The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Manufacturing

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Manufacturing – 1 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on manufacturing, made in London on 1st February 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he could help the manufacturing industry].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think in what we are doing. I think the Chancellor’s autumn statement, for example, was a great boost for the manufacturing industry, the reduction in interest rates is a great boost for the manufacturing industry, the fact that we increased ECGD was a great boost for the manufacturing industry, the fact that I have just gone abroad taking manufacturers with me has helped them and other Ministers will be doing the same and I will be doing it again. It is also a cultural matter. We do need to get more our best and brightest youngsters out in industry, I do not want them all in the City, journalism, politics or whatever it may be, I want some of them out in industry. And that means you have to break down this distinction that often exists between the academic worker and the skilled worker, we need those skills out in industry and that is what so many of our education reforms are geared to.

    Our policies are geared to the year 2000 and beyond, we are going to see more changes in this decade that we have seen in any decade we have lived through, you or I, and much of that, the speed of change will be bewildering because the speed of new technology is accelerating all the time. So if we are going to have a successful manufacturing base we need to be at the leading end of technology, not only do we need to be at the leading end of technology, we need to have the right industrial, commercial, economic and taxation structure to support the development of companies and all those are things we are doing. The belief that you can just do it, as the Labour Party would have, by throwing subsidies here and throwing subsidies there, is ludicrous, you need a strategy that goes right across government.

  • PMQT – 12 May 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th May 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Earth Summit

    Q1. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what are the specific objectives of Her Majesty’s Government at the Earth summit.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : The Government’s specific objectives for the Earth summit are signature of global conventions on climate change and biodiversity ; a statement of principles on forests ; a short “Rio declaration” of environment and development principles ; a comprehensive action plan ; and reinforcement of international institutions dealing with environment and development.

    Mr. Hughes : As that was the Prime Minister’s first parliamentary answer, will he make it his No. 1 priority this Session to tackle the global environmental crisis? Is he aware that the secret documents that we have seen contain proposals which amount to a watering down of the tough energy-saving commitment and replace specific targets with vague promises, and are to be put to the European Commission tomorrow? Will the Prime Minister ensure that, at the Earth summit and thereafter, tackling the global crisis will be his priority and that of his colleagues on the world stage?

    The Prime Minister : This is an important conference–an important priority–and there is a great deal to be done. The political will is there, not just in this country but in countries around the world. It appears that the attendance at the Rio summit will be very high–and very high at Heads of Government level. I must emphasise that what is agreed at the conference is only the beginning of the work that needs to be done. Some people might set their expectations too high. There is bound to be a limited amount of success at Rio. There will be a good deal to be done subsequently in this country, in the European Community, and beyond.

    Mr. Lester : If my right hon. Friend gets a chance to watch television, I am sure that in the past two or three days, and certainly this month, he has noticed the beginning of the one world ’92 campaign, linking 66 nations’ broadcasters throughout Europe as well as the general public in preliminary matters to the Rio conference. On 30 May, it will culminate in a day of action throughout Europe and the tree of life, for which I am sure he has signed his pledge. Will he support all the work that is being done to involve the public in this issue because, however much we feel that it is important, without general public support we shall never get anywhere?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. It needs a commitment by Governments, by which I mean Governments across the world. Little will be gained if some contribute while many others do not. A great deal of commitment by individuals will also be necessary. This may be one of the areas of policy where it is often the individual driving the Government, rather than the reverse, in terms of commitment to the environment. I have little doubt that individuals in this country and beyond will commit themselves to these environmental and desirable aims.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Janner : Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House the extent to which, in his own opinion, the Parliament of the United Kingdom should surrender sovereignty in the interests of European unity and what role he considers that a British monarch should play in influencing policy and opinion within the European Community?

    The Prime Minister : Influencing policy and opinion in the European Community at a political level is a matter for the politicians. That has been a long-established tradition and it remains the position. The position of the sovereignty of this House is a matter which we have discussed on many occasions. The sovereignty of this House is not a matter that is up for grabs–that is perfectly clear. What we have said is that there are areas where we can pool decision making in the general interests of the whole of Europe and in those circumstances it is right to pool decision making, but perhaps one of the most essential parts of the Maastricht agreement was the agreement on subsidiarity–that things must be done on a national level when they can best be done at a national level.

    Sir Anthony Grant : While recognising that miscarriages of justice are bound to take place from time to time and must be rectified, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no weakening in the attitude of the Government, of the police or of the courts in the relentless battle against terrorism?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Terrorism is one of the most wicked and evil problems faced by this Government and by Governments across the world. There will be no weakening in our determination to fight terrorism and no weakening in our determination to work with our European partners at a European level to fight terrorism.

    Mr. Kinnock : As the Prime Minister rightly says that he wants to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy, is that a principle that he will be applying to the financing of the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : The financing of the Conservative party is not a matter for the right hon. Gentleman.

     

    Q3. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

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

    Mr. Banks : What representations has the Prime Minister made to President Bush to get the pilots of the A10 tank busters to submit themselves to the inquiry into the deaths of the nine service men killed by the so-called

    Madam Speaker : Order. The matter with which the hon. Gentleman is dealing is sub judice. If he can rephrase his question, I will certainly hear him.

    Mr. Banks : The Prime Minister will recall in principle terms that President Bush gave assurances to the parents of the service men who were killed that the pilots would come over here for examination. Will he tell us what representations he has made to ensure that President Bush carries out those assurances?

    The Prime Minister : As I believe the House has been told on previous occasions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be drawing the families’ letters to the attention of Mr. Cheney, the United States Defence Secretary.

    Mrs. Peacock : Now that my right hon. Friend has been returned to Downing Street for a further five-year term, may I invite him–when he is planning his visits–to visit my constituency of Batley and Spen in Yorkshire where he will find much manufacturing prospering as it has been investing during the recession? He would be made most welcome on such a visit.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her invitation and it is certainly one which I shall hope to take up during the course of this Parliament. I share her view about the prospects for manufacturing industry and, in particular, for the new areas of manufacturing which have flourished so much in recent years and which are so often overlooked when people talk about manufacturing in the generality.

     

    Q4. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

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

    Mr. Dunnachie : What pressure has the Prime Minister put on President Bush in relation to the British soldiers who were massacred in the friendly fire incident and to fulfil the promise to their relatives? Will he tell them why nothing has been done in that respect? What does he intend to do in the future to bring that sorry state of affairs to an end?

    The Prime Minister : I responded to that point a few moments ago, as the hon. Gentleman and the House heard. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that United States officials have discussed the handling of the evidence with the coroner, who has made it clear that he accepted the United States decision not to provide witnesses. That matter has been raised at the highest level with the American Government and Defence Secretary.

     

    Q5. Mr. Gill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

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

    Mr. Gill : As the first Conservative Member whose name appears on the Order Paper for the first Prime Minister’s Question Time of the new Parliament, may I convey the congratulations of all Conservative Members to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on leading our party to its unprecedented fourth election victory? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that his strongly anti-federalist stance was instrumental in securing that general election victory? In view of today’s press reports, will he reassure the House that British sovereignty is not “insignificant”?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said a few moments ago, decisions need to be taken as close to the citizen as possible. That was the principle of subsidiarity that we fought for and obtained in the negotiations at Maastricht. Where the nature of a problem requires a European response, we believe that it should have a European response. That was the balance that we struck, and I believe that it was the right balance.

    Mr. Wigley : The Prime Minister has again emphasised the importance of the subsidiarity concept that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people. How will that be applied to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or is it a principle which starts in Brussels and ends in London?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that we are one United Kingdom and the Government are determined that we shall remain one United Kingdom.

     

    Q6. Mr. Quentin Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

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

    Mr. Davies : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous sense of pleasure, relief and hope in the future generated by our victory at the election under his leadership? [Interruption.] There are obviously some sour grapes on the Opposition side. Does my right hon. Friend agree that after another five years of Conservative Government, instead of this country’s performance being measured by how fast we are catching up with Germany, for the first time in 100 years we shall be a model for others in respect of economic performance, enlightened administration of public services, and social peace and cohesion?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree with him. We very much want wealth and welfare to go hand in hand, and I believe that the fear of the election of a Labour Government had been holding that back. Since polling day we have seen a dramatic change in the confidence of the markets and individuals. Share values have risen by about a seventh, sterling is up, and interest rates have been cut by a further per cent., bringing us almost level with German rates for the first time in a quarter of a century. That is good news for British industry, for British investment and, over time, very good news for British employment prospects.

    Mr. Cryer : As the Prime Minister is so complacent about British manufacturing industry and claims that there is much good news about, will he assure the House that he is not prepared in the GATT negotiations to sacrifice the textile industry to gain advantages on behalf of the farmers who have supported the Conservative party? Will he give an unqualified guarantee that he will fight to keep jobs in the British textile industry, as many thousands of jobs have been lost in the past years of Conservative rule? We want to keep that industry going in Bradford and elsewhere. Will he give that guarantee?

    The Prime Minister : What I have never understood in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about manufacturing is why he and his colleagues are always so keen to assume that British manufacturing industry is failing, doing unwell and needs special assistance and special subsidies to survive. The reality is that the United Kingdom share of world trade in manufactures rose in 1991 for the third successive year. Right across the country we have seen growth in areas of manufacturing industry which did not show signs of growth in earlier years.

     

    Q7. Sir Thomas Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 May.

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

    Sir Thomas Arnold : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent actions of Ofgas and Oftel to reduce prices still further show that the community charge has real teeth when it comes to protecting the interests of the consumer?

    The Prime Minister : The work of Ofgas and Oftel goes right to the heart of the citizen’s charter. The principles of those two regulatory bodies are important and the citizens charter underlines our commitment to put the consumer first. The regulators have achieved significant price cuts. British Telecom’s prices have been cut by 27 per cent. in real terms, British Gas has cut domestic prices and standing charges, and the regulator is demanding more cuts. The impact of the citizen’s charter will continue to put the citizen in the forefront of people’s minds when state prices are determined.

  • PMQT – 18 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Skinner : With only a few more bribing days left before the general election and in view of the fact that the House has been televised for more than two years, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he is prepared to take part in televised debates during the general election campaign with the Leader of the Opposition–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we hold televised debates in the House twice a week–

    Hon. Members : Frit!

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Robert B. Jones : Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study the statement by the Bundesbank that Germany is now in recession and that it blames the fall in output in Germany on the world recession? Does not that nail the lie being put around that these circumstances are due not to world but to British recession?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend points out, the Bundesbank has said that the German economy is now in recession. That confirms the point that I have been making to the House for some time about the international slow-down and international difficulties. A number of countries are either in recession or experiencing a slow-down in activity. Germany, alas, is the latest country to reach a formal recession.

    Mr. Kinnock : Would the Prime Minister confirm that today’s figures show the biggest rise in long-term unemployment in 10 years, that 1.3 million people in Britain have been without work for more than six months and that 750,000 of those have been without work for more than a year? Against that background, does the Prime Minister still dare to say to those people and their families that their prolonged misery is a price well worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : No one has said that, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. This month’s increase in the numbers unemployed for a year or more is certainly extremely unwelcome, but the long-term unemployment level is about half what it was five years ago and long-term unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds is also half that level. Long-term unemployment among the over-50s has halved over the past four years. These figures are too high, but the only way to get them down permanently is to have the right structure of development in the economy : low inflation and stable exchange rates. That is what we are providing ; there is no easy way.

    Mr. Kinnock : But the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that this unemployment and recession are a price well worth paying. Can the Prime Minister really take any comfort from the fact that, bad as today’s figures are, they are slightly less bad than they were in the last Tory slump? Is he really trying to convince the people of Britain, as they tried to do then, that policies of this kind provide a basis for sustained recovery and sustained growth? British unemployment is rising faster than unemployment in any country in the rest of the European Community. We have a huge increase in long-term unemployed, and more job losses are being announced every week. All this is taking place while the Prime Minister has had his present job and while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is not it now obvious that Majorism is not working?

    The Prime Minister : I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that I have said no such thing, and neither in context has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As I said a moment ago, there is only one way to create long-term stable employment. The right hon. Gentleman implies that nothing is being done. I do not call halving inflation doing nothing. Last month it fell to just over 4 per cent. If that is doing nothing, what were the last Labour Government doing when inflation went up to 27 per cent ?

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister cannot correct the record to the extent of pretending that both he and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) have not said that today’s conditions, with all their misery, are not a price well worth paying. That is the first point. Secondly, the Prime Minister refers to the record over 13 years. In that 13 years manufacturing output under his Government in Britain has gone up less than 6 per cent. It has gone up by four, five and 10 times as much among our competitors, and the right hon. Gentleman is still not doing anything to bring Britain out of recession, to give us recovery. A Tory Government means permanent high unemployment.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman does not listen and he does not understand. I repeat : I have said no such thing and I invite him to withdraw. The House will know that he changed his allegation between his first and third questions. If he is really concerned about unemployment, why does he want to cripple British industry by bringing back flying pickets, by encouraging mass pickets, by returning trade union immunities, with all the difficulties that we saw in the 1960s and 1970s ? That would not produce growth and jobs. That would produce permanent slump, no jobs, no prospects, no hope for the future. Those are the policies that the right hon. Gentleman sets out before this nation.

    Mr. John Marshall : Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the decision to compensate those who contracted HIV as a result of treatment through the national health service is widely welcomed ? I thank him for a speedy and compassionate response. He knows the representation that I made with other colleagues only a fortnight ago.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. We made special provision for those with haemophilia and HIV because of the special circumstances that are apparent and because of the widespread representations that have been made to us. I hope that it will ease the difficulties of people who face such a tragic circumstance.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that there are only two facts that one needs to know to assess the Government’s real commitment to recovery? The first is that unemployment rose by 53,000 last Thursday and the second is that the Government cut their training budget by £171 million last Friday. How does the Prime Minister justify that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that we have the largest training provision that this country has ever seen. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know what circumstances are necessary for long-term prosperity and jobs, and that they are basically low inflation and a stable economy, he ought to learn that speedily.

    Mr. Gorst : When my right hon. Friend is making arrangements for his business in the second week in April, will he please include a visit to Edgware general hospital, where he will find patients, members of staff and doctors highly satisfied with the changes that have taken place in the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : I shall be happy to visit that hospital. I think that the changes in the health service are increasingly being understood to be welcome and to be providing a better health service for the future. That is becoming increasingly understood within the health service–if not, alas, on the Opposition Benches.

     

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

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

    Mr. Patchett : The Government have increased prescription charges 14 times, and they did so just this week by twice the rate of inflation. Will the Prime Minister intervene to stop this disgraceful taxation of the sick- -yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : There are 100 million more free prescriptions this year than there were at the time of the last Labour Government. The number of people who pay for prescriptions has shrunk and shrunk, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He should stop trying to misrepresent policies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Amess : Will my right hon. Friend agree to visit Basildon– [Interruption.]–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Come on.

    Mr. Amess : –the finest and most exciting town in the country? When my right hon. Friend does so, will he tell my constituents that there has been a record reduction in the number of strikes and that we now have the best figures for decades? Does he agree that such improvements are a key component in a strong economy and that they have been achieved through the Government’s industrial relations laws, which the Opposition parties wish to repeal?

    The Prime Minister : I shall be happy to visit my hon. Friend at Basildon either before or after the general election. He makes a good point. Indeed, the figures for 1991 are even better than those for 1990. There were fewer strikes last year than in any year since records began a century ago. That is essentially because of the change in labour relations and the encouragement that has been given for employers and the work force to work together.

     

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

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

    Mr. Garrett : Has the Prime Minister seen the prospectus from Pathfinders Repossessions plc, which is a company which proposes to buy repossessed homes at auction and then flog them off or rent them at a huge profit? I understand from the promoters that the project cannot fail because it qualifies for tax reliefs under the business expansion scheme. Does the Prime Minister find this proposition just plain squalid?

    The Prime Minister : The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, I have not seen that prospectus. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted a detailed comment on it, he would have invited me to look at it before he asked his question. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Oppenheim : Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to study the document entitled “The Citizen’s Charter”, which was written in 1921 by Herbert Morrison, then secretary of the London Labour party? It states that the best way to improve public services is to increase competition. Does not that show that no amount of tacky red plastic roses, sharp suits and slick public relations can disguise the fact that, far from progressing, Labour is regressing?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it does show that. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the merits of competition. We now have another citizen’s charter that addresses the direct problems faced by the people of this country. The Opposition are so rattled about it that NALGO is spending £2 million to advertise against it.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mrs. Mahon : The Prime Minister does not seem to be aware of what is happening with prescription charges. May I draw to his attention the case of a constituent of mine, a Mr. Russell, who is paid just 6p more than the income support level? From 1 April, he will have to pay £3.75 a week for a prescription out of an income of £60.31. If that is not a tax on the sick, will the Prime Minister tell us what it is?

    The Prime Minister : One in three people are now entitled to free prescriptions, as opposed to one in six.

    There are far more prescriptions than ever before for which people no longer pay, and those who find themselves marginally above income support level have the option of acquiring a season ticket precisely to meet that problem.

     

    Q6. Mr. Moate : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Moate : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is an essential weapon in the battle against terrorism? Does he agree that all parties in the House should support its annual renewal, so that we can send the terrorists the clear message that they can never win?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir–and I believe that recent events reinforce that point. Without the renewal of the Act, the IRA would be free to march, recruit and raise funds anywhere in Great Britain. Its renewal is absolutely essential, not just as a clear message to the terrorists but as a vital part of our ability to safeguard the lives of our citizens. I hope that, in the light of all that has happened, the Opposition will change their policy on this occasion, and will support the renewal of the Act.

  • PMQT – 17 October 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th October 1991. John MacGregor responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have been asked to reply My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare.

    Mr. Illsley : Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to join me in condemning the waste of money by Barnsley district general hospital, which is paying for a number of employees to go on a luxury holiday fact-finding mission to a Paris hotel as part of the hospital’s move towards NHS trust status? Is that another example of the Government allowing hospitals to waste money in pursuit of their NHS reforms?

    Mr. MacGregor : I did not know of that incident. Our reforms are achieving considerable savings right across the board, all of which are being directed at patient care.

    Sir Ian Lloyd : If, as has been reliably reported in the press this morning, the Government are–doubtless from the most admirable motives– offering training and education to civil servants from the African National Congress, are not we in danger, first, of assuming an outcome to the constitutional process in South Africa which may be disproved by events? Secondly, are not we in danger of racial discrimination against a significant and admirable people, the Zulus?

    Mr. MacGregor : What is being proposed is training for people who will participate in the Government. The training that we could offer should greatly help with the whole question of race relations and the future of South Africa.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that unemployment in Britain has risen by over three quarters of a million in the past 12 months, that there have been more than 340,000 job losses in manufacturing industries over the same period and that unemployment in our country is rising faster than in any other European Community country? Is not it clear that the Government’s policies are doing long-term damage to the British economy? Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to belong to a Government who are doing Britain down in so many ways?

    Mr. MacGregor : I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at his own policies and realise that they would lose more jobs more permanently.

    Mr. Kinnock : As a direct result of the policies of the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman serves, output and investment continue to go down. Government borrowing continues to rise and unemployment is heading towards 2.5 million for the second time in 10 years under this Government. Is not it clear that the longer that Cabinet members hang on to their jobs the more other people will lose theirs?

    Mr. MacGregor : For every day that the Government have been in office, on average 220 new jobs have been added, nearly 100 new businesses have been created and 880 families have bought new homes. That is our record. Employment is higher than it was four years ago and higher than it was under the last Labour Government and it is higher than the European average. Investment over the period is substantially up. That is why we have been able to achieve this record, which is way ahead of anything that a future Labour Government would do.

    Mr. Kinnock : For the past three years and for next year Britain will be bottom of the investment, jobs, growth and other leagues of the major industrial countries. In Britain, more than 1,000 jobs a day are being lost in industry and services and manufacturing is bearing the brunt of that. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can be proud of nothing in that record. Is not that manifested by the shuffling off of the autumn statement until the end of November because the Government are afraid to bring it forward at the proper time?

    Mr. MacGregor : That latter point is entirely irrelevant. The decision on when the autumn statement should be made will be taken in the normal way. In the period as a whole, just as in recent times, there has been considerable success in getting inflation down to the levels of our major competitors overseas. That is the issue that most guarantees jobs long term.

    As for manufacturing industry, the director general of the CBI said in the summer :

    “Virtually everything associated with our manufacturing base is better than it was”

    in the era of Government interference, lost orders, strikes and horrific inflation. That was the era of the last Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to talk about policies that effectively improve competitiveness, investment and productivity. That is what we have been achieving.

    Sir William Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition spokesmen seem to take particular delight in talking down the British economy– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. MacGregor rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This takes up time.

    Sir William Clark : –and the Government’s achievements in the economic sphere? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the amount of inward investment is proof positive that the foreigner has confidence in this country because the economy is not only sound but is better than it ever has been?

    Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and I apologise if I interrupted him. The Labour party simply ignores all good news and there is a deal of it at the moment. My right hon. Friend is right to draw to our attention examples such as the substantial bringing down of inflation and the high regard of overseas companies, which is shown by their rates of investment in this country.

     

    South London

    Q2. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister when he will make his next official visit to south London.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an official visit to south London in September and intends to do so again in the future.

    Mr. Hughes : When the Prime Minister or other Cabinet Ministers next come to south London, will they say whether they agree with the comment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, made half an hour ago in Church house, that the inner cities of Britain suffer from severe and divisive inequalities and severe deprivation? If they accept that that is the case, is it Government policy to increase the gap between the richest and the poorest, as has happened over the past 12 years, or will Government policy change under the new Prime Minister, so that the gap between the well off and the poorest will narrow in the years to come?

    Mr. MacGregor : I understand that the Archbishop also paid tribute to the Government’s inner cities programme, which has been substantial–

    Mr. Simon Hughes indicated assent.

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that now, but he forgot to include it in his supplementary question. The inner cities programme and many others, including the urban initiative, have greatly improved the prospects for all our inner cities. There are many examples of that. One of the things from which inner cities suffer is Labour councils.

    Mr. Brazier : Does my right hon. Friend agree that an improvement in the teaching of economic history in our schools–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This question is about inner London.

    Mr. Brazier : I should have said inner London schools, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that every child in inner London should be taught that every Labour Government, without exception, have increased unemployment?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. Labour Governments have increased unemployment, increased waiting lists in hospitals and hugely increased the public sector borrowing requirement to the level to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, if the PSBR were at the level that was reached under the Labour Government, it would be about £50 billion.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister if the will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Canavan : Is the Leader of the House aware that the Minister of State with responsibility for health in Scotland is still hell-bent on pushing the Royal Scottish National hospital to opt out, despite opposition from the overwhelming majority of the staff, the local community and relatives of the mentally handicapped patients? Given the Prime Minister’s fine words last week about the power to choose and the right to own, will the right hon. Gentleman defend the people’s right to choose that their hospitals remain owned and administered by local health boards instead of self-governing trusts?

    Mr. MacGregor : There is no doubt that self-governing trusts are already considerably improving the management of the hospitals concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be considering the application to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as others, in the light of consultations.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Does my right hon. Friend agree with the chairman of Granada Television, who said yesterday that the Independent Television Commission had exercised its judgment in favour of quality? Does he recall that it was a Conservative Government who created ITV? Conservative Governments also created independent radio and Channel 4 in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party. Will not yesterday’s decisions mean that the second rate and the incompetent will give way to those who are professional and entertaining? We could not expect the Labour party to begin to understand that.

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. Both choice and quality of television have increased under Conservative Administrations and there will soon be a fifth television channel. We have seen the birth of satellite and cable television, which has expanded the range of programmes that people watch. My hon. Friend is right, too, to suggest that in setting up the Channel 3 and Channel 4 licensing systems, the Government aim to achieve a balance between market forces and quality and to maintain quality. I believe that that is what is happening.

    Mr. Cohen : When the Government did their U-turn on child benefit in the Budget and finally increased it after freezing it for several years, in a peculiar act of meanness they took £1 from the allowance of widows with dependent children. Will the Government recant on that act of meanness and give widows back their £1?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a considerable increase in all social security benefits over the years. There has been a considerable increase also as a result of the targeting of priorities.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hicks : Does my right hon. Friend recognise the need to revise the arrangements for the payment of European regional development funds, with specific reference to additionality? Is he aware that many people in the regions that have been identified as in need of additional investment believe that we are unable to benefit from the additional resources? Of the £45 million allocated to Cornwall and Plymouth, it will be possible to take up only £27 million because of restrictive measures.

    Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has taken steps to resolve the problems arising from the specific targeting of aid at local level and I shall bring my hon. Friend’s concern to his attention.

    Dr. Reid : Given the Prime Minister’s personal pledge to assist in the regeneration of Lanarkshire and the precedent that has now been set of political intervention in the decisions of British Rail, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will be using their influence to ensure that the new Eurofreight terminal in Scotland is sited at Mossend in Lanarkshire? If it is justifiable politically to intervene in the decisions of British Rail to protect political interests in the south, is not it equally justifiable to protect the economy and the regeneration of employment in Lanarkshire and Scotland?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman knows that I am familiar with Lancashire– [Interruption.] I am familiar with Lancashire because I have just been there, but I meant to say Lanarkshire, where I was born and brought up. The hon. Gentleman’s specific point is not one with which I am familiar, so I shall draw it to the attention of the appropriate Minister.

  • PMQT – 4 July 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Because the Liverpool people deserve a proper service.”

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 18 June 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 6 December 1990

    The text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th December 1990.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms. Quin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.

    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.

    Ms. Quin : Does the Prime Minister recall that only two days ago he appealed to his party to close ranks? Can he explain why so many of his colleagues refused to support him in the poll tax debate last night? Can he also explain why the British people, many of whom have suffered hardship as a result of this tax, should be expected to have any confidence in the Conservative party, when it is now clear that Tory Members who originally voted to impose the poll tax on us clearly did not believe in it all along?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady is slightly mistaken. A large number of my ministerial and Back-Bench colleagues were abroad unpaired yesterday, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip saw no need to bring them back, because we are united.

    Mr. Holt : Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has not gone unnoticed on Teesside and in the north-east that, on Tuesday night, he supported the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill in the Lobby, and that the Leader of the Opposition did not oppose it? My right hon. Friend will be most welcome throughout the north-east when he makes his frequent visits–unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who has occasionally dropped in on the Durham miners’ gala and then scarpered back to the south.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I look forward to visiting Langbaurgh and the north-east on many occasions.

    Mr. Kinnock : When he knows what he knows, why does the Prime Minister refuse to abolish the poll tax now?

    The Prime Minister : Unlike the right hon. Gentleman and his party– who have, on the latest count, changed their policy on this matter on 52 occasions–we are conducting a comprehensive review to determine how best to deal with it.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister confirm for the British people that the poll tax will still be in place at the time of the next general election?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made it perfectly clear yesterday that we were undertaking a fundamental review, and a fundamental review is what we shall undertake. We shall see how long that will take. I think that the country will notice that, although he professes to oppose the system, the right hon. Gentleman will make no constructive moves towards a constructive dialogue to correct it.

    Mr. Kinnock : When the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal last night did not even convince his hon. Friends, how does he seriously expect it to convince anybody else? Will he now answer the question? Will he confirm that the poll tax will still be in place at the next general election–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman might confirm that he has made it clear that under his plans the time scale for change may be considerable.

    Mr. Fishburn : Will my right hon. Friend win the hearts of Londoners today by endorsing the proposals for leasehold reform put forward last week by the Lord Chancellor? Does he accept that the draft Bill for commonhold will allow London flat dwellers to own their flats on freehold for the first time, thereby ending the injustices of leasehold that make so many London flat dwellers into second-class home owners?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, over the past 10 years we have done more to increase owner-occupation, with the personal security that that offers, than any previous Government. It is noticeable that that is not the policy of the Labour party.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that we welcome the proposal made last night for discussions with Opposition parties on a replacement for the poll tax? My party will contribute constructively to those discussions. We shall not play parliamentary games while millions out there are suffering from the effects of this unjust tax. In that context, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember the promise that he made in his 1974 election address, in which he said that he would abolish the rates

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that we need visual aids.

    Mr. Ashdown : –in which he said that he would abolish the rates–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The right hon. Gentleman can make his point without the visual signs.

    Mr. Ashdown : He said that he would abolish the rates and replace them with a tax related to the ability to pay. Does he still agree with that and does he realise that the only tax properly related to ability to pay is a local income tax?

    The Prime Minister : On the last point, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we are considering local taxation at the moment. On the first point, I share what I think is implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman said, which is that the House of Commons need not necessarily be a perpetual cockpit of confrontation. I regret very much that Labour Members, despite all that they said, have no intention of helping to determine common principles for the role of local government. If they do not wish to do so, that is a matter for them, but others will.

    Mr. Speaker : Mr. Michael Lord. [Hon. Members :– “Who?”] Order.

    Mr. Lord : As our new Prime Minister will have considerably fewer problems to deal with on taking over his appointment, may I urge him to bring to the top of the list the problem of haemophiliacs who have been infected with the AIDS virus through no fault of their own? He would earn the undying gratitude of the victims, their families and the House if he could take steps to bring about an out-of-court settlement as quickly as possible.

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that we are spending a considerable amount of money to deal with that problem, which we shall continually keep under review.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Is the Prime Minister aware that in the past 12 months a baby has been abducted from a hospital in London, an 11-year-old girl has been raped at a hospital in Surrey, a 77-year-old woman has been indecently assaulted at a hospital in Leeds and last week two doctors were murdered at a hospital in Wakefield? As the Government are committed to spending about £200 million on allowing hospitals to opt out, but a mere £20,000 on hospital security, does the Prime Minister feel that he has his priorities right?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the direct management of hospitals lies with health authorities and, in the case of national health service trusts, with the management of those trusts in due course. I am sure that they will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

    Mr. Cormack : Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be almost universal delight and gratitude if, before Christmas, the problem of the haemophilia AIDS victims were solved by adequate compensation being paid without liability being admitted?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we have already made a payment into the Macfarlane Trust. I understand the sensitive nature of the matter, but I have nothing further to add today.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.

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

    Mr. Mullin : Is the Prime Minister aware that of the 181 children who left Pennywell comprehensive school in my constituency earlier this year, only 10 found some form of employment, 32 went on to higher education, and of the remaining 150 or so, half went on to Government training schemes, which will lead to the dole, and the other half went directly on to the dole? What hope can he offer the children of Sunderland that life in John Major’s Britain will be any different from life in Margaret Thatcher’s Britain?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been considerable improvements in every aspect of life in the past 10 years, and that will continue. On the specific point that he made, a larger percentage of our youngsters now go on to further education than ever before, a higher percentage of our population is in work than ever before and there is a higher level of opportunities and training than ever before. That bodes well for the young people of Sunderland and indeed for young people everywhere.

    Mr. Riddick : Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that many local education authorities, including mine of Kirklees, are holding back far more of their education budgets for central administration than was originally intended by the Government? As the Government have announced that they intend to carry out a full review of the structure of local government, does he think that we should consider taking the control of education out of the hands of local education authorities and giving it to schools?

    The Prime Minister : I have considerable sympathy with that point of view, not least because of the enormous success of local management of schools. I hope that education authorities will release as much money as possible to go directly into the classroom.

     

    Q4. Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.

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

    Mr. Smith : Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, as a result of the frantic trawling for options and ideas that is under way in the Department of the Environment, there will be any reduction whatsoever in the poll tax bills that people will receive in April, or will the amounts be precisely the same as they were always going to be?

    The Prime Minister : As for trawling for options, I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party has had 52 changes of mind on local government. That is not so much a U-turn as a merry-go-round.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : Does my right hon. Friend accept that manufacturing industry is the only genuine source of non-inflationary growth and that the continuing use of high interest rates is damaging to investment and to competitiveness? Will my right hon. Friend look again at an alternative industrial manufacturing strategy?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the central core of economic policy is to bear down on inflation. As it reduces–and I expect that it will reduce, which is the general view of external commentators as well- -the options may exist for a reduction in interest rates. I can give no indication of when that may be.

     

    Q5. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Does the Prime Minister agree that given that two of the Polaris submarines are no longer seaworthy and that the other two were on the Clyde earlier this week, he is the first Prime Minister for 20 years not to have had a nuclear deterrent at his fingertips? Does he further agree that that did not cause him or the country any problems? Will he now agree that, rather than trying to patch up the remaining Polaris submarines, he should abandon the whole programme and give a clear lead to the non-proliferation talks in January that we want to have a non-nuclear world?

    The Prime Minister : Our nuclear capacity remains a deterrent and remains an important part of our defence.

    Sir Robert McCrindle : As my former area Whip–which until now has, no doubt, been his greatest claim to distinction–will my right hon. Friend comment on the possibility of some change being brought to the hours that the House works? Will he tell me why, having had that matter raised on many occasions in the 20 years in which I have been in the House, I remain sceptical? What can my right hon. Friend do to reassure me?

    The Prime Minister : I have fond memories of being my hon. Friend’s Whip some years ago. The hours of work in the House are essentially a matter for the Procedure Committee and for hon. Members themselves. Each will have his own individual views. If the House were to express views, I do not think that I would stand against them.

  • Mr Major’s Parliamentary Answer on Manufacturing Output – 25 October 1990

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s response on Manufacturing Output made on 25th October 1990 in the House of Commons.

    Mr. Morgan To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the prospects for manufacturing output in 1990.

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major) I shall be publishing a forecast of manufacturing output in 1990 with the autumn statement.

    Mr. Morgan Will the Chancellor confirm that, according to his officials, the manufacturing side of the British economy is now in recession? Will the right hon. Gentleman also give up his previous habit of trying to alter the definitions of expressions such as “recession”, renaming it “technical recession”, which we understand is the current ministerial sales line, just as he has done with “inflation”, renaming that “headline inflation”, with “convergence of inflation” in the Madrid conditions becoming “divergence of disinflation”? Does he accept that what industry now wants from the Government is some leadership out of recession so that just entering the exchange rate mechanism is not seen as the answer, because on its own that can be no more than putting on a gas mask full of carbon monoxide?

    Mr. Major I have rarely heard such a short point put at such length. I can certainly confirm that output is slowing and has been slowing over the past two or three months, as I have repeatedly said. Whether it is within the normal definition of “recession”—which is, of course, why my officials and subsequently I use that term – is a matter that we shall soon see. It is not entirely clear yet. It is conceivable that it is, but we must wait and see.

    Mr. Oppenheim Will my right hon. Friend remind the macho champions of manufacturing interests on the Opposition Benches – [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh.”] – that in the past decade, manufacturing output in Britain rose faster than in any other EEC country, according to OECD figures, and that during the period of the previous Labour Government, manufacturing output fell?

    Mr. Major I can certainly confirm those OECD figures. I can also confirm that manufacturing investment has grown on an annual basis over the past decade, whereas that also fell during the period of the previous Labour Government.

    Mr. Beith Has the Chancellor noted the bleak report produced by the British chambers of commerce earlier this week? Recognising that the task of manufacturing industry will not be any easier in the early days of the ERM, will the right hon. Gentleman help it by seeing that we get more investment in skills and skill training and in transport for access to markets so that it can have some hope of increasing competitiveness?

    Mr. Major I read that survey with some interest. It has, of course, been only a recent survey and has not yet passed through a complete economic cycle. There are signs that some of the observations in that survey were a little overdone, but we must wait and see what happens in the next few months. It is certainly consistent with the slowing down in the economy that we are seeing. That is a necessary part of the cycle. It has been predicted, it is expected and it is here, and the sooner we have it, the sooner we shall be through it and back to low inflation and growth again.

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark Does my right hon. Friend agree that wage restraint is needed from the very top of industry, but that it is failing to give the right lead? If industry is to become profitable, it is no good having 6 per cent. wage increases in the German car industry while Rover and other workers are getting 13 per cent. That is the way to ruin and to losing jobs, not the way to prosperity.

    Mr. Major I agree with my hon. Friend. He will recall that it was about a year ago, possibly in answer to one of his questions, that I first made the observation about pay affecting people at the top of industry as well as on the shop floor. That was true when we had that exchange a year ago, and it remains true today.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Manufacturing – 6 July 1989

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Manufacturing on 6th July 1989.

    Mr. Charles Wardle To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual rate of growth of manufacturing output over the last two years.

    Mr. Pawsey To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the annual rate of growth of manufacturing output over the last two years.

    Mr. Major In the two years ending in the three months to April, manufacturing output grew at an average annual rate of 6.2 per cent.

    Sir David Price To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom since 1979 and in the previous two decades.

    Mr. Major Between 1979 and the three months to April 1989, output per head in United Kingdom manufacturing industry grew at an annual average growth rate of 4.2 per cent, significantly higher than the 1.6 per cent. growth achieved in the 1970s and 3 per cent. growth in the 1960s.

    Mr. Cryer To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of the current level of interest rates on manufacturing firms employing less than 200 employees.

    Mr. Lilley Inflation is the greatest threat to the prosperity of all manufacturing firms. They will therefore benefit greatly from the Government’s determination to keep interest rates as high as necessary for as long as necessary as part of its firm anti-inflationary policy.

    Mrs. Peacock To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest projections for the growth of manufacturing investment in 1989.

    Mr. Moss To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest projections for the growth of manufacturing investment in 1989.

    Mr. Major The latest DTI investment intentions survey published in June projected manufacturing investment in constant prices to rise by 15 per cent. in 1989 on a year earlier. The latest CBI quarterly trends survey published in April confirms this buoyant outlook.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual rate of growth of manufacturing output over the last two years.

    Mr. John Browne To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom since 1980; and what were the comparable figures in the other major industrial countries.

    Mr. Robert B. Hughes To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom since 1980; and what were the comparable figures in the other major industrial countries.

    Dr. Twinn To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom since 1980; and what were the comparable figures in the other major industrial countries.

    Mr. Major Comparable figures for manufacturing productivity growth in the major industrialised countries are available only up to the fourth quarter of 1988. Manufacturing productivity, as measured by output per person employed, was 51 per cent. higher in the United Kingdom in 1988 than in 1980. Over the same period in the United States productivity increased by 37 per cent., in Japan by 28 per cent., in Germany by 19 per cent., in France by 27 per cent., in Italy by 35 per cent. and in Canada by 33 per cent.

    Mr. Hunter To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the growth of manufacturing productivity since 1980.

    Mr. Stevens To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the growth of manufacturing productivity since 1980.

    Mr. Major Output per head in United Kingdom manufacturing in the three months up to April 1989 was 55 per cent. higher than its average level in 1980, an average annual growth rate of 5.2 per cent.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Manufacturing Investment – 8 June 1989

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Manufacturing Investment on 8th June 1989.

    Mr. Mills To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest official projection for the growth of manufacturing investment in 1989.

    Mr. Major I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot).

    Mr. Hoyle To ask the Exchequer what was the level of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom in 1979 and 1988.

    Mr. Lewis To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom in 1979 and 1988.

    Mr. Loyden To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom in 1979 and 1988.

    Mr. Major The level of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom in 1985 prices was £11,157 million in 1979 and £11,586 million in 1988.