Tag: NHS

  • PMQT – 6 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th June 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Banks : Will the Prime Minister join me in sending best wishes to Prince William for a complete recovery– [Hon. Members :– “Hear, hear!”] That is the nice bit–

    Mr. Speaker : And it is just about in order.

    Mr. Banks : Did the Prime Minister see the article in yesterday’s Daily Mirror —

    Mr. Speaker : Order. One question is the ration.

    Mr. Banks : Did the Prime Minister see the article in yesterday’s Daily Mirror stating that the scanner used on the prince at the Royal Berkshire hospital was bought from the proceeds of jumble sales and sponsored walks? Is the Prime Minister aware that the ambulance which brought the prince to London was from a service that is actually breaking down in Greater London and that Great Ormond Street hospital, which looked after the prince so well, is turning away sick children because of the pressures on its services and has been kept open only by public begging? What sort of society is it that can find all the money in the world for weapons of death and destruction, but when it comes to keeping hospital wards open and buying vital medical equipment, has to use sponsored runs, flag days and jumble sales?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that the whole House and the country will join the hon. Gentleman in sending best wishes to Prince William. We all hope that he will make a full recovery as speedily as possible.

    The Government found £33,000 million for the national health service, which is four times as much in cash terms as any previous Government have ever found. The private collections and private donations which go towards providing equipment such as scanners show, above all that the people of this country, including the Conservative party–in fact, often led by those in the Conservative party–care sufficiently for the national health service to cherish it and provide extra resources for it.

     

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

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

    Mr. Gill : My right hon. Friend is aware of the tremendous support among Conservative Members for his views on economic and monetary union– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Come on, please.

    Mr. Gill : Is my right hon. Friend aware that those same views, clearly articulated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the “Today” programme this week, command the support of the majority of British voters, as evidenced by a recent opinion poll showing that 63 per cent. oppose the single currency?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about that. It is becoming increasingly recognised in this country and the Community that moves towards economic and monetary union which did not reflect proper convergence would be damaging, not only for this country, but for the whole of the Economic Community. That has been our position since the beginning of the negotiations and it remains our position, together with our constant intention to preserve the prerogatives of this House.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister tell us what in concrete terms he intends to do to ensure that further harm does not come to small businesses as a result of the high interest rates being imposed upon them?

    The Prime Minister : The principal damage and difficulty that small firms have faced in recent years has been the collapse of demand not only in Britain but abroad as a result of a general downturn in trade and inflationary problems. Inflation is now falling rapidly, and that is a matter of the greatest concrete concern to small businesses, as they have repeatedly testified.

    Mr. Kinnock : It is obvious from that answer that the Prime Minister is not going to do anything in concrete terms. Is it not obvious that high interest rates are the policy of the Government and that the banks’ behaviour is the result of financial deregulation, also the policy of the Government? Why does not the Prime Minister change the policies, as he should, or will he remain the betrayer of small businesses?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman, having other things on his mind, has clearly not noticed that inflation is falling rapidly and that interest rates have fallen by 3.5 per cent. in recent months. That will make a dramatic difference to individuals’ prospects and, most particularly, to prospects for small and large firms.

    Mr. Kinnock : Small businesses which used to have arrangements to pay 3 per cent. above base rate on their overdraft facilities are now paying as much as 17 per cent.– [Interruption.] Oh yes, they are. Conservative Members should talk to some of the people who run the businesses which are paying that kind of money. How can such huge charges contribute to fighting inflation or to sustaining the small business sector?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the gasp of frank disbelief at what he said a few moments ago. I hope that he will provide clear illustrations, not an isolated example, of what he has just said. What is necessary for the future health of Britain is, first, to ensure that we bring inflation down to a low level ; secondly, to keep it there ; and, thirdly, so as to ensure that that happens, never again to have a Labour Government.

    Sir John Wheeler : Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read about the dreadful events taking place in Labour-controlled Hackney– [Interruption.] –where council officials have been racketeering on the backs of the homeless and illegally renting out properties? [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a scandal, and will he condemn the empty properties that Hackney, Lambeth, Islington and Liverpool have that could be brought into use?

    The Prime Minister : In so far as I could hear the question over the chanting from Opposition Members, I believe that it concerned Hackney borough council. Anyone who wanted an example of the Labour party in power could only have seen it in recent years in local government in places such as Hackney, and I do not believe that they will have liked what they have seen. Labour repeatedly feigns concern for the homeless, but Hackney has more than 2,000 properties empty.

     

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

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : Reverting to the important question of a single European currency, has the Prime Minister yet had a chance to study the important speech made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) last night? Am I right in thinking that the Prime Minister’s personal opinion is that a single currency may be a good thing eventually, but not yet and not for the foreseeable future? Does he not think that that “yes-maybe” approach to the question is now so hedged about and qualified as to be almost devoid of any meaning? When will he come to the House and tell the country what he thinks is the right course of action for Britain to take in this fundamentally important economic issue?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening over the past two years, because we have done it repeatedly. We have made it plain to the House and to our European partners that we cannot accept any changes to the treaty of Rome which would bind us to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision by this party, by this Government and by this Parliament.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Nicholson : Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member who represents the constituency where I was educated–the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)–on exercising his right of parental choice under the Education Reform Act 1988–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The question must relate to the Prime Minister’s responsibility. He has no responsibility for that.

    Mr. Nicholson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that parental choice in schools is a major Conservative policy, and would it not help if more senior members of the Opposition parties joined Conservatives in supporting parental freedom of choice?

    The Prime Minister : I am always pleased to see support for Conservative reforms, especially from Labour Front Benchers. I wish that they would not say one thing in opposition and practise something else in there own lives.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Irene Adams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mrs. Adams : The question that I am going to put to the Prime Minister is a simple one and it has been put to him twice at Prime Minister’s questions in the past few weeks, but he has refused to answer it. Following his last refusal, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy)–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. May I say to the hon. Lady, who is new to us, that preambles take up much time? Will she ask a question, please?

    Mrs. Adams : Is the Prime Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen wrote to him putting that question yet again? He is still awaiting a reply. Will the Prime Minister answer today, because the question deserves a serious answer– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Lady a chance to ask her question–please.

    Mrs. Adams : If the Conservatives should win the next general election, will the Prime Minister give an absolute guarantee that he will not raise value added tax–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : When the Conservative party has won the next general election, the hon. Lady will see, and will perhaps have learnt by then, that no Government at any stage give categorical assurances–none have, and none will. But I can say to the hon. Lady that we have no present plans whatsoever to increase value added tax.

    Mr. Moss : Has my right hon. Friend had time to read a report published yesterday by the respected City firm, Goldman Sachs, which concludes that a minimum wage policy would destroy jobs, increase inflation and lead to a reduction in output? Does he agree that it is totally irresponsible of the Labour party to continue peddling that policy?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I have seen that report and it shares the views of the Government, the Fabian Society and many others. A minimum wage would have devastating effects for people. It would encourage others to seek to raise the general level of wages. It would raise inflation and unemployment, and a National Institute estimate– [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen, because this would affect people and their jobs, about whom they claim to care. The institute estimates that a statutory minimum wage would raise price levels by 3.5 per cent. at the end of three years, and would reduce the level of gross domestic product by 0.5 per cent. That is the likely cost of a Labour Government.

     

    Q6. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Why have not the problems of a minimum wage that the Prime Minister just outlined caused difficulties in West Germany?

    The Prime Minister rose– [ Hon. Members – “Answer.”] I was unable to hear the hon. Gentleman’s question over the noise being made by Opposition Members. If you, Mr. Speaker, will allow the hon. Gentleman to repeat his question, I shall endeavour to respond to it.

    Mr. Bennett : I asked why the problems of a minimum wage that the Prime Minister outlined have not been evident in West Germany.

    The Prime Minister : West Germany has in no sense in recent years had many of the attendant difficulties created by trade unions and others– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is now a stack of people, the Fabian Society– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : We have seen the way the Opposition behave and it is not unlike Hackney borough council writ large.

  • PMQT – 4 June 1991

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


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Speech on the National Health Service – 18 May 1991

    Below are extracts from Mr Major’s speech at the Stamford and Spalding constituency dinner, held on Saturday 18th May 1991.


    THE PRIME MINISTER:

    I strongly believe in the National Health Service. It serves me and my family well. This Government will strengthen the NHS and ensure that more money goes into patient care.

    Only one ‘attack’ on the NHS is being made in British politics. It comes from Labour. Their disgraceful and unprincipled assault is sapping the morale of NHS staff, insulting their work, and cynically exploiting and alarming the sick. Scaring not caring. That’s the Labour policy.
    Labour’s campaign is based on a central lie – that NHS Trust hospitals are ‘opting out’ of the NHS. That was the Big Lie Labour peddled to the voters of Monmouth. Neil Kinnock has repeated the lie.

    It is a complete untruth. NHS Trust hospitals are and will remain part of the NHS. They will be run by NHS staff and will treat NHS patients just as they have done before – only better. Because they will be locally run, they will be better run. Trust hospitals are the flagship of the NHS. Their mission is to put patients first.

    Apparently Labour are against this.

    The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts issued a statement yesterday explaining that Trusts are not opting-out of the NHS. NAHAT says – and I quote – ‘they are as much a part of the NHS as they ever were’. In the light of that statement, I challenge Neil Kinnock to withdraw his lie.

    But it seems Labour prefer lies and innuendo to the truth. First, they say the NHS Trusts are not part of the NHS. Then Robin Cook raises the spectre of charging by saying that Trusts will put profits before patients.

    Every week the NHS received over £630 million; every week it provides well over a million patient treatments. Only Labour would be so malignant as to ignore over 150,000 stories of care successfully provided every day, and highlight the few things that will inevitably go wrong in a Service on this scale. And then oppose all our efforts to put them right. Labour ignore the fact that in a Southend Trust hospital, for example, there will be 1,500 more operations this year and 3,000 more the next.

    Labour may see party political advantage in putting the boot into one of Britain’s greatest national assets. They may be able to deceive people for a time – but not for long. For to my mind, actions speak louder than words. The last Labour Government damaged the Health Service – just as it is damaging it now. They allowed nurses’ pay to fall in value by over a fifth. They slashed the hospital building programme. They only delivered annual growth in resources of 1.5 per cent – under half the 3.1 per cent a year this Government has achieved since 1979.

    Since 1979 Labour have backed strikes against patients. They criticised plans for a Review Body that has helped raise the value of nurses’ pay by almost a half. And lined up with the BMA to oppose our selected list in drug prescribing, which took resources away from the boardrooms of pharmaceutical companies in Basle and put them into surgeries in Britain.

    It is Labour which has always been the Party of ‘cuts’. Now they promise to be the Party of cuts in the future. Their own Leader has told us they would spend less than the Conservatives. On the figures for spending increases proposed by Mr Kinnock they would have been able to treat 500,000 fewer patients than our £3.5 billion increase will allow this year. They would add to the costs of the NHS by abolishing charges for the better off. Turn over control of Health Authorities to the self-same Labour politicians who have disgraced the name of local government. And sell out to the big trade unions by scrapping competitive tendering and ending the drive for efficiency that has delivered hundreds of millions of pounds to NHS patients in recent years. Providers before patients. That, too, is Labour’s policy.

    Labour’s performance and promises condemn them. We stand on our record. Under this Government more patients have been treated than ever before in NHS history. Not least because there are over 50,000 more nurses, 4,000 more dentists, and over 4,500 more GPs than there were in 1979.

    The present reforms will carry forward that revolution in the scale and quality of patient care. They will allow more local decisions and let family doctors decide the pattern of care that is best for patients. Crucially they will lead resources and patients into the places where services are promptest and best. And they will produce clear contracts of service, which, in line with our Citizens’ Charter initiative, will ensure that the Health Service commits itself to the highest standards everywhere.

    Patients are entitled to less forbidding waiting rooms and better visiting hours for families. They should have proper notice of a hospital appointment. They deserve clear information about what is going to happen to them and when.

    Those campaigning against our Health reforms should be challenged to justify their opposition to a better deal for patients in matters like these.

    No one can deny that resources could be spent better. It cannot be right that the average cost of an ear, nose and throat in-patient treatment can vary by as much as 4 times in different parts of the Service, or that the same operation can cost many tens of times more in one hospital than in another. It cannot be right that in one District no patient will wait more than a year for non-urgent general surgery, while in another more than half may have to do so. Nor that all orthopaedic patients in one District receive their treatment in the first year, while in another more than two-thirds have to wait twelve months or more.

    Our Health reforms are tackling these problems. And I say this, simply and clearly, to those in the BMA and elsewhere who are campaigning against them. We will not alter policies that are in the interests of patients. We will see these reforms through. We will always be ready to listen to constructive proposals as to how our reforms might be made to work better. But I do not – and will not – respond to destructive campaigns based on selective anecdote, one-sided presentation of statistics or trade union style resistance to all change.

    The NHS has complete support from this Government. It is time Labour called a halt to their shabby and shameful political campaign. The real crisis of confidence in the NHS comes not from alleged ‘underfunding’ by a Government that has committed record resources to health care, but from the tactics of its so-called Labour friends, determined to see that NHS achievements are undercut, undermined and undersold.

  • PMQT – 14 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 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. Thurnham : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has excellent and detailed plans to increase spending on public services by £38 billion in the next three years? What would be the effect of substituting an uncertain £20 billion along with socialist cuts and taxes on earnings?

    Mr. Major : If a £20 billion increase were substituted for our present plans, it would certainly mean a substantial reduction in services across the board, no doubt including the health service as well. On the other hand, if there is to be £20 billion in addition to the spending plans that we have proposed, it would undoubtedly lead to large and significant tax increases across the board.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister think that any citizen’s charter should include giving people the right to vote on whether they want their local hospitals to opt out?

    The Prime Minister : In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has previously said, I am very surprised that he has so little faith in the medical people who make those decisions.

    Mr. Kinnock : Even the Prime Minister must know that the “medical people”, as he refers to them, whenever they have voted, have voted by majorities in excess of 80 per cent. against opt-out. [Interruption.] I will provide a list later.

    Does the Prime Minister recall saying, just last Friday, that he trusts the people? Why does he not trust the people enough to allow them to vote democratically on whether they want their local hospitals to opt out? What is he afraid of? Why is he always running away from the ballot box?

    The Prime Minister : Why does the right hon. Gentleman always run away from the facts? He is wrong on the subject of medical people and, as for trusting the people, we have trusted the people to make decisions more in the past 10 years than any Labour Government ever would.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister now answer my question? Will he give people the right to vote on whether hospitals in their localities should opt out?

    The Prime Minister rose– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. It is no use hon. Members’ shouting, “Answer” unless they give the Prime Minister a chance to do so.

    The Prime Minister : What a remarkable question from the leader of a party whose education spokesman would take away the right of parents to decide what nature of schools their children could go to.

    Mr. Brandon-Bravo : To people in unskilled work, wages or a salary of £20,000 a year may seem very good pay indeed, but does my right hon. Friend feel that a level of pay of £20,000 a year makes a person rich–rich enough to be taxed at the horrendous levels now being spoken of by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : Only a genuine Leveller would think that £20,000 a year was rich these days. Certainly, no doctors, police constables, police sergeants, fire sergeants and others would think that. The reality is that average earnings and take-home pay have risen substantially in recent years. Only the Labour party could produce taxation policies to penalise people on modest incomes. Were it to implement all its plans it would be penalising not only people on modest and average incomes but every taxpayer.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Margaret Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mrs. Ewing : As the Prime Minister has demonstrated his intention to hold the 1992 European summit in Edinburgh, would he also accept that Scotland’s international diplomatic role could best be served not by inviting Europe to our capital city for a few days every other year but by enabling Scotland to play her full international role as a member of the European Community in her own right 365 days a year, especially against a background in which the people of Scotland have shown that independence is their preferred constitutional choice?

    The Prime Minister : Scotland has played a very honourable role in international affairs as part of the United Kingdom for a long time and it will continue to do so in that fashion. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the fact that the European Council will be meeting in Edinburgh. It think that the people of all Scotland, but especially Edinburgh, will welcome that too.

    Mr. Simon Coombs : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to raise £5 billion per year from the proceeds of privatisation in the next Parliament ? Will he also confirm that if that revenue were not forthcoming, it would be necessary either to reduce public services dramatically or to raise taxes and to increase public borrowing to an unacceptable level ?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. It would seem from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that the Labour party is planning either dramatically to increase taxation or dramatically to cut spending on public services. Privatisation has not only raised significant resources to liquidate parts of the national debt but has dramatically improved the performance of the companies concerned. We shall continue with policies of privatisation. I think that that will be much more welcome to people than increasing borrowing on the scale that a Labour Government would envisage and increasing taxation, which is what Labour has always delivered.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bradley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Bradley : To ensure that a citizen’s charter for the health service has real meaning for the people in my constituency, will the Prime Minister confirm that as 100,000 people have signed a petition to protest at the proposed closure of Withington hospital and its maternity unit, and as 3,000 people joined hands around the two-mile perimeter to protest about the plan, such overwhelming support will mean that citizens have the right to retain their local hospital and that the Government have a right and duty to honour their views ?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, matters of that sort are dealt with in the first instance by the health authority, and I think it is better that they should be. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the citizen’s charter–an idea that I first began to consider and to speak publicly about in 1987–is that it will provide far greater redress for the citizen than ever before.

    Sir Richard Luce : Is it not becoming clearer day by day that the Labour party is coming out in its true colours as the party of high spending and high taxation.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The right hon. Gentleman must ask a question about the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

    Sir Richard Luce : Did not my right hon. Friend reflect when he got up this morning that the Labour party is coming out in its true colours.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. That is no good.

     

    United Nations

    Q4. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : I have at present no plans to do so. However, I am in regular contact with the secretary-general.

    Mr. Cryer : In view of the withdrawal of the Valiant Churchill class of nuclear submarines due to dangerous defects in their nuclear reactors, would it not be prudent for the Prime Minister to withdraw all Polaris nuclear submarines, which have identical defects in their nuclear reactors? At the same time, he could cancel the Trident programme and announce that his Government are supporting the United Nations– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Hon. Members should give the hon. Gentleman a chance to get to a conclusion.

    Mr. Cryer : The Prime Minister could announce that his Government were supporting the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty ; the 141 states which have signed that treaty have pledged not to deploy or manufacture nuclear weapons.

    Mr. Speaker : Briefly, please.

    Mr. Cryer : Billions of pounds could then be released for the national health service in this country and for the millions of poor in other countries throughout the world.

    The Prime Minister : Someone spoke a moment ago about the true face of the Labour party. I think that we have just heard it. I happen to be in favour of our maintaining a nuclear defence. That will be our position in the future. I am interested to learn from what the hon. Gentleman has said that that may not be the position of the Opposition.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Roger King : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. King : Does my right hon. Friend agree that education, and particularly the quality of that education, are paramount in many people’s minds? Is he aware that in Birmingham we have excellent grant-maintained grammar schools which are under threat from the local Labour council, which intends to strangle them to death so that there is no choice for the people of Birmingham, despite 96 per cent. of them saying that they want their grammar schools maintained? Will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting educational excellence.

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of that proposal, but I am unsurprised to hear that that is the view of the Labour local authority ; it clearly has no concern for the views of parents about education–a point which the Leader of the Opposition neglected to mention. As a general principle, I agree with my hon. Friend that the Labour party opposes choice on assisted places, on city technology colleges and on grammar schools. Its top priority on day one, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, would be to take away parents’ choice to keep their schools independent of council control.

    Mr. Ashdown : As the Prime Minister has registered that some in his party regard the proposals put forward by our European partners next week on monetary union as a fudge, and as one of his Ministers has said that they are a fraud, although many others will see them as Britain’s last opportunity to be at the heart of Europe rather than its periphery, will he now tell us his view of the proposals? Are they a fudge, a fraud or an opportunity not to be missed?

    The Prime Minister : We are at a very early stage in the negotiations on economic and monetary union and on political union. As to the proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House in January that “the Government have made it plain to our European partners that we cannot accept any changes to the treaty of Rome which would bind us to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament.”–[ Official Report, 24 January 1991 ; Vol. 184, c. 470.]

     

    Q6. Mr. Michael Morris : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Morris : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the evidence is that, in local government, competitive tendering has given the public good value for money? Does not that mean that we should have similar policies throughout the public sector, including the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has considerable knowledge of the health service and he is, of course, entirely right. Abolishing competitive tendering for support services would threaten the loss of the savings of £150 million a year that have been achieved in the national health service thus far. Opposition to those improvements and to efficiency improvements worth £400 million could only remove more than £500 million from the health service, year after year after year. That is the policy of the Opposition, but not of the Government.

     

    Q7. Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West) : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May.

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

    Mr. Archer : Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, prior to the last election, the Government gave a categorical assurance that if re- elected they would not increase VAT? Bearing in mind that, having been re- elected, the Government doubled VAT, will the Prime Minister invite the electorate to believe future election promises? If so, can he now say categorically whether the Conservative party, if re-elected, will increase VAT further?

    The Prime Minister : Characteristically, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is telling only half the story. He utterly neglects to mention the fact that there was a precisely corresponding reduction in local tax by way of the reduction in the community charge.

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

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You work harder. Good. You pay more.

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

    What folly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    People build success

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

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

    Winning hearts and minds

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

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

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

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

    Scotland’s revival

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Lanarkshire

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

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

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

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

    Labour’s tax on skills

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

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

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

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

    Economic revival

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

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

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

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

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

    Local government

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

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

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

    Citizen’s charter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Health

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

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

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

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

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

    European Council

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

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

    Scottish Assembly

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

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

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

    Britain in the world

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 9 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister know of the grave shortage of resources that is affecting children’s wards and units in hospitals throughout Britain? Is he aware that the unique baby life-saving unit in Groby Road hospital in my constituency is likely to have to close because there is no money locally and the Department of Health has refused central NHS funding? If that unit closes, as is almost certain unless the Government change their mind, what will the Prime Minister say to the parents of babies who will certainly die, totally unnecessarily?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, I cannot carry in my head the details of each and every aspect of the national health service, but he knows that the average annual increase in the national health service budget has been more than 3 per cent. during the period of this Government–substantially higher than it was under any previous Government.

    Sir Michael Shaw : If public spending is to be paid for in the future by increases in our economy, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend do policies of increased taxation, increases in quangos and Ministries and a minimum wage level make a sensible policy to increase such a demand?

    The Prime Minister : I suspect that I know what my hon. Friend is driving at. The reality is that the Labour party would never deliver any growth whatsoever to fund increased public expenditure. It never has and never would and any suggestion that it would is sheer wish fantasy.

    Mr. Kinnock : Has the Prime Minister seen the letter from the health authority district general manager to his clinical directors stating that

    “the reality of GPs holding their own budgets”

    is that

    “equity has gone out the window”?

    In view of that, will the Prime Minister withdraw the claim that he made in the House on Tuesday that operations are done on the basis of clinical need, as that claim is obviously fiction?

    The Prime Minister : It is not fiction. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. I have been advised within the last hour or so that the doctor to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred has also said that the big advantage of the trusts is that you are opting out of bureaucracy, not out of the national health service. At Bart’s, the hospital at which he works, they are treating more patients at less cost. Over 1,000 jobs may have gone in the last five years, but more patients are being treated.

    Mr. Kinnock : Since the Prime Minister also wants to quote Dr. Grant, I remind him that he is the man who said that they are opting out of equity. Can I put it to the Prime Minister again? Is not it clear that the Prime Minister’s health market policies have now made queue-jumping the order of the day and that the clinical needs of patients are coming second to commercial considerations? I put it to him again. In view of that reality, on the testimony of Dr. Grant, will he now withdraw the false claim that he made two days ago that operations are done on the basis of clinical need? It is fiction.

    The Prime Minister : No, I will not, and I will call in evidence to support my position Mr. Rowden, the chief executive of West Lambeth health authority, who writes to the press as a nurse, a general manager in the national health service and a member of the Labour party. I quote :

    “For Labour to suggest that the old-style district health authorities provided a sound basis for the management of the NHS is spurious to say the least. Decisions prior to the reforms were arrived at by a process of those who screamed the loudest, and we have all witnessed various displays of shroud-waving This was not a rational way of making difficult decisions, and perhaps the key benefit from the NHS reforms will be the evolution of a system that will lead to rational and informed debate about how and why we use precious resources in our NHS.”

    Mr. Kinnock : Like his predecessor, the more the Prime Minister goes on in his answers, the less convincing he becomes. May I put it to him again? Does not he agree with the testimony of one of his supporters, a district general manager, who says that because of his system equity has gone out of the window? Will not he affirm now that, as a consequence, operations are not being done on the basis of clinical need but on the basis of commercial considerations?

    The Prime Minister : I neglected inadvertently to complete the quote from Mr. Rowden, the Labour party supporter. He deals with the point that the right hon. Gentleman now raises :

    “When all the politicking stops, it has to be said that many of the Government’s changes to the NHS give us the first opportunity in decades to begin explicitly to make choices about where we spend our money in the UK health care system.”

    Mr. Harris : Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, unlike the Labour party, he will keep public expenditure in line with what the country can afford? Furthermore, as the First Lord of the Treasury, will he make available to Her Majesty’s Opposition the full facilities of the Treasury to check out their taxation and spending plans, as clearly their sums do not add up?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Our economic policies in the last 12 years have achieved a remarkable treble–tax cuts, spending increases on public services and a reduction in the national debt. The extra £20 billion that Labour promises is spending that it could never deliver out of growth which it has never previously provided when in government. The only things that would grow under the Labour party would be taxes, inflation and national health service waiting lists, just as they always have done.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that while the scale of international relief in Bangladesh is still pitiful in relation to need, there is nevertheless real pride about Britain’s lead in providing it? I again ask the Prime Minister why it is that he, his Government and, it appears, the written press continue to ignore the incalculably greater scale of the disaster now unfolding in Africa? I want the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that he knows and understands that 27 million lives are imminently at risk and that in some areas food will run out at the end of this week. If he knows about these matters, will he tell the House what he intends to do to help?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his question. The assistance that we have given to Bangladesh has made us the largest single national donor. We are prepared to do more and are urging others to do more. Particularly in the months ahead we will need to seek a better international way of co-ordinating assistance when great tragedies such as this are faced. I shall do what I can to bring that sort of system about. On the subject of Africa, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are providing substantial aid and providing it fast. After the United States, we are the second largest bilateral food aid contributor to the Horn. We have done a great deal and, where necessary, we will be able to do more. However, we cannot do everything that is necessary on our own. We have a better record than almost anyone in the world and we can justly be proud of that record.

    Mr. Butcher : Is my right hon. Friend aware that 12 years ago to this day he and I first entered the House? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his personal dedication and commitment to an improvement in public services throughout that period. If the history of the 1980s shows anything it is that it is possible to reduce taxation while simultaneously and dramatically improving public services.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right about that. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his illness. We are all very pleased to see him here and looking so fit and I look forward to seeing him sit here with me for at least another 12 years and possibly a good deal longer. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such improvements depend on the levels of growth that we have achieved over the last decade, which levels Conservative Governments traditionally achieve and Labour Governments fail to achieve.

     

    Q2. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Welsh : As the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Energy both oppose test drilling by Nirex in their constituencies, does the Prime Minister understand why the people of Scotland do not wish to see up to 6,000 planned test boreholes being drilled in Caithness? If Nirex proposes to spend such time, effort and money in drilling up to 6,000 boreholes, how can the Prime Minister expect anyone to believe that Nirex has not targeted the north of Scotland as a nuclear dump? Scotland has been badly let down by this decision.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman will know, there will need to be quite specific planning consents before there can be any dumping of waste there. That matter lies in the future, but before any dumping at all could take place after the test borings, quite specific planning consents would need to be granted. We will look carefully at those when they come forward.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beaumont-Dark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Will my right hon. Friend accept that when we came to office 12 years ago the top rate of taxation was 82 per cent., that it is now 40 per cent. and that the miracle has happened because everyone has been encouraged to work harder which has meant that £17 billion more has been spent on the health service this year than when we came to office? Does he agree that a nightmare will strike people such as a police sergeant, a deputy head teacher or a doctor when they hear that if they earn £20,300 a year they are among the rich and are to be taxed and taxed and taxed again.

    The Prime Minister : That would certainly do nothing but damage to enterprise ; and it is certainly true that, over the past few years, lower rates of tax have produced a higher yield.

    My hon. Friend is right about people earning £20,000 a year. In no sense can they be described as rich. Last year in London and the south-east £20,000 was less than the average white collar wage and it will certainly be much less this year. It is less than many Metropolitan police constables and sergeants, senior house officers, registrars or junior doctors earn. It is less than many teachers earn. Those are the people whom the Opposition regard as rich and whom they would tax not only unreasonably but as they did in the 1970s : right out of this country.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ron Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

    Mr. Brown : As the poll tax has been a big mistake, why should people be hounded and imprisoned in England? Why should they suffer because the Government got it wrong? People outside think that something has to give–that there should be an amnesty. The Government should understand the position of the 16 individuals in England– [Laughter.] It is not funny.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This does not help the hon. Gentleman. Briefly, please.

    Mr. Brown : Those 16 people are in prison because they did not pay the poll tax. We know that the Prime Minister claims to want a classless society– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now conclude his question?

    Mr. Brown : This is important, because people cannot be imprisoned in Scotland but they can be in England. Let us free these political prisoners. That would be an important decision.

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply about these matters, but I must point out that he did not even carry his own side of the House with him in his remarks.

  • PMQT – 7 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Immediately after Questions I shall depart the House to attend a guard of honour for the Prime Minister of Spain. I shall have further meetings later today.

    Mr. McAllion : In the past week we have heard some Scottish Tories describe Scottish devolution as an immovable force which their party ignores at its risk. Other Scottish Tories have described it as a fantasy and a dead duck and yet others have described it as a London-based plot hatched by the chairman of the Conservative party to win cheap votes in Scotland. With which of those views does the Prime Minister agree–or is this yet another important issue on which he does not know his own mind?

    The Prime Minister : Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain fully so.

    Mr. Quentin Davies : Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the past 12 years this country has gained tremendous advantages through substantial reductions in income tax levels? Does he further agree that to increase income tax rates again, even for those on moderate levels of earnings, such as classroom teachers in London, would be a retrograde step and a major blow to the aspirations of millions of people and to economic output?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly would agree with my hon. Friend about that. It applies also to national insurance contributions, because what matters is the net disposable income that people have left in their pockets to spend. People will have noticed the Opposition’s plans in that regard.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity publicly to oppose a two-tier system in hospitals, such as Watford general hospital, where the patients of non budget-holding general practitioners must wait longer and take second place, regardless of their clinical need?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. There will be no reductions in existing operations in Watford. Instead, as a result of our reforms, some people will get operations faster than otherwise they would have done. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister has just confirmed the existence of a two-tier service. Does he realise that a two-tier system such as he supports is, as the British Medical Association says, “unethical”? Does he recognise that even in its existence it is a violation of the basic principle of the national health service that treatment must be determined according to clinical need, not contracts or commercial decisions? Is not it obvious from what he says and allows that although we believe in a national health service on the basis of need, the Prime Minister believes in one according to deals?

    The Prime Minister : None of that remotely follows. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my first answer. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. I shall repeat that in case he did not fully hear it first time : operations are done on the basis of clinical need. What we are seeking and attaining are a more efficient system and more efficient use of the large resources in the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman’s plans would take money away from the NHS as a result of many of his spiteful proposals. He has made it clear that he will provide no extra funding. We need no lectures on health care from him.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister not only misrepresents me, he misrepresents what is going on– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister misrepresents what is going on now. Will he take this opportunity to say that there are no cases that he will allow in which the patients of non budget-holding GPs will be allowed to take second place to the patients of budget-holding GPs who have made contractual arrangements with hospitals to gain preference for their patients?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should read what I have said twice already : that operations are done on the basis of clinical need.

    Mr. Alexander : Does my right hon. Friend recollect his past criticism of the unsatisfactory nature of the laws on Sunday trading? In the light of recent events, does he agree that it might now be appropriate to bring our laws in England and Wales into line with those of Scotland, where the commitment to the Sabbath and keeping Sunday special goes hand in hand with sensible Sunday trading laws?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend will know, a number of cases are being considered by the courts. Some may go to appeal. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is consulting interested parties to see whether a consensus can be found on Sunday trading law that would be acceptable both to them and to the House, which has repeatedly expressed a view on the matter. I believe that that is the right way ahead on a matter of conscience such as this. Experience in Scotland suggests that a suitable consensus is possible. I hope that we can find one south of the border.

     

    Q2. Ms. Ruddock : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Ms. Ruddock : Does the Prime Minister know that last year in Lewisham there were only 320 employment training places when there were 10,000 unemployed people? Can he tell me, therefore, why today, when unemployment has increased by a third, to over 14,000, the number of employment training places is to be cut by a third? What faith does he expect the British people to put in his commitment to a fairer society?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady will know, the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe to guarantee a training place to everyone under the age of 18 who is not already in full-time education or employment. Spending on training is £2.7 billion this year. That is two and a half times more than was spent by the previous Labour Government.

     

    Q3. Mr. Speller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Speller : Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will fight for the interests of the small family farm in Britain at the common agricultural policy discussions that are to come and also by providing assistance for such items as expertise in marketing and help for farmers’ incomes, which have fallen to an unacceptable level?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We will defend the interests of all farmers, including small family farmers, in the forthcoming Community discussions. The House knows that, as currently framed, the Commission’s plans for CAP reform would discriminate against United Kingdom farmers, largely because our average farm size is greater than that in other member states. We have given considerable help to small farmers recently, in particular by increasing milk quotas and by means of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. We shall continue to help.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Hain : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the views of the Conservative candidate in the Monmouth by- election who yesterday advocated the opting out of not just the Royal Gwent hospital but the Nevill Hall hospital as well?

    The Prime Minister : Opting out–that is to say, putting control in the hands of local people within the national health service–is the right way to produce better management and local choice. I note that the hon. Gentleman does not favour local choice, just as his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made clear in terms of education yesterday.

     

    Q5. Mr. Wilshire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Wilshire : Given the Government’s desire to extend choice in education further, and given the public’s desire to see the highest possible standards of education everywhere, will my right hon. Friend find time today to look for ways to extend further choice in education?

    The Prime Minister : We are very pleased to see extended choice in education. The new grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and open enrolment have provided considerable extra choice. I hope that parents will take advantage of it. It is clear that the Opposition do not like choice. Grant-maintained schools, CTCs, the assisted places scheme, charitable status for private schools and the existing A-levels would all go and, with the Opposition’s tax plans, most of the teachers would go as well.

     

    Q6. Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Having clearly misled Parliament last week–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. No hon. Member misleads Parliament. The hon. Member knows that and he must rephrase his question.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Having misrepresented to Parliament last week the attitude of the British Medical Association and Britain’s doctors as to GP contracts, why did the Prime Minister seek to cover up his mistakes by doctoring Hansard? Is that not true and does not the Prime Minister owe someone an apology?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and Mr. Speaker will make a statement about that matter at 3.30 pm. In advance of that statement, let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. Like every hon. Member, he knows that it is normal practice, when a Minister uses a quote, for the precise words and their source to be provided by Hansard. In this case, the name of the correct source was put into the record, but I am entirely happy for the original words to be reinstated. The magazine from which I quoted was GP Magazine but similar sentiments to those that I quoted, endorsing the reforms, have been expressed in the British Medical Journal, published by the BMA– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us hear the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I quote from a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal, which said :

    “The reforms may not address all the problems of the NHS, but they do improve our capacity to specify the quality of services and to price improvements.”

    The point that I was making is entirely justified. If any apology is required, it is from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).

     

    Q7. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity, over the weekend, to reflect on the damage that would be done to our representative democracy by a system of proportional representation? This system would deprive people of their solely responsible local representative to satisfy the Liberals, the statisticians and the pundits who enjoy smoke-filled rooms.

    The Prime Minister : I am not in favour of either smoke-filled rooms or proportional representation. I share my hon. Friend’s view that it leaves minority parties determining Government policy and striking bargains for their support. That is not democracy, it is horse trading, and I will have no part in it.

     

    Q9. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

    Mr. Paice : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the fact that we, by reducing the top rate of tax to 40 per cent. from 83 per cent., have increased the proportion of total yield of income tax paid by the highest 10 per cent. of taxpayers from 20 to 30 per cent? Is not this because many of the most wealthy people are now staying in this country and bringing their money back, so that we get 40 per cent. of something, whereas the Opposition would get 59 per cent. of nothing?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The evidence as to the amount of tax collected with lower rates is clear for all to see. It is equally clear that, under the Labour party’s proposals, 14 out of 15 taxpayers would not be better off, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said a year ago. The figure is now one in eight. When the shadow Chancellor gets at the figures they change daily, and when we have finished costing Labour’s programme they will change again.

    Mr. Simon Hughes : The Prime Minister will be aware that, in relation to his policy on local government finance, only after huge public protest and widespread cuts in services did he decide that he had better review the policy inherited from his predecessor and then to ditch it. Does he agree that his policy on the opting out of hospitals was equally widely opposed and that it is now clear that it, too, will result in widespread cuts in services? For the sake of consistency of principle, will the Prime Minister carry out a wholesale review and then ditch the policy?

    The Prime Minister : No. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s views, and I do not believe that his analysis is remotely correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must wait and see how it turns out. He will find that he is wrong. For many years we have had to ensure that the national health service uses its resources to the most efficient extent. At last the present Government have had the courage to introduce a system that will ensure that the money is used to best effect for patients. I believe that, for the national health service, that is the right way to proceed and the one which will produce the maximum amount of good patient care. That is what we propose to do.

  • PMQT – 2 May 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd May 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Sayeed : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Sayeed : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local elections today should be about which party most efficiently delivers quality services at the lowest cost?

    The Prime Minister : They certainly should be and I hope that in the eyes of the electors they are. If they turn out to be so, I believe that the cost of each Labour councillor, which is very substantial, will be noticed by the electorate, who will vote accordingly.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister agree with the British Medical Association’s judgment that there is a crisis for patients and for doctors in the national health service and that, in its words,

    “The Prime Minister is unaware of what is happening throughout the country.”?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I had a seminar with many leading figures in the health industry at Chequers on Saturday morning. It is an odd question from the right hon. Gentleman, who admitted over the weekend that there would be no more money for health under a Labour Government. The point which I believe that the BMA should consider is that it is improbable, with £30 billion going into the health service, that each and every one of those pounds is being used to best effect. The purpose of our reforms is to ensure that that money is used to best effect on patient care so that the patient may get the best possible value for the contribution that he makes to the health service.

    Mr. Kinnock : With that response the Prime Minister not only proves his desperation in misrepresenting me, but proves the BMA’s case that he really does not know what is going on in the country. The secretary of the BMA, Dr. Ian Field, reports that, because of the Prime Minister’s so-called NHS reforms, hospital clerks are having to take life-and-death decisions about which patients should be admitted and which should be turned away. If the Prime Minister does not think that that is evidence of crisis, just what does he think would constitute a crisis?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the gentleman to whom the Leader of the Opposition has referred should have examined more carefully what is happening in many other parts of the country, quite apart from the general increase in NHS funding. For example, he might look at many of the trusts. In the case of North Western, no cuts are planned, and new staff posts are being created. The same applies to Mersey, West Midlands, Trent, East Anglia, Yorkshire and many other areas. It would be a great help to the national health service if people were to look at its achievements and its improvements, rather than carp, criticise and pick out difficulties that have always existed and, in an organisation of such size, may always exist.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister can be sure that the consultants and other doctors in the BMA are well aware of the qualities of the national health service. Indeed, they work in it continually and they support it continually. When they say that there is a crisis for patients and doctors in the NHS as a result of the Prime Minister’s reforms, does not he think that he owes it to them, first, to meet them very soon and, secondly, to stop opting out and adding to the crisis?

    The Prime Minister : As I have said to the BMA in my letter, I will be prepared later this year to meet it to discuss the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to quote the BMA, let him recall that the association opposed many past improvements in the health service. It opposed the very establishment of the service, in which case it was wrong ; it opposed the drugs list, in which case it was wrong ; and, only last year, it opposed the GP contracts, yet, in GP Magazine * (* See Mr. Speaker’s statement on 7 May at column 625.), it now says :

    “Suddenly, targets don’t seem so bad after all Most GPs will find themselves significantly better off than they were last year.”

    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should examine that more carefully.

    Mr. Cash : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the draft treaty that the Luxembourg presidency has made available to only a very limited number of people–and certainly not to Members of this House–in the European Community? Does my right hon. Friend know that that draft treaty contains provisions that would result in a severe diminution in the powers of this House? Will he give us an assurance that, although we want to co-operate in Europe–we are pro-European–the proposals in this paper, which combine a reduction in the powers of the Westminster Parliament with an increase in the powers of the European Community, are unacceptable in their present form?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, I have on a number of occasions made clear our position in both intergovernmental conferences. The document to which he refers is, as he has said, a draft treaty prepared by the Luxemburgers. It has not been agreed by us–indeed, it has not yet even been discussed by us–and we have put forward our own particular proposals for both intergovernmental conferences.

     

    Q2. Mr. Watson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Watson : The Government’s proposed replacement for the poll tax promises 100 per cent. rebates for those on low incomes. Why will not the Prime Minister give an assurance today that the same principle will be applied to the nearly 6 million people who will remain liable to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax for at least another three years?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, when the 20 per cent. arrangement was introduced, income support was also introduced to compensate, to ensure that people had the resources to meet those charges. That remains the position.

    Mr. Jopling : Will the Prime Minister find time today to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that all advertisements are decent, legal and truthful–especially advertisements put in the press by trade unions on behalf of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : That would certainly be an improvement, if it happened. I join my right hon. Friend in condemning the advertisements to which he refers, with their phoney pictures and fake statistics. How similar that is to so much of what we hear at present from Opposition Members.

     

    Q3. Mr. Douglas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Douglas : Does the Prime Minister accept that we are extremely interested in his addiction to seminars if he comes to Scotland we shall arrange one, at which he can explain to the people of Scotland why he is proposing to introduce a tax that is theoretically less onerous and less regressive than the poll tax, while at the same time allowing a rebate of 100 per cent. How can he explain the persistence of the 20 per cent. rule for the poll tax, and how does he view the difficulties of Scottish local authorities, because he knows that the poll tax is uncollectable?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep. I answered that question two minutes ago.

    Mr. Burns : During his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the latest diktat from COHSE, which orders its members to campaign for the Labour party during the local elections? In the light of that diktat, does he agree that nothing that the union says about the health service should be believed, because it is not objective and is politically biased?

    The Prime Minister : Given its past activities, I should be surprised if COHSE did not operate in that fashion, and that applies to NUPE as well. But, as the Leader of the Opposition gets so many of his policies from them, that is no surprise to any of us.

     

    Q4. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Dunnachie : Does the Prime Minister agree with the chairman of the Conservative party, who has declared that all voters are jerks, or does he agree with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has said that they are all morons? Or does he agree with the majority of the British people, who say that senior Cabinet Ministers are a disgrace to the country?

    The Prime Minister : As none of those comments was made in the way in which the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is nothing to withdraw.

    Mr. John Townend : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still a Government priority for British business men and farmers, after the completion of the single market in 1992, to be able to compete on a level playing field with their Community competitors? If so, will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and advise him not to impose on the pig industry financial burdens that our competitors on the Continent need not bear–especially the competition from Denmark and Holland?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly our intention to see a level market, not only in agriculture but in all matters of European trade. All my right hon. Friends are aware of that and act accordingly.

     

    Q5. Mr. Sillars : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Sillars : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to a statement made recently by the housing convenor of the city of Glasgow? According to that statement, given the present level of capital consents it will take 300 years to cure the damp problems experienced by the people of that city. That was said seriously, not facetiously.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that the present level of damp in Glasgow poses a serious risk to the health of children in particular. Will he deliver to the citizens of Glasgow the same respite as his Government gave to the rich people who bought shares in privatised English companies? Will he wipe off the capital debt of the city of Glasgow and give the people there an opportunity to enjoy decent housing in a much shorter time than 300 years?

    The Prime Minister : I think that we would all like everyone in the country to have increasing access to decent housing. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the past 10 years–across the country as a whole–there have been 2 million more homes, which is equivalent in practice to a city twice the size of Birmingham. He will understand the extent of the improvements that have been made. As for the position in Glasgow, the way in which individual authorities use their housing receipts, their capital receipts and their revenue sums is a matter for them and they must determine what priorities they must meet.

     

    Q6. Mr. Speller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Speller : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the horrific accident on the north Devon link road at 3 o’clock this morning when a van bound from South Molton was in collision with a minibus carrying several Icelandic tourists, three of whom are dead and six of whom are desperately injured? Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as the tourist season begins, we need adequate police resources to ensure that there is safety on the roads, which is best ensured by a police presence?

    The Prime Minister : I was sorry to hear of that dreadful accident and I am sure that the House will join me in expressing sympathy to the families of those involved. As my hon. Friend will know, the Road Traffic Bill currently before Parliament will strengthen road traffic law and penalties. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will spend well over £6 million in 1991-92 on direct road safety campaigns in an effort to minimise the terrible accidents that we so frequently see, to an example of which my hon. Friend has referred.

     

    Q7. Mr. McAvoy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. McAvoy : The Prime Minister keeps making pious declarations about his personal commitment to the national health service, but is he aware that in my constituency Greater Glasgow health board has privatised care of the elderly? In other NHS hospitals there are to be en-suite toilets and bathrooms, but in that privatised hospital in my constituency there are to be communal toilets and bathrooms. When my frail and elderly constituents are being herded like cattle to use those communal facilities, will this personally committed Prime Minister feel any personal sense of shame?

    The Prime Minister : Anticipating what the hon. Gentleman might touch upon, I looked at Greater Glasgow health board’s record. It has, as the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention, awarded 58 contracts under competitive tendering arrangements and the resultant savings of £32.7 million will go directly into patient care. It has also entered into a contract with a number of people to provide more beds for care of the elderly. Greater Glasgow health board has a good record which the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention.

    Mr. Gerald Bowden : When my right hon. Friend comes to consider the route for the Channel tunnel rail link, will he look seriously at the alternatives to British Rail’s proposal? Will he take the opportunity to meet the professional partners of Bechtel and Ove Arup to discuss with them the benefits of their route at first hand?

    The Prime Minister : We will certainly look carefully at all alternatives. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will do that with great care.

     

    Q8. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Given that the Secretary of State for Scotland opposed test drilling for nuclear dumps in his constituency and the Secretary of State for Energy, who is in charge of Nirex, opposed similar test drilling in his constituency, how can the Prime Minister justify permission being given for such test drilling in Dounreay, against massive democratic opposition locally and throughout Scotland? Is that a case of double standards?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decision at this stage is only to test the boreholes for repositories for nuclear waste. If a borehole turned out to be satisfactory, there would need to be a further detailed planning application before any waste could be deposited.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at King’s College Hospital – 18 April 1991

    Below are extracts from Mr Major’s speech at King’s College Hospital in London on 18th April 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Introduction

    Thank Sir Ronald Grierson for hosting reception. King’s College Hospital one of the centres of excellence. Very aptly named, for it has built up a positively regal reputation for high standards of care, medical teaching and research.

    But King’s recognise they cannot stand still. Trustees have seen the need to develop the standards of excellence, to take King’s into the 21st century.

    Partnership

    The project is a wonderful example of partnership:

    – between hospital, local communities, the primary care services;
    – between the four main bodies of King’s – the administration, the teaching and research bodies, the trustees;
    – between purchasers and providers of health care;
    – and last but not at all least, between public money and private finance, between the Government and NHS and many, many private donors.

    Glad that this partnership is paying off. Phase 1 already well underway.

    Government’s Contribution

    The Government has committed £16.4 million to phase 1 of the development. A substantial commitment of public funding. Shows our conviction of the outstanding worth of this project.

    But however many millions Government spends, there is always a role for private giving and thank God for that.

    In time available, impossible to name the host of people helping to speed King’s towards the year 2000. But I know that Lord Wolfson, Garfield Weston, and Paul Girolami have made contributions which are outstanding even by the supreme standards of generosity which every donor to the appeal has displayed.

    Role of the Voluntary Sector

    Always been a strong, warm tradition of charitable open-handedness in Britain.

    Obviously good in itself. A vital part of an open and healthy society. Would be sad if had a society where Government crowded out voluntary effort. Right that Government funds should not be the only source of funds.

    This means it is not just the Government’s priorities which always hold sway. Other priorities too can be accommodated.

    Framework for Charitable Giving

    The Government has done a lot to encourage charitable giving over the last decade

    – gift aid: the Budget abolished the upper limit of £5 million for gift aid;
    – tax reliefs to charities and on charitable giving: now worth at least £800 million a year;
    – payroll giving on the up.

    Increasingly generous framework within which charities can operate. Hope they will take advantage of it to the full.

    NHS Reforms

    Freeing up the institutions of the country to make their own choices. Vital part in improving public service. There are no second class citizens – there should be no second class services.

    King’s have expressed interest in second wave trust status. Planning on this continues. The managerial freedom of trusts would allow providers to respond more quickly to the needs of their customers. A successful application would, I am sure, greatly enhance the appeal.

    Conclusion

    Science, and medical science no exception, developed at exponential rate. The 2000 project would enable King’s both to respond to that increase, and to stimulate it, for the benefit of all its patients. It adds up to an exciting provision of health care for the 21st century.
    Best wishes for its success.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 December 1990

    The text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th December 1990.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Downing Street (Gates)

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to dismantle the gates at the end of Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 6 December at column 166.

     

    Fiscal and Environmental Policy

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now take steps to achieve the integration of fiscal and environmental policy.

    The Prime Minister : We already seek to ensure that all the environmental implications of policy decisions under discussion are considered before conclusions are reached. My right hon. Friend has nominated the Minister of State, Treasury the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of policies.

     

    Ministerial Committee on the Environment

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister how he intends to ensure parliamentary accountability of the new ministerial committee on the environment.

    The Prime Minister : Cabinet Committees are internal mechanisms for co-ordinating policy within Government. They do not affect ministerial accountability to Parliament.

     

    Parliamentary Sitting Times

    Ms. Harman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a review of the hours at which the House sits and the dates of the summer recess.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) on 6 December at column 452.

     

    Nature Conservation

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for answering for the actions of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; and if he will publish a table showing the resource allocations to England, Scotland and Wales and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for 1991-92 as compared with the recommendations in the Inbucon report.

    The Prime Minister : The Joint Nature Conservation Committee is a committee of all three country councils each of which is answerable to its own territorial Secretary of State for all its functions, including those exercised through the JNCC. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would normally expect to take the lead in answering any questions about the committee.

    The predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 9 November that the grant in aid to the Nature Conservancy Council for England (NCCE) in 1991-92 had been set provisionally at £32.411 million. Announcements about the grant in aid to be provided to the new agencies in Scotland and Wales will be made shortly by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales respectively.

    The Inbucon report was commissioned by the Nature Conservancy Council to assist it in preparing its proposed forward plans. It was made available on request by the council in October. The figures contained in the report are therefore already available for examination.

     

    Hospitals (Foreign Use)

    Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister how many unused or disused civilian or military hospitals in the United Kingdom are owned or run by foreign Governments or armies; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Details of civilian hospitals owned or run by foreign Governments are not available.

    United States forces have contingency hospitals at RAF Chessington, RAF Little Rissington, RAF Nocton Hall and RAF Bicester. These are laid out as hospitals, but supplies and staff have to be brought in to activate them at a time of crisis.