Tag: Trade Unions

  • PMQT – 18 April 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th April 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Mandelson: Will the Prime Minister endorse Labour’s condemnation of the minority of militants who behaved so badly at the National Union of Teachers conference in Blackpool last weekend? Does he agree that the best way to isolate those individuals is for the Government to start listening to what governors, teachers and, above all, parents across the country are saying–that it is madness to trade cuts in the education of our children this year for tax cuts next year?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly share in the condemnation of the behaviour that we have seen at the National Union of Teachers conference in the past few days. Millions of parents would have been concerned about the behaviour that they saw. It was, frankly, disgraceful. It was loutish. If I may say so, Labour’s Front-Bench education spokesman was appallingly treated by those militants. I am happy to share in the hon. Gentleman’s thorough condemnation of the behaviour of that minority of teachers. I also very much regret the fact that their conference has decided today to ballot on strike action, against the advice of their executive committee. I strongly hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that teachers will decide that their job is to be in the classroom teaching their pupils, not outside teaching bad habits to their pupils.

     

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

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

    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive boost that he gave to British prestige by his decision to use Concorde for his recent visit to meet President Clinton in Washington? Will he take this opportunity to declare his pride in travelling in that magnificent advertisement for British technology?

    The Prime Minister: Although the technology is now 25 years out of date, it is a magnificent aircraft, it is unequalled across the world and I congratulate all those with the wisdom to travel in it. Mr. Blair rose — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: I see that the recess has not improved Conservative Members, Madam Speaker.

    On education, I agree that strike action would be wrong and misguided, but the Prime Minister’s Secretary of State for Education admitted last week that, as a result of the Government’s refusal to fund the teachers’ pay award, some schools would face hard choices and might be unable to absorb the pressures put upon them. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to those schools?

    The Prime Minister: The fact is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that this Government have consistently made education a priority, benefiting parents, pupils and teachers. We have given parents more choice over their children’s education and more information about how they are progressing. Even this year, with the funding levels about which the right hon. Gentleman complains, we are spending record amounts on education, as he will know. We are spending almost half as much again per pupil as when we first took office. We are on top of inflation and we now spend more per secondary pupil than Germany and Japan and more per primary pupil than Germany, France and most of the European Union. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we are dealing fairly with education now, as we have in the past.

    Mr. Blair: I do not. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that the pupil-teacher ratio has worsened under his premiership. The actions of a few extremists in the teaching union should not obscure the hard work and professionalism of the vast majority of teachers; nor should it allow the Government to escape their responsibility for their own brand of extremism, which is forcing education cuts on schools the length and breadth of the country.

    The Prime Minister: Our extremism has been to give people more choice and more information, to put far more of our young people into further and higher education than ever before, to increase spending on pupils by 50 per cent. and spending on school books by 50 per cent. over and above inflation, and to increase some areas of ancillary spending by more than 130 per cent. since we have been in government. If that is extremism in education, it is extremism that every other budget in Whitehall would have been happy to have.

     

    European Legislation

    Q3. Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to monitor the implementation by other EC countries of European Community legislation passed by their legislatures.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend–no, I do not. My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade– [Interruption.] I see that the recess has not improved Opposition Members, either, Madam Speaker.

    My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his Department work actively on behalf of British firms. We remain ready to intervene when we feel that other member states have failed to fulfil their obligations and to take the Commission to court if we believe that it has failed in its responsibility to monitor implementation and enforcement of European Community legislation.

    Mr. Steen: Since the European Community has a poor and inconsistent track record of enforcing directives and regulations, will the Prime Minister consider employing some of our own people in our embassies to do a little detective work to find out whether other countries gold plate and over-zealously interpret regulations as we do, at a cost to the consumer, our industry and our people? As deregulation is a cornerstone of this Government’s policy–one that I wholly support–will he take a look at the activities of the Deregulation Committee, whose first deregulation proposal was on greyhound racing?

    The Prime Minister: On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, we have successfully pressed the Commission to increase its efforts to improve member states’ compliance with Community law. I assure my hon. Friend that our embassies already actively monitor the position so that action can be taken quickly when shortcomings are identified. The single market compliance unit in the Department of Trade and Industry also helps firms disadvantaged by other member states’ failure to implement.

    The greyhound racing proposal is one of a large number. On the same day as it was put forward, we also started consultation on proposals to give friendly societies and credit unions more flexibility and to streamline procedures under the Building Act 1984. We shall continue to pursue deregulation.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Wray: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Wray: Does the Prime Minister agree that my constituency has the worst unemployment figures, health record and infant mortality rate in Britain? Why is it costing £34 million to keep my constituents unemployed? Does not the Prime Minister agree that he and the Government have been a failure? When will he do something? Should he not resign?

    The Prime Minister: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman about unemployment in particular. Although he may not have noticed it in his constituency, during the period when I have been Prime Minister, unemployment in Glasgow, Provan has dropped by 28 per cent.

    Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Royal Navy will maintain its policy, which goes back some centuries, of curbing Spain’s maritime pretensions, and that the Royal Navy will go to the assistance of any British fishing boat that is prevented from going about its legal business by Spanish action?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that for my hon. Friend. We believe in strict enforcement, and the fisheries protection vessels of the Royal Navy will ensure that rules and agreements are respected.

     

    Q5. Mr. Turner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Turner: Will the Prime Minister confirm that almost 800 candidates in the forthcoming elections are calling themselves Conservatives? Does he agree that it is understandable that they do not want to knock on doors as Conservatives in those elections? Will he confirm the rumour that he intends to stand as an independent in Huntingdon at the next general election?

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that that question was very carefully thought out, but I fear that there was a little problem in delivery at the beginning. I think that I know what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. He might have had in mind some Labour councils: for example, in Berwick Labour is fielding four candidates out of 28; in Craven, three out of 12; in Forest Heath, 17 out of 25. There are a large number of other illustrations that I might give the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps they have their concerns about Labour policy.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

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

    Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my opinion, his personal beliefs and instincts command the overwhelming support of the people of this country on such issues as the economy and taxation, the national health service, education and the European Community, including fishing? Will he assure me and the country today that his personal instincts will be translated into Government action and policy during the next 12 months?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am happy to give him that assurance. We have a very clear agenda of core beliefs: prosperity for all, extending opportunities, common-sense, decent values, first-class public services, the lowest credible level of taxation, pride in our nation and protection of our interests, both at home and abroad. I assure my hon. Friend that that is our programme, not just for the next year but for the rest of this Parliament and the next Parliament.

     

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

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

    Mr. Pike: Does the Prime Minister recognise that many former employees of the Bellings Group, which went bankrupt three years ago, lost a great deal as a result of abuses and fraud relating to that company’s pension fund? Will he give an undertaking to those former employees that they will receive at least equal treatment to that given to members of the Maxwell pension fund?

    The Prime Minister: The scale of the Maxwell crisis and the large number of parties involved justified the exceptional action taken at that time by the Government. I do not think that we can necessarily adopt that model for general application. I understand that the independent trustee appointed to the Bellings pension fund is still continuing to pursue the recovery of assets missing from that fund. I think that we should better await the outcome of that investigation.

     

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

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

    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the single most important factor affecting our children’s education is whether our teachers, as a body, wish to be looked upon as a respected, ethical profession or a primeval Scargillite rump?

    The Prime Minister: I am entirely happy to agree with my hon. Friend upon that proposition. Although a minority of teachers have let down the profession in which they serve, I believe that the majority of teachers will strongly disagree with their behaviour. I hope that they will show their disagreement within their teacher unions, as well as publicly.

  • PMQT – 28 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th June 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 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.

    Mrs. Gillan : Will my right hon. Friend forgive me for injecting a little ray of sunshine so early in today’s proceedings by drawing his attention to the economic forecast published this morning by the Treasury, which shows prospects of steady growth coupled with low inflation? Does he agree that that highlights the success of our economic policies and further shows that the policies of the Labour party, with their limitless public spending, would damage the economy, damage jobs and damage our businesses?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right to be cheerful about the forecast this morning. Growth is higher and inflation is lower. We now have a clear chance of sustainable growth with low inflation for the period ahead.

    That is extremely good news for the British economy. It is a chance that lies ahead of us and we have no intention of letting it slip.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Prime Minister agree with what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in Barcelona yesterday–that in Spain family ties are stronger and there is a greater spirit of local community than in Britain?

    The Prime Minister : I do not have the same knowledge of Spain as my right hon. Friend has, but I can say that my right hon. Friend made an excellent speech in Spain yesterday–an excellent and serious speech and one of a series that have been made by my right hon. Friends, addressing problems of concern to everyone in this country.

    Mrs. Beckett : As the Prime Minister has in effect endorsed the Chief Secretary’s speech, I must presume that he agrees. After 15 years of Conservative Government, if family life in Britain is undermined, why does the Prime Minister think that that is the case?

    The Prime Minister : All my right hon. Friends are concerned about the role of the family and how to maintain it. For us, family values and family life are central not only to our national life but to the existence of each and every person in this country. What my right hon. Friend has made clear and is self-evidently the case– [Interruption.]

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

    The Prime Minister : What my right hon. Friend has made clear–I think that this is the kind of matter that we ought to be able to discuss without the sort of interpretation that the right hon. Lady puts on it–is that there are many areas of family life which are not the concern of Government and in which the Government are not the best arbiter. We have a responsibility for providing some vital services such as education, health and others, but the reality is that the essence of family life lies within the family itself. My right hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that.

    Mrs. Beckett : It seems to me that the Prime Minister has yet again endorsed what the Chief Secretary said. I shall put to him for the second time what I put to him a moment ago. Why does he feel that family life and the spirit of community in Britain have been undermined in the 15 years his Government have been in power? I remind him of what he said in Los Angeles last year. He said : “We have been here for 14 years. There is no one else to blame for anything else that has gone wrong.”

    Is not that the most truthful thing that he has said in years?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Lady has perhaps not read my right hon. Friend’s speech in full. If she had..

    Mrs. Beckett indicated assent.

    The Prime Minister : Well, I would be surprised if she had read it, but, if she says she has, she clearly did not understand it. If she had read it, she would no doubt have seen the rest of my right hon. Friend’s speech. He made an excellent case for free trade, deregulation and economic policies which encourage innovation and self-respect. He made the point clearly that only if we do that can we sustain the genuine services necessary to sustain the family and those in genuine need. I note the right hon. Lady’s strong support for the welfare state. Perhaps she will set out the areas that she would seek to improve, and how she would propose to finance that improvement.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

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

    Mr. Gill : My right hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty that there will be in justifying an increase in Britain’s contribution to the European Community budget at a time when our defence budget is being drastically pruned. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the existing difficulties in explaining why soldiers, sailors and airmen are being made redundant at the same time as people working in the black economy continue to live at the expense of the taxpayers, drawing benefits to which they are neither entitled nor have earned?

    The Prime Minister : I share my hon. Friend’s concern to stamp out social security fraud, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has stepped up the fight against it. We are looking, for example, at the possibility of introducing personalised cards as one of the methods of ensuring that we minimise and, I hope, eradicate social security fraud against the taxpayer.

    As far as the first half of my hon. Friend’s question is concerned, he will no doubt be aware of the agreement that I reached in Edinburgh on the future financing of the Community, which set clear and rigorous limits, not for the traditional five years of an agreement but for seven years of an agreement, and at a lower rate of increase than in the past. It also safeguarded the British rebate which was at some risk from our European partners. That was money which we had to fight hard to keep. I might add that, had we not had a veto, we might not have been able to keep that money.

    Mr. Ashdown : Given the present economic situation, is the Prime Minister opposed to further steps to increase the independence of the Bank of England?

    The Prime Minister : I have made my view clear that I am not at this moment in favour of further steps to increase the independence of the Bank of England.

    Sir Cranley Onslow : If the signalmen’s strike is not settled soon, will my right hon. Friend consider making a ministerial broadcast on the subject–however much it might embarrass the Opposition to find someone willing to accept the right of reply?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has finally broken cover on the subject of the strike, even though the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has been notably silent. The hon. Gentleman has said that he supports the strike, and so do 40 of his Back-Bench colleagues. It will be interesting to see whether any of the leadership contenders do the same. After all, 40 votes are 40 votes.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hoon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

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

    Mr. Hoon : Is the Prime Minister reminded of the career of Frederick Augustus of York, who lost his job as commander in chief following a disastrous European campaign? Is not the Prime Minister’s problem that he is neither up with those who make and shape European policy, and is too often down with those who would have Britain leave the European Union? Is not it the case that the Government’s policy, like the grand old Duke of York, staggers from one crisis to the next and fails to protect Britain’s longer-term interests?

    The Prime Minister : I think that, from a party that would abandon the veto, talk of protecting Britain’s long-term interests will sound pretty hollow to most people in this country. The Opposition’s European policy is to find out what the others want and then agree with it so that they can claim not to be in a minority. I have been able to discover not one area of originality in their European policy. We have set out and will continue to set out our own vision of how Europe should develop. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will be surprised at the echo, right across Europe, of the nature of the European Community which we wish to develop.

     

    Q4. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

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

    Mr. Duncan : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday’s announcement that parental choice will be extended by allowing the expansion of popular schools and grammar schools? Is he further aware that, despite their blurred rhetoric, the Opposition are still committed to the abolition of grant-maintained schools, hate grammar schools, and would deny parents the choice to which they are entitled?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the Opposition dislike choice of almost any sort–they have a difficult choice to make in the next few weeks. Yesterday’s announcement is excellent news for parents, giving them more choice and letting good schools grow. I regret the fact that the Opposition have such a negative education policy–the abolition of grant- maintained schools ; the abolition of training and enterprise councils; the abolition of the assisted places scheme; the abolition of teacher training reform ; and the abolition of performance tables. They would abolish everything that would provide more information for parents and a better education for children. However much they may dislike it, they should remember how they cut education budgets when they were in Government. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) came into Government because her predecessor declined to make cuts. She came into Government to cut.

    Dr. Godman : The Prime Minister knows of the derailment of a train in Greenock on Saturday night. The driver–a young man from Glasgow–and a young lad from Greenock were killed instantly. They were murdered by murderous individuals who placed concrete slabs on the line. Since then, two copycat incidents have taken place in Cumbernauld and Duddingston, fortunately with no loss of life. Will the Prime Minister and his Transport Ministers assure the House today that Railtrack will do everything in its power to eliminate such murderous behaviour? Will they assure us that the safety and school liaison units will not be reduced, as some people fear, but given an enhanced educational role to reduce, if not eliminate, such terrible acts against train crews and passengers?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing my condolences to the family of the driver, Mr. McKee, and to Mr. Nicol, the passenger, who were so tragically killed. As the hon. Gentleman said, it appears to be an act of mindless vandalism that has resulted in the death of two entirely innocent people. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Strathclyde police are conducting an inquiry into the incident and treating it as murder. In addition, Railtrack and British Rail are conducting a joint investigation. The Health and Safety Executive inspector has already visited the site and the railway inspectorate is working alongside in the investigation. We will do all that we can to eliminate the possibility of such incidents in future and bring to book those responsible for this one.

     

    Q5. Mr. Riddick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

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

    Mr. Riddick : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no coincidence that, as soon as the chattering classes start to talk up the possibility of a future Labour Government, trade union militants start to rear their ugly heads? Does not the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers strike provide a timely reminder of what has always happened under Labour Governments and what would happen under a future Labour Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the House really wants to know is where Bambi stands on the rail strike?

    Hon. Members : Where is he?

    The Prime Minister : I am prepared to take responsibility for the opinion of many people, but not for that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). He must answer for himself, when and if he returns to the House. [Interruption.] I think that most people will have noticed that the contenders for the leadership of the Labour party, although addressing every conference that presents itself up and down the country, will not be addressing the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers conference. One of them is sponsored by it. They seem happy to take its money, but unwilling to address it.

    Mr. Jack Thompson : The Prime Minister is very keen to express his views on choice, and especially on market testing. Will he consider market testing his Government by having an election?

    The Prime Minister : Certainly, in 1996 or 1997–and we shall win it.

  • PMQT – 16 June 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th June 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clappison : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Clappison : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months this country lost the lowest ever number of days to strikes? Is it not sad that that record is being spoilt by a trade union which, in pursuit of an 11 per cent. pay claim, yesterday inflicted hardship and inconvenience on thousands of travellers and commuters, including many of my constituents in Hertfordshire? Is it not conspicuous that that is not being condemned in any quarter by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : Overall, our industrial relations record is extremely good, and the number of days lost in strikes is lower than it has been for more than 100 years. We now lose fewer days to strikes than Germany, France or the United States per head of population. As for yesterday’s strike, the disruption that was caused to millions of people was inexcusable. Most of the public sector has settled on increases around the rate of inflation. The dispute is over a bid for an 11 per cent. increase before negotiations have even begun about productivity. It is unacceptable, it cannot be right and it should be condemned by every Member of the House.

    Mrs. Beckett : Can the Prime Minister confirm that when yesterday his Chancellor ruled out tax cuts he was admitting what the Prime Minister refused to admit on Tuesday–that a second round of tax increases will go ahead next year and will cost a typical British family £800 a year more in tax?

    The Prime Minister : I suppose that there must be some occasion on which the right hon. Lady will address the current issue of the strike and not wriggle away from it. If she is so concerned about tax, perhaps she will now withdraw all the public expenditure promises that she and her colleagues have made, and which inevitably would lead to higher taxation in future. If she will not withdraw those public expenditure promises, will she please indicate how they will be paid for and by what amount tax will rise?

    Mrs. Beckett : That is twice in one week that the Prime Minister has refused to answer the question. Let us try again. Taxes will go up next year, won’t they? Just say yes.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Lady knows the contents of the Budget and knows also that she is wriggling and hiding behind promises that she cannot substantiate. Our tax position is clear and open and people know what it is. We have set out a position that is right for this country and which has brought this country back to better economic circumstances than it has known for many years. That is an honest and straightforward position, unlike the position of the right hon. Lady who makes promises of increased expenditure with no indication whatever as to whether she will borrow to meet them and put up interest rates, or tax to meet them, or break those promises.

    Mrs. Beckett : But does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor that those tax increases, and the threat of interest rate increases, are a direct result of the Government’s economic failure and their track record of boom and bust? Whom does he think the Chancellor was condemning–Lord Lawson as Mr. Boom, or the Prime Minister himself as Mr. Bust?

    The Prime Minister : That was very well rehearsed, but it will not win the right hon. Lady very many votes. As for interest rates, I wonder if the right hon. Lady can remember a time when interest rates under a Labour Government were as low as they have been under this Government for the past 15 months. I wonder if she can remember a time when inflation was as low as it is under this Government now. I wonder if she can remember a time when our growth rate was twice as high as that of our European competitors. The answer is that she cannot–and, under any Labour Government, that would never be so.

    Mr. Butler : Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour party has voted against every single tax reduction that has been introduced, over many years, by Conservative Governments, and has voted against every tax increase? Does he consider that to be consistency or stupidity?

    Madam Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the Executive that is responsible to the House, and the Executive that must answer questions, not the Opposition. That is the basis on which our democracy is built.

    Mr. Butler : I apologise, Madam Speaker. It was because I was so surprised to be called.

    Would my right hon. Friend consider such conduct on the part of his party to be consistent or stupid, had it taken place?

    The Prime Minister : The Opposition’s position is certainly consistently stupid, and stupidly consistent.

     

    Q2. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the people are often much more sensible than politicians? If so, has he reflected that last week–not only in Essex, but in a continuous, uninterrupted line from Dover to Oban–his policies were rejected and Labour’s were endorsed? Does he not recognise that he is increasingly seen as the captain of the Titanic–carrying on regardless, blaming the iceberg and determined to rearrange the deckchairs while he puts people’s lives at risk with his own reckless policies?

    The Prime Minister : Well, that was quite an effort. There are certainly occasions on which the public are much more sensible than politicians. They were much more sensible than Opposition politicians in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and they will be more sensible than Opposition politicians again at a later date in 1996 or 1997.

    Mr. Butcher : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the administration of law in this country now protects the civil liberties of yobs, bullies, violent criminals and drug barons so effectively that the civil liberties of the law-abiding majority are endangered ? The Conservative party never wanted that, the people never wanted it and the Cabinet never wanted it. If the legal structure is being undermined, should we not find out who the termites are before introducing further criminal justice legislation?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is necessary to look at the interests of the majority of the people in the country. I share my hon. Friend’s view : our present criminal justice legislation was formulated with that very much in mind, as were some of the ideas that I have outlined to the House on other occasions.

     

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

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

    Mr. Flynn : Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in support of his campaign for a more civilised Question Time, which I hope is still continuing, and in the hope of a rational reply, 24 hours ago I sent him the following supplementary question : because of his own personal responsibility and his Government’s responsibility for introducing and promoting personal pensions, will he now give, in clear and simple language, a guarantee that the millions of people who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and occupational schemes and who have been subjected to bad advice will have all their losses made up and their full pension rights restored?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may not be quite aware of the present situation. The regulator has made it clear that he will use his powers to ensure that anyone who was mis-sold a pension will have a remedy. There is no need for investors in personal pensions to be too concerned ; the hon. Gentleman should have understood that. Within the next few weeks, the Securities and Investments Board is due to publish a full report setting out the terms of redress which should be applied to investors who have been disadvantaged by that advice. They would be wise to wait for that report and not listen to the hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that before the national health service reforms there was no such thing as equality of health treatment in this country and it depended entirely on where one lived? If one lived in Lancaster, one received good treatment, but if one lived in parts of the rest of the country, one did not. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the reforms, best practice is spreading throughout the land?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that that is the case. The health reforms are spreading best practice in every part of the United Kingdom and removing many of the anomalies that existed previously. That, and the increased resources available to the national health service, are intended to ensure that we have the best possible national health service for our nation that we can possibly afford.

     

    Q4. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Ms Eagle : Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government are currently spending £121,800 a year of taxpayers’ money on the salary of the chairman of Railtrack, who works only a three-day week? Is that value for money?

    The Prime Minister : If he turns Railtrack into the efficient organisation that customers who use trains wish to see, yes.

     

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

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

    Mr. Duncan : Will the Prime Minister convey to the local government commission my constituents’ overwhelming gratitude for recommending the return of the ancient and valiant little county of Rutland? Will he hop across from Huntingdonshire and hang a horseshoe in Oakham castle to celebrate that sensible and popular decision?

    The Prime Minister : I know from my own experience how strong my hon. Friend’s campaign for the return of Rutland has been and I congratulate him on the outcome. He mentioned other counties. I am familiar with one near to Rutland, which I hope will also return. I believe that questionnaires are to be sent to every household, which means that local people will be able to express their views on the matter and on what they wish the outcome to be. That is the right way to proceed.

     

    Q6. Mr. Keith Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

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

    Mr. Hill : If the Cabinet is so bad that it needs a drastic reshuffle, as he promised on Monday, should not the Prime Minister take his fair share of the blame and reshuffle himself as well?

    The Prime Minister : In the interests of helping the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him, first, that whereas on Tuesday he told the House that unemployment was up in his constituency, today I can tell the House after yesterday’s figures that it is down–and I hope that he is grateful. The words that he metaphorically put in inverted commas–“drastic reshuffle”–have not crossed my lips.

    Mr. Lamont : May I urge the Prime Minister at the forthcoming summit in Corfu to reject firmly the candidature of the Belgian Prime Minister for the presidency of the Commission? Even if Britain did not have an excellent candidate with a brilliant negotiating track record, is it not true that Mr. Dehaene is a federalist of the old-fashioned type and that no Belgian candidate would resist the ever-increasing demands of the Brussels bureaucracy?

    The Prime Minister : At the moment there are only two declared candidates for the post–Sir Leon Brittan, whom we back strongly, and Dr. Ruud Lubbers. Both are highly respected in the European Community and are well known to all the member states. I have made no secret of my belief that Leon Brittan is the right candidate to be President of the Commission and he will have our strong support at Corfu. At this stage, I am not prepared to declare a position on any other candidate or possible candidate.

  • PMQT – 15 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th July 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Waterson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 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. Waterson : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming not only the lowest inflation rate for 30 years, but the fifth successive monthly fall in unemployment? Does he agree that the House deserves an apology from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) for predicting a steady rise in unemployment over the spring and summer?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is unkind to remind the House of the predictions by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. There have been a great deal of them–all wrong. If it would be for the convenience of the House, I will place a copy of them in the Library. The further fall in unemployment and inflation is very good news indeed. Unemployment has fallen by over 80,000 since the beginning of the year, and, taken with the remarkable figures on Tuesday for manufacturing output, we can now say with some certainty that there is clear evidence of recovery gathering pace.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister accept that it should be for the House to decide whether the social chapter is included in the British version of the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : The House has examined the whole of the treaty. I expect to ratify the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. The House has shown its support for the treaty ; I expect that it will do so again.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister has carefully not answered the question. Let me put it to him plainly and clearly. Whichever way the House votes on the social chapter, will the Government accept the decision?

    The Prime Minister : I have said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman before, and I repeat, that I expect the Government’s motion to be carried, and I expect to ratify the treaty that I signed.

    Mr. John Smith : The House and the country will have noticed another failure to answer the question directly. Does the Prime Minister understand that, were he to defy the will of the House of Commons, it would be a monstrous violation of the rights of the House, and would at one fell swoop undermine our parliamentary democracy?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps does not understand the answers. I will make them more clear for him, so that he is in no doubt. We expect to ratify the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. The House has shown its support for the treaty ; I expect it to do so again.

    Mr. Lamont : This month, like last, has seen a remarkable catalogue of good economic indicators. Is it not the case that, in addition to the fifth fall in monthly unemployment, we have seen the largest increase in industrial production for four years and the lowest inflation record for nearly 30 years? When one puts that into a European context and sees that Britain has a lower than average rate of inflation in the European Community, is the only country in the European Community in which unemployment is falling, and is the only country in the European Community in which industrial production is rising, I congratulate the new Chancellor on the rapid success of his policies.

    The Prime Minister : I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be most grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support for his policies. It is entirely clear that we are coming out of recession and into recovery. It is equally clear that we are leading Europe into recovery.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that the Government have said to their rebels that nothing will stop them from ratifying the Maastricht treaty, but they have said to the House that adopting the social chapter would jeopardise the treaty? Both statements cannot be true ; which is?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten what he said about the social chapter. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not forgotten, but perhaps I can remind the House what he said :

    “I believe what is now being put forward in the social chapter may well lead to a form of Euro-sclerosis.”

    He continued :

    “The social chapter in the Maastricht agreement, it seems to me, is a really worrying attempt by Europe to try and rebuild in Britain the things that we have dismantled over the last 12 or 15 years.” If that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman and his party, and he is true to his view, I shall expect to see him in our Lobby next Thursday.

     

    Portsmouth

    Q2. Mr. David Martin : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has plans to pay an official visit to Portsmouth.

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

    Mr. Martin : Does my right hon. Friend recall that he has not visited Portsmouth since the general election, at a time when the so-called poll experts were predicting not only a Government defeat in general but, even more shamefully, the loss of my seat in particular? Will my right hon. Friend visit us again soon, preferably in the 50th anniversary year of D- day? Such a visit would not only mark the premier naval port of Portsmouth’s vital contribution to our defence needs in the past, but mark its present contribution and the efforts it will make for many years in the future.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is an extremely forceful advocate for Portsmouth, and I am grateful for his invitation. I understand how important the defence industry is to his constituents, and I hope that he will take every opportunity to remind them of two facts : that the Labour party would cut defence spending by a quarter, and that the Liberal Democrats would cut it by half. We hear a lot from the leader of the Liberal Democrats about taking military action in Bosnia ; we hear rather less from him about how we would be able to take that action after his policy had dismantled the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. McAllion : Is the Prime Minister aware that, because of the legal shackles on British trades unions, this week sacked Timex workers were banned from taking part in the national launch of the Timex boycott campaign, and banned from calling on the support of other British trade unionists?

    What is banned here is legal elsewhere in Europe. Sacked Timex workers have been in France this week, exercising the democratic rights denied to them in their own country. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of the Government’s record on labour law, which has isolated Britain in Europe and left British workers on their own, with no social chapter, no wages councils and no effective right to strike? The Government have turned Britain, once one of the workshops of the world, into one of the world’s sweatshop economies.

    The Prime Minister : The sort of behaviour that we saw from trade unionists at Timex is nothing for the hon. Gentleman to be proud of. I dare say that the jobs lost at Timex as a result will stand as the clearest evidence that the hon. Gentleman’s policy is utterly the wrong way to look at labour and trade union relationships.

     

    Q4. Mr. Kynoch : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Kynoch : Will my right hon. Friend thank and congratulate the anti-terrorist branch and MI5 for its continuing efforts to protect the public from terrorist crimes, and especially their efforts yesterday? Does he agree that had we failed to pass the prevention of terrorism Act and gone down the path of giving away Northern Ireland–the policy of the Opposition–the anti-terrorist branch and MI5 might as well have been told by us to pack up their things and go back to traffic duty?

    The Prime Minister : The police and the Security Service deserve our congratulations on their professionalism and vigilance. They have demonstrated that in fighting terrorism over many years. It is clear, and it has been endorsed repeatedly by the House, that we need the prevention of terrorism Act to defeat the terrorists. With the greatest goodwill in the world, I cannot understand why, year after year, Opposition Members have voted it down.

    Mr. Boyce : In view of the Prime Minister’s utterances in recent days about nuclear weapons being defensive measures, may I ask him to take this opportunity to assure the House, the country and the world that Britain will never use them first?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should know better than to ask such a daft question.

     

    Q5. Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Winterton : My right hon. Friend has announced this afternoon dramatic improvements in a number of economic indicators which are of immense interest to the House and the country. Will he continue to encourage manufacturing industry as a way of improving our economy, and will he ensure that in the Budget to be announced in December, the fragile recovery of our manufacturing base, which is vital to our future, will continue to be encouraged and that measures will be introduced to ensure that recovery and continued economic growth?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House knows and respects my hon. Friend’s advocacy of manufacturing, so he will be as pleased as I am about the growing success of British manufacturers. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) introduced measures in the Budget and autumn statement to help manufacturing industry. I say also to my hon. Friend that the one thing that would do great damage to manufacturing industry would be the provisions of the social chapter.

    Mrs. Mahon : Does the Prime Minister realise that 500,000 of the present unemployed are aged between 18 and 24 and that, because of the cuts that he helped to introduce, they are having to manage on £4.97 a day? Does he think that that is enough to keep them in food and on which they can live? Will he take action now to end the discrimination against that age group, instead of making cheap political points at the expense of the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that the hon. Lady has grasped the training opportunities that exist for young people. I want youngsters to take up those training opportunities. That is what they are there for and it is in their interest to take them up.

     

    Q6. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Amess : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s trade union reforms have made a significant contribution to Britain’s increased industrial competitiveness over the past 10 years, while the trade unions have made a significant contribution to the Labour party’s electoral uncompetitiveness over the same period?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend, and I came across an interesting quote last week from a delegate at a Transport and General Workers Union conference, who said :

    “We are not the tail wagging the dog. We are the dog.”

    That is the true relationship between Labour and the unions. The unions are the dog and Labour is the lamp post.

     

    Q7. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Hain : What is the Prime Minister going to do about corruption in his flagship council in Westminster? When will he stop crooks financing the Conservative party? Why did he allow 44 of his own Members to vote themselves tax privileges in the Lloyd’s amendments on Tuesday? Is that why he is the most unpopular Prime Minister on record?

    The Prime Minister : The best that can be said about that compendium question is that it is worthy of the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Fry : In welcoming the unemployment figure, will my right hon. Friend also take time to express vividly to all those in employment the cost of the social security budget, currently running at more than £60 a week for every worker? Does not that large sum justify the Government’s intention to re-examine that budget?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right about that for the reasons that I have set out on a number of occasions in recent weeks. That problem is faced not only in Britain, but right across the European Community, in Japan, the United States and other industrial countries.

  • PMQT – 8 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th July 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Tipping : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.

    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 attending the G7 economic summit in Tokyo where he has played an important part in bringing about a major step forward in resolving the GATT round.

    Mr. Tipping : Given the citizen’s charter, is the Lord President concerned that Regional Railways has cut its publicity budget by 30 per cent? As a result of that, many small stations in the east midlands and East Anglia no longer appear on the timetable. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure rail users that those stations will stay open after privatisation? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the problem? With no platform, no timetable and no sense of direction–that surely sounds like this Government.

    Mr. Newton : The Government’s sense of direction is very clear with regard to the vigour with which we have carried the rail privatisation proposals through the House to pave the way for further improvements in rail services. That is what we shall see.

    Mr. Spring : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a result of the Government’s trade union reforms, substantial power has been handed back to individual trade union members? Does he believe that there are other parts of union activity that could benefit from the introduction of one man, one vote?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the effect of the trade union reforms that we have carried through in respect of returning power to individual members. I can think of quite a number of other reforms that should be carried out, but, unfortunately, they depend on the success of the leader of the Labour party, which he is not exactly having.

    Mr. John Smith : Bearing in mind that pensioners already face value added tax on their heating bills and the prospect of having to pay prescription charges, why is the Prime Minister in his speech in Tokyo adding to their very genuine fears by threatening even further curbs on social spending?

    Mr. Newton : I must say that I am not surprised, in view of the contrast between my right hon. Friend’s success in Tokyo and the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s catastrophe in Bournemouth, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should– [Interruption.] In Tokyo, my right hon. Friend was making the point that all western countries face rising pressures on their welfare budgets. Few would argue in this country that the current Department of Social Security budget of almost £80 billion is necessarily spent in the best way possible and that any Government are not entitled and right to review policy and spending patterns. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with that, may I say that I have just been quoting, to all intents and purposes, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

    Mr. Smith : Is not it now absolutely clear from the Prime Minister’s speech in Tokyo and the documents issued by the Secretary of State for Social Security that the Government have embarked on a blatant attempt to soften up the public for cuts in public spending? Does he not appreciate the justified anger of pensioners who have paid tax and insurance all their lives and hear these threats to their pensions? Does he not think that it is monstrous that these people should be asked to pay the price of the Government’s economic improvidence?

    Mr. Newton : What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has published this morning is a range of information to inform the debate which, in my view, everybody in this country agrees must sensibly be had. It is a debate which the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertook in setting up his social justice commission and in his own manifesto statement for the Labour party leadership. Pensioners have an absolute guarantee from the Government that we will maintain our commitment to uprate the basic retirement pension in line with prices and that we will not do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s Government did–fiddle the uprating figures and abolish the Christmas bonus two years running.

    Mr. Smith : On the subject of guarantees, can the right hon. Gentleman remind us of what the Government said at the election about guarantees on value added tax?

    Mr. Newton : The Government made it clear at the election that they would maintain the commitments to pensioners that I outlined. What I want to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and have not yet heard at any stage, is why the Labour party left VAT on fuel out of the list of those things that it was determined not to do.

    Mr. Knapman : The whole House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his considerable success at the G7 economic summit–[Hon. Members :– “No.”]–the sensible ones, anyway. Will my right hon. Friend, on his return, look at the ever- increasing number of directions and regulations coming from Brussels, because, surely, what we really need to meet and beat world competition is a lightly regulated, free-trading economy?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That, indeed, is another of the points that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has underlined, not only time and again in discussions in Europe but now in the discussions in Tokyo in relation to the G7 summit. It is clear from the response from one country after another, most recently from President Clinton and the United States, that that crucial British message about the need to ensure the competitiveness of our economies is beginning to hit home all around the world.

     

    Q2. Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Fraser : I remind the Leader of the House, in relation to the questions put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that the Government were absolutely explicit about not extending the ambit of value added tax. Now they impose a hypothermia tax, which will mostly hit people with modest savings and small pensions and people on the margins of poverty. Because the Government did that, why should anyone believe what they say about not whittling away pensions and making pensioners’ incomes means tested? Surely the Government’s problem is that their clock has now struck for the 13th time.

    Mr. Newton : The reason that pensioners should believe the commitments that we have made about their pensions is that we have consistently honoured our commitments to pensioners in a way that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members cannot possibly claim to have done.

    Mr. David Howell : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming not only the excellent news from Tokyo about the proposed tariff cuts– which will, of course greatly increase trade and jobs–but the fact that at present the pound is regarded as the strongest currency in Europe? Does he agree that the right response to those two positive developments is to do everything possible, not to manipulate the exchange rate up or down but to maintain our competitiveness, build a good infrastructure, keep down inflation and manage our costs very tightly, and that that is a very promising way forward for this nation?

    Mr. Newton : Again, I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. Alongside my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s success in contributing to a further step forward in an important deal for world trade is his success–and that of the Government–in emphasising and carrying through in Britain the policies to which my right hon. Friend has referred, and which will leave us particularly well placed to take advantage of the increase in world trade that will result.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : Can the Leader of the House, speaking on behalf of the Government, tell us whether, at the intergovernmental conference today, the Government will contend that the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland should not be ridden over roughshod any longer but that those people should be treated as part of the United Kingdom?

    Mr. Newton : I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and he would expect no less from me, that the Government remain totally committed to the principle that any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of a majority of the people who live there, and I repeat that commitment this afternoon.

    Mr. Peter Robinson : Did the Leader of the House read in The Guardian this morning an article that stated that the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Irish Republic attempted to pour petrol on Ulster fires by endorsing the Labour party proposal for joint authority and putting forward a further proposition for a commission, with representatives from the Dublin Government, Her Majesty’s Government and the European Community, taking charge of Northern Ireland? Will the Leader of the House rebuke, as strongly as the Prime Minister did last week, the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister for making such a suggestion?

    Mr. Newton : I have noted that report. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is meeting Mr. Spring this afternoon and will seek clarification of what he said. What I can do, and have just done for the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), is to repeat clearly and emphatically the British Government’s position in this matter. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) can no doubt speak for the Labour party, but the British Government deplore the Labour party’s position as well.

    Mr. Ashdown : Do the Government yet understand that typhus and cholera are shortly to be added to shells and bullets as the means by which the people of Sarajevo will be condemned to die? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that mere words from the G7 in Tokyo will be sufficient to save them?

    Mr. Newton : The G7 summit in Tokyo has clearly reaffirmed our and other countries’ commitment to the territorial integrity of Bosnia and to a negotiated settlement based on the principles of the London conference. It has made it absolutely clear that we cannot agree to any solution for Bosnia dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Muslims. As the whole House would wish it to do, the summit has underlined our commitment to the urgent implementation of safe areas and to improving the flow of humanitarian aid.

    Mr. Patrick Thompson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the past 14 years the Conservative Government have shown real determination and courage in carrying through their reforms with the trade unions? Does he agree that the Leader of the Opposition singularly lacks those qualities in dealing with the same matters?

    Mr. Newton : The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East probably wishes that he was in Tokyo and had not had to go to Bournemouth. Since he left Bournemouth with what looked to me on the television news last night as a rather sheepish expression on his face, he has, of course, suffered a further significant reverse with the vote that the Transport and General Workers Union took this morning to reject his plans.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Prentice : What would the Lord President say to the firefighters in Pendle who, over the past 14 years, have seen their pay formula scrapped and the imposition of a 1.5 per cent. pay limit, when the chairman of North West Water has received a 43 per cent. increase, taking his salary to £267,000 a year? Why is it that those who douse the flames are worth so much less than those who provide the water?

    Mr. Newton : I would say to the firefighters of Pendle or anywhere else that they should not listen to the kind of overheated rhetoric in which the hon. Gentleman indulges.

    Mr. Cormack : Reverting to the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that reaffirmation of itself is a cruel hoax unless it is followed by action? There is nothing to stop Sarajevo being saved. Can something now be done?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend has taken a long and honourable interest in these matters. He knows the difficulties of proceeding in quite the way he has often suggested. I would do no more at this stage than repeat what I said in an earlier answer–the British Government will continue to do everything that they properly and responsibly can to achieve a settlement that will stop the bloodshed in Bosnia.

  • PMQT – 15 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Cousins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Cousins : Does the Prime Minister agree first, that the supply of weapons to the states of the former Yugoslavia should be choked off and not increased and secondly, that arms and equipment dealers who may wish to dabble there, and their friends, no matter how well connected, will not find a safe haven in Great Britain?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House views with dismay and despair the slaughter in the whole of Bosnia which we see daily on our television screens. For that reason, we have sought over the past few months, not least at the London conference and in a variety of other ways, to play our part in the international community in trying to bring an end to that particular conflict. I share the hon. Gentleman’s view about the need to damp down and not to increase the supply of arms.

     

    Q2. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Staff for calling a strike for tomorrow and on other days which will be damaging to passengers, especially my constituents, and which could put in danger other people’s jobs? What would my right hon. Friend do if his transport spokesman backed the strike? Would he back him or sack him?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the latest strike by the RMT will cause further hardship to the travelling public and that it will damage British Rail’s finances. That does not safeguard jobs in rail or elsewhere ; it actually puts jobs in rail and elsewhere at risk. It is an utterly pointless strike. It is a throwback to the 1960s and it deserves the support of no one. It certainly does not have my support and it does not have the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I regret that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) supports the strike. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition does not and I hope that he will take appropriate action.

    Mr. John Smith : The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that just before Easter, he assured me during Prime Minister’s Question Time that the Government were prepared to widen and to intensify sanctions against Serbia. In view of the appalling slaughter at Srebrenica, will the Prime Minister tell us what action the Government have taken since then?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly stand by the remark I made to the House before Easter. We are keen both to widen and to deepen the sanctions against Serbia. To do that we need the complete support of our allies in the Security Council and elsewhere. I expect that a suitable resolution will be passed in the United Nations this month, but I cannot guarantee in advance of that the support of all other members, which is necessary to ensure that we have that resolution. The British position is clear. We wish to have that resolution as speedily as possible. We should have welcomed it today.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister recognise that even the existing sanctions are not being enforced adequately so that there is no real let or hindrance put upon the Serbs and their present barbarous behaviour? Instead of the Security Council resolution being delayed until towards the end of the month, ought not the British Government be urging that it be brought forward so that the international community can take effective action?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated delicately to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that is the position of the British Government, but we would not get it through the Security Council at this moment for reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can well understand. One of the permanent members would not be likely to support it now, but will be later this month. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows who and why.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that there is really deep anger and concern in Britain about the fact that the slaughter at Srebrenica is a daily affair? Ought there not to be more urgency than this leisurely diplomatic pace?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that neither he nor anyone else has a monopoly of concern or conscience about the matter. His concern is shared throughout the House and the country. No one doubts that. The question at issue is what we can do, how best we can do it and what options will most successfully help to bring an end to the slaughter. In achieving that, we need the support of the other members of the Security Council and the international community. We have been seeking to obtain it for a variety of measures and we shall continue to do so. In the meantime, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will need no reminding of the leading role that Britain has taken in providing humanitarian aid and in the search for a diplomatic settlement. We were the first nation to put a substantial number of troops into Bosnia and to help people facing great difficulties through the winter.

    Mr. Matthew Banks : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the advice of the armchair generals and pseudo-defence experts, all suggestions of substantial military action in the Bosnian region should be totally resisted as in that terrain it would lead to guerrilla warfare and substantial loss of life among British service men and women and those of other countries, and would make no contribution whatsoever towards an early resumption of peace talks and a settlement of the problem?

    The Prime Minister : I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and agree with him. We are seeking a diplomatic means of ending the fighting. That is the only credible way forward for the international community. Other issues have been considered and discussed, but they involve substantial disadvantages. Many of them were cogently set out to the House yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

    Mr. Ashdown : The key question is whether Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to see Srebrenica fall into the hands of the Bosnian Serbs.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has shared for a long time the concern that everyone in the House feels about the issue. What he has never done is suggest a way– [Hon. Members :– “Answer.”]–I will answer the question in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman has never suggested a way in which we could physically prevent military action. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should put British troops on the ground in Bosnia, will he please say so directly or stop implying it?

    Mr. Roger Evans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the respect of the public and parents for the teaching profession was not enhanced by the conduct of certain people at the National Union of Teachers conference last week, and that the proper way to restore public confidence in the education system and testing is the Government’s review and not a campaign of sabotage?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The concern that we have in education policy is to improve the quality of education and the success of all our children as they go through their schooling. I believe that the remark of the president of the NUT that the union’s aim was “to annihilate the tests” was a disgrace. I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member in the House will give any houseroom to that sort of attitude.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jim Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Marshall : Is the Prime Minister aware of the increasing concern among the lower paid and many other people about the proposed increase in domestic fuel prices from April 1994? If so, what advice would he offer to those people who face massive bill increases in the winters of 1994 and 1995? Would he advise them to leave the heat on, turn it down or switch it off?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will provide substantial extra help for people in particular need ; we will announce the details of that in good time and the increases will take effect before any increases in the fuel charges. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might give me a straight answer at some stage as to whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) when he called for an increase in value added tax.

     

    Q4. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Oppenheim : Bearing in mind the importance attributed to manufacturing by many, if not all, people, does my right hon. Friend recollect that manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government, whereas, during the 1980s, Britain enjoyed the fastest growth in manufacturing output of any major European country and that manufacturing productivity in Britain during the 1980s rose faster than in any other major industrial country in the world? Do recent figures show that conditions are now in place to resume and build on that progress in the 1990s?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend clearly knows, the figures released yesterday show manufacturing output sharply up. They underline the fact that our manufacturers are taking advantage of the present opportunities. I very much welcome that. We need a strong and successful manufacturing industry. What we need to see is an industrial renaissance, not the propping up of lame ducks. The fact that we now have the lowest interest rates in the Community, very low inflation and a competitive exchange rate gives our industries and our exporters in particular every opportunity of growing, investing, expanding, and seeking and achieving success in the 1990s.

    Mr. Hardy : The Prime Minister mentioned tests. Does he accept that the testing of English proposed for this year is so outrageously flawed that not only the test should be withdrawn but the present direction of the Department for Education should be withdrawn as well?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the principle behind the hon. Gentleman’s question. I think that there is no doubt that the tests are the key to raising standards, as our main competitors around the world have shown. It is a straightforward matter of common sense. Without tests, teachers cannot identify pupils’ weaknesses and cannot tackle them, parents cannot hold schools to account for their children’s progress and the Government would not know what was happening in the schools. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members do not find the importance of education and tests a matter for seriousness.

    The National Institute for Economic and Social Research found that, at middle and lower ability, pupils in England learnt less than their contemporaries in France, Germany and Japan. That cannot be satisfactory to us and it cannot be satisfactory to teachers. It is vital that we have those tests so that we can identify those weaknesses, find out what the children have not understood and have not learnt and then take action to put it right. Hiding those tests and the results of them is no way to help our children in schools.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert B. Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Jones : Against the background of the scandals surrounding the European bank for reconstruction and development, and persistent reports of fraud involving the common agricultural policy and other European funds, is it not a matter for congratulation that the British Government, at any rate, have made a high priority of proper discussion of, and attention to, the reports of the European Court of Auditors? Will my right hon. Friend read up on his efforts in that direction? In particular, when he has a chance to have a word with Chancellor Kohl will he ask him why the Germans are not so keen as we are on discussing this sort of fraud?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that the United Kingdom has taken the lead in action against fraud both in the agreements that we reached at Maastricht and on other occasions when European leaders have met. We have done that in the past and we will continue to do that in future.

     

    Q6. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 April.

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

    Mr. Hoyle : Despite the Prime Minister’s boasting about the engineering industry, has he not seen the Engineering Employers Federation report published today which suggests that engineering imports will rise twice as fast as exports? How will that balance of payments crisis help the country? Does it not once more show how far engineering manufacturing industry has declined due to the mismanagement of the economy by his Government?

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. He needs to concentrate, as we are concentrating, on the opportunity that we have to expand and improve the industrial and manufacturing base as a result of the policies that we put in place, which are now clearly becoming successful. I regret that Opposition Members do not like that success, but it is becoming more evident week after week.

  • PMQT – 30 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British people are becoming increasingly fed up with the unlawful activities– [Interruption.] –with the unlawful activities of French farmers and French fishermen? Does he further agree with me that their actions are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom, its people and our trade?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is true that the recent action by French farmers and fishermen is totally unacceptable. I am sure that the whole House will have seen that the French ambassador made clear yesterday beyond doubt his condemnation of their activity in the clearest possible terms. I very much welcome that. My hon. Friend may also know that the French authorities have undertaken to provide safe passage for any consignments of which we notify them. We are pursuing the recent fisheries- related incidents actively with the French authorities and we look to them to restore order, to bring the perpetrators to book and to guarantee unfettered access.

    Mr. John Smith : I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate the British film industry on its further success in winning five Oscars last night. Does the Prime Minister not agree that our film industry could be even more successful if it received the same backing and support from Government as do its competitors in other countries?

    The Prime Minister : The success of the British film industry in the private sector owes a great deal to the fact that it is in the private sector, and to the individual skills of writers, actors and directors.

    Mr. Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that the number of films made in Britain has plummeted from 50 to 12, and that the minimal help offered to the industry in last year’s budget does not in any way make up for the abolition of capital allowances, the Eady levy or the malign effect of the Broadcasting Act 1990? Does the Prime Minister not understand that if real encouragement were given to the industry, we could increase jobs and overseas earnings?

    The Prime Minister : Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman equates real encouragement with the spending in subsidy of taxpayers’ money without giving any indication of whether there would be corresponding reductions elsewhere–an increase in borrowing and perhaps higher interest rates or higher taxation. When he asks for more expenditure, he owes it to the public to say from where the money is coming.

    Mr. Smith : But does the Prime Minister not understand that we have in this country a fabulous pool of talent in our film industry– [Interruption.] This is a serious subject.

    Madam Speaker : Order. These interruptions are a total waste of the time of the House. In addition, they are an abuse of the House. The House will now come to order.

    Mr. Smith : It is remarkable that Conservative Members find it a matter of humour when we are talking about jobs, British films and overseas earnings. Does the Prime Minister not understand that a modest investment in our industry would give us a huge return in employment and vital overseas earnings?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on one point, which is that our arts generally–I include the film industry in that–are among the best, if not the best, in the world. That has repeatedly been shown to be the case. I hope that, in the light of that, he and his hon. Friends will support the National Lottery Etc. Bill, which provides greater support for the arts than ever before.

    Mr. Coe : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dramatic reduction, announced only a couple of days ago, in the number of cot deaths in this country, of about 60 per cent. in the first nine months of this year? Does he agree that that is testimony to sensitively targeted health education, “The Health of the Nation” strategy and the Anne Diamond campaign?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has put his finger on the key reasons for that. It is a very remarkable achievement and I am delighted about it, as everybody else will be. I wholeheartedly congratulate both Anne Diamond and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the measures they have taken.

     

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

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : Now that the Prime Minister is himself a year and a day closer to collecting his old age pension, he may be interested to know that the Post Office is at the moment considering plans which could remove entitlement by pensioners to collect their pension payments by way of DSS giro over post office counters. Is he aware that post offices derive 30 or 40 per cent. of their total income from those transactions and that any alternative method of payment–perhaps by way of banks or building societies–could eventually lead to a charge being made for the payment of that service? Will the Prime Minister summon the Ministers involved in those discussions, irrespective of what other damage or problems may flow from the privatisation of the Post Office, and make it clear to them and the House that the payment of pensions by means of automated credit transfer will not be made compulsory?

    The Prime Minister : I am well aware of the sensitivity of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and it is one of many matters that will need to be considered in the future.

    Mr. Harris : The whole House will have welcomed my right hon. Friend’s remarks regarding the dispute with France. Will he go further and make it perfectly clear to his opposite number, the French Prime Minister, that the Royal Navy will not stand idly by if there is any attempt to repeat the disgraceful incidents of the weekend by French fishermen?

    The Prime Minister : As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), we have made perfectly clear to the French ambassador our very strong condemnation of recent incidents. He has made it equally clear that such action is not acceptable to the French Government, and we have made it clear to the French Government that we look to them to deal with those incidents.

     

    Q3. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Byers : As council tax demands are being sent out, will the Prime Minister explain to the House why, under the system of financing local authorities, his constituency of Huntingdon, according to the Government, suffers greater poverty than Blyth Valley? Is he aware that, even under that unfair system of local government finance, the average council tax in Labour authorities will be £14 less than in Conservative authorities? Does the Prime Minister agree that the message to council tax payers is clear : Labour councils cost you less and serve you better?

    The Prime Minister : I award the hon. Gentleman the prize for the cheekiest question this year. Let me tell him that the 10 highest taxes in band C are Harlow–Labour ; Newcastle–Labour ; Greenwich–Labour ; Manchester–Labour ; Haringey–Labour ; Liverpool– Labour ; Hendon–Labour ; North Tyneside–Labour ; Salford–Labour ; and Derwentshire–Labour, all at band C. The lowest are Wellingborough– Conservative ; Westminster–Conservative ; Isle of Scilly–Independent ; City of London–Independent ; Hambleton–Conservative ; Hinckley and Bosworth–Conservative ; Huntingdonshire–Conservative ; Basingstoke–Conservative ; South Cambs– Independent, and Fareham–Conservative.

    Mr. Trotter : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Tyneside is very grateful to him for his decision to go ahead with the order for the helicopter carrier, the largest and most important ship to be ordered for the Royal Navy in years, which will give Swan Hunter the chance to win four years’ work? Will he visit the yard while the ship is being built, as we are confident that our team will win the order?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly must not pre-judge the outcome of the tender, but I agree with my hon. Friend that confirmation of the helicopter carrier in the defence programme is very good news indeed for the British shipbuilding industry. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has argued long and hard for this particular vessel to be in the programme. I am sure that there will be very keen competition for the order. I assure my hon. Friend that I will follow its progress with the same interest that he will.

     

    Q4. Mr. Sheerman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Sheerman : Is the Prime Minister aware of the remark made by one of his Ministers in another place who said–

    Hon. Members : Reading.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not quote.

    Mr. Sheerman : She said that although she is responsible for 804 public appointments, she cannot remember knowingly appointing a Labour supporter. Given the sad state in which this country finds itself, is it not time that the Prime Minister started appointing people on the basis of competence and ability– [Interruption.] –on the basis of competence and ability, rather than according to the corrupt political patronage for which his Conservative Government are notorious?

    The Prime Minister : We most certainly do appoint on competence, and there are people of all political persuasions who hold public appointments and have been appointed throughout the period of this Government since 1979. My hon. Friend whom the hon. Gentleman quotes used the word “knowingly” to indicate the fact that the political persuasion is not relevant to the competence and the appointment.

     

    Hartley

    Q5. Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Hartley.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency last Friday.

    Mr. Dunn : Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Hartley are fully behind the Government’s plans to reform the National Union of Students and that they are interested in knowing his views on the role of trade unions in our modern political society?

    The Prime Minister : Trade unions do have an important and mature role in our society. Their role ought to be to look after the interests of their members–not to align themselves particularly with a political party, not to throw votes behind the leadership of that party, not to provide the finance for that party, and not to sponsor every Front-Bench Member of the Opposition.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

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

    Dr. Wright : Does the Prime Minister recall that he told the House some time ago that a referendum on the Maastricht treaty would be unnecessary as the country had decided that matter in the general election? Does he accept that that was a foolish statement–that, whatever was decided in the general election, it was not the Maastricht treaty? Does he understand that it is both foolish and dangerous to tell people that they have decided something when they have had no part in the decision?

    The Prime Minister : The strict answer to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question is no. The hon. Gentleman knows very well why I think that it is right that this House should decide the fate of the Maastricht treaty in all its aspects. That is the basis of parliamentary democracy, and, as I understand it, it is the position of his own Front Bench.

    Q7. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the support, in all quarters of the House, for the United Kingdom’s early return to UNESCO, which has been greatly reformed in recent years? Bearing in mind the fact that President Clinton is about to take the United States back into that organisation, would it not be prudent for my right hon. Friend to secure this country’s return beforehand?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends made me well aware of the strength of their feelings on this matter when they came to see me recently. As I indicated to them, we are keeping the matter under review, and no final decisions have been taken. I will certainly bear my hon. Friend’s concern in mind when we make our decisions.

  • PMQT – 16 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Byers : The Prime Minister will know that, according to the latest Government figures, there are now 39 unemployed people chasing every job vacancy. Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning Littlewoods pools stated that the odds against winning a dividend on their coupon are 39 to one? Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how it is that, after 14 years of Conservative Government, an unemployed person has as much chance of getting a job as of winning the pools?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that in recent years in his constituency unemployment has fallen by 20 per cent. Perhaps that is something that he should have borne in mind.

    Mr. Bill Walker : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the taking- stock exercise has gone down extremely well in Scotland? Will he confirm that this Government will never bring forward proposals for unwanted, expensive regional assemblies in England, where over 80 per cent. of taxpayers and the population live, nor will they bring forward proposals for assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that, as, indeed, I did at the last general election. We do not believe that such extra assemblies would be helpful either to democracy or to good government in any part of the United Kingdom. I know that there are contrary views in the House. On the Opposition Benches we find unionists, federalists, separatists and devolutionists. That does not add up to a great deal ; often not even effective opposition.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister publish the report by the Department of Trade and Industry on the state of Britain’s manufacturing industry?

    The Prime Minister : The report to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers was private advice to Ministers and I do not propose to publish it all. I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should raise that question the day after the news that manufacturing output rose to its highest level for 18 months and that it was up on the year before. Perhaps for once the right hon. and learned Gentleman will acknowledge good news.

    Mr. John Smith : So much for open government. The Prime Minister knows that he is the first to publish information whenever it suits him. Why does he wish to conceal from the British public the devastating assessment of the Department of Trade and Industry in his own Administration–I quote from its report–that our manufacturing product base is weak and deteriorating?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is up to his old tricks yet again. Whatever he can do to talk down British industry, he will do. If he read a little further in the report from which he gleans his information he would recognise that our productivity has improved faster than that of Germany, France, Italy or the United States. I ask again : when will the right hon. and learned Gentleman help to talk up British industry and stop talking it down?

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister now see that he should publish the report, because it also says that the main source of new products is imports, that British industry is fundamentally weak, suffering from inadequate investment in new technology, and that there are flaws which it will take decades to remove? Is not it clear to everyone that the reason why he is frightened to publish it is that it reveals that 14 years of Conservative government have done deadly damage to British industry?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain why output in the engineering industry is rising, computers are rising and textile output is rising. Perhaps he will explain why the CBI survey shows yet another increase in output expectations– [Interruption.]

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

    The Prime Minister : They cannot accept anything but bad news as far as this country is concerned, so they will not like the fact that manufacturing investment has risen in each of the past three quarters. Those are the figures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman never mentions. He knows them, but they never pass his lips.

    Mr. Brazier : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measure introduced temporarily last November to ease the Treasury rule on capital receipts for housing authorities was sensible? Will he join me in condemning what is happening in Canterbury, where the Treasury rule is being abused and the housing account is being raided by the Liberal-controlled authority to squander funds on leisure facilities?

    The Prime Minister : I was not myself aware of that particular point, but my hon. Friend has made me aware of it in a most forceful way. I shall pass it on to my right hon. Friend.

     

    Q2. Mr. McAvoy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. McAvoy : Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that one sign of a weak Prime Minister is constant clarification of what he really meant to say. Last Tuesday the Prime Minister talked about “when” Scottish water will be privatised and then tried to cover up by saying that he should have added the words “if implemented”. Does the Prime Minister accept that such weak behaviour fully justifies the Paul Johnson quote :

    “Major is what he is : a man from nowhere, going nowhere, heading for well merited obscurity as fast as his mediocre talents can carry him”?

    The Prime Minister : When the hon. Gentleman gets here, perhaps he can make that sort of remark.

     

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

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

    Mr. Rathbone : Following my right hon. Friend’s answer to the Leader of the Opposition, is he aware that people in manufacturing are indebted to him for his confirmation of the importance of those who work making things? Will he spend a moment today commending the engineering skills that make that possible?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly be happy to do as my hon. Friend says. As he knows, and as I have repeatedly made clear, I believe that manufacturing is vital to the United Kingdom economy and that engineers have a key part to play in that. Figures released yesterday showed an encouraging picture, with output in electrical and mechanical engineering rising strongly, as did manufacturing output overall.

    Mr. Eric Clarke : This is the first chance that I have had to ask the Prime Minister a question. When are the Government going to implement the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which stated that emphysema and bronchitis should be considered as industrial diseases for people who have had mining experience? Is the delay one that saves the Government money since, as we have seen in the past, the claimants die off?

    The Prime Minister : The report has been with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who has been discussing it with colleagues. I hope that an announcement will be able to be made very shortly.

    Sir Michael Grylls : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather a sorry reflection on the standards of the Opposition that the Leader of the Opposition has to rely on the material–

    Madam Speaker : Order. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister is responsible only for Government policy, not for what the Leader of the Opposition gets up to.

    Sir Michael Grylls : Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Leader of the Opposition to visit British industry, where he could see some of the great successes such as in motor cars, television and the chemical industry, where we are now leading the world?

    The Prime Minister : I would endeavour to encourage that understanding opposite. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard what was said and I look forward to him taking note of it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Banks : I realise that everyone’s mind is on the Budget, but may I ask the Prime Minister to give some thought today to the future plight of great whales, which has a price beyond calculation? Does he recall when some of us came to 10 Downing Street to present a petition signed by half a million people protesting about Norway’s intention to carry on with commercial whaling? Will he now make a protest to the Norwegian Prime Minister so that she and everyone else in Norway knows that if Norway goes ahead with commercial whaling, there will be no place for it in the Community and that appropriate sanctions will be taken against that country?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly raise the point that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which he has raised with me before and which we have raised with Norway on a number of occasions in the past. But I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s advice on the second point. Norway is keen, I think, to join the Community and I hope that in due course she will.

     

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

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

    Mr. Faber : In the light of reports last week that about 30 per cent. of 14-year-olds now achieve a reading age of between nine and 11, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever that these children are rigorously tested regularly and that the results are made available to their parents? Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the disgraceful action proposed by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers which will wreak havoc in the classroom?

    The Prime Minister : I very much agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend’s remarks. No one can be happy with the level of achievement in English that is thrown up by the report, but if we are to help pupils and raise standards, we need testing and the national curriculum. If we get the tests, we shall see which children are falling behind and we shall then be in a position to take action to help them. I would certainly deplore any action to disrupt those tests and I look for support in that from every part of the House.

    Mrs. Fyfe : Would the Prime Minister like to demonstrate his support for open government by instructing the Secretary of State for Scotland to publish details of the secret correspondence he had with the leader of the Scottish National party?

    The Prime Minister : I rather thought that it had been published.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : During his visits behind what used to be the iron curtain, did my right hon. Friend have a chance to go shopping, as I did recently on a visit to Kiev, where I discovered that the contents of the very best department store were about the equivalent of a boot sale on a bad Sunday afternoon? Is not it true that, despite the attempts of the Opposition to talk this country down, this is still the best democracy in the world? But, before we hand over our government to Brussels, should not we consult the British people through a referendum?

    The Prime Minister : For one magical moment I thought my hon. Friend was going to carry me entirely with her. I strongly agree with the first part of her question and I think that no one is in any doubt about the acutely difficult situation faced by the Russian Parliament and by the Russian leadership at the moment. We very much hope that the Group of Seven will be able to help the reform movement in Russia and we certainly intend to do so. So far as the referendum is concerned, I can give no comfort to my hon. Friend.

     

    Q7. Mr. Miller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 March.

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

    Mr. Miller : On 31 March last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told Channel 4 News :

    “We will not have to increase taxes. I cannot see any circumstances in which that will be necessary.”

    Does the Prime Minister appreciate that if the Chancellor breaks that pledge in a few moments’ time, no one will ever trust anybody on the Government Benches again?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will not have long to wait on that point. It is an odd question to come from him, when the leader of his party said recently:

    “Well, we change our policies as we move towards a different election. We’re not necessarily committed to what we did at a particular election.”

  • 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.

  • Press Release – Prime Minister’s Comments on Trade and Industry Policy – 26 March 1992

    Below is the text of the Conservative Party Press Release on Mr Major’s comments on trade and industry policy. It was issued on Thursday 26th March 1992, reference 614/92.


    LABOUR IN, EVERYBODY OUT

    “Labour in, everybody out. For years that was the refrain that wrecked British industry”, the Rt Hon John Major, Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party, told a press conference at Conservative Central Office, today.

    But last year Britain achieved a record level of industrial peace. Fewer days were lost through strikes than at any time since records began a century ago.

    That is a triumph for good sense in industry – and for the reforming work of a Conservative Government.

    It has brought this country huge dividends: inward investment, higher productivity and higher wages – and a new reputation for reliability.

    ‘Made in Britain’ is a proud label again – not a warning that the spare parts are rotting on the dockside.

    Strife and disruption used to dominate our national life. Flying pickets. Wildcat strikes. Power cuts. Intimidation. Confrontation. Lost orders. Cancelled deliveries. Roaring inflation.

    Those were the features of a country out of the control of its Labour government – and under the control of its unions.

    The threat, I am afraid, is still there. Union militants are hoping – desperately – for a Labour government.

    Then organised disruption would be back. Labour are already committed to undo some of our key reforms. Secondary pickets would be back on our streets.

    The truth is, the unions still have a stranglehold on the Labour party.

    They are keeping pretty quiet in this election. But Kenneth Clarke is going to remind you how they pull the strings – and Michael Howard is going to spell out the consequences.”