The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Privatisation

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Adam Smith Institute – 16 June 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the 15th anniversary Adam Smith Institute dinner at the Banqueting House, Whitehall, London, on Tuesday 16th June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    THE NEXT PHASE OF CONSERVATISM: THE PRIVATISATION OF CHOICE

    I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk to you this evening about our domestic agenda for the years ahead. It is, of course, as Private Eye or The Guardian would have me say a time ‘of not inconsiderable interest in Europe’. But this evening my theme is domestic.

    After our fourth General Election victory in a row, Conservatives might be forgiven for thinking that the Millennium had arrived a little early. They may even be forgiven for thinking we’d reached an end to politics, with the final demise of Socialism, and the Conservative philosophy of choice, of opportunity, of responsibility and ownership triumphant.

    Such complacency would be wholly wrong. Complacency usually is. The good politician treads the waters like a duck. Unflurried calm above water and paddling like hell beneath it. But Socialism as a philosophy has been defeated and discredited. We should remember why. It has been defeated because of its intransigence and inflexibility. The attempt to marry 19th century political theory to late 20th century realities carries no conviction any more. Socialism has passed its sell-by date.

    CONSERVATIVES: THE PARTY OF EVOLUTION

    The real lesson is this: it is dangerous to get stuck in old ways. Conservatives, thank goodness, no longer debate the merits of the Corn laws. Yet Socialists still agonise over public ownership. To live, a political Party must always be examining and reexamining. It must listen and adapt to peoples’ changing needs. That is what this Party will always do.

    The greatest strength of the Conservative Party is that we look to the future. We move with, and help to mould, the spirit of the time. We choose policies which break down barriers to personal achievement wherever we find them; we are ready to take on vested interests; we take our stand in defence of the interests of the ordinary man and woman.

    Now, as ever, that means change. Not challenging the basic instincts of the individual – we will always go with the grain of human ambition. But answering better the aspirations of individuals. Opening up new doors and wider avenues so that their instincts and ambitions can be realised.

    Let us leave the Socialists to defend the status quo and the collectivist past; we are on the side of individuals, of innovation and of reform wherever it is needed.

    LISTENING TO PEOPLE

    Some were apparently surprised that we won the General Election. Some commentators wrote us off well in advance. I am not by nature vindictive. But I was able to bear the sight of them with more egg on their faces after the campaign than I had during it. I can only suggest that next time they look for opinions a little wider than the chattering classes of W8 and NW3. Perhaps they should try the real world. What they totally fail to appreciate is how deep the Conservative revolution is sending its roots. Just how total is the resection of the ‘State knows best’ assumptions of Socialism.

    THE DEVOLUTION OF FREEDOM

    We live in a new country. People have greater self confidence, independence and ambition. Forelock tugging belongs to yesterday. Living standards for the average family have risen by over a third since 1979. Millions of families now enjoy the freedom of ownership; ownership of shares, pensions and homes. We achieved an enormous amount in the 1980s. But that was only the beginning of what must be done. Now we must spread freedom and opportunity ever wider and ever deeper.

    The instinct for independence is a basic human instinct. Any parent knows that. During the 1980s that instinct was reasserted throughout the world. Yet old habits die hard. Among too many people in this country – people who take the easy choices of prosperity and privilege for granted – there is still an arrogance which assumes that people who have little, or are dependent on public services cannot be trusted with choice. Over the years, government at all levels has been stiff with that attitude. But not only government. It can still be found in some of the professions, in universities, and in the media.

    Well, I was brought up among people who had little. Yet they – we – were no different from the next man or woman. We had our own ideas, our own hopes, our own ambitions. Just because you have little money, it does not follow that you need little choice, that you are fit only to follow where others lead. People in those circumstances long to have choices. They want to be independent, not dependent on town hall or benefit office. They want a share in this country – a hand up, not a hand-out. They want to earn more, to have more, to build up the dignity of ownership and to leave something for their children. They are fiercely proud. How many do I remember from my childhood with little payments made weekly to the Tally Man to ensure they had enough to be buried with dignity. And some say such people do not want choice; do not want independence. And I say they are wrong. They do. And they want to feel that they own a piece of Britain and have a stake in its future. And we must make sure that they have that chance. Because if the Conservative Party doesn’t, no one will.

    TRUST THE PEOPLE WITH CHOICE

    If you stifle freedom; if government always ‘knows best’, you sow the seeds of resentment. I believe that it is the arrogance of central planning over many decades that lies at the roots of much unnecessary social division. Some express their instinct for independence in anti social ways. They reject the values of a society which gives them no voice. It is one of Marxism’s many ironies that wherever it has been tried, it produces a deeper sense of alienation from authority than capitalism ever has. We now see the anarchy that underlay the Soviet totalitarian state. Burke said ‘Freedom and not servitude is the cure of anarchy’. Give people more choices and responsibility; trust the people, and you will have a more just and ordered society.

    REMOVING OVER-GOVERNMENT

    We have made great progress. But we have no reason to be smug about it. Despite all the advances of the last thirteen years, one of the most over-governed nations in Europe. What do I mean by that? Well, first we have too many layers of Government. We intend to remedy that. That is why we have asked John Banham and the Local Government Commission to review local government structure. Local government should reflect the identity and interests of local communities. And, if that means bringing back some ancient authorities with which people still identify, that we shall do. But one thing we will do – add new tiers, permit the building of new bureaucracies. We will have no truck with regional assemblies and all the other jobs for the boys in the public sector unions that littered the manifestos of our opponents.

    But over-government means more than that. Too often choice in public services is exercised by people who do not have to stand at the receiving end or anywhere near it. For many people lack of choice in public services is merely a minor irritant in their lives. But for those who depend on those services, it can be a source of bitterness and even despair.

    THE NEXT PHASE: THE PRIVATISATION OF CHOICE

    This then must be the next phase of Conservatism: To shift the balance of choice in Society more radically than ever before into the hands of ordinary people. We have made a start.

    We have privatised State-owned industries. We have cut taxes. We have liberated businessmen and investors. We have deregulated and opened markets. We have spread wealth and we have spread ownership. We have seen a phenomenal growth in personal pensions and savings.

    There is no going back on this. We will continue to take the State out of the market place. We will privatise coal. We will bring private operators onto our railways. We will not go back to the corporatist days. No picking winners. No lame ducks.

    We have been accused on occasions of wanting to centralise – to take powers from others to exercise it from Whitehall. But it is not the civil servant who decides who should buy their council house. It is the tenant. No bureaucrat decides whether a school should apply to become grant-maintained. It is the governors and parents. It is not the man in Whitehall who decides that a hospital should apply for Trust status. It is the hospital. It is the people most closely involved.

    In the 1980s we opened doors. Those choices which used to be the monopoly of the State – in housing, in schools; and in daily life through high taxation – we gave them back to the people. People with enterprise flocked through those doors with enthusiasm. But others felt that opportunities were not for them. Perhaps they were not encouraged enough. Perhaps they were afraid of the attitudes of Socialist councils and unions. In the 1990s we mean to widen the avenue to choice and freedom. We mean to empower not just the enterprising, but people – the least well-off – those most dependent on public services as well.

    That must be the story of the 1990s. Where once Socialism nationalised or municipalised personal choice, taking it away from the individual and the family, we will give choice back to them and extend it further. Of all the privatisations that this Conservative Government conducts, the greatest and most far-reaching and the one to which I am most committed is the privatisation of choice.

    A RADICAL PROGRAMME OF REFORM

    That is the message of the reforms which make up the Citizen’s Charter. It is the most radical programme of reform of public service at all levels that we have ever seen. Yet thus far it has barely begun.

    It starts with Government. Already, we are acting on our Manifesto commitment to open a wide range of central government services to competitive tender. I want to bring to central government the benefits which contracting-out has brought to local government. Whitehall Departments, Next Steps Agencies, other parts of public service – all these must look at how bringing in outside skills could improve the standards of service on which the public depend.

    MORE OPEN GOVERNMENT

    I also want to see a significant change in the role of the State. Whitehall should not be so inward-looking as it now is. It should be more open in its procedures and already we are beginning to change it to bring that about. People need to feel greater- ‘ownership’ of their government, to see it as less austere, less remote. I want people to respect the considerable skills, the commitment and professionalism of public servants. But those skills are too often hidden from view.

    LIMITING THE ROLE OF THE STATE

    Adam Smith believed that the State had a responsibility for reform, to remove impediments to natural liberty and to facilitate the development of services like basic education for all.

    I agree with Adam Smith. It is a little over two hundred years since he wrote the ‘Wealth of Nations’. In the intervening years the State has arrogated to itself more and more powers. The wheel is now coming back full circle. For an increasing number of public services the State should be an enabler and facilitator. Adam Smith believed that in providing services, the State should simulate market conditions wherever possible. It is a pity he is not alive to advise us on the Citizen’s Charter. No Adam Smith perhaps. But at least we have Madsen Pirie, who sits on my Advisory Panel.

    EMPOWERING THE USER

    Let me give you four examples, in key areas of Conservative policy, where we must work to empower the user better in the course of the 1990s. In education. In housing. In law and order. And in health.

    CHOICE IN EDUCATION

    In education, I have a simple dictum – the best for every child, the best from every child. I make no apology for our insistence on higher standards, on testing, and on a return to basics in our schools. It is what parents expect and deserve. And it is what parents and pupils will get. Education is the key to the opportunity society. We mean to end for good – and I mean for good – the giant Left-wing experiment in levelling down. This will not only help the gifted but, perhaps most importantly, the less gifted and the deprived as well. Nothing is more patronising or more damaging than to lower the expectations you have of pupils simply because they come from a less advantaged background. They too, have the right to be challenged, stimulated, and stretched. And encourage them we will.

    Mr Chairman, we will extend further choice for parents. The introduction of open enrolment and Grant Maintained Schools is already beginning to have a dramatic effect on standards and attitudes in Schools. Where are all those people who predicted it wouldn’t work because parents would not be interested? I’ll tell you. They are the people who are now complaining that parents’ determination to choose the best for their children is cutting across the educationalists’ plans. Imagine: parents having the effrontery to cut across educationalists’ plans. Whatever next? Well, All I can say is: ‘About time too’.

    Why – last week I even heard that Labour now intend to ‘soften its approach to opt-out schools’. Isn’t amazing what an effect a caning at the ballot box can have? Jack Straw says Labour still oppose opting-out. But he admitted Labour had to recognise – and I quote – ‘Parents are bound to make decisions as to what is best for their children’. Well I never. What a painful admission for a Labour politician after decades of Socialist educational theories. Parents want the best for their children! It’s the Socialist world order turned upside down.

    We are extending parental choice everywhere. But I can tell you today that we will go further. It is all very well if you live in an area where there is a choice of good schools. What if you don’t? In too many deprived inner city areas, where councils are dominated by the Left, there is still too little choice. Many of these schools still provide standards of education which are inadequate. A choice between the bad and the barely tolerable is no choice worth speaking of.

    We cannot leave this as it is and we won’t. We intend to take powers to set matters right. I want to see good schools grow and bad schools improve or close. I want to expand opportunities for new schools and new types of schools to develop. And where our new independent Inspectorate finds that standards are unacceptably low, I do not believe that Government can stand indefinitely by. If the governors or the local authority are unwilling or unable to put things right, then we must find ways to raise standards for the children in them. Children’s needs come first that is why John Patten will be producing new proposals to tackle the worst schools in his White Paper later this summer. They will be radical. They will be controversial. And they will be absolutely in the interests of the pupils.

    CHOICE IN HOUSING

    In housing, we have brought about a revolution in the years since 1979. Millions of people are now homeowners who never thought it possible. And we have given tenants new rights in place of the old rules laid down by Council housing departments. Here, too, we must now take our programme further. To create more new owners with the Right-to-Buy and with the new Rents-to-Mortgages scheme. To give further new rights to those who rent- the right to repair, and a new right to benefit from improvements they have made. And, as we have just announced, to crack down on Councils that patronise their tenants. Councils will now have to put housing management out to tender and to bring in managers who can provide a better service for tenants.

    We also want to take further steps to improve the availability of housing in the private rented sector. Our ‘rent – a-room’ scheme will enable home owners to let rooms to lodgers without having to pay tax on the rent they receive.

    BETTER POLICING

    In upholding the law we want a return to the old approach to policing. 130 years ago, a Russian coming to Britain said; ‘Until I came to England the appearance of a police officer always produced an indefinable disagreeable feeling and I was at once morally on my guard against an enemy. In England a policeman at your door merely adds to your sense of security’. People should feel that the priorities of the police are their priorities. There should be a policeman passing your door regularly, and not just when the burglars have called. People in our cities should not be afraid to walk the street or open the front door.

    We will back the police. We always have – and we always will. But we will back the policemen on the beat by insisting on better management, on greater flexibility, on greater attention to the concerns of the public with more use of civilian staff and community policing. Ken Clarke’s review of the functions and structure of policing will ensure that we have a modern, efficient and fully responsive force – one which meets the needs of the public, and which retains and returns the public’s respect.

    AN NHS FOR PATIENTS

    In health, we have won the battle of the health reforms. Look how many hospitals applied for trust status before the election, despite all Labour’s threats to the jobs of those who appeared too enthusiastic. Trusts and their equivalent in primary health care, the GP fundholders, now have an unstoppable momentum – north of the Border as well, as I discovered on a visit to Scotland two weeks ago. Why? Because they know that they can provide better standards for their patients and more fulfilling careers for themselves if they run their own show.

    In GP surgeries and in hospitals, our reforms are working. They are strengthening the health Service and extending the frontiers of free modern patient care. They are here to stay.

    CITIZEN’S CHARTER: CONTINUING PROGRAMME OF CHANGE

    Our Citizen’s Charter is about choice, competition, management change and responding to the users of services. The Charter will be at the centre of all our decision-making. Pushing forward market-testing. Setting and reporting on service standards and performance against them. Widening choice and competition. Enforcing higher standards where choice and the market cannot fully operate.

    That does not mean excessive new regulations. We are not giving people more choice in some areas, just to see it removed by over-zealous and over-detailed regulation in others.

    So central and local government alike, be on your guard. We have a new commitment to deregulation. It was set out loud and clear in our Manifesto. And over the next few months we will be relaunching that drive.

    But if we are to achieve the standards we want in key services – in schools, in social work, in policing, fire services and probation – I believe that rigorous independent inspection is crucial.

    That will mean reform in present arrangements. We have begun in education. But the inspection of key public services must – and will be – independent of the services they inspect. I do not accept that schools can only be inspected by educationalists, social work by social workers. There is room for good, old-fashioned commonsense, for the outside view, and for other professional skills. We need and we will deliver, independent scrutiny from outside.

    The Citizen’s Charter is no blueprint for those who want to push the public spending ratchet up a few notches. No one who uses public services can fail to be aware that within any given level of resources, standards and efficiency can improve. There will be no let up in my personal determination to keep public spending under tight control, no matter how difficult the choices will be. Better value for money is part of better public service – and we will continue to work for it.

    A CONSERVATIVE VISION OF SOCIETY

    The Citizen’s Charter is about giving power to the people. And that is fundamental to my vision of the society I want to see develop in the 1990s. I have said I want a ‘classless’ society. I do not mean that in the sense that people should all be part of some amorphous mulch. Of course society forms itself into groups of people who share attitudes and interests. There is nothing wrong with that. And there will always be snobbery, no matter how much I personally deplore it. I cannot legislate to change human nature, nor would I want to.

    What we can do is give everyone a better opportunity to make the most of their lives. That is one more reason why we will continue to ensure people keep more of what they earn. We will help millions more to obtain personal pensions, so that they will have extra security when they retire. And we will ease inheritance tax to enable every family to pass on to their children what they have built up in a lifetime of work. The politics of envy have no place in my view of the future this country.

    I want to do away with the old divide between those who choose and those who have to take what they’re given. I want to do away with barriers to achievement. Too often people give up. They turn against those who slam doors in their face. Those doors should be open. I want a country where achievement is not resented because everyone feels they can achieve things too.

    Reform starts at the top. We are chopping Goliath down to size. We are giving people the slings and stones to do it. I don’t want to hear any more carping about the faults of the dependent. Who has made people dependent? We have. By ‘we’, I mean Governments, planners, those who think wrongly that they have a monopoly of wisdom. We have done it not because we provide the welfare and the services, but by denying people the basic human dignity of independent choice in the way they are provided.

    Michael Oakeshott wrote of ‘human beings impelled by an acquired love of making choices for themselves’. Yes, it should be their decisions which shape our society. He said ‘we know as little and as much about where it is leading us as we know about the fashion in hats of twenty years time or the design of motor cars’.

    I agree. Some would criticise us for that. I take it as my starting point. The past 200 years has been the story of the evolution of democracy. The progressive extension of the franchise. The extension of wealth. The extension of choice. In the 1990s, I want the privilege of ownership and the luxury of choice to be no longer a privilege. No longer a luxury. I want them to be for all. To be as universal as the franchise itself. But just as individual and just as personal. For, like the right to own, the power to choose is not something which we kindly permit every four or five years. It should be the birthright of every citizen of every part of every corner of this country. And it should be there every day.

    We are determined it will be.

  • PMQT – 9 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th June 1992. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Colombia to have discussions with President Gaviria on a wide range of issues. He will carry out other official duties including an inspection of an anti-narcotics police training school.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : Is the Leader of the House aware of the major argument that broke out in Rio de Janeiro last night at the Earth summit between my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), Labour’s spokeswoman for overseas development, and Baroness Chalker, the Minister, on the £10 billion decline in the Government’s aid programme over the past 13 years? Will he confirm that when the Prime Minister told the House last week that over the past 13 years since the fall of the Labour Government, there has been a real increase in overseas aid as a proportion of gross domestic product, he was wrong, he was in error, and had not done his homework?

    Mr. Newton : I cannot say that I have had a detailed blow-by-blow account of the conversation in Rio last night. What I do know is that underlying my right hon. Friend’s statement last week is the fact that we spent more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year–an increase of 4.7 per cent. in real terms over the previous year. Our aid is planned to continue to grow in real terms to almost £2 billion in 1994-95. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will point out to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that we had cut by half our aid to third-world countries, that our aid has gone up from £727 million to more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year.

    Mrs. Lait : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new common agricultural policy agreement led by the British Government is advantageous to the British consumer, fair to the British farmer and is likely to break the deadlock at the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the agreement is not only very advantageous to this country and to the sensible development of agricultural policies in Europe, since it reduces the burden of the CAP on consumers by £8 billion for the Community as a whole, but it will help to restore the credibility of the Community in the GATT negotiations and will make a settlement of those negotiations, devoutly desired by hon. Members of all parties, more likely.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hanson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hanson : Is the Leader of the House aware that since privatisation the number of water cut-offs has trebled, and that in Wales it has increased even further? Is he further aware that since privatisation the salaries and bonuses of water company chairmen have risen by 290 per cent., and that in Wales they have risen by 211 per cent? Is that not a case of Tory policy making the rich richer and the poor poorer? Will the right hon. Gentleman today take the opportunity to condemn the water companies for their actions, and will he put pressure on the authorities to take steps in this regard?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that, largely as a result of the inaction of the previous Labour Government– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is a waste of precious time.

    Mr. Newton : And– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear what the Leader of the House has to say.

    Mr. Newton : And the– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. It is now my turn. Will the House please come to order, so that at least I can hear what the Leader of the House has to say?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that, as a result of long neglect of water investment under the previous Administration, there has been a considerable need to improve investment in supply and water quality. Since privatisation, the level of water investment has doubled, and it has more than doubled since five years before privatisation.

     

    Q3. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the first-ever visit by a serving Prime Minister of this country to any country in South America? Does not our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s choice of Colombia for his first port of call give us an opportunity to endorse our historical, if somewhat neglected, links with that country ; to thank it for its support during the Falklands war ; and to promote further co-operation in our joint efforts to fight the menace of drug trafficking?

    Mr. Newton : I agree with my hon. Friend. This first-ever visit by a serving British Prime Minister to a South American country is indeed very welcome : it reflects the factors mentioned by my hon. Friend, and provides a further opportunity to enhance the already close co-operation that exists between this country and Colombia in combating the drugs menace.

    Mr. Hattersley : Can the Leader of the House confirm that information given to newspapers yesterday by the Foreign Office that Britain is attempting to negotiate a protocol to the Maastricht treaty, to prepare the House for a resubmission of the Maastricht Bill?

    Mr. Newton : What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the possibility to which he has referred is clearly one among a range of others that can sensibly be considered in the uncertain circumstances that have followed the Danish referendum. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Newton : I was giving the right hon. Gentleman, I hope, a straightforward and clear-cut answer– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Newton : As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement yesterday, it is obviously necessary, following the Danish referendum last week–this is acknowledged on all sides–to look at all possible ways of moving forward in the wake of the Danish decision. What I indicated in the early part of my remarks does no more than confirm that one of the possibilities which can clearly be considered, but without commitment at this stage, is that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

    Mr. Hattersley : It is indeed a strange Government who are categorical to newspapers on one day and evasive to the House of Commons on the next. Does the Leader of the House understand that the time has gone when progress can be made on the Maastricht Bill by contrivance and manipulation? There are many of us on both sides of the House, long- standing enthusiasts for European unity– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Hattersley : There are many of us on both sides of sides of the House, long-standing enthusiasts for European unity, who will support progress only of a Bill that is clear, honest and comprehensive and which includes those parts of the treaty most of benefit to the British people, and that specifically includes the social chapter.

    Mr. Newton : There is a slight contrast, I think, between what the right hon. Gentleman is telling us this afternoon and what his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) appeared to tell us yesterday afternoon, which was that he was both for and against the treaty, depending upon what happened in other quarters. The British Government’s position is absolutely clear and entirely in line with what I said a few moments ago ; that is, that it is necessary, not simply for one country–this one–but for 12, including not least the Danes, to consider the position created by the events of last week and to look at various ways forward from there. That is a sensible policy and it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that there is a simple, neat and immediate answer.

    Mr. Cormack : Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are few less agreeable sights than that of a pack of greedy voyeurs on the make? Will he please convey the good wishes of the House to the Prince and Princess of Wales, our thanks for their past services and hopes for their future happiness?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will understand that I would not wish to be drawn into comment on the stories that have been appearing in the press, but there will be very widespread support in all parts of the House for the comments made by the Press Complaints Commission yesterday. As my hon. Friend knows, our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will take into account the views of the Press Complaints Commission in his forthcoming review of press self-regulation, which is due to start in July. He will have the support of the whole House in doing precisely that.

     

    North Atlantic Treaty

    Q4. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to initiate discussions at the forthcoming NATO ministerial meeting in Oslo on matters relating to article 4 and article 12 of the North Atlantic treaty ; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    Articles 4 and 12 of the North Atlantic treaty were not discussed. But the North Atlantic Council communique, copies of which have been placed in the Library, made it clear that NATO was prepared to support peacekeeping activities on a case-by-case basis under the auspices of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

    Dr. Godman : With reference to article 4 of the treaty, and more specifically paragraph 17 of United Nations resolution 757, will the Leader of the House confirm that NATO forces will not be employed in a peacekeeping role in the former republic of Yugoslavia except with the unanimous agreement of the 16 nations which comprise NATO and under the specific command of the United Nations? If such a role is even to be considered, will Her Majesty’s Government press the case for the command structure to be European, rather than American-led?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that work is in progress within the alliance to establish precisely how and under what conditions NATO might undertake peacekeeping activity on behalf of or under CSCE auspices. Clearly, the expectation is that such activity would be conducted in consultation with our European partners in that organisation.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Conservative Party Rally – 7 April 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made at a Conservative Party Rally held in London, on Tuesday 7th April 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On Thursday Britain is going to return a Conservative government.

    It’s going to vote with us for the right to own. The power to choose. The will to win. And the future of Britain.

    Ladies and gentlemen, all around the world, countries are copying our ideas. It’s a Conservative world out there. We helped to create it. And I tell you this. We’re going to be a leader in it throughout the 90s.

    There’s no road back with Socialism. There must no be road back for Socialism. Not here. Not anywhere. Not the Lib road. Not the Lab road. Not the Lib-Lab road. Let Socialism back anywhere and, before you know it, that country will be on the road to nowhere. Socialism is not a road. It’s a dead end.

    Once before this century Britain stood alone. We stood then against tyranny and oppression. We are not going to stand alone in the 90s. Ignominiously defending Socialism and state control – when the rest of the world is rejecting it. That’s not the way for Britain. Not now. Not ever. Never.

    Ladies and gentlemen, when I became Prime Minister those 16 months ago there were three great tasks facing this country – to build the basis for recovery from the world recession; to see Britain through the negotiations at Maastricht; and to accomplish the liberation of Kuwait.

    Well, we achieved them all. And let me tell you how.

    Economic recovery

    Here in Britain we got inflation low – and falling. We reduced interest rates eight times. We reduced tax – and we’ll keep it low. We secured stable exchange rates in the ERM – and we’ll keep our position there. We gave managers the freedom and workers the incentive to strive and succeed. Those are the fundamentals you need for a strong recovery. The fruit of Conservative policies. And only Conservative policies will keep them safe.

    Don’t let anyone tell you that recovery isn’t there for the taking. Britain is ready now to move forward when others are sliding backwards. All around us the signs are there. There in housebuilding. There in exports. There in retail sales. Ninety-three per cent of businessmen say that Conservative policies are right for recovery. All that Britain is waiting for to achieve recovery is the confidence a Conservative victory will bring. So vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery will continue on Friday.

    Europe

    Ladies and gentlemen, there’s a small town in Holland, called Maastricht. Douglas Hurd and I know it well. That’s where we negotiated the future of Europe. Britain belongs in Europe. This Party took Britain into it. And that’s where our interests lie. But we have a voice in the moulding of Europe. We can, and must, use that voice. And use it for Britain. We don’t have to toady up to the European Commission, cap in hand. They work for us. Not us for them.

    This is a critical, crucial issue. While the commentators harp on about hung parliaments, the very future of our Parliament is at stake. It’s something on which I have spoken – and spoken from the heart – wherever I have been. And wherever I speak I hear the echoing voice of the British people coming back at me, loud and clear.

    I want to see a wider Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, a Community that will guarantee peace for our children in Eastern Europe as it does in the West. I want to see a Europe of nation states – built on the free market principles that have served us so well. I know where I want to lead this country – and lead our continent, too.

    And I know where we should not go. Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t believe in a federal Europe. I don’t believe in a United States of Europe. And I don’t think the British people believe in it either.

    But that is where a Lib-Lab vote would take us. On the slow road or the fast road to a federal destiny.

    I profoundly believe that our Parliament at Westminster – our own sovereign Parliament for which our ancestors fought – should not be diminished by the growth of centralised power.

    The Lib-Lab Left would be the viceroys for Brussels in Britain. Yes-men who would sign up to a single currency, whether it is good for Britain or not. Yes-men who would sign up for that Social Chapter that we worked in Maastricht to hold at bay. More trade union power, more business costs, more lost jobs. It would be hugely damaging for Britain. But the wrong vote on Thursday could result in just that.

    A centralised Europe is not in the interests of the British people. It should never be accepted by the British people. But it’s there in the Liberal manifesto. And every Labour policy is designed to bring it about.

    So remember. Only a Conservative government will be wholeheartedly committed to prevent a federal Europe. That is the promise I give you – and a promise I will always keep.

    Europe is about the biggest test of leadership that we will face. It will be a time for cool heads. A time for steady hands. A time for experience. And that means it’s no time for Labour.

    The Gulf

    Let me turn to the third challenge – the Gulf. We didn’t succeed in the Gulf. They succeeded – our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen. They did it. They beat a ruthless dictator backed by one of the largest armies in the world. A man ready to use all the weapons of terror he had in his arsenal.

    I’ll tell you what defeated Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t that his forces were weak. It was that our forces were the best in the world. It was a miracle of planning. A masterpiece of execution. A model of professionalism. A matchless display of individual courage and dedication to duty. It was a privilege to go out there, as Prime Minister, and be among them. I salute them still.

    That’s the spirit of our forces wherever you find them. And wherever you find them -in the bleak South Atlantic, in the streets and the green fields of Ulster, or in the huge desert wastes of Kuwait – that spirit will never fail.

    Ten Tory truths

    There are 10 great reasons why we should be proud of our record and why the British people will return a Conservative government on Thursday.

    These 10 Tory truths are what the people have voted for – three times in succession. They are the policies they’ll get more of when we have a Conservative government back once more in power.

    Defence

    The first great Tory truth is strong defence. If there is one thing the next Conservative government will do, it is to see those young men and women in our armed forces are fully supported and properly equipped. You won’t find a Conservative government cutting spending on defence by a quarter, like Labour plan; still less by a half, like those unguided missiles, the Liberals.

    Don’t forget there have been many, including the present Leader of the Labour Party, who campaigned passionately against our stand on defence. What on earth is one to make of his defence policy? Now you CND, now you don’t. For him the United States posed – as he put it – a threat equal to that of the Soviet Union. What astonishing naivety from the man who claims to be capable of speaking for Britain abroad.

    There’s just one thing that he and his Labour friends have been consistent on in defence and foreign affairs. Being wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Always wrong in their judgments on the critical issues of our time.

    Which reminds me. Has anyone seen Gerald Kaufman lately? I haven’t checked with Scotland Yard whether he’s been reported as a missing person yet. I am getting a little concerned. Never mind we must try not to worry. And there is one bit of reassuring news. I have it on excellent authority – the brothers aren’t looking for him.

    Just as well. Since he’s the man the Labour Leader wants to appoint our principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he ever got the chance. Well, I’ve heard of some funny ideas in my time. But that’s quite ridiculous.

    On 1 July it is Britain’s turn to take over the Presidency of the European Community. Whatever would a Labour government say to the leaders of the world?

    Would the G7 listen to them about beating inflation, when Labour’s aim is to raise it here? No.

    Would Europe listen to them about building the Single Market, when they are planning to bring back regulation and control to Britain? No.

    Would Boris Yeltsin come to them for advice on dismantling socialism when their big idea is to turn back the clock and rebuild it here? No.

    Would our NATO allies listen attentively to the Labour Leader on nuclear policy, when he refuses to say whether he would build the fourth Trident or not? No.

    Ladies and gentlemen, Britain under Labour would become an international also-ran, pulling on the tatty red vest while everyone else is running in blue. Russia wouldn’t be turning to us for help; it would be turning away in horror. We would be peddling yesterday’s failed socialist nostrums, while all around us the nations were building a new world. I tell you this. Labour’s old ideas would sideline Britain in a new age. It would be a disaster. We will not let it happen.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we called this new world into being. It was a Conservative government that stood firm when it was needed. Faced with the communist threat, we stationed Cruise missiles here on British soil, while Labour fought tooth and nail to stop us. As a result the West won the Cold War, exported freedom and democracy to the slave states of the East, and lifted the curse of communism off the backs of 400 million people.

    This was a victory for the free world, free enterprise, for our ideals. There has never been such a breaking of the chains of slavery in the history of man.

    And where were our opponents when the battle for freedom was on? In the vanguard with us? No, not even skulking in the rear. Ladies and gentlemen, go out on Thursday and make sure that glorious part of our Conservative record is first and foremost in the minds of the people. And you might remind them that while all this was happening – Labour couldn’t be seen for dust.

    The free market

    The second great Tory truth – and it is no less crucial than the first – is that only on free market principles can you build growth in the good times and recovery in the bad. Don’t let us be mealy-mouthed about it. Look the people in the eye and tell them. About a rise in living standards for the average family man 20 times faster than Labour’s pathetic, miserable years. That’s £3,500 a year more, after inflation, for the average family to spend. That’s where the new cars, the holidays, the videos, the washing machines have come from. From the growing economy, the strong vibrant economy of these extraordinary Conservative years.

    We cut tax on business and individuals. We curbed trade union power. We brought inflation down. As a result the UK grew faster than France or Germany in the 1980s. Productivity grew faster than all the other main industrial countries. They won’t have been told that by the Lib-Lab gloom merchants. So you just go out and tell them out there.

    Unemployment? Yes, we hate it. I hate it. And beating it is what our economic policies are certain to do. But remember – Britain now has a higher proportion of our workforce in jobs than any other EC country except Denmark.

    Industry? Yes, it’s fighting the effects of recession, just like German industry, just like American industry. But it’s fit, competitive and when recovery comes it’s ready to go. The business leaders of Britain are praying for a Conservative victory. Ask anyone. They know where the new jobs will come.

    In a Conservative Britain our share of world trade in manufacturing is rising after a generation of decline. Our manufacturing exports in February reached an all-time record. You don’t hear those facts from the Labour Party and their hangers-on. But that is the real Britain. So get out and tell the people.

    These have been 13 of the finest years in the history of Britain. Let’s be proud, proud, proud, of what the British people have done. And let’s get on out there and tell them.

    Cutting tax

    And remind them of the third great Tory truth. Low tax creates wealth. So we cut income tax. We cut it, and cut it, and cut it, and cut it. We cut it, and cut it, and cut it again. Go out and remind them about it – and tell them how the Liberals and the Labour voted against us time after time. That’s the Lib-Lab record on tax cuts. No. No. No and no. And what’s the Lib-Lab promise on future tax cuts? Never, they say. Never. Never again. So tell the people the answer to give to those Lib-Lab canvassers. Never Lib. Never Lab. Never again.

    We started a movement in the 1980s that has swept the world. Now we are starting on the next stage of our mission – towards a 20 pence basic rate for all.

    Let’s not beat about the bush. Cutting taxes has been shown to be the greatest stimulus to economic growth and personal freedom there has ever been. Every pound we cut in tax is a pound more for people’s choice, a pound more to create work for others, a pound more to buy things for their families. Apologise for that? Never. It’s the greatest thing any government could do for the people. Build their freedom. And when we win on Thursday there will be more of it.

    Do you know what our opponents want people to feel when their taxes are cut? Guilty. They call it a bribe. Bribe? It’s people’s own money they are talking about. Bribe? It’s like the mafia talking of protection.

    Cutting taxes means leaving the working men and women of Britain with more of their money, more of the wealth they have created, more of the choices they have earned – by the sweat of their brow, and the ingenuity of their minds. They’ve earned it. They should keep it. And we’ll let them do so.

    That was the golden discovery of the 80s – more private wealth means more public wealth too. We cut income tax and spent more than ever before on the Health Service and on pupils in our schools.

    We Conservatives discovered that rich new seam of gold. We took the axe to the cold rockface of socialism. And we hewed out the secret for which generations had searched in vain – private wealth and public welfare, growing together. Wealth and welfare hand in hand – they are the twin pillars of the Tory temple. Don’t let the Lib-Lab left tear that temple down.

    In the next Parliament we’ll go on tax-cutting. We will make that our aim year by year. I want to extend the 20 pence tax band further and further up the income scale. More tax cuts for all. That’s how you provide more benefits for all. That is our basic Conservative belief.

    Controlling inflation

    The fourth great truth of the Tory years has been control of inflation. Inflation? It’s a technical word. There may be some in this country who don’t know what it means. But they can feel what it means. Under Labour in the 70s they had to live what it means.

    Retired people who had bought annuities seeing their life savings eaten away. Pensioners going into the supermarket and finding that week after week the prices were up. Businessmen, so worried about what the future might bring, that they hadn’t the hope to create new jobs, or the nerve to invest. And for the low-paid that corroding evil, when the money in the pay packet at the end of the week had been overtaken by the ever rising tide of prices. I remember it. You remember it. The people remember it. Never must we go back to those socialist years.

    We were elected to tackle inflation – and we did. Our rate is now below that of Germany for the first time since before man walked on the moon. We are now one of Europe’s low inflation countries. That’s a prize of which we could never have dreamed. So hammer it home on the doorsteps. You need Tory policies and Tory priorities to keep the menace of inflation in check.

    And tell them this as well. Our target for the next five years is stable prices – a world in which your money, your savings keep their value year on year every year. Isn’t that a prize worth winning? So tell the pensioners of Britain all about it.

    Trade Union reform

    Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll tell you a fifth Conservative truth. A successful economy depends on good industrial relations. Trade union reform was one of the most significant steps of the 80s. And never forget this. We did what they said was impossible – we ended the tyranny of trade union power. I don’t think the British public will want to see that power restored.

    But don’t think – don’t think for a moment – that the danger is past. ‘You’ll be all right, boys’, Mr Kinnock tells them. And they would. They pay the piper; they’d call the tune. I wonder if any of you have noticed the union shop stewards in your factory – the new spring they have in their step. They know. They remember the first great truth of Labour’s years. If Labour’s back, the unions are back.

    Flying pickets. Do you remember? We stopped them. Secondary strikes. Do you remember? We stopped them. The closed shop. Do you remember? We stopped it. Beer and sandwiches. Do you remember? We stopped them. Arthur Scargill? Do you remember. Margaret Thatcher stopped Arthur Scargill. Stopped him dead in his tracks – do you remember? – while Labour fiddled, floundered and flapped.

    And I’ll tell you someone else stopped them. The British worker stopped them. Sick of strikes. Sick of bullying. Sick of being denied the basic human right of a secret ballot on the right to work.

    It took guts. Courage. Do you remember?

    Well the British people are not ready to see the TUC limousines lined up in Downing Street. They don’t want to see the union bosses back. So let’s vote on Thursday to keep them where they should be – on the sidelines. A Labour Party dominated by the unions cannot, could not, and would not build recovery in Britain today.

    In the next Parliament we are going on with union reform. We are going to make sure that all pre-strike ballots are postal. We are going to require seven days’ notice of any strike. And we are going to give everyone in the land the right to take legal action against unions who interfere with public services through illegal disruption. A Labour vote gives you a Striker’s Charter. A Conservative vote gives you a Citizen’s Charter. That’s the difference. So go out and tell the people – and just see the backing you’ll get.

    A modern Health Service

    The sixth great task of the Conservative years has been to build a better, modern Health Service. Labour talk of care. We Conservatives act to care. That’s the difference between us. We have raised resources on health to over a half more than Labour ever spent. Increased nurses’ pay by a half, where Labour cut it. We are treating one-and-a-half million more in-patients, two million more out-patients every year. And we have 600 hospital building schemes of over £1 million; 400 more in design, planning, or build.

    The 1,000 Tory hospital projects. It is one of the proudest features of the Tory record. Despite Labour’s shameful record and shoddy lies, we have built a better and finer, yes and richer Health Service. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

    In the next Parliament we will keep our Health Service the best in the world. Give it more resources year on year, every year. Go on with those reforms that Labour would scrap. Giving more power to family doctors to decide on the best treatment for their patients. Setting up the Trust Hospitals that have been such a success in treating more patients, cutting waiting lists and putting their community first. More treatment, less waiting. That’s the Conservative record. And I’ll tell you something. Labour know it. That’s why they lie their heads off about it.

    Better Schools

    The seventh Tory truth concerns better education. We took over a system frozen in the past, prey to left-wing ideas, obsessed with levelling down, bent on keeping parents in the dark.

    Now we have a National Curriculum that insists the right things are taught. A Parent’s Charter for parents’ rights. School management by headteacher, parents and governors, wherever they want it. Proper testing. Good pay for good teachers. The right for parents to choose the school they want.

    We are building a modern system. In the next five years it’s back to basics – and proud of it. So let’s tell the people.

    The Right to Own

    The eighth Tory truth – the spread of ownership. Four million new homeowners. Four-and-a-half million young people with personal pensions. Six million new owners of shares.

    That is the new wealth of Britain. It’s something we should passionately defend. In the next Parliament we want more people with homes of their own. More people with pensions of their own. More people with shares of their own. And we want each current owner to have more. We have the policies to extend the right to own across the whole nation. And, as we do it, we want to draw the sting of inheritance tax. Then more and more families can pass on the value of their homes and savings to their children and grandchildren. Aren’t those policies worth fighting for?

    It is that kind of ownership we stand for; the ownership Labour would undermine. Remember Red Wednesday when shares in water, gas, telecom, and electricity plunged by £1,300 million, just on the fear of a Labour government.

    If Labour were to win on Thursday, we would see a cut – almost overnight – in the value of homes, shares, pensions that would far outweigh those piffling promises of an extra two pence a week they claim they’d put in the pockets of some of the people while cutting the income of others by one sixth.

    It would be a massacre of the innocents by the ignorant. Perhaps the biggest transfer of wealth away from personal ownership that this country has seen. It is a nightmare prospect for family after family after family. Go out and warn the people. We in this Party will build the wealth of the people, not snatch it away.

    Privatisation

    The ninth Tory truth is that privatisation means wider wealth and better service. When we came to power the public sector was a huge loss-making dinosaur, a millstone round the country’s neck. Now that’s all changed. These are now great national assets. We’ve turned loss-makers into world leaders. We have created businesses, not owned by the state, but by the people who work in them. We have taken off the shackles of Whitehall – and handed responsibility to the managers. Our programme has been so successful that government throughout the world now look to this country. Go out and tell the people.

    Strong government

    The tenth truth, and by no means the least, is that great countries need strong government. We have provided it. In Britain and the world. Remember. That strong and decisive government would only have been possible under our present electoral system. Don’t let’s abandon it now.

    PR is no more than a ramp to permanent representation for the Liberals in power. For Neil Kinnock, until last week its strongest opponent, it’s the back door to power in Britain. Because he knows he can’t get in the front. It is nothing to do with fair play; everything to do with power play. And we will have none of it.

    The 90s are a critical decade. We will need strong government then, as never before. Look at the confusion in Italy, Belgium, or Israel that PR has brought. Look at the way that extremists can gain a decisive influence, last week in France, this week in Germany, and shudder at the prospect of the Lib-Lab pact.

    If we had had PR, instead of strong government, since 1979, there would have been:

    * no cuts in income tax;

    * no sale of council houses;

    * no privatisation and none of the six million new shareholders;

    * no National Curriculum in our schools and no choice for parents;

    * no end to the closed shop;

    * no nuclear shield in Britain against the communist threat;

    * no authority for a swift response to the aggression of General Galtieri or Saddam Hussein.

    The Lib-Lab Left would have prevented them all. If we hadn’t had leadership government, strong government, there would have been no revival of Britain at all. So I say to the country – steer clear of Labour’s Trojan Horse to power.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we will need strong government in the 90s. And, with a Conservative government, you will get it.

    The Contrast: Principle and Change

    To be successful in life and in government I believe you need firm principles and clear targets. That has always been the strength of this Party. We know which stars we navigate by and the ports we aim for.

    But what of our opponents? The Labour leader calls for a change. That’s hardly surprising. He’s changed so often you wouldn’t expect him to change the habit now.

    But the public should ask – just how seriously can you take his present stands? Can we trust it – any further than the lifelong principles he jettisoned yesterday? Or the opinion polls he reads tomorrow?

    Look at PR. He was always against. Now, in the latest, most cynical change of all he lurches towards it, grasping desperately at a prospect of power. Power before principle. Does he think the public can’t see what he is up to? What he’s down to? He was unable to answer when asked on television where exactly he stood. Well, let Doctor Major diagnose the problem. It’s the ‘anything for office’ syndrome. And let Doctor Major prescribe. There is only one known cure for this disabling condition. Five years on the Opposition benches.

    As Prime Minister you meet challenges; you face crises. That’s when principle and experience guide you. When no principle is so great it can’t be quietly forgotten – when no belief is so important it cannot be dropped, to what principles, to what beliefs, would the Labour leader resort when the going is tough? Labour would be a rudderless ship in a storm-tossed sea. Or they would – under pressure, slide back to socialist type.

    The Tory Nineties

    Ladies and gentlemen, I want a Britain where everyone has a chance to succeed. Where effort is rewarded. Where low taxes leave people free to choose how to spend their money – and where we have stable prices so that money keeps its value. Where everyone – yes, everyone – feels they belong. Where we all own a piece of Britain and have a stake in its future. Where people can pass on the savings of a lifetime’s work to their children and grandchildren.

    We are building a country where our public services set the standard for the world; where our great, free National Health Service gets better year by year. Where every child leaves school well-qualified for life; where more and more young people go into higher education, and people can secure the training that is suited to them.

    I want a Britain that offers dignity and security to older people; where people feel safe on the streets and secure in their homes; where our inner cities are reborn and our countryside renewed.

    I want a Britain where there’s a helping hand for those who need it. Where people can get a hand-up, not just a hand out. A country that is fair and free from prejudice – a classless society, at ease with itself.

    That’s the country I want. I want Britain to stand proud and respected in the world. Well-defended and well-admired. And I will stand firm always, as I have promised you, for Britain’s national interests in a wider Europe.

    I also stand with passion and with commitment for the unity of our country. I tell you, as your Prime Minister, there is no issue more crucial at this election than the defence of the unity of our United Kingdom. Only this Conservative and Unionist Party is pledged to do that. Our opponents would take us down a road that would lead to the parting of Scotland from our union. No greater disaster; no more irresponsible policy could be imagined. So remember – there is only one Party which will keep our Kingdom united. The Conservative Party.

    Conclusion

    And let me tell you something else I will fight for. It is for the future of this great country. The country I have travelled across in the last four weeks – from the Channel to the Highlands and the North Sea to Wales. A country with the proudest history, the finest culture, the most distinguished scientists, inventors and businessmen of any country in the world. But it is a country with something else greater yet – the British people themselves. I have been among them everyday these last four weeks. Independent of spirit. Generous of heart. Quiet in voice. Resolute in action. A people with a ready eye for what is genuine and what is false.

    No man or woman could have a higher honour than to serve this country as its Prime Minister. No-one knows more than me how much I owe to this country. How much I vow to give back to it for what it has done for me. I have lived life in many stations. I believe I understand what makes the heart of Britain beat. What inspires all those millions of families across this land who go out each day to work and strive and create for the future. They are the people who are carrying the long, glorious story of Britain forward across the years. It is their dreams and ambitions that are the building blocks of an even better future for us all.

    This country needs a government that will nourish and sustain their ambitions, widen their choices, throw open the great gates of opportunity, and help the whole nation march through. That can only be a Conservative government, ambitious not for the state but for the people it is its duty to serve.

    I have only just begun the tasks I have set myself. On Thursday I ask this nation to look at my record of service and my ideals for the future, to place their trust in me, and in this Party that has served them so well and faithfully. I set no bound to my ambitions for this country or its people. I want to raise the standard of Britain higher still and higher yet.

    I know that we have in our grasp a truly glorious future. It is what the whole nation has worked for these last few years. Let us go out together on Thursday. Let us seize that opportunity. And make that golden future ours.

  • PMQT – 5 December 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th December 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Bradley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Bradley : Will the Prime Minister confirm that neither he nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken any action to ensure that the European central bank is located in Britain? Does he now agree that it should be based in Manchester?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that there have been no serious discussions yet about the location of the European system of central banks. It is possible, but not yet certain, that there will be such discussions next week in Maastricht.

    Mr. Patrick Thompson : Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the OECD report on unsatisfactory unemployment levels in France and the clear evidence that its minimum wage policy has served to make unemployment worse? Does he agree with the conclusions of the report? Has he noted that the Leader of the Opposition has turned this, like everything else, on its head?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen that report, but I have expressed before the dangers that a minimum wage policy would hold for employment levels. I believe that it would cost many people their jobs and would cause far more damage than good.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recall telling The Daily Telegraph six months ago that economic recovery was coming, in his words, “within weeks”? How did he get it so badly wrong?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman would study recent CBI surveys he would see that domestic and export orders are rising, that export orders are at their highest level for over a year and that there is confirmation that business conditions are beginning to improve in line with confidence. That is not just my view, but the view of industry and commerce.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister aware that building employers say that conditions are worse than they have been in 40 years, that car sales are down 20 per cent. on the year and that Lord Prior, chairman of GEC, says there is no improvement in trading conditions? If the Prime Minister thinks that all that adds up to recovery, he is not living in the real world.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should get out of the habit of writing his supplementary questions before he hears the first answer. What is concerning the right hon. Gentleman is the fact that the economy is moving back into growth and he does not like it. Growth is good for the country but bad for the Labour party.

    Mr. Kinnock : After years of pushing Britain down, the Prime Minister is in no position to make that kind of claim. He has taken Britain into negative growth, rising unemployment and falling output. It is time he was out.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is a specialist in talking this country down and does it week after week. The only way to get proper growth is to have an economic recovery based on low inflation and proper investment, not on the sort of policies that the right hon. Gentleman has advocated. The policies that he stands for–of high taxation and centralised control–are the policies that would drive this country to ruin.

    Mr. Favell : As my right hon. Friend prepares for Maastricht, may he be reassured that to return without a treaty would be no failure? Our European colleagues’ vision of Europe is fundamentally different from ours and a shotgun marriage would be in nobody’s interests–and good luck.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his best wishes. I assure him I will return with a treaty that I can recommend to the House or come back without a treaty.

     

    Q2. Mr. Galbraith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December

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

    Mr. Galbraith : As his experiences clearly influence his policies and following his recent interview in The Sun, can the Prime Minister now tell the House exactly when he was unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : I was unemployed in the early 1960s. As to the precise dates, that is not a matter which I can immediately remember. It was in the early 1960s.

    Mr. Churchill : Is not it unacceptable that pensioners should be defrauded of pensions to which they have contributed throughout their entire working lives, as is the case with the Mirror Group Newspapers pensioners? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be swift Government action to remedy that situation and will he commiserate with the Leader of the Opposition about the fact that his and his party’s principal supporter should turn out to be a crook?

    The Prime Minister : I am not able to comment on the Mirror Group pension fund as the Serious Fraud Office is examining it. We have greatly tightened the protection of pension fund members over recent years. Nothing, of course, can be complete proof against criminality.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Hain : The future of the Daily Mirror is now in hock to City spivs and business tycoons– [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen can shout as much as they like, but does the Prime Minister agree that citizens’ rights are best protected by pluralistic ownership of the press? Or does he want to gag free speech and have every tabloid newspaper supporting the Tory party?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that it would be proper for me to get involved in what is happening in terms of the Mirror Group pension fund. I commented as far as I am prepared to a moment ago.

     

    Q4. Mr. Roger King : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

    Mr. King : The news that millions of new investors are seeking to invest in British Telecom is good news indeed. Will my right hon. Friend extend to them his best wishes on becoming part of the property-owning democracy and will he send a message of best wishes to the management and employees of West Midlands Travel–the country’s biggest bus company–who yesterday concluded a £70 million buy-out? Is not it obvious that when employees own their own business, that is the Conservative way forward?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir. The privatisation programme has been an enormous success in recent years and not the least part of that success has been the extent to which it has widened and deepened share ownership around the country. That will certainly increase in the years ahead.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister reconsider his answer to me two weeks ago on mortgage repossessions? Does he realise that his answer was not only factually wrong, but betrayed a depressing complacency in the face of the scale of the homes repossession crisis which is now upon us? Does he realise that if he will not act on the problem, it will not only produce a tide of human misery, but will bring to a clattering end any hope of economic recovery?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman touches on an important matter, but he misrepresents the views of the Government and he misrepresents what I said. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced help in terms of income support assistance for those facing repossession and the loss of their homes. That help amounts to £400 million a year, which is very considerable and is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent what the Government have said and are doing.

     

    Q5. Mr. Moss : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Moss : Does my right hon. Friend agree that privatisation receipts have helped the Government to increase public spending, to cut taxation and to pay off national debt? Does he further agree that it is sheer hypocrisy to oppose privatisation in principle and to promise more nationalisation, yet to claim that there will still be privatisation proceeds to spend, as did a Labour Front-Bench Treasury spokesperson this morning?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. If the privatisation programme were to cease, it would have a damaging effect on the inflow of funds, as would proposals to renationalise parts of industry which is what the Labour party proposes. There is no doubt that there is a huge gap between Labour’s spending proposals and its capacity to fund those proposals without huge increases in direct tax for the vast majority of people.

    Mr. Rooney : Does the Prime Minister have any intention of visiting Essex? If he does, does he have any retraining plans in mind for those of his hon. Friends who will not be here after the next election?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is ill-informed. We have gained four local council seats in by-elections in Essex recently.

     

    Q6. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Nicholson : As a former Social Security Minister, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance attached by the retired to occupational pensions and to the great and successful expansion of those over the past 12 years. Given the crocodile tears on those matters from the Labour party, is not it essential that my right hon. Friend should as soon as possible launch an inquiry into how people’s pensions were protected by the prominent Labour party members who were directors and trustees of the Mirror Group Newspapers pension fund?

    The Prime Minister : It would not be proper for me to comment on individuals who may be trustees of that pension fund. Pension management is based on trust law and the good management of pension funds and the behaviour of trustees is, therefore, paramount. As I said some moments ago, we have strengthened the law requiring trustees to disclose key information to members, to pensioners and to trade unions. People listening to this Question Time may wonder why Opposition Members wish to drown out the subject.

    Mr. Hume : Does the Prime Minister agree that it is impossible to have a genuine single market without a single currency? Does he also agree that the reservations in his party about a single currency have more to do with nationalism than with economics? Given that in the harmonisation process we have already got rid of the half crown and of the threepenny bit, what is the emotional difficulty about changing the pound coin to the ecu?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman bases his question on a premise that I do not accept. I believe that it is possible to have a perfectly satisfactory single market without a single currency. The question whether it would ever be right to move to one at some distant date is separate.

     

    Balanced Budget

    Q7. Mr. Janman : To ask the Prime Minister in what financial year he expects to balance the budget between Government expenditure and revenue received.

    The Prime Minister : It remains our policy to balance the budget over the economic cycle. The balance between revenue and expenditure in any one financial year will depend largely on cyclical developments.

    Mr. Janman : May I urge my right hon. Friend to keep as tight as humanly possible control on public expenditure so as to meet the objective of a balanced budget as soon as possible? Does he agree that the idea of spending an extra £35,000 million a year would be absolutely disastrous for the economy of this country? That is precisely what the Labour party seeks to do.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. We have repaid a great deal of debt over recent years. It remains our policy to move back to a balanced budget as speedily as possible. The Opposition always promise to spend more. They never say where the money is coming from and they never will, but the taxpayers know where it is coming from–it will be coming from them.

    Mr. Tony Banks : Am I being completely cynical–[ Hon. Members :- – “Yes!”] Give me a chance! Am I being completely cynical in thinking that the Government’s announcement about the great increase in public expenditure has something to do with a general election?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, totally cynical.

  • PMQT – 4 July 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Because the Liverpool people deserve a proper service.”

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 25 June 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 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.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 April 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Privatisation

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by the Cabinet Office in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990-91 and budget for 1991-92.

    The Prime Minister : No expenditure has been incurred by the Cabinet Office on fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation since 1979-80 and none is planned for 1991-92.

     

    Senior Civil Servants (Degrees)

    Mr. Page : To ask the Prime Minister if he will numerate those Under Secretaries who have engineering, science or mathematics degrees; and what percentage that is of the total.

    The Prime Minister [pursuant to his reply, 19 February 1991, c. 89] : Information now available records 110 Under Secretaries – 22 percent. of the total – with degrees in one or more of these subjects. Twenty-seven have engineering degrees, 70 have science degrees and 16 have mathematics degrees.

  • Mr Major’s Private Finance for Roads Speech – 5 May 1989

    Extracts from Mr Major’s speech in Glasgow on 5th May 1989 on ‘Private Finance for Roads’.

    CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY:

    The private sector, too, has an important role in infrastructure development – and, I believe, one that will continue to grow.

    Already the infrastructure in areas like telecommunications, air transport, gas, is now provided by the private sector, thanks to privatisation.

    The same will soon be true for water and electricity. And we hope in due course, British Rail.

    Treasury Ministers have been in the forefront of privatisation, the most radical way of increasing the private sector’s role. We have also encouraged imaginative new projects for involving the private sector in activities that remain the Government’s responsibility. The Government Data Network, for example, is a major data transmission project which is being financed and run entirely by the private sector for Government. Yet despite that the view often prevails that “the Treasury” or “the Ryrie Rules” are a huge stumbling block to greater private sector participation in the infrastructure. The Ryrie Rules are thought to be incomprehensible, and to hamper private finance by setting impossible hurdles.

    It is curious that the Department that has been in the forefront of increasing the role of the private sector through one policy should be accused of blocking it through another. So let me try and clear up this confusion once and for all.

    Let me start by formally retiring the Ryrie Rules. They have clearly outlived their usefulness. They were drawn up almost a decade ago, in response to a problem that has now largely gone away.

    The question then was: on what terms should nationalised industries be allowed direct access to private sector risk capital? 8 years later, many of those industries are no longer in the private sector at all. In short, privatisation has helped to make the Ryrie Rules obsolete.

    The question now is different and much more difficult. It is this: how can we involve the private sector in building the infrastructure where the Government is the major provider, with responsibility for large national networks; where it may also have statutory responsibilities; where services may be tax-financed and free or heavily subsidised at the point of delivery; and where competitive market pressures are often weak, or non-existent? Roads are a hybrid: most of the network is likely to continue to be financed by the taxpayer, but there is considerable scope to increase the role of the private sector. Today let me make clear how we intend to approach private finance schemes for roads.

    The issues raised by involving the private sector in financing roads are new and often complex. But we must overcome them, because we believe it is important to make full use of the private sector’s skills here, as elsewhere in the economy.

    I do not see any difficulty in encouraging road schemes where the private sector takes full responsibility for success or failure of the project: enterprises like the Channel Tunnel – where the private sector is genuinely in charge, and in competition, with all the benefits, and risks, that brings and where the return does not depend in income assured by Government contracts, subsidies or guarantees.

    Let me make it plain that the Treasury welcomes such projects, and does not seek to impose conditions or constraints on their development, any more than it does on any other wholly private sector enterprise.

    But not all schemes are so clear cut. There is a grey area, where capital costs are privately financed but the taxpayer’s interests are still directly or indirectly engaged. For example, for one reason or another the Government may carry the ultimate liability if the scheme goes wrong. In such cases we must safeguard the taxpayer’s interests as well as the user’s.

    There should be no doubt that we are keen to see proposals for privately financed roads within the public network including new forms of collaboration between the public and private sectors. And we are happy to approve them, providing they offer better value for money than the publicly funded alternative.

    In essence, our approach to private finance is simply to apply our wider policy of seeking better value for money throughout the public sector – in the interests of taxpayers and users. Value for money policy is central to our efforts to revitalise the public sector – as the private sector has been revitalised over the past decade. The acid test then is whether private sector involvement means better value for money.

    I do of course recognise that judging value for money can be difficult, especially in the case of large or complex projects. But it is necessary. And while we cannot ignore the fact that the Government can raise money relatively cheaply because it is a large low-risk borrower, we must also take account of the benefits that tend to go with private finance, such as improved efficiency, lower costs, and reduction in the risks falling on the taxpayer. This is the private sector’s competitive edge, and where it produces clear benefits, private schemes will succeed and the Treasury will not stand in their way.

    But we are not interested in pure funding vehicles, and sale and leaseback arrangements, whose sole purpose is to get round our own public expenditure controls. They will not pass any genuine value for money scrutiny. Nor should they. We have made it clear that we disapprove of local councils who lease parking meters. There is no room for that sort of creative accounting in Central Government.

    Value for money is therefore essential, and is not an impediment to worthwhile private finance. But there is one concern which many believe is at present inhibiting private finance and which I would like to tackle today. I refer to the argument that there is no point in promoting privately financed roads because the Treasury will simply claw it back by reducing public expenditure.

    Of course, in a general sense, we take account of what the private sector is doing in deciding our public expenditure priorities: we cannot afford to duplicate private sector provision. We have better ways of using the taxpayer’s money.

    Where a Department already has public expenditure provision for a project which is subsequently financed privately, the normal presumption is that the money saved should be given back, so that we can look again at what to do with it. But it is always open to us to allow a privately financed scheme to add to total provision.

    Roads are, of course, a key priority. I have already made it clear that we want the private sector to bring forward new and imaginative schemes. And in any case, the actual expenditure on a new road scheme will tend to fall beyond the time frame of our public expenditure surveys, because of the time needed to get the necessary planning consent.

    To encourage private schemes to come forward, I today give the explicit assurance that I will not seek reductions in the road programme on a scheme by scheme basis to offset privately financed projects.

    Of course if private roads take off in a big way, the Government may need to review the scale of the public sector’s own commitment to avoid duplicate expenditure. That will simply be part of the normal reassessment of priorities implicit in any sensible control of public expenditure. But I believe that the right kind of private sector schemes will, in time, produce a higher level of infrastructure investment in the economy, as well as better value for money. The way is now open for the private sector to bring forward its schemes and its skills secure in the knowledge that we will be keen to endorse them provided they provided value for money for the taxpayer and the user.