The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Minimum Wage

  • PMQT – 16 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Kevin Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 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. Hughes : Given the commitment that the Prime Minister gave to the biodiversity treaty in Rio over the weekend and in the House yesterday, while he advises other countries on how to solve their problems, will he try to solve some of the problems that we have in this country? Thorne and Hatfield moors in my constituency have been totally devastated by the peat extraction carried out by the Fisons company. Will the Prime Minister introduce legislation to stop the devastation of sites of special scientific interest, not just at Thorne and Hatfield moors, but throughout the country?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows that there is stringent legislation to deal with sites of special scientific interest. I am not familiar with the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, but if he will let me have the details I undertake to ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment examines the matter.

     

    Q2. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Field : Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the general election campaign the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food visited the Isle of Wight, where he reacted to the policy of the Liberal Democrats to make the island a trial district for rabies vaccination? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate his Cabinet colleague on defeating the suggestion from Brussels that we should weaken our safeguards against rabies in pets, and for keeping mad dogs out of our country and the even madder leader of the Liberal Democrats out of power? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the Government will continue to maintain controls against both those terrible diseases?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend strikes a chord both with the House and with the country as a whole. I believe that yesterday’s agreement of the Agriculture Council provides fully effective protection against rabies, and as such I think that it will be widely welcomed throughout the country.

    Mr. Hattersley : Now that the Prime Minister has agreed to Mr. Delors’ reappointment, will he describe–principally for the benefit of his Back Benchers–the qualities in the President of the Commission which inspired the Prime Minister’s confidence?

    The Prime Minister : As ever, the right hon. Gentleman starts with a misconception. No such agreement has yet been made.

    Mr. Hattersley : The Prime Minister must know that as recently as this weekend the Foreign Secretary was telling our European partners–and let Mr. Delors’ office know–that the Government would not stand in the way of Mr. Delors’ reappointment. Since the Prime Minister, or at least the Foreign Secretary, has said in private that the Government support Mr. Delors’ reappointment, is it not deplorable that the Prime Minister does not have the courage to say so in public? Is that not typically second rate?

    The Prime Minister : I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman, who has more experience of second-rate matters than most of us in this House, that no firm decision, no Cabinet decision, on the reappointment of Mr. Delors has yet been made. There are many things still to be determined about that appointment.

    Indeed, there are two appointments to be considered. I refer, first, to the temporary appointment for two years of the President of the Commission, to be made shortly, and thereafter to the appointment for five years, to run through the full length of the next Parliament. I am concerned to ensure that we get the right appointment for both terms.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton rose – [ Hon. Members : — “Hear, hear!”] Has my right hon. Friend appreciated that in August this year the transatlantic tall ships race will arrive in Liverpool? Is he aware that in the eight years since the race’s last visit the port of Liverpool has been transformed, justifying the Government’s decision to award free port status to Liverpool? Will my right hon. Friend wish the port and the organisers of the event August every success?

    The Prime Minister : I do so with great pleasure, for I think that such congratulations are well deserved–as are the congratulations to my hon. Friend on his recent award.

    Mr. Ashdown : In the light of the Prime Minister’s answer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has he noted that one of his own officials described Jacques Delors as a President of the European Commission of outstanding integrity and competence? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

    The Prime Minister : I think that Mr. Delors has many qualities.

    Mr. Marlow : Can the Prime Minister tell the House how the exchange rate mechanism affects the ability of Her Majesty’s Government to set interest rates compatible with the level of activity of the United Kingdom economy?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, since we became members of the ERM we have used it as the centre of our anti-inflationary policy. As a result, inflation–both headline inflation and core inflation–has fallen dramatically since a period when it was far too high. It remains the Government’s policy to meet the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty, not just for the treaty but for their own sake as well. For that purpose, and for the reduction and eventual elimination of inflation, we intend fully to sustain our commitment to the exchange rate mechanism.

     

    Q3. Mr. McFall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

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

    Mr. McFall : Although the Maxwell spying allegations make interesting reading and may prove that the Government have more responsibility in the affair than has hitherto been stated, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the banks should return the £200 million assets which they do not own? Does he agree that he should direct the Treasury to use its powers under section 4(3) of the Bank of England Act 1946 to recover the money which the banks do not own?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the special unit announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will actively assist the trustees in securing the return of assets.

    If the earlier half of the hon. Gentleman’s question was aimed in the direction I think it was, I can state clearly that the Government had no information about Mr. Maxwell’s financial affairs, contrary to what was alleged in the Financial Times yesterday, whether in 1989 or subsequently. I saw no such information, my office saw no such information, and nor did any Minister–for the very good reason that it never existed.

    Mr. Budgen : Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is now required in considering the Maastricht treaty is some objective analysis of its detailed effects? Is he aware that the Conservative Lawyers recently published a pamphlet saying that the doctrine of subsidiarity was virtually useless in terms of providing any protection against the further unwanted expansion of European laws and institutions? In view of the considerable misunderstanding that has arisen since the passing of the Single European Act, is it not important to publish either the advice of the Attorney-General about the effect of the treaty or at least a White Paper? It would be unfortunate if Ministers advocated the treaty in general and euphoric terms but it was subsequently found to have a different meaning when considered by the Commission or the court.

    The Prime Minister : I always read carefully what the Conservative Lawyers have to say–often in agreement, but perhaps not always in total agreement. My hon. Friend asked about subsidiarity, and I agree with the substantive part of his point, which is that we should speedily clarify its practical applications. In the next few weeks that will most certainly be one of our priorities during our presidency.

     

    Q4. Mr. Nigel Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Scottish football team on its tremendous, spirited performance in Sweden? Will he also congratulate Scottish fans on their exemplary performance to date and reprimand the Secretary of State for National Heritage for his ill-founded and ignorant comments about “British” fans when British fans were not to blame?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to congratulate the Scottish team on its fine performance and I regret that it was not successful in proceeding further in the competition. I hope that on future occasions the team will do better. I certainly condemn the lawlessness of a small minority of English supporters. As my right hon. Friend has made entirely clear, they have sullied our reputation abroad.

     

    Q5. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Paice : Will my right hon. Friend find time to read yesterday’s Hansard, especially the Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)?

    Mr. Cryer : And the money resolution last night.

    Mr. Paice : There was no money resolution on the Adjournment debate. That debate was about the National Union of Students and about suggestions of abuse of public money, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley was supported by many Conservative Members. Will the Prime Minister urge the Secretary of State for Education to act quickly to remove one of the last bastions of compulsory union membership?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is considering action on student unions. As my hon. Friend said, we shall seek to move in the direction of the voluntary principle.

     

    Q6. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Pike : We all know that the Prime Minister opposes a national minimum wage. There are millions of people on low pay and hundreds of thousands on poverty wages. Does he disagree with his predecessor that low pay is better than no pay, or will he do something to ensure that people have a reasonable living wage? Does he accept that in 1992 there should be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work ?

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that anyone disagrees with the hon. Gentleman’s final proposition, but it is equally true that people who receive low pay would rather that than receive no pay.

     

    Q7. Mr. David Shaw : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Shaw : Can my right hon. Friend state whether his office has any information about the meeting in Liechtenstein tomorrow to explain the role of Liechtenstein lawyers and others in secreting away Maxwell family moneys? Will he confirm that the Government will take every action necessary against Liechtenstein to ensure that any money due to Maxwell pensioners is returned to the pension funds as soon as possible?

    The Prime Minister : I had no knowledge of that particular meeting, but in the light of my hon. Friend’s remarks I will make inquiries.

    Mr. Hoyle : As the Prime Minister has read the reports in the Financial Times, he must be aware that they mention not only Maxwell but other national companies being under surveillance. If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman say who signed the warrants allowing that to take place?

    The Prime Minister : I have no intention of dealing with matters of that sort. The hon. Gentleman knows that very well. Every previous Government have consistently declined to comment on the activities of the intelligence and security services. I made the point perfectly clear in respect of Maxwell because of the damaging effect that the report could have had on Maxwell pensioners.

  • PMQT – 12 March 1992

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Does the Prime Minister agree that the forthcoming election will be won by the party that can best convince the British people that it can end the recession, reverse the catastrophic decline in investment, and modernise our industry? Does he agree that those issues cannot be debated by sound bites and photo opportunities, but require the party leaders to meet and debate intelligently? As the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are prepared to take part in that debate, is the Prime Minister also prepared to do so–or has he lost the confidence to defend his own economic record?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the hypothesis about leading the country out of recession. The Conservative party will lead the country out of recession and will sit on the Government Benches after the general election. As the hon. Gentleman knows, every party politician who expects to lose tries the debate trick, and every politician who expects to win says no.

     

    Q2. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Which does my right hon. Friend think will do more for low-paid people in Swindon–tax cuts, which will increase their earnings and their incentive to work, or a national minimum wage, which will soon strip them of their jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Labour party now opposes measures to help the low paid and puts forward policies that would force low-paid people and others out of work. It is now official : the Labour party wants to put up taxes not only for those on high incomes, but for those with low incomes, too. It strikes oddly against Labour’s proposals for a minimum wage, which was allegedly meant to help the low paid. We now know that Labour does not want to help them but wants to force them out of work and increase their tax by one quarter.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister has given a pathetic excuse for not engaging in a televised debate. Since he has been Prime Minister, 50,000 companies have gone out of business, 75,000 families have lost their homes and 800,000 people have lost their jobs. Why will he not debate that record? Is it because he is ashamed of it, or because he is afraid of it?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman tries to whip a little fervour into this old chestnut. Bearing in mind how long it takes the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and I would be lucky to get a word in edgeways. We have set in place the foundation for recovery, the Budget builds on them and, after the election, we shall carry through our policies.

    Mr. Speaker : Mr. Ralph Howell.

    Mr. Kinnock rose–

    Mr. Speaker : I am sorry–that was entirely my fault.

    Mr. Kinnock : I am grateful Mr. Speaker. This is obviously a day for novelties. Whipped chestnuts are a new one on me, but we heard it from the right hon. Gentleman. As he believes that his only difficulty would be getting a word in, I give him an undertaking that I would give him plenty of time. Why does he not join me and the leader of the Liberals and say to the broadcasting organisations, “We have nothing to fear from the British people. Let’s have a debate. Let’s fix a date. Let’s get on with it”?

    The Prime Minister : We have better than a debate–we have a general election, at which the case can be taken to the people. If I accurately recall my Shakespeare :

    “He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument.”

    Appropriately, that quote comes from “Love’s Labour’s Lost”–and Labour will lose– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is the public debate.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister reads quotations from Shakespeare. Let me give him one from the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) : he is frit.

    The Prime Minister : Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of something else. Throughout this campaign, I shall be holding daily press conferences at which I shall face the national press. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will this year face the national press, unlike his action during the last general election, when he hid from them.

    Mr. Ralph Howell : I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on their excellent, responsible and far- reaching Budget. I am pleased that maximum help has been concentrated on the low paid, low-income pensioners and small businesses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by resisting those changes, the Labour party has proved that it is the party of high taxation of the poor and is unfit to govern?

    The Prime Minister : That is undoubtedly my view today, and it will be the country’s view by 9 April. At least we now know what the Labour party stands for : tax rises for the rich and tax rises for the poor as well. On Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) seemed to have doubts–until the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) prompted him with the answer that he was proposing to put taxes back up for the poor. The right hon. Gentleman would abolish the 20p tax band, tax savings more heavily, raise national insurance contributions, and raise tax for 25 million people. He has changed his mind on everything, but the public will not change their mind about him : the right hon. Gentleman sits on the Opposition Bench, and there he will stay.

    Mr. Ashdown : Has the Prime Minister noted the reactions of the markets to Tuesday’s Budget–the worst fall since the Soviet coup? If he will not tell us in a television debate, will he tell us now why the Prime Minister does not know what every business man knows–that to borrow to invest is the route to success, but that to borrow to spend is the road to ruin?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, no party in history has as good a fiscal record as ours has had in office. Nothing in my right hon. Friend’s Budget will not bring the budget back to balance.

    Mr. Atkinson : May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to a letter that I received recently from the managing director of a major retail firm, Beale’s, in my constituency, telling me that if a national minimum wage of £3.40 per hour were introduced he would be obliged to consider dismissing about 5 per cent. of his work force–27 of my constituents? Is that not further proof, on top of the disastrous experience of the last two Labour Governments, that the Labour party is no longer the party of the working man?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the Labour party has no solid basis of support anywhere in the country, and there is no doubt about the impact that the minimum wage would have. Everyone in this country knows that, except Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It would cost jobs–the jobs of people on low incomes–just as Labour’s increased taxation policies would.

     

    Q3. Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Cohen : If the Budget was such a success, why have not interest rates been cut immediately, instead of the Chancellor reserving his right to lower them during the general election when the polls go against him? Is not that ploy as bent as a £28 billion coin?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, interest rates have been reduced by 4 per cent. in the past 16 months ; as and when it is right to do so, we will reduce them further. For the first time in a generation, our interest rates are almost down to German levels because of the successful manner in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has managed our affairs.

     

    Q4. Mr. Dykes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Dykes : Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents will warmly welcome the remarkable cut in income tax and the resulting increase in money, particularly for the less well-off pensioners? Does he agree that our money increases will go to those who need the help most, while Labour’s would be dissipated hypocritically, thinly spread and eliminated by inflation?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right about that. Once the increases announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have been carried through, we shall be spending nearly £700 million a year more than in 1989, over and above inflation, on the less well-off pensioners. Pensioners, too, care about inflation. They know that we are in pursuit of stable prices ; Labour would be in pursuit of higher inflation.

    Mr. Clelland : If neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor is responsible for the recession, and if the Secretary of State for Health is not responsible for the deterioration in our health services, the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not responsible for the underfunding of our schools, the Secretary of State for Transport is not responsible for the deplorable state of our public transport, and the Secretary of State for Employment is not responsible for high and rising unemployment, who is running the country?

    The Prime Minister : In almost every area of endeavour in the past few years, there has been an improvement in services, an improvement in prosperity, an improvement in net disposable income, an improvement in educational opportunity and an improvement in the number of people treated in health care. If the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that, where has he been for the past 12 years?

     

    Q5. Mr. David Shaw : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Shaw : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Dover and Deal who fought alongside America in World War 2 share the view of President Bush that my right hon. Friend provides superb leadership in an uncertain and dangerous world? Will he also accept that my constituents are concerned that, in this general election campaign, people should be aware that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to pull us out of NATO, to abandon our nuclear deterrent and to destroy– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : If we had followed the advice of the Labour party and the Leader of the Opposition, we would be out of Europe, out of NATO, and out of respect. We would be living in an underprotected, overtaxed socialist backwater on the edge of Europe. The Leader of the Opposition has been wrong on every substantial issue in recent years. Once upon a time he wanted to tax the rich to help the poor–now he proposes to tax the rich and tax the poor.

     

    Q6. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

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

    Mr. Beith : What would it take to get the Prime Minister to revert to the view that he once held about the advantages of a fair voting system–more careful study of countries that have prospered by it, or the prospect of a spell on the Opposition Benches?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows my view on the voting system. The advocates of proportional representation should understand that it leads to weak Government and spawns faction and minority parties. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), with his international pretensions, knows the damage that it has caused overseas. For all his high mindedness, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) argues that case for his own partisan party advantage and not for the advantage of the constitution, and he knows that that is the case.

  • PMQT – 3 March 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Townend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

    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. Townend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disposable income of 10 million mortgage payers is affected by two factors–income tax and interest rates? Is he aware that the Labour party will put up both–a double whammy?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right. We have brought down interest rates and we are determined to keep them low. We believe that the Labour party would do precisely the reverse. An average of 10 independent City forecasts shows that interest rates would rise by 2 per cent. immediately if there were to be such a disaster as a Labour Government. That is Labour’s message to home owners–more taxes and higher interest rates.

    Mr. Kinnock rose — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have an end to all this shouting.

    Mr. Kinnock : Has the Prime Minister seen the report from Mr. Graham Jackson, consultant cardiologist at Guy’s trust hospital, who says :

    “You put seriously ill heart patients on a list to come in but, by the time their turn comes, the contract has run out and the trust administrator says there are no funds till the next financial year”?

    Does not the Prime Minister agree that such a system, which puts cash before care, betrays the fundamental principle of the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no system that puts cash before care. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that we have provided more additional resources in this Parliament than he was even prepared to promise in his last election manifesto.

    Mr. Kinnock : But does not Dr. Jackson have a powerful point when he says that the new system– [Interruption.] This is a man working in the system. Does not he have a powerful point when he says : “The new system is run by accountants who don’t have to sit across the table from the patient and say I cannot treat you” until the new financial year? Will the Prime Minister recognise now that it is tragically wrong for treatment for seriously ill people to be determined by money rather than medical need?

    The Prime Minister : The view that the right hon. Gentleman attributes to that surgeon is certainly not shared by, among others, Nye Bevan’s nephew. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government’s role in health is twofold : first, to provide the resources and, secondly, to make them work better for patients. The resources are at a record level, as the right hon. Gentleman must concede, and the new system is making sure that the resources work better for patients. There is no other way to improve health care and there is no doubt that the new system, across a range of treatment, is improving health care.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister is going to borrow to fund tax cuts. Does he understand yet that the priority of the British people is to use all available resources for health and other essential services? The Prime Minister wants to bribe, they want to build–why does not he listen to them?

    The Prime Minister : In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, perhaps he will tell us two things : how much extra would he provide for health, and where does health come in Labour’s order of priorities? Labour has a long list of priorities : a £3 billion pledge on pensions–presumably health comes after that ; health presumably comes after Labour’s £1 billion recovery programme and it presumably comes after Labour’s £8 billion housing pledge. What else does it come after? The right hon. Gentleman’s priorities do not add up and he knows it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot put a cost on his compassion, for it is bogus.

     

    Q2. Mr. Lee : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.

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

    Mr. Lee : Since the Government came to power, my Pendle constituency has gained two new enterprise zones which are bursting at the seams, one new motorway and a brand new community hospital. Currently, 55 per cent. of employment is in manufacturing–the highest level in the country. Modesty prevents my asking my right hon. Friend what message he will send to the electorate of Pendle in the coming election. However, what message will he send to the electorate in the whole of the north-west?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly reiterate fully the message that I delivered when I visited the north-west a few days ago. The future and prosperity of the north-west are best served by a Government who are determined to keep inflation down, who want to keep taxes down–and will not let interest rates rise as the Opposition would–and who recognise that the level of strikes is at its lowest for more than a century. In the north-west, we will continue to encourage domestic and inward investment and we will not discriminate against it.

    Mr. Ashdown : Now that we know what it means, will the Prime Minister reflect on the “double whammy” that he received from the other place on the Education (Schools) Bill last night? When will he accept that the best thing to do with that damaging and foolish Bill is to ditch it?

    The Prime Minister : I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to providing more power for parents in relation to schools. I note that it is the Liberal Democrats’ policy to take power away from parents and governors and to give it to centralised bureaucrats, and that is precisely like the Labour party policy as in so many things.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bill Walker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1992.

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

    Mr. Walker : Does my right hon. Friend recognise the dangers inherent in introducing unworkable proposals for devolution for Scotland? Does he accept that if such proposals were implemented, they would lead to a separatist, socialist, nationalist Scotland, enormous loss of jobs and the closure of military bases? The jobs that currently go to the military in the United Kingdom would be lost from factories in Scotland.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the risks of the devolution proposals which have previously been put before people. The Act of Union has served Scotland well and it has served England well. It has provided an essential cement for the whole of the United Kingdom. The devolution proposals that we have seen thus far would damage that union and separately damage Scotland, England and the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand the emotional pull that devolution has for people in Scotland, but I hope that every Scot will examine very carefully what it would mean in practice for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom.

     

    Q4. Ms. Short : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Ms. Short : Has the Prime Minister seen the report on “World in Action” last night, which showed that one of his Ministers has been involved in smearing a private citizen? Does not this place give the Prime Minister the chance to show whether he is really against the smears that have been organised against the Labour party, or is he getting others to do his dirty work for him? Will he sack the Minister concerned?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Lady were sensible, she would look in the backyard of her own party.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Hill : Will my right hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down.

    Mr. Faulds rose —

    Mr. Speaker : Sit down.

    Mr. Hill : Will my right hon. Friend continue vigorously and robustly to negotiate the British contribution to the European budget and, at the end, submit it at a level which the House of Commons and the country can accept?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir. The Community’s budget is already £40 billion a year. The existing own resources ceiling has plenty of room for further expenditure without increased resources being committed. It is the Government’s view that the Commission should be thinking of ways of saving taxpayers’ money, not justifying fresh reasons for expending it. It cannot justify increased expenditure on the scale that it proposes, and we are not prepared to renegotiate in any way the present rebate to the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Tom Clarke : Is the Prime Minister aware that the parents of Carly Reavill and everyone else know that he was misinformed on the circumstances concerning that child’s tragic death? Will he accept that there is indeed an acute shortage of intensive care beds for children? Will he tell us precisely what action he intends to take so that never again will desperately sick children be turned away from hospitals which do not have the money to provide emergency treatment?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know, for he takes a close interest in this matter, that from next year, there is an extra £2.7 billion for the health service in its next budget, in a few day’s time–up another 5 per cent., including efficiency gains. That is the most tangible way to demonstrate our concern for the health service and to continue to improve the service available to everyone in this country.

     

    Q6. Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Bottomley : My right hon. Friend has been successful in building on the work of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in bringing the constitutional parties together. Will he accept that we are asking the Social Democratic and Labour party and the unionists to work more closely than parties normally do in Great Britain? Will he send a message to the Provisional IRA and the disloyalists that the mindless, aimless use of bullets and bombs will not be as successful as parliamentary debates and normal political election campaigns?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the whole House will share my hon. Friend’s view on the latter matter. I warmly welcome the decision of the Northern Ireland political leaders to start their talks again. It gives a clear and very welcome signal to all the people in Northern Ireland of their determination to find a political solution. That is very much needed. It also gives a very clear signal to the terrorists that the people of Northern Ireland will not be bullied by guns, by bombs or by any other form of intimidation. That goes for everyone on the mainland as well.

     

    Q7. Sir Patrick Duffy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Sir Patrick Duffy : As the restructuring of the armed services proceeds, the displaced and redundant service men will continue to be treated with the utmost care and sensitivity, as the Prime Minister is well aware. But if that policy is not extended to the displaced workers in the defence industries, does the Prime Minister accept that our high-tech base will be damaged, perhaps irreparably? Certainly, we can ask questions about the future of certain design teams and skilled and professional workers.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we still have substantial orders for defence equipment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a further statement shortly.

     

    Q8. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 March.

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

    Mr. Colvin : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if he or my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment had a meeting with business leaders to discuss the policy of the minimum wage, they would tell both the House and the country what business leaders had to say about the damaging effect on jobs that such a minimum wage would have? Does my right hon. Friend think that the shadow spokesman on employment should do likewise?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The minimum wage policy has been condemned by everyone from The Guardian to Goldman Sachs. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is apparently the only person in the country who does not yet believe that the minimum wage would cost a substantial number of jobs if it were implemented. The only debate about the national minimum wage is not whether it would put people out of work but how many hundreds of thousands more people would be unemployed, wholly unnecessarily as a result of partisan dogma on the part of the Labour party.

  • PMQT – 25 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

    Mr. Davies : Now that it is clear that the privatisation of the gas, electricity and water industries has led to bigger salaries for the bosses and bigger bills for the consumers, with no improvement in the level of service, how can the Prime Minister continue to argue that the privatisation of those industries has been in the public interest?

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that much of what the hon. Gentleman says is incorrect. It is precisely because Whitehall has stopped interfering in the privatised companies that electricity prices have fallen in recent years, that gas prices have fallen and that British Telecom’s prices have fallen.

    Mr. Onslow : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that British troops will not leave Iraq until suitable assurances have been given to the Kurdish population?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. We have now met most of the humanitarian needs of the Kurds in Iraq. The United Nations has taken responsibility for the humanitarian relief operation in northern Iraq. It was never our intention to keep a permanent troop presence on the ground there, but before we or the other allies withdraw, we will need to have several things in place : first, an effective United Nations force on the ground ; secondly, clear warnings to Iraq that any renewed repression will meet the severest response ; thirdly, a continuing deterrent military presence in the region to back up those warnings and fourthly, the maintenance of sanctions against Iraq. Without that, we will not leave.

    Mr. Hattersley : In the light of the Government’s constant call for restraint, will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the salary increase of 58 per cent. that has been awarded to the chief executive of National Power?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Hattersley : I am delighted by that not unexpected news– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is taking up a lot of time.

    Mr. Hattersley : As the Prime Minister is against the increase, is not he now required to explain why the Government did not use their 40 per cent. shareholding to prevent it, and what action he will take before the annual general meeting?

    The Prime Minister : Certainly. I am happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was made clear in the prospectus that the Government had no intention of using their shareholding to intervene in financial decisions. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we did that for good reasons.

    Mr. Hattersley : In this as in so many other matters, the Prime Minister says one thing but is not prepared to act to back up his platitudes. If he had given me an honest answer to my original question, he would be prepared to take some action now. If he is not prepared to take the action which is within his power, no one will believe that his condemnation was anything other than feeble public relations.

    The Prime Minister : If people want to hear something that is feeble, they should listen to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I made it perfectly clear when I was Chief Secretary some years ago that I do not believe that excessive salary increases are right. That still remains my view. We explained perfectly clearly when we privatised those companies that it was in the interests of the users of them. It is for that reason that electricity prices have fallen over the past seven years in real terms, that privatised gas prices have fallen by 11 per cent., that British Telecom’s prices have fallen by 20 per cent. and that 95 per cent. of British Telecom’s call boxes now work. None of that happened when it was in public ownership.

    Sir William Shelton : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he thinks would happen to the British economy if the basic rate of income tax were increased to 40p in the pound?

    The Prime Minister : It would undoubtedly do very great damage to the economy. It would cut incentives, it would recreate the brain drain and recreate all the economic difficulties that we had during the 1970s when the Labour party pursued policies of precisely that kind.

    Mr. Ashdown : As the Prime Minister seems prepared to isolate Britain in Europe over the word federalism, perhaps he will tell us what he thinks federalism means.

    The Prime Minister : It would be interesting if the Europeans would tell us what they mean by federalism. In a treaty text we need to have language the meaning of which is clear. Federalism in the European Community means different things to different people. If it implies a central Government for the federation, that is not what people in this country want. If it means decentralisation, it sounds like subsidiarity, which many people in this country would find more acceptable. But in no way could we permit that word to appear in the treaty until or unless it is clear what it means and that it does not mean the centralisation of power.

    Sir Charles Morrison : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no intention of introducing a statutory minimum wage? Will he also say what effect a statutory minimum wage would have?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is no doubt that as many trade union leaders have testified, a statutory minimum wage would dramatically increase unemployment in this country, as it has done in some other European countries.

     

    Q2. Sir Patrick Duffy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Sir P. Duffy : Does the Prime Minister accept that if the hope, now I am happy to say, widely entertained, of a new way forward between Ireland and England is to be realised– [Interruption.] –from the present talks over Northern Ireland, the best qualities that can be brought to those talks are first, the resolve that the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Haughey expressed following their meeting last Friday night and secondly, the staying power displayed throughout by the Prime Minister’s right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I entirely agree with his analysis. I should like to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whose patience and skill ensured that the talks could begin. We all hope that they will be successful and that they will reach a conclusion that will enable a substantial transfer of power and responsibility to locally elected representatives. It would be a remarkable move forward for Northern Ireland if that were achievable. I hope and believe that it may be done.

    Dr. Blackburn : Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the nation today the philosophy that this Government will offer to the people only that which they can afford and will not indulge in wild, exaggerated, uncosted promises?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I can also give him the assurance that if anyone else offers an uncosted agenda we shall cost it for them.

    Mr. Rooker : When the Prime Minister goes for his audience later today will he take the opportunity to have a word with the colonel of the Grenadier Guards who also lives at the same address? In a letter to my constituent, Mr. Fred Crowton, he expressed his support for Sean Povey and his two colleagues getting fair and decent compensation from the Ministry of Defence. Given that the Palace now supports that justified case, why are we waiting for a decision?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say about that last Thursday and I have nothing to add.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Maureen Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Mrs. Hicks : Can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee to the House today that his Government will continue to support and fund the Black Country urban development corporation, which has transformed areas of derelict land, created thousands of jobs and already attracted £195 million in private investment? Does he agree that, given the success of the 10 urban development corporations, it would be sheer folly to hand over their powers, as Labour suggests, to local councils? The Labour party suggests that they should be handed over to councils such as Birmingham and Liverpool which have a dreadful reputation and have done so much in the past to damage and hamper economic generation.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes her point with great force and vigour. I agree with what she said about the possible transfer of the powers of the UDCs to local Labour authorities. The Black Country urban development corporation has had a remarkable record in recent years and I hope and believe that it will continue to do so.

     

    Q4. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Janner : For hundreds of thousands of British businesses the word recession has already acquired only one meaning –disaster. What does that word mean to the Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of what the Confederation of British Industry, the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development–the OECD–and the Government’s own forecasts have had to say about the future. All of us expect the economy to turn up in the second half of this year.

    Mr. Conway : Does my right hon. Friend accept from one who was loath to support the Single European Act that his conduct during the European negotiations has been superb? As First Lord of the Treasury will he ensure that those who talk to the British people about the dream of a European super-state also understand fully the economic and taxation costs of that dream should it ever become a reality?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks about an economic super-state in Europe. That is not what the majority of members in the Community wish to see and it is not what we wish to see. It will not be the outcome of the negotiations.

     

    Q5. Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Nellist : Is the Prime Minister aware that 55-year-old Ernest Saunders, the former Guinness chairman, becomes eligible for parole this Friday, having served 10 months of a 30-month sentence in an open prison for the conviction of theft of more than £8 million? However, 71-year- old asthmatic Norman Laws is halfway through a 60-day sentence in the maximum security Durham gaol for non-payment of less than £300 poll tax. Does the Prime Minister think that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor?

    The Prime Minister : I do know that the position of many people over the community charge may have been made far worse by the leadership that the hon. Gentleman gave in not paying the community charge. I know also that no one who sits in this House pretending to make the law has any right to break the law.

    Mrs. Peacock : Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the great support of many people in this country in his discussions in Europe? Is he also aware that people are confident that in his future discussions he will not sell them or future generations down the river?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she said and I assure her that that will be the case.

     

    Q6. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Bennett : I am sure that the Prime Minister will be trying hard not to think about retirement, but is he aware that this country’s laws on retirement are in a complete mess, and that we are in danger of losing cases before the European Court on the ground that we discriminate against both men and women through our different retirement ages? There are many men who would like to be able to retire at 60 and many women who would like to go on working after the age of 60. When will we sort out the problem and have a flexible retirement age–one that suits people?

    The Prime Minister : That is a problem of some importance, as the hon. Gentleman says. He will know that for some years we have considered the principle of flexible retirement for both men and women. As he rightly added, I have no intention whatever of retiring for many years.

    Mr. Gale : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the positive attitude taken by the Minister for Corporate Affairs towards the establishment of a digital European television standard? Will he contrast that attitude with the efforts of the European Commission to throw European taxpayers’ money down the drain chasing antiquated technology? Is not the latter activity typical of much antiquated European thinking and is it not right that this country should once again be taking a lead, as in so many other European matters?

    The Prime Minister : I fear that my hon. Friend is right about the attitude taken in the Community, but he is also right to praise the activities of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

  • 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 – 30 April 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : Does the Prime Minister recall that when he was a parliamentary candidate in 1983 he gave a commitment, on the questionnaire he returned to the World Development Movement, that he would want to see British aid increased, over a period of five years, to the official United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of the country’s national wealth? Will he confirm that the level of official aid is now running at well under half that target figure, at a time when 27 million people on the continent of Africa face the prospect of imminent starvation? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his credibility as Prime Minister is at stake? If he does not find the money to meet the commitment that he made in 1983, his credibility will be severely dented.

    The Prime Minister : The important point is that our aid programme is both effective and growing. Where necessary, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen in the case of the Kurds, we provide extra and well-targeted aid. For example, we have now provided more than £60 million to aid the Kurds, and the amount is rising each week. We still accept the principle of the 0.7 per cent. aid target, and like other donors, we shall move to it as and when economic circumstances permit.

    Mr. Dunn : Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that the advanced level examination will be maintained, and not diluted or weakened in any way whatsoever?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will shortly announce comprehensive proposals for 16 to 19-year-olds. I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made so clearly–that the Opposition’s proposals for slimmed-down A-levels are likely to mean more certificates, but certificates of less value.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reject the view of his Secretary of State for Health, who says that cuts in the numbers of doctors and nurses and cuts in patient care in opted-out hospitals are nothing to do with him?

    The Prime Minister : There are two things that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman knows about the health service–first, the vast increases that there have been in the numbers of doctors, nurses and other people in the service and, secondly, that the purpose of the reforms is to make sure that the management of the service becomes as efficient as its medical delivery.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister tell us where he thinks responsibility lies? The managers of the the Guy’s and Lewisham opted-out hospitals have said that there will be

    “substantial and inevitable reductions in direct patient care.” How can the Prime Minister justify turning his back on the consequences of his own policies? Does not he think that he has a moral obligation to ensure that the loss of vital patient care services at Guy’s and Lewisham is not repeated anywhere else? Will he ensure that opting out is stopped right away?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman were really concerned about matters like hospital doctors, he might perhaps have looked at their pay record and have seen a real terms increase of 37 per cent. under this Government and nothing remotely like that increase under the Labour Government, for doctors’ pay fell under the Labour Government.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is not it clear from the Prime Minister’s answers that when it comes to the national health service and patient care, he, like his predecessor, could not care less?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should know that I am personally committed to the national health service, and that I want the management of the service to be as efficient as the medical care in the service. Unless and until it is, we shall not deliver the level or amount of patient care that we need.

    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : If my right hon. Friend has read the latest Labour party document–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Even if he has, would the hon. and learned Gentleman please ask a question relating to the Prime Minister’s responsibility?

    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : To the extent that it is readable, will my hon. Friend endorse the fact that the poorest in the country will be poorer and the part of–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please ask a question relating to the Prime Minister’s responsibility? He may not ask the Prime Minister directly about the Opposition’s policy.

    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : Will my right hon. Friend, as a matter of his responsibility, having read that document, ensure that a Labour Government never return, so that the poor do not get poorer? The part of the country that would get poorest would be Scotland.

    The Prime Minister : In answer to my hon. and learned Friend’s direct question ; willingly I will make sure that a Labour Government are never returned to power. I think that Labour’s policies will be of some assistance in that, for the electorate know that it has no fresh policies and no fresh ideas and that many of its policies, like renationalisation of British Telecom, it fails to put in its policy documents.

     

    Q2. Mr. Archer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Archer : Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to recognise in some way that today is the anniversary of the completion in 1821 of the first iron steamship, all the components of which were completed in one factory in the industrial black country, launching an industry which over the years offered employment to millions? Since over the past 12 months the numbers employed in manufacturing industry have fallen by 178,000, does the Prime Minister wish to remember our industrial history, or does he agree with his Secretary of State for Education and Science that history is unnecessary and perhaps better forgotten– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. We are taking a long time over this history lesson.

    Mr. Archer : –or does he find it hard to make up his mind?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman, apart from misquoting my right hon. and learned Friend, has picked an odd day to raise that point because, as the Confederation of British Industry business agenda brochure shows, manufacturing output has just risen to new record heights, and in the last quarter of 1990 it stood 50 per cent. higher than in the first quarter of 1981.

     

    Q3. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for his personal vision of a first-class education for everyone? To that end, will not the promised pay review body for teachers bring better professional status for them without the strikes that have so damaged education? Does not that mean a better deal for teachers all round, for children and in the end for the prosperity of the country?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it does. I believe that the introduction of a pay review body for teachers will be warmly welcomed. The House will have noticed that at the end of a six-hour debate yesterday, no one was clear whether the Opposition were for or against the pay review body, because the National Union of Teachers had not yet told them.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Ross : Can the Prime Minister confirm that when Peter Griffiths was given the job of running the opted-out Guy’s Hospital, the salary for that post was doubled to £90,000 a year, and both he and his wife were given cars? What possible justification for this scandalous misuse of public money can there be when much-needed doctors and nurses at the same hospital are facing the sack?

    The Prime Minister : Peter Griffiths has the job of ensuring the adequate and proper delivery of services and he is committed to achieving that. What has so frequently damaged services in the national health service is that whenever there has been a move towards natural and necessary rationalisation, the Opposition have turned it into a political football.

     

    Q5. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Colvin : If one man’s pay rise is another man’s job loss, how many jobs does my right hon. Friend think are being lost in Britain this year as a result of the astronomic pay rises which Britain’s top business men awarded themselves last year? Is it not the duty of leaders to give a lead on pay restraint?

    The Prime Minister : Pay must always reflect both performance and responsibility. In many countries, pay already includes a large performance element and I thoroughly welcome that. In the difficult months that we have recently seen many top managers have held or cut their pay, and that is an excellent example.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that many in our country will feel pride at the role that he and Britain have played in relieving the suffering of the Kurds? However, many will have felt dismay at the complacent answer which he has just given on the African famine. Does he not realise the scale of that disaster, in which not 1 million but more than 20 million lives are now at risk? Will he assure the House and the nation that he will apply the same determination to making sure that we play our part in relieving that towering tragedy that he applied to assisting the Kurds?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remark. As to his latter remarks, I would remind him that this country has committed something over £4 billion to Africa in the past decade and that we invariably play a significant part in dealing with the tragedies that occasionally occur, not only in Africa but elsewhere. Even as the right hon. Gentleman asks his question, we are examining what assistance might be given to Bangladesh in the aftermath of the cyclone.

     

    Q6. Mr. Viggers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Viggers : In the difficult international climate for business expansion and employment, is it not clear that the countries that will benefit first from a renewal of confidence will be those with flexible work practices? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst that could happen would be for us to adopt the statutory pay and training schemes advocated by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The greatest danger, of course, would be to adopt the Labour party’s minimum wage plans which, were the right hon. Gentleman to implement them, would inflict not the 750,000 to 1 million job losses that we thought they would but between 1 million and 2 million job losses.

     

    Q7. Mr. John Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.

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

    Mr. Evans : Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read early -day motion 747, which has been signed by 148 Members who are worried about the proposed takeover of the Tootal Group plc by Coats Viyella plc and the impact on jobs in the textile industry? Is he aware that 540 workers at the Tootal Slimma works in St. Helens fear that they will face the sack if that unnecessary bid succeeds? Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to change his mind and refer this unnecessary bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are in no position to talk about unemployment while they hold to their minimum wage proposals.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 January 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Government Achievements

    Mr. Sayeed : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the achievements of Her Majesty’s Government since 1987.

    The Prime Minister : Since 1987 the Government have continued to build upon the changes begun in 1979, to strengthen the economy, foster a spirit of enterprise and improve living standards. Sterling has been brought into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, reinforcing the Government’s strict anti-inflationary policy. Output is 8 per cent. higher. Investment has grown faster than at any time since the second world war. Taxes have been reformed. Privatisation of 29 more major businesses has taken place and 24 per cent. of the adult population now own shares. The Government have exercised strict control of public expenditure–general Government expenditure has been brought below 40 per cent. of GDP for the first time since 1966-67. Almost £30 billion of public debt will have been repaid by the end of the current financial year. Over 2 million more people are in work than in 1987.

    In the public services we have improved efficiency, safeguarded quality and enhanced safety. Key themes, reflected in the reform of the health service, in housing policy and in education have been to increase choice and to encourage people to take personal responsibility for their well-being and that of their families. The Government have striven to improve the quality of life of all the British people. A number of special initiatives have focused on those living in inner cities. The Government have played a leading role in developing environmental protection, nationally and internationally.

    The Government have maintained a firm commitment to national defence and the NATO alliance. We have supported and contributed to NATO’s efforts to establish closer relations with the Soviet Union and with the countries of eastern Europe. The United Kingdom has played an important role in securing firm reaction of the United Nations in dealing with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. We have played a positive role in the building of the single market in the European Community.

    Common Agricultural Policy

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) Official Report, 18 December, column 165, what further investigation of the common agricultural policy he expects the EC to make ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The common agricultural policy is likely to be subject to a period of further reform as a result of renewed production and expenditure pressure and the outcome of the current GATT negotiations. The Commission’s 1991-92 price proposals are likely to incorporate a first instalment of these reforms.

    GATT

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his statement on 18 December, Official Report, column 157, whether the remit for the EC negotiations in the GATT talks has been altered by the recent Heads of Government meeting.

    The Prime Minister : The meeting of European Heads of Government asked the Commission, which negotiates on behalf of the Community, to intensify its contacts with other participants in order to resolve outstanding problems.

    Minimum Wage

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 13 December, Official Report, column 1108, on what basis he calculates the figure of a loss of three quarters of a million jobs through the establishment of a national minimum wage.

    The Prime Minister : Officials in the Department of Employment have estimated that a national minimum wage set at half male median earnings will result in the loss of about three quarters of a million jobs. This estimate uses earnings information from the new earnings survey and information on the relationship between real wages and employment set out in the published Treasury paper “The Relationship Between Employment and Wages : Empirical Evidence for the United Kingdom” (HM Treasury, January 1985).
    A detailed explanation of the method was placed in the House of Commons Library on 2 February 1990–“Estimating the Effect of a National Minimum Wage”.

    Publicity and Advertising

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his reply on 17 December, Official Report, c. 15, if he will list the Government conventions regarding the use of paid publicity and advertising within which expenditure on advertising in the press, television and other forms of publicity is a matter for departmental Ministers.

    The Prime Minister : The conventions on Government publicity and advertising have already been published. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on 28 June 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) at column 311.