural instinct. We don’t help them by hiding that away from them. Life can be tough. They need to know victory and defeat. And the sooner they learn it, the better equipped they will be for life.

    These are some of the things there’ll be more of three years from now.

    But also let me tell you what there’ll be less of.

    There will be fewer people committing Social Security fraud – because we are bringing in modern technology to beat the cheats.

    I know the British instinct. We’re always ready to help someone in genuine need. But there’s a counterpoint to that – and it’s a real sense of anger against people who cheat the system and take advantage of others, often poorer than themselves except in those qualities of decency and honesty that make this country what it is.

    There’ll be fewer squatters on private property. The Criminal Justice Bill means trespassers really will be prosecuted, and not before time.

    There’ll be fewer young criminals on the loose creating mayhem. There’ll be secure homes for them and safer streets for the public.

    There’ll be fewer offenders getting away with just a caution. There should be fewer people committing offences while out on bail, because if they do, they can be certain that the courts can come down on them hard.

    And especially down here in the West Country, decent hard-working people are fed up with people invading their property and destroying their crops. In future, if these New Age travellers drive in, the police will have powers to drive them out.

    So much of what I’ve described is just plain commonsense, building on old principles. Marking out a clear line between right and wrong.That’s what I mean by going back to basics. And I’m certain of this. Britain needs more of those basics, not less. And I don’t think there’s anyone here today who wouldn’t agree with that.

    Many of you here are facing local elections in the weeks ahead – some against Labour, some against the Liberals.

    But whoever your opponent is, the first thing to do is to take pride in your own record.

    Ever since the birth of the modern Conservative Party our local councillors have been one of our greatest strengths.

    Last month at our Local Government Conference in London we set out the policies on which we’ll be standing.

    Higher standards in schools. More say for the public. A tough line on crime.

    And above all, keeping the Council Tax low. Here’s one figure to take out with you and say day after day after day. Conservative councils cost you £131 less than Labour ones. £131. Knock that home.

    Wherever you go tell them. Conservative councils cost you less. Labour councils just cost you.

    Let me just say a word or two about the sheer incompetence of some of those Labour councils.

    Last year John Smith spoke of his concern about growing cynicism in politics. About the need for standards of integrity and honour. And about politics being a moral activity.

    Let me break with the adversarial nature of British politics. I agree with Mr Smith about that. But Mr Smith, you must be consistent.

    It’s not possible to talk about standards of integrity and honour if senior members of the Labour Party condemn people before an enquiry has reported.

    You can’t have standards of integrity and honour if they make false allegations and never retract. If they charge impartial public servants with political bias.

    By all means let’s maintain those high standards. But let us do it right across the board. And let that include Labour councils.

    Let Mr Smith condemn councils like Lambeth.

    I wonder if any of you saw the report about how much it cost to get two gas fires fitted in Lambeth? In the real world it costs £500. But what did it say it cost in Lambeth?

    £2000?

    £5000?

    £25,000?

    No. In Lambeth, it said that two gas fires cost the taxpayer £71,000. That’s 140 times the usual price. It’s scarcely believable – but I fear it’s true.

    And let’s not stop there.

    Take Derbyshire. Where did the Chairman of the Finance Committee have his office? In his prison cell.

    He’d been jailed for fraud. But he still went on getting his allowances and running the council’s finances. Nothing seems to be barred in the modern Labour Party.

    Local elections: Liberals

    I don’t want to waste much time on Liberal councils, though come to think of it waste would be a good place to start.

    But here in Plymouth, just a stone’s throw from Devonport, let’s take a cool sceptical look about Liberal claims for the West Country. Down here they said that Devonport should get the Trident contract. Up in Scotland they said Rosyth should get it.

    When it came to the crunch, they backed Rosyth. When put to the test the Liberals put Devonport last. That tells you everything you need to know about Liberal concern for the West country.

    At council level Liberal and Labour work together. The only time they compete is about who can charge the taxpayer more.

    Liberal councils are asking £67 extra on average on your Council Tax bill. Liberal Richmond has had the biggest rise in London – almost four times the rate of inflation.

    Liberal-led Hampshire has had the biggest rise in the Shires – more than five times the rate of inflation.

    If you want high standards of service and good value for money in local government, Conservative councils win hands down.

    Let everyone remember that on May 5th.

    European elections

    In the last week of the General Election, when we were way behind in the polls, I spoke out about the Union between Britain and Scotland.

    Some people thought I’d gone mad.

    But it was the right thing to do.

    Many of you will remember the long, bruising debates about Maastricht. It was not easy to get it through.

    But it was the right thing to do.

    Now, we are engaged in difficult negotiations with our partners in Europe. We are under furious assault from some quarters on both sides of the channel.

    But preserving British interests is the right thing to do.

    These negotiations are difficult. Points at issue are important and complex.

    But they are not insoluble. It is quite possible to get an agreement that secures our interests without damaging the concerns of our partners. That is what negotiation in Europe is about.

    I hope we can succeed, because enlargement of the Community is an important prize.

    Unfortunately as so often happens with the European debate, the complexities of the issue have been lost.

    It is cheap and easy to say that our position has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with Party management.

    But it is untrue.

    And isn’t it absurd that whenever the British Government takes a stand upon a legitimate interest we are parodied as being anti-European?

    No one thinks that of the French, the Germans or the Spanish when they take a stand in their interests. Nor should they, because every country in Europe fights its own corner very hard.

    Frankly, those people who comment in this way should just grow up and learn what the European debate is really about.

    We fight hard for our vision of Europe because we want Europe to succeed. Being a good European doesn’t mean you sign up to every dot and comma that our partners propose.

    It does mean we use our own judgement about the long-term interests of the Community. Because our national interests, our economic interests, our jobs, our livelihoods are engaged in Europe as never before.

    Over half of all our exports go there. To a huge single market right on our doorstep that Conservative Britain helped to create.

    Thousands of British companies, large and small, trade with Europe and provide huge numbers of jobs. And it is in the homes that their workers go back to at the end of the day that Britain’s interests in Europe are felt.

    And there is one other priceless legacy of our partnership in Europe. And that has been a Europe free of war.

    Fifty years ago a huge armada of ships and men gathered on the South coast to liberate the Continent. To end a war which had ravaged Europe. In June we will remember those veterans and thank them.

    Because of them, we have had an unparalleled prize. Fifty years of peace in Western Europe. Do you know when Europe last enjoyed 50 years of uninterrupted peace? If I tell you that the Cabinet then had names like Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, you get the idea. 1800 years.

    Today, our interests lie in being part of a Europe that sustains that peace. And keeps peace elsewhere.

    A week ago I was in Bosnia on the borders of the European Union.

    I visited Gorniy Vakuf, Vitez, Bugojno and Sarajevo and saw British troops helping deliver a new peace.

    In Gorniy Vakuf we saw villagers return to their shattered homes, carrying furniture on handcarts and children returning to play on the streets for the first time for months.

    In Sarajevo we saw a city return to life after months of nightmare and British troops dominating the trouble spots.

    Aid convoys often now travel unmolested and unescorted as troops corral weapons, man checkpoints, and keep former combatants apart.

    I’ve seen the British Army operate in many parts of the world. But I can say to you with perfect conviction that I have never been prouder of the British Army than I was last week.

    This was Britain in the heart of Europe.

    So we are firmly a part of Europe and let us conduct the debate on that basis. The decision in June is about how we shape that Europe. It is not Europe right or wrong. It is Europe Right or Left.

    And the distinction between those positions is very sharp. The policies of the Labour and Liberal Parties in this country on Europe are startlingly similar.

    Between them they would impose a minimum wage. A 35 hour week. They would renegotiate our rebate. Double Community spending. And if that is not enough, they would surrender our national veto.

    And what does that mean? It means we would no longer control our foreign policy. Our defence policy. Our planning controls and much else besides.

    What kind of manifesto is that? I’ll tell you. It’s one we should publicise – North, South, East and West. There aren’t just differences between us and the other parties – there’s a yawning gulf.

    People tell me they are confused as to where John Smith stands on Europe. So let me help you.

    In 1971 Labour opposed Europe, but John Smith voted for it.

    The following year, although he still said he was for it, he voted against. And he was against Europe through most of the 1980s.

    In 1992, John Smith became Labour Leader. Labour was now officially in favour of Europe, but Mr Smith told his Party to abstain.

    But now it’s 1994. And whatever Europe wants is good enough for him. He has abdicated independent judgement.

    So I hope you now understand where John Smith stands on Europe. And if you do, will you write it down on a postcard and send it to him. I’m sure he’ll be extremely grateful.

    If you know any Conservatives who are saying: ‘These elections don’t matter’, or ‘I don’t see why I should help’, just tell them, too.

    They do matter. And – if they care about Britain – they should help. For if they sit at home, others won’t. And people who believe – passionately – that we should be submerged in a different kind of European state will be out there day in, day out, knocking on doors, distributing leaflets.

    If in the next couple of months you look out of your window and you see people with red or orange rosettes going up and down your street campaigning, just remember this.

    They too, have a view about Europe. But it’s not your view, it’s not mine. And it’s not the view of the people of this country.

    We have a vision – one that’s right for this country and right for Europe. And we will pursue that vision best with the help of more Conservative MEPs back in the European Parliament.

    Peroration

    I wasn’t born a Conservative. I became one. By choice and by conviction.

    I don’t believe a great country is built by Government or planned from the centre.

    Governments can open doors, remove obstacles, point the way.

    But it’s people down the ages who have made our country what it is. Millions of people who never make the headlines – working together to better themselves and make a better future for their children.

    I believe that the people who made Britain – if only they have the confidence – can help to make Europe too.

    We’re an old Party. Were an old country. We have values and experience that make us equal to any challenge.

    In our Party we don’t walk away from difficulties. We go out there to meet them, solve them and turn them into success. That’s what we’ve always done. And that’s what we will do again.

  • PMQT – 17 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Bridget Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mrs. Prentice : In the light of today’s newspaper reports, does the Attorney-General still have the full confidence of the Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : The Attorney-General has my full and complete confidence. He has made it perfectly clear today, in the light of the reports in this morning’s newspapers, that he has no knowledge of any approach by MI6 to him or to his office asking that the Matrix Churchill prosecution should be stopped. He has received no notification from the Scott inquiry that any such evidence has been given to it, and the inquiry has made it clear that it cannot recall that any such evidence has been given.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bellingham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mr. Bellingham : Will the Prime Minister find time today to plan a visit to Birmingham and Manchester city councils, where he will find debt at the same level as the national debts of Paraguay and El Salvador? Is it not a disgrace that those Labour-controlled councils, encouraged by Opposition Members, have betrayed not only their electorates but future generations? Is not it time that they were flung out of office?

    The Prime Minister : Those councils certainly have a very poor record, as my hon. Friend says, and although the people of Birmingham and Manchester have a great deal of which they can be proud, in Birmingham, certainly, the people cannot be proud of the record of their Labour council. Of every £10 that Birmingham receives in council tax it now has to spend £7 on servicing its debt, but when one considers many other Labour authorities one realises that it is by no means alone in that appalling record.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does not the Prime Minister realise that he need look no further than Westminster, which has a debt higher than that of Mongolia? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the average council tax to be charged in Labour local authority areas this year will be £40 lower than the average council tax to be charged in Tory areas?

    The Prime Minister : On the right hon. Lady’s first point about debt, she might bear in mind the fact that Islington owes more than Togo, Camden more than Chad, Bradford more than Botswana and Leeds more than Lesotho. As for council tax, the right hon. Lady knows very well that she is not comparing band for band or like with like. When she compares band for band she will see that Conservative councils are many tens of pounds– in some cases more than £100–cheaper.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does not the Prime Minister realise that the measure that we have consistently used not only gives the best overall picture but is the measure with which the Government started out? It is the measure that was used by both the Department of the Environment and Conservative central office in their documents. Is not the truth that the Government changed the measure only when they realised that it showed that people pay less in Labour local council areas? Is not that the reason why?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that the right hon. Lady is being extremely silly and is talking rubbish. What the figures show across the country is that Conservative-controlled local authorities set far lower council taxes than do Labour. So far this year the figures…

    Mrs. Beckett indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister : It is no good the right hon. Lady shaking her head : it is quite true. The figures show that where Labour controls both tiers of English local government the average council tax is £560 for a band C property, over £130 more than the Conservative average of £429. However the right hon. Lady wriggles, she will find that pattern across the country.

    Mrs. Beckett : It is the Prime Minister who is wriggling. He started off with average measures of council tax, he went on to quote band D and now he is quoting band C. Is not this just further evidence that we are fast reaching the stage where the Government are incapable of telling the truth about taxation? In local government or national government, with the Conservatives one pays more and one gets less.

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Lady wants to see some high taxes in local government she should look in the mirror, for it is her party which is providing them. Of the 10 highest council taxes announced, seven are from Labour local authorities and none has been set by a Conservative authority. Of the 10 lowest council taxes announced, none comes from a Labour authority. Five of the 10 districts announcing the lowest bills are under Conservative control. Whatever the hon. Lady has to say, she cannot hide the fact that one gets a better deal under Conservative councils, that the services are better and that the council tax is lower. Though she wriggles from here to next Tuesday, she cannot hide that fact.

    Mr. Knapman : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust stance to date on qualified majority voting. Does he agree that it will be in the best interests of both the country and the party if that robust stance is maintained?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in the middle of negotiations that are important for the future of the European Community and for us, and I have no intention of being moved by synthetic efforts at pressure from any source. We shall defend the country’s best interests in those negotiations and I am entirely confident that that can be done in an acceptable way without any question of delaying enlargement.

    Mr. Ashdown : Why does the Prime Minister not realise that investing the £900 million necessary to provide fully funded, high-quality nursery education, available to every three and four-year-old in the country, is the best investment that the country can make? Instead of raising taxes to prepare for tax bribes at the next election, why will he not invest to prepare our children for the next century?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would raise taxes and he has made that clear. I hope that everyone understands that. We have made it perfectly clear that, as and when resources are available, we shall move towards further nursery education, towards universal nursery education. The reports that may have excited the right hon. Gentleman’s interest earlier this week in one national newspaper were wrong.

    Mr. Marland : As my right hon. Friend is aware, the report of the forestry review group is now in the hands of Ministers. As my right hon. Friend recognises, the Forestry Commission is included in the review. Not only by my constituents in the forest of Dean but throughout the nation, the Forestry Commission is held in high esteem. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, before any decisions are made in the light of the report, interested parties will have the opportunity to comment?

    The Prime Minister : Of course we are examining the report carefully and will seek a good deal of consultation. We have the report, we are examining it and it will be some while before we reach a decision.

     

    Q3. Mr. Austin-Walker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mr. Austin-Walker : Has the Prime Minister seen the report today which shows that the response times of the London ambulance service have worsened since the Secretary of State intervened to sort out the chaos? In view of the inability of the London ambulance service to come anywhere near patients charter standards, does it make sense to close up to 10 of London’s accident and emergency units–or is it nothing to do with him?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that, in terms of London health, we are seeking first to make sure that we have the resources for the improvement of primary health care, which needs substantial improvement in London. In order to do that, it is necessary to rationalise a proper hospital system. We have taken action..

    Mr. Foulkes : Answer.

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will stop shouting and wait for the answer, I shall give it to him. As for the ambulance service, the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) will know of the measures that have been taken to ensure that a proper service is readily available.

    Mr. Thomason : Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s car production figures? Will he join in welcoming them? Does he agree that the Labour party, many of the members of which have car plants in their constituencies, has consistently talked down our motor industry, and Britain generally?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly the case that the motor car industry was in a very desperate state a few years ago. That has changed dramatically. The production figures this morning show that car production is up 6 per cent. on a year ago. The British car industry is now a success story to an extent that was inconceivable in the strike-ridden days so beloved in the memory of Opposition Members.

     

    Q4. Mr. Darling : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mr. Darling : Is the Prime Minister concerned about the sale by Scottish Homes–a Government quango–of 1,200 houses, some for as little as £1 each, to a housing association chaired by a former Scottish Office Minister, an hon. Member who is now a Northern Ireland Minister? Does he agree that it is no surprise that many people believe that the Government are drowning in a sea of sleaze and secrecy entirely of their own making?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman has any firm charges to make, perhaps he should make them other than by innuendo and under privilege of the House. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was an unpaid, voluntary, non-executive chairman of the Waverley housing trust. He had no financial interest whatever in the trust. His involvement was solely to pursue an interest in providing new forms of social housing management involving participation by tenant representatives. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on his question and he should then offer a public apology to my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Coe : In the wake of the recent tragic murder investigations in Gloucester, is my right hon. Friend aware of the welcome news this week that four missing people have been reunited with their families ? Will he welcome with me and salute the superb work of the Missing Persons Bureau and the national helpline?

    The Prime Minister : I had heard that welcome news. Out of the dreadful saga of recent weeks, it is at least one positive outcome that everyone can welcome. I certainly think that it shows how important is the work of organisations such as the Missing Persons Bureau. I willingly pay tribute to it and to the National Missing Persons Helpline, as requested by my hon. Friend.

     

    Q5. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 March.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : As a Home Office Minister said on Friday that the Government would not support the Racial Hatred and Violence Bill that has been prepared by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), and setting that against the background of the eight racial murders that have been committed in the past few years, how can the Prime Minister justify to the relatives of those who have been murdered in that way the fact that the Government can find time in their legislative programme to outlaw hunt saboteurs, but cannot find the time to tackle the escalating tide of racial violence to which my party drew attention this morning?

    The Prime Minister : Every sensible person will share a concern about crimes motivated by racial hatred. That is certainly the position of the Government. As for the Bill, we believe that the scope of the existing law is adequate, although we shall continue to consider how that law is working in practice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is already a specific offence punishable by imprisonment for up to two years to stir up racial hatred. In addition, the full range of criminal law is available to deal with other crimes motivated by racial hatred. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, for example, deals with low-level harassment. A range of measures is available. Of course we will keep them under review because there should be no place in this country for racial hatred of any sort from any group directed at any other group.

    Mr. Duncan Smith : I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on standing firm in his negotiations on the blocking minority. Does not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that if the Foreign Secretary chooses to stand firm next week, he will have the wholesale support of Conservative Members and of the country?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend will certainly take the position in the negotiations next week–at the moment, those negotiations are at an extremely serious stage–that he believes to be in the interests of this country, both in the short and in the long term. There are important interests, both short term and long term, to be safeguarded, and it is on that basis that my right hon. Friend will negotiate.

  • PMQT – 10 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McFall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. McFall : Now that the Minister for open government has given an entirely new meaning to the phrase, “lying in state”, does the Prime Minister agree that the democratic process is undermined if Ministers imply that concealing the truth from the House is acceptable? Does he accept that it is a lie that the former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, ever lied to this House? If so, will he apologise to the former distinguished Prime Minister for that slur?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may regret, on reflection, the way in which he phrased his question– [Interruption.] If hon. Members do not regret it, I believe that they should. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is not the case now, nor has it been in the past, that Ministers willingly mislead this House, and no one has suggested that that is the case.

     

    Q2. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Bearing in mind the fact that, last night, the IRA launched yet another vicious terrorist attack endangering the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians, were not the Opposition, at exactly same time, voting against the very measure which our security forces need to combat this evil? Are not the Opposition soft on terrorism and soft on crime?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the attack that was launched yesterday on Heathrow airport by the IRA will receive and deserve universal condemnation. It was an unjustifiable attack and will make no difference whatever to the search for peace in Northern Ireland. But I believe that it should lead to every part of this House uniting on firm action against terrorism.

    Mr. John Smith : With the issue of Ministers telling the truth now a matter of public debate, does the Prime Minister appreciate that what most undermines the credibility of his Administration is the blatant deception practised at the last election when the Conservative party promised to cut taxes? Since then, they have imposed the largest tax increase in Britain’s peacetime history.

    The Prime Minister : I shall turn directly to that point, but I must say that I am extremely surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should pursue that matter on the day after a mortar attack at Heathrow and on the very day on which the Cabinet has been considering sending more troops to Bosnia to deal with an international problem. [Interruption.] I have made the point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that these things do not matter. I think that people throughout the country will take a different view. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

    The Prime Minister : On the specific point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, taxation rose precisely because we kept our promises to protect the elderly, the vulnerable and the sick through the long recession. The recession lasted longer than we or other forecasters had imagined, and in order to sustain policy and bring down interest rates it was necessary to close borrowing. That was a responsible attitude. It was the right attitude. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman understood the first thing about economics, he would support it, not attack it.

    Mr. John Smith : To come very directly to the point, does the Prime Minister deny that before the election he promised to cut taxes and he is now putting them up?

    The Prime Minister : I have made it perfectly clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman why it was necessary to raise taxation, although we had hoped not to do so. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to consider taxes, he might look at the more recent figures of council taxes which show clearly how much more expensive Labour authorities and Liberal authorities are than Conservative authorities. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would comment on that.

    Mr. John Smith : Having regard to the Prime Minister’s feeble excuse for breaking his promise at the election, does he not remember telling the Los Angeles Times in his celebrated interview last year :

    “I said [to colleagues] the day after we won the election . . . Within the next 12 months the government will be the most unpopular we have seen for a long time.’”

    He went on to say, “I was staggeringly prescient.” Will the Prime Minister explain how he could know about the state of the economy the day after the election but not know before polling day?

    The Prime Minister : I shall go back further than that for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I made it absolutely clear on the day that I became Chancellor of the Exchequer that we would take whatever action was necessary to restrain inflation and put the economy on secure and steady growth. We have done that, including maintaining monetary policy with interest rates at a high level right through the election, because it was in the interests of the British economy to do so. That is responsible government. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand that.

     

    Q3. Lady Olga Maitland : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Lady Olga Maitland : With the council elections approaching, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that what council tax payers want are efficient services at the lowest possible cost? Does he agree that it is the Conservative councils who deliver this, not the Labour councils and not the Liberal councils, such as the one that I have in Surrey?

    The Prime Minister : I not only agree with my hon. Friend ; it is what the statistics now becoming available on council tax charges show. At present, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning announced yesterday, Conservative councils that have now declared their council taxes come out, on average, at £129 less than Labour councils and £73 less than Liberal councils. It is clear who costs one more in the shires–it is Labour. It is clear who costs one more in the mets–it is Labour. It is clear who costs one more in London–it is Labour. No matter where one looks, Labour councils and–so as not to disappoint the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)–Liberal councils, cost one more.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Marshall : Is the Prime Minister aware that his recent morale-boosting visit to Scotland has resulted in his party achieving a record low in the polls of 13 per cent? Does he appreciate why the Scots are once more uttering the refrain :

    “Will ye no’ come back again”

    and again, and again?

    The Prime Minister : As it happens, the hon. Gentleman is typically inaccurate. The data were before I visited Scotland.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q5. Sir Anthony Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Imperial War museum at Duxford.

    The Prime Minister : I know from private visits what a magnificent place the Duxford museum is. I can well understand the pride of my right hon. Friend in having it in his constituency. I hope that I may be able to pay an official visit at some time in the future.

    Sir Anthony Grant : Will my right hon. Friend note that the United States air force flew from Duxford during the last war with much loss of life and, in particular, flew on the D-day operation? Will he give his support to the American air museum being created there, either by visiting Duxford or by inviting the Americans concerned to visit him? It would be extremely good for Anglo-American relations.

    The Prime Minister : I should like to visit Duxford again. I shall take an opportunity to do so and to look at the museum’s plans. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the significant contribution of the US air force to the D-day landings. We have a continual debt of gratitude to them. It is right that we should celebrate the 50th anniversary and remember the heroism of the troops and the sacrifices that they made so that we can enjoy the liberties that we exercise in the House.

     

    Health Issues

    Q6. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of his time he devotes to health issues.

    The Prime Minister : A lot.

    Mr. Hughes : In that case, given that one of the most obvious implications of the Government’s policies for health services in London is that they plan to run down the hospital that the Prime Minister described as the flagship, and that the main building–a state of the art building costing £140 million–will never come into use, in all seriousness will the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State take a little extra time to listen to a proposal that keeps both Guy’s and St. Thomas’s as hospitals, saves the taxpayer money, reduces embarrassment and, above all, saves patients’ lives?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that the changes to the health service in London are long overdue; they have been long sought by many people. We have won support inside and outside the health service for tackling that particular problem, not least from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. As for the problems of Guy’s and St. Thomas’s, the hon. Gentleman will know that the clinicians at both hospitals believe that patient care will be improved by concentrating services on one site, not two. It is not just the Government’s view, but that of the doctors involved. Thanks to the determination to embrace change, the Guy’s and St Thomas’s trust will have a secure future and its buildings, old and new, will be used fully, effectively and appropriately in the best interests of patients, medical teaching and research.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Sumberg : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Sumberg : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern in my constituency and throughout the country about the activities of television cable-laying companies? Pavements are uprooted, roads closed and businesses disrupted all with the objective of getting doubtful television programmes into our homes. Is it not time that we found a better way of organising these matters?

    The Prime Minister : I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend. Of course it is important that all those with the right to undertake street works should keep disruption to a minimum. He will know that there are duties to do so written into the terms of the licence issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend will also know that in those areas where cables are laid, about one quarter of all homes subsequently decide to participate in cable television. That has led to investment across the United Kingdom of well over £1 billion.

     

    Q8. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will the Prime Minister find time today to check on a transcript of the “Today” programme earlier this week, when his right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, suggested that he would not be Prime Minister after November, or after the autumn ? If that is the case, will he make sure that his right hon. and learned Friend is incorrect, as he is such a good asset to us in the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I seem to recall cheap questions like that before the previous election. I am still here and the Opposition are still there.

     

    Q9. Mr. Bellingham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

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

    Mr. Bellingham : Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), does my right hon. Friend agree that the IRA-Sinn Fein must now be treated with complete contempt? Does he further agree that unless it signs the declaration tomorrow, it should forfeit its opportunity to be part of it?

    The Prime Minister : I think that every hon. Member of the House will have nothing but contempt for the IRA’s behaviour. With the attacks that it has made, both in Northern Ireland and at Heathrow yesterday, it has demonstrated again its disregard for human life and for opinion on both sides of the community. I believe that my hon. Friend misunderstands the long-term purpose and import of the declaration that I signed with the Taoiseach in December. It sets out a series of principles on which we hope and intend to try to build a permanent peace for Northern Ireland.

  • PMQT – 3 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd March 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Q1. Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister how many independent observers have been allowed by the Indian authorities to visit the Indian occupied area of Kashmir since his visit last year.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : A number of independent observers have visited Kashmir since January 1993. They include parliamentarians, jurists, diplomats, journalists and human rights groups. The Indian Government have also recently agreed to a visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

    Mr. Cox : I note that reply. Is the Prime Minister aware, however, that the Indian Government are reluctant to allow independent observers to visit the occupied area? Indeed, they refused to allow an all-party group from the House to go there.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that the forthcoming visit of the Indian Prime Minister gives him an opportunity to make known to that gentleman the deep revulsion felt by many hon. Members about the on-going attacks and brutality perpetrated by the Indian security forces against men, women and children in occupied Kashmir? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will make that known?

    The Prime Minister : I look forward to Prime Minister Rao’s visit to this country. We have excellent relations with the Indian Government, and I look forward to discussing a range of matters with him. As for access for independent national groups, we have encouraged the Indian Government to allow independent access to India. There have been steps towards greater openness in recent months, and I thoroughly welcome that.

    Mr. Jessel : Is this not just one more attempt by Opposition Members to wreck Britain’s excellent relationship with a most friendly Commonwealth country? Will my right hon. Friend not only welcome India’s own decision to set up a human rights commission but remind all the independent observers that terrorists are murderers, and that the most important human right is the right to stay alive?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend says, we have an excellent relationship with the Indian Government, both politically and in terms of a greatly increased flow of two-way trade with India. As for my hon. Friend’s second point, I think that we shall soon have a report from the Indian human rights commission, and I look forward to that. I understand that it will deal with a wide range of issues that have been drawn to the commission’s attention.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. O’Hara : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

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

    Mr. O’Hara : Does the Prime Minister share the President of the Board of Trade’s low opinion of the legal advice offered by the Attorney- General?

    The Prime Minister : That is not the position of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my right hon. Friend welcome the news that nearly 2 million North Western electricity board–NORWEB–customers are to benefit from a 6 per cent. cut in the price of their electricity from 1 April? Coming on top of a cut of nearly 2 per cent. last summer, does that not prove that privatisation works?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that that is certainly the case. There have been significant reductions in fuel prices in recent years, and I welcome that.

    Mr. John Smith : Madam Speaker– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. What a total waste of valuable time in Prime Minister’s questions.

    Mr. John Smith : Concerning the excessive pay awards of top executives, does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments today, or does he maintain his own response of a few weeks ago, that it is not a matter for him?

    The Prime Minister : I set out in the House, from memory, to the former right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and, before that, to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), my view that excessive pay awards are not justified. I equally maintain the point that that is a matter between employer and employee or company and management rather than a matter for the Government, but my personal view remains as first set out in the House to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in 1991.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister has clearly said contradictory things, because he told us that it was not a matter for him. Whatever he says, does he not notice that those top executives do not pay a blind bit of notice? They carry on regardless, relentlessly increasing their pay and their perks. At the same time, pay restraint is imposed on millions of people with modest incomes. Is that not inconsistent, unfair and hypocritical?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have said precisely the same thing on that issue and, as I indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and he might have the grace to acknowledge, I first said it in 1991.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister yet appreciate the anger felt throughout the country at massive pay increases for top people occurring at the same time as massive tax increases for the rest of the country? Why are the Government so soft and indulgent on the very rich but hard and unfair on everyone else?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has returned to the same point three times after having two answers, I will now quote to him what I said to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in 1991 :

    “I made it perfectly clear when I was Chief Secretary that I do not believe that excessive salary increases are right.”–[ Official Report , 1991 ; Vol. 193, c. 857.]

    That still remains my view. [Interruption.] For the hon. Gentleman who shouts, “What are you going to do about it?” may I say that this happens to be a free capitalist country, in which companies determine their wages. I take it from this that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would himself interfere with companies in the payment of employees and the payment of management by the companies themselves. If that is so, it blows out of the water any of the Labour party’s modernising ideas of understanding free enterprise.

    Mr. Churchill : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week’s sacking of 7,000 British soldiers from the Army is deeply regrettable, and indeed mistaken, bearing in mind that the British commander of the UN force in Bosnia has now repeated three times his request for more troops? Can my right hon. Friend now give a positive response to that request by a British general in the field?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we set out the position in “Options for Change” some time ago and the redundancies that were announced–

    Mr. Churchill indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend may shake his head, but it happens to be a matter of fact and record. We set out the decisions on “Options for Change”, and this measure implemented that decision, taken some time ago.

    As for the request for troops in Bosnia, my hon. Friend will know that we have a significant contingent already in Bosnia, who have done magnificent work. If a request is made to the United Kingdom, we would of course consider providing more forces proportionately as part of a wider international effort.

    Mr. Ashdown : May we take it from that answer that our Prime Minister and our Government really are prepared to let go to waste the peace that has been obtained by General Rose in Sarajevo during the past two weeks, rather than this country backing a request, made by a British general and supported by his own chiefs of staff, for more troops to ensure that that peace succeeds?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman yet again mistakes the position. It was the British Government who moved troops in to Sarajevo to ensure that the peace negotiated by General Rose and the corralling of weapons brought about by General Rose was able to be properly monitored. For once, the right hon. Gentleman might have the grace to acknowledge what we have done rather than carp and criticise inaccurately.

    Mr. French : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the British economy is to remain competitive in the future, it is essential that our children are trained now in the skills that they will require in the 21st century? Will he therefore join me in welcoming the announcement of the 12 technology schools, one of which is in my constituency and one of which I attended?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right in his diagnosis. We certainly face greater competition in the years ahead and we will certainly need greater skills. One of the ways of obtaining them is the greater diversity in education brought about by the new technology colleges. I hope that many other schools and businesses will follow the lead set by those colleges.

     

    Q3. Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

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

    Dr. Wright : In the light of the Prime Minister’s emphasis on the importance of personal responsibility, does he welcome the clear statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will resign if his conduct is criticised by Lord Justice Scott’s report ? Will the Prime Minister make an equally clear statement and will he expect the same of other Ministers?

    The Prime Minister : I have said repeatedly that I propose to make no comment on Lord Justice Scott’s report. I propose to make no comment of any sort on Lord Justice Scott’s report until he has reported. I set up that report and I gave it very wide terms of reference. I have assured Lord Justice Scott– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Ms Armstrong.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. I have assured Lord Justice Scott that he will have the power and authority that he needs to complete his report satisfactorily, and I believe it follows from that that I should make no comment until I have that report.

     

    Q4. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend welcome recent surveys which show that council tax bills this year will rise less than the rate of inflation? Does he agree that the revenue support grant settlement was correct in estimating needs for local councils, and is not that in stark contrast to the waste, inefficiency and nepotism of many Labour-controlled councils, especially that in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the news that council tax bills are on average likely to rise less than the rate of inflation is very welcome indeed and I believe that it shows that the local government settlement was very finely judged. That is, of course, very different from what was said by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who predicted at the time that the council tax would rise by four times the level of inflation. Clearly, he was scaremongering or wrong, or both.

    Mr. Galloway : Does the Prime Minister have a message for Nabil Shaath, the chief Palestinian negotiator, who is in Parliament this afternoon? In view of the fact that, since last Friday’s massacre in Hebron, the Israeli army has shot down more people than were shot by the murderer in the mosque, will the Prime Minister support a protection force made up from the United Nations or at least the co-sponsors of the peace process to protect the Palestinians under illegal Israeli occupation?

    The Prime Minister : I think that violence from any source in that powder keg of the middle east is to be regretted, whether it comes from the dreadful massacre at Hebron or any other source. There are some United Nations observers there and I believe that they are doing an extremely good job. I had the opportunity of discussing that with the Secretary-General just the other day. What would be most helpful would be if, as soon as it seemed politically practicable, the two sides were to sit down again and continue with the negotiations that have made more progress in the past 18 months than for many years past. I believe that everyone wishes to see a comprehensive peace settlement that will enable the people who live there to live a decent, civilised and safe life.

     

    Q5. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

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

    Sir John Hannam : During his visit to the United States, and remembering his excellent record as a former Minister with responsibility for the disabled, did my right hon. Friend observe the remarkable increase in the number of disabled people in America who are now attaining full, normal employment as a result of President Bush’s anti-discrimination legislation? Will my right hon. Friend support our efforts in the House further to remove the barriers facing disabled people?

    The Prime Minister : I share my hon. Friend’s desire to end discrimination against disabled people. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to identify further practicable and affordable ways to combat discrimination. There is much that may be done and I have asked my right hon. Friend to examine that matter.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference – 26 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference on 26th February 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    “Making Councils Work for You”

    Making Councils Work for You is the theme of this year’s Conference. In those five words is the very essence of local government.

    It is something Conservative councils have always sought to do. It was what I tried to do here in Lambeth – what is it now, a quarter of a century ago.

    Present today will be people here who have served in local government all that time. That’s something to be proud of: a record of service that many have reason to be grateful for.

    There’s one lesson I learned in local government. Politics is about people. About their lives. That is why our policies are based on individual choice, individual opportunity, individual responsibility.

    That is the message we need to carry. Street to street, house to house, face to face. Tell it to people on the doorstep. After all, it’s their communities, their choices, their freedoms, their children, their future.

    So tell me tell it how it is – without the gloss of intermediary comment. That’s the way to hammer home our message and make sure it is received.

    In this we have an advantage. Our strength comes from the ground up. More than any other Party, our message is carried to the country by our local supporters, local councillors, local candidates and local party workers.

    This year, many of you will be fighting in the local elections. We’re going to have to fight hard to win. Mid term elections are never easy.

    But I’ll tell you one thing. We’re not going to win if we stay on the back foot. We must be positive. We must be confident. We must be united.

    THE ECONOMY

    And, Mr Chairman, we have reason to be. These elections will take place against an economic background that seemed impossible a year ago.

    Unemployment is falling. Growth faster than predicted. Business confidence rising. Exports up. Retail sales on the up. And British industry going from strength to strength.

    We can’t expect our opponents to say all this. Indeed, we can be pretty sure they won’t.

    So we must say it. And when we’ve said it – say it again, and again, and again.

    Make sure everyone notices it. Don’t let the good changes that are taking place be hidden. Gloves off. Punch the good news home. Build up the confidence that will build up our prosperity.

    When were interest rates last this low? 16 years ago. When was inflation last this low for so long? 25 years ago.

    When were mortgage rates last this low? 25 years ago.

    When was the number of strikes last this low? Over a century ago.

    When did we last have such good news on all these fronts together? Not in my lifetime. Not in anyone’s.

    I don’t intend to see the Conservative Party on the defensive.

    What we’ve done is right for the country.

    And what we’ll deliver is good for the country.

    So help spread that message wherever you are.

    For the last two years politics has all pointed in one direction. The issue has been the recession. No-one takes our opponents seriously. No-one pays much attention to what they say. They’ve had a free ride. They’ve talked complete drivel – and got away with it.

    But that won’t last. In due course people will notice the vacuum that is their policy. While we’ve been working to put Britain back on its feet, their only concern has been to put the boot into Britain.

    So – remember. While your main job is to explain our policies, just – occasionally – take a moment out to expose theirs.

    TAX

    Meanwhile, let us take all the key issues head on. Tax – for a start. Let me come straight out about where we stand on tax. All our instincts are to get tax down. There’s no other Party in British politics that can say that.

    Yes – taxes are rising in April. Why? Because tax income fell during the recession. And because public spending had to rise.

    Yes, but why did public spending have to rise? Mainly to help those people who were vulnerable during the recession – a recession we can now see was not – as advertised then – a British phenomenon, but one that has spread right across Europe and beyond.

    It was right to help people during that recession. We could not have done otherwise. No Conservative Government could turn its back on those most in need. Nor did we.

    That’s mainly why spending went up. But we’re through recession now – the first nation in Europe to be able to say that. Now we need to rebuild income and control spending. This country has been through many sacrifices to get to this position. We are not going to throw it away now.

    The first task of any responsible Government must be to balance the books. And, even though we’ve now cut spending, this still means that taxes have had to go up.

    We didn’t put them up because we wanted to. We did it because we had to. What we need now is to build a recovery that lasts. That is what responsible government is all about.

    But there’s something else you can tell them on the doorsteps. We remain by instinct a tax-cutting Party -the only tax-cutting Party. And when it is possible to cut taxes again, we will.

    So don’t just defend our record. Remind people of this…. Every time the Conservatives have voted for lower taxes, Labour have voted for higher ones. And the Liberals have voted with them.

    Every time the Conservatives have voted for lower public spending, Labour have voted to spend more. And the Liberals have voted with them.

    And when did Labour or Liberals call for spending cuts? You’re right – never. They called for more spending – as they always do.

    Nor do they stop at high tax and high spending in Britain; they want high tax and high spending from a high and mighty Brussels too. Yes – we’re in Europe. Because that’s where our interests lie. But not the Europe Labour and Liberals want.

    Just look at Labour’s plans for Europe. Sheer madness.

    Higher taxes on business. Extra burdens on business through the Social Chapter. Extra costs on business through a 35 hour week.

    In the European Parliament Labour have even voted for taxes on investment income – the old axe on savings and pensions. How extraordinary to propose a tax surcharge on savings income, just when interest rates are low. What damage that would do to the elderly and the prudent. The politics of envy are alive and well – and living in Labour policies.

    And if that’s not enough, they and their Socialist friends actually want to double the money that Europe spends. Double your money. Double the Community budget? That means doubling our net contribution.

    Hands up all those who want to double our net contributions to Brussels? No hands up? – the observer from the Liberal Party must have slipped out to lunch.

    How does that square with keeping your tax bills down? It doesn’t, does it? You can’t give more money to Europe unless you take more tax at home.

    In Whitehall, in Brussels and council chamber, too – it’s taxes, taxes everywhere. Remind the people – with every Labour promise, the taxing meter clicks upward.

    That’s the key difference between the Parties. And that’s the lack of difference between our opponents. Labour and the Liberals: two halves of the same tax demand.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW

    Mr Chairman, when I spoke to you last year, I said I wanted to produce an enduring structure for local government. I meant it. I come from local government. I have an affection for it. I want it to be successful.

    And it’s always been my belief that structures will only endure if they reflect the traditional loyalties and identities of local people.

    Local government is at its best when people know what its responsibilities are and who is responsible. When they know to whom they should look for help on particular issues.

    At the moment in many places that isn’t very clear. There are blurred responsibilities. People often don’t know who to turn to. There’s scope for better integration of services and savings from improved efficiency. Achieving that would not only be good for the structure of local government, it would be good for its prestige.

    In many cases unitary authorities will deliver advantages. Where that is so I believe we should have them. But the argument for unitary authorities may not be so strong everywhere. Where that is so, we have made it clear that we will not change for change’s sake. There is no national blueprint.

    And I promise you this. All through this process government’s doors will be open. John Gummer and David Curry will take your views fully into account before coming to any final decisions.

    We share a common objective of which this process is only a small part. To get back to the time when the big figures of local government were invariably big figures on the national stage as well.

    I want to see that happen again. You play a vital part in making your communities better places. I want your work to be recognised and your voice to be heard.

    IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL DECISIONS

    Mr Chairman, debates on structure will no doubt continue. But immediately ahead of us lie elections which will decide what matters far more: who runs the council.

    We’re realists. We know many people will vote on national as well as on local issues. That is why good news on the economy matters so much.

    But don’t think that what you do isn’t noticed. It is. Or doesn’t count. It does. Because most people’s day to day lives are affected by local government just as much as central.

    Many problems are best solved locally. Sorted out by thousands upon thousands of decisions and actions taken at council level. And, whatever the local problem is, I know one thing for sure. It’ll be tackled best, if it is tackled by Conservative councillors.

    On almost all the key issues of local government, there are sharp differences between the parties. And time and time again it is the Conservatives who are most in tune with the people.

    EDUCATION

    Take education. We can all agree it’s vital. Words are cheap. But only we Conservatives have produced a clear policy for the future. And we have done it against the flat opposition of the other parties, national and local.

    Children have only one chance. If schools fail to teach the basic skills, then pupils lose the opportunity to make the most of their lives.

    Every child needs the basic equipment for success in life. The three Rs do matter. And so too does confident command of standard English. If you can’t write a clear application, you may never even get an interview for the job you want.

    We Conservatives have a clear strategy for a better future.

    We’ve given parents the right to choose which school they want their child to go to.

    We’ve brought in a new National curriculum.

    We’ve insisted on testing – checking progress in every school.

    We’re taking on those trendy theorists who have done so much damage in teacher training.

    We’re giving more power to the schools.

    We’re giving parents and public more information about our schools than ever before. School reports, full prospectuses, truancy records and performance tables.

    And who is it that opposes us – on all these critical commonsense policies? Why, Labour, of course.

    They are the abominable no-men of education. They think they know better. So they say “no” to choice in education, “no” to information about how our children are doing in school, and “no” to more say for parents.

    How completely, how absurdly, time and time and time again the Labour Party has misjudged the mood of the people of this country. Not just in the council chambers – but in the Shadow Cabinet, too.

    Hundreds of thousands of parents have voted for Grant-Maintained schools – but John Smith and co still want to scrap them.

    Millions of parents want to see our school performance tables – but Labour still want to scrap them.

    Assisted places for poor children? They’ll scrap them, too. Their attitude is all so negative and out of date.

    And this week Labour have even revived their old blind prejudice against independent schools. They are talking of ending charitable status. What hope for our children’s future, when Labour’s spokesmen trek back into a discredited past?

    Mr Chairman, there seems no attitude on education so vindictive that Labour won’t back it.

    In some Labour-run authorities, young children in CTCs have been picked on and stopped from playing music or team games with children from other schools.

    I don’t know about you – but I don’t think you can sink much lower than that. What a spiteful policy. It is educational apartheid, and it should stop – now.

    Team sports are vital. They are part of childhood. And they are part of life. I am determined to see them played far more in our schools. And I don’t want to see classroom wars or perverted political ideology stand in the way.

    LAW AND ORDER

    Mr Chairman, as I go round the country one subject resonates more clearly than any other – concern about crime. This year in Parliament, we have the most comprehensive legislation for years to crack down on crime. To give the courts and the police the powers they need.

    But all of you can help us – and I’ll tell you how. For no-one should ever think that local councils can’t help in the fight against crime. The war on drugs and the war on crime involve us all. And you in your councils can play a big part in winning that war.

    Here’s an example. I recently visited a Conservative council in London. Ealing. I found they were leading the way in new projects for fighting crime on the streets.

    You didn’t need a degree in criminology to see the sense of what they were doing. It was simple practical action. Just fitting gates in the alleyways of estates. In just one year it cut domestic burglaries by a third.

    Not expensive. Not difficult. Just plain common or garden sense. Back to basics you might say.

    And that’s just one of many things councils should do.

    You can set up neighbourhood watch schemes.

    Work with the police and local businesses under our Safer Cities programme.

    And don’t underestimate what better planning can do. To help you and to pull threads together we’re publishing new guidance today on planning that will help councils cut out crime.

    Better lighting, entry phones in tower blocks, better street design. Simple things like these can make life more difficult for the mugger, the burglar and the ram raider.

    So, too, could more closed circuit cameras in City centres. We’re out to stop the criminal – and the best way to do that is to spot him before he strikes. Closed circuit cameras have proved they can work. So we need more of them wherever crime is high.

    Yes, no doubt we will hear some protests about a threat to civil liberties. Well, I have no sympathy for so-called liberties of that kind. The one liberty that concerns me is the liberty of people to go out in the streets without fear and to know that they and their property are safe.

    Anything that helps them and hinders the criminal is fine by me.

    PARTY DIFFERENCES

    Mr Chairman, in ten weeks time people will be voting up and down the country on what council will run their area in the years ahead. The choice they face couldn’t be clearer.

    What was it Jack Straw said the other day about Labour councils? He said he was “proud of what Labour councils have achieved”. Well, if he is, he must be easily satisfied. He went on to say, “The facts speak for themselves.”

    Yes, they do. But I wonder if he realises what they say.

    Seven out of the ten authorities with the highest Council tax arrears? Labour.

    Eight out of ten with the worst rent arrears? Labour.

    Nine out of ten with the worst exam results? Labour.

    Ten out of ten with the highest council taxes? Labour.

    “The facts speak for themselves”. They do indeed. And what they tell you is to vote Conservative – unless you want a council that puts up your taxes because it doesn’t collect the rents, and doesn’t teach your children.

    Thanks Jack for reminding us. Although I have a feeling that’s not what you wanted us to hear.

    And since I’m in the mood to let facts speak for themselves, here are a few more that positively scream out.

    Who runs the ten councils with the highest debts? Yes. Labour.

    And did you know those ten councils collectively have borrowed so much money that the latest figures show they owe more than Nicaragua?

    And if you think that’s unfair because there are ten councils and only one Nicaragua, let me tell you what else those figures show.

    After ten years of Socialism, Birmingham’s debt is almost three times the size of Albania’s. And it took Albania forty years of communism to build up her debt.

    And in case you think that’s a freak, then Hackney owes more than Haiti. Hackney’s Labour.

    Camden owes more than Chad. And Camden? Labour.

    And Sheffield owes more than the Seychelles. Sheffield – since we’re talking about elections today, that brings back some happy memories. Perhaps Labour would like another rally there – it might even be worth us paying.

    Week after week John Smith talks about competence in government. Well, that’s fine. But he should take a close look at incompetence in Labour local government instead.

    No wonder he calls for the cancellation of Third World debt. He thinks he might need the IMF to bail out third-rate Labour councils instead.

    LIBERALS

    Before we leave the third-rate, let’s spare a word for the fourth-rate also. Here’s one last question about council debt. Who runs the council with the eleventh largest debt? No, not Labour. Yes, you guessed it. The Liberal Democrats.

    Wherever Labour leads, the Liberals follow, tails wagging, right at their heels.

    We’ll confront Labour head-on. But don’t let’s forget the Liberal threat.

    Do you remember the Liberal posturing at the last Election? All that fuss about PR? Paddy’s patent remedy. People soon saw through that piece of quackery.

    The Liberals said PR was the key to a new style of politics. And that was half true at least. Because it was a key alright – a Liberal key to a Labour Britain.

    And events have proved that. Just look at what’s happened up and down the country. Wherever people have voted Liberal in protest, the Liberals have used that key to open the Town Hall door for Labour.

    In Berkshire, Essex, Hereford, Lincolnshire, Shropshire, Suffolk and Kent, what do we see? Liberals touching their cap and opening the door for Labour. Lib-Lab pacts putting up council taxes and snuffing out common sense.

    I hope everyone remembers that this May.

    There’s only one way to vote Tory. But there are two ways to vote Labour.

    A hung council is a swung council. And it always swings to the Left.

    The only consistent policy the Liberals have is to let in Labour wherever they can. Backstairs deals. Selling their principles for a few committee chairmanships.

    Three chairs for the Libs – and, hey presto, you have a Labour council.

    CONCLUSION

    Mr Chairman, I’ve spelt out for you today some of the challenges we face. But also the opportunities – and today we have opportunities better than we’ve had for years to take our country forward.

    At this conference we have set out our shared beliefs. And told the world how strongly we hold them. Our commitments on education and crime strike a chord in every household in this country.

    We in this Party are not in politics to advance a narrow political ideology. We are there to do what we can for the people we serve.

    Over the last two years, I admit, we’ve taken a fair amount of stick. But now is the time to give some back.

    We’ve been on the defensive. But now is the time to go on the attack.

    It will take time before our policies work through. Time before all their benefits are seen.

    But one thing I do know. We won’t convince anyone if we stay at home indoors. In all the years of service on your councils, in all your actions, you have helped to build the reputation of this Party.

    Now go out and sell it. You deserve to win. Make sure you do.

    So get on your coat. Get on the doorstep. And get stuck in.