The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Trade Unions

  • Press Release – Prime Minister’s Comments on the Conservative Vision – 23 March 1992

    Below is the text of the Conservative Party Press Release on Mr Major’s comments on the Conservative Party’s vision for the future. It was issued on Monday 23rd March 1992, reference 567/92.

    Speech by the Rt Hon John Major, Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party, speaking at Sheffield, today.

    “Ladies and Gentlemen, here in this great city of Sheffield, let me begin by saying – the knives are out for Labour. And where better to sharpen them?

    In recent days I’m told that Labour have been calling our campaign negative. Good. That means our attacks are getting home. That means they don’t like it. The only negative thing in this campaign are their policies for Britain. We Tories will continue to ring the warning bell about the effect Labour’s policies will have on the living standards of everyone in Britain. The people have a right to know. And we will tell them.

    Labour’s facade is starting to crack under pressure:

    – John Smith sets Labour’s official target for inflation – to take it upwards.

    – John Prescott admits that Labour’s minimum wage would destroy jobs.

    – Roy Hattersley implies that John Smith’s higher tax rates could go even higher.

    – And Neil Kinnock? Well Mr Kinnock says he still believes in Clause IV – the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

    And just this morning Mr Kinnock committed the Labour Party to re-introduce credit controls. A typical Socialist answer. Form a queue. Wait for the state to tell you when you can buy a home. Wait for the state to tell you when you can sell your house to someone who wants to buy it. That’s no way to get the housing market going. That’s no way to help young people onto the housing ladder. It’s a way to dish people’s prospects and dash their hopes. It’s a policy to destroy the housing market – a policy to destroy the recovery.

    Once again Labour have provided the wrong answer at the wrong time.

    Last week he said that Britain would have been a better place if Labour had won on their programme in 1983. A better place? With unilateral disarmament? Withdrawal from Europe? And the biggest nationalisation programme ever known?

    Ladies and Gentlemen, by their gaffes ye shall know them. Labour’s policies are falling apart. We are going to see to it that their vast experience of Opposition will continue indefinitely.

    The Conservative Vision

    Ladies and Gentlemen, what’s at stake in this Election is the future of Britain. The decision we take on 9 April will be critical for the prospects of everyone who lives in our country – wherever they come from.

    Let me tell you why I came into politics. First and foremost, because there were things I wanted to change. Where I grew up, in Lambeth, we were told that decisions were best left to the State or the council – never to the family, never to the individual. That’s not my kind of society. I want a country in which everyone is able to develop their talents to the full. Where they are free to choose. And where effort and hard-work is rewarded.

    Never forget the people who live on the wrong side of the tracks. They want to live on the right side. I want the sort of country that will let them do so. Ladies and Gentlemen, no Government that I lead – certainly not the Conservative Government that I will form after 9 April – will forget them. In the 1990s I want to take the Conservative Party into those places in Britain where its message has not yet been heard.

    Some people, I know, hang back from our Party for reasons of ancient loyalties. Let me say this to them. Our modern Tory Party is for each and every person in Britain. We want to banish for ever the artificial divisions in our society. And it is Conservatism – not Socialism – that will break those barriers down. Let us carry a message to everyone in the country. Join us. Help us to continue our campaign to change the face of Britain.

    I say to those who want a better Health Service, join us. Join the Party that has committed more resources than every before to the Health Service; that’s giving local doctors and hospitals control over the decisions that are best for local patients; and which has seen the biggest explosion in modern high quality patient care this country has every known.

    I say to those who want a better deal for tenants in housing. Join us. You won’t get that better deal from the Labour Party with its mangy municipal socialism. It was our Party that gave you the Right to Buy. Our Party that has a Charter to guarantee new rights to tenants. Our Party that offers new ways into ownership. And our Party, and our Party alone that will crack down on arrogant Labour Housing Departments that neglect their tenants. Ladies and Gentlemen, I’ve seen too much of that sort of attitude from Labour local authorities. They’re a disgrace to local government.

    I say to those who want a better future, join us. Our vision is that every family should have the personal prosperity that comes from low taxes, from their own savings, their own pensions, their own home, their own endeavour. That every family should have their own piece of Britain – and in due time should be able to pass it on to their children.

    Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes – it matters as much on the shopfloor as well as in the boardroom. Let’s show people that we understand these things and are with them. People want to get on. To do well for their families. To give their children a good start in life. That’s right. It’s natural. These are the deepest instincts of a free people.

    A free and responsible people must have – deserve to have – choice and opportunity. Grand words, maybe, but they go to the heart of everyday life. Choice over how to spend the money you earn. Choice in education and schools. Choice in housing. Choice over the future shape of local government. And the new citizen’s rights enshrined in our Citizen’s Charter. Those are the choices we offer – and no-one else will give them.

    Privatisation of choice

    Ladies and Gentlemen, our Party is in the business of the privatisation of choice – giving choice back to the individual, the family. Choice is the quiet privatisation. It has changed lives by the millions. In the last 10 years it has improved the life of every family in Britain. In the whole proud catalogue of privatisation it’s the most successful of all.

    But Labour – wouldn’t you know it – want to renationalise choice. They want to lead a march of the big battalions back into the private lives of every citizen. The scales that we’ve worked so hard to tip against the power of the state, Labour would load down with red tape, regulation, and tax and tip them yet again back against the individual. We must never give them the chance to do that – and we won’t.

    Tax

    Ladies and Gentlemen, during this Election we’re going to say a great deal about Labour’s proposals on spending and tax. I know they won’t like it. But we’re still going to do it. We have costed their makeshift manifesto. Thirty-one billion pounds on top of John Smith’s earlier promises. To pay for that, on average, every person would have to fork out an extra £1,250 every year. That’s the price of Labour – and it’s not just for people on middle incomes. It’s for everyone.

    Yesterday I challenged Labour to tell the people the truth. Take all their pledges, one by one. Accept our costing – or refute it. Stand by their promises – or withdraw them. And what answer has so far come from Mr Kinnock – a silence as profound as it is unusual. So tonight I repeat the challenge.

    The issue of tax is fundamental to the Election. Because Labour’s tax and spending plans would change the lives of millions upon millions of families for the worse.

    Whatever the Socialists say, one thing we know. On their own admission, Labour will impose the biggest increase in tax since the War. It would be a disaster for Britain – and it wouldn’t just be middle income families crashing in ruin. Millions of others would be caught up in their fall.

    It would mean holidays deferred; cars sold; homes in jeopardy. The housing market would go through the floor.

    Labour invoke the great names of fairness and justice, while denying their substance at every important point. What is fair about a society that denies those with ability the means to advance? What is just about a society that confiscates from the hard-working the fruits of their labours? Where is the fairness in undermining the value of the shares, the pensions or the houses which people bought to give their children a better start than they had themselves? Where is the justice in hitting those who do extra work or who earn promotion with penal tax?

    To meet John Smith’s tax bills, banks and building society accounts would be plundered. And a whole new generation of shareholders would see their shares go down, and stay down. So much for Labour’s claim of an investment-led recovery. It would be an investment-lost disaster.

    Economic Recovery

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I know that people are looking ahead to economic recovery. I know also that many businesses and families have been feeling the pressures. Those concerns will never be brushed aside by us, they will always be heard.

    But they should not blind us to the underlying changes which have taken place in the British economy over the last decade – changes which are fundamental, changes which have transformed our long term economic prospects.

    There’s a new spirit of enterprise – with management and workforce working as one to take on the competition and win. Quality, design, service are once more at the forefront. British companies are pushing forward the boundaries of innovation – in pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, electronics and right across manufacturing industry. Productivity has risen by leaps and bounds.

    We’ve been keeping strike records for 100 years. Last year, the number of days lost was the lowest ever. Why? Because we’ve changed industrial relations law and changed industrial relation attitudes. Don’t let Labour change them back.

    It’s hardly surprising that Britain has become a magnet for overseas investment. We have as much investment from Japan as the rest of the Community put together. We are now a net exporter of television sets and video recorders. And the British motor industry is now known for exports and not for strikes. Do you think all this would have happened under a Labour government? Do you think the confidence the Conservative Government has built up would continue under Labour? You know it wouldn’t.

    On top of all this, interest rates have come down, inflation has come down and Britain’s rate of inflation is below Germany’s – the first time this has happened for nearly quarter of a century.

    Now, after a generation of striving to achieve that very goal, within two days of its being achieved, Labour’s John Smith says he’d be happy to see inflation rise again. He dismisses stable prices as an ‘unnecessary virtue’. Those are the words of a shallow ‘chancellor’ – shallow and blind to what matters to every housewife and pensioner in the country.

    Labour talk of recovery. But inflation is the enemy of recovery. It destroys profits. It destroys companies. So how is higher inflation going to help investment? How is it going to help jobs?

    The foundations for recovery are in place. Let business speak for itself. Fifteen times more businessmen would increase investment under the Conservatives than they would under Labour. In fact, under Labour one in four businessmen have said they would cut investment.

    I believe the 1990s will usher in a new era for prosperity and for jobs. The once impossible are within reach:

    – stable prices

    – sustained industrial peace

    – free enterprise given free rein.

    Only one thing could stop it.

    The Labour Party – pledged to tax; pledged to nationalise; pledged to give power back to the unions. That would knock recovery on the head – for this year, next year, every year.

    Labour would turn recovery into slump.

    I am not prepared to see that happen – it’s not going to happen. Britain is on the brink of a breakthrough to a great future. Is the dull, dead hand of Socialism to be allowed to strangle that future? Not if I can help it. And I can. And with your help, I will.

    Back to Union Power

    Ladies and Gentlemen, one of the Conservatives’ most popular achievements has been the reform of trade union legislation. The benefits have been enormous.

    We want more of those successful policies. So after the Election we have more changes to make. We will give individuals greater freedom in choosing a union. We will require all pre-strike ballots to be postal. And we will see that unions give at least seven days notice of a strike. We will give every member of the public the right to take legal action to stop the disruption of public services by illegal wild cat strikes.

    Labour would reverse all that. Give power back to the unions. Allow secondary strikes. Prevent employers from obtaining an immediate court order to stop an unlawful strike. Take away from individual union members the right not to take part in industrial action. Severely restrict the right of the courts to take away a union’s assets when it breaks the law.

    It would be back to wild cat strikes. Back to the flying pickets. Sheer madness. Can you imagine anything more calamitous for our country? That wouldn’t bring recovery. That would bring industrial euthanasia to our country.

    Law and Order

    Ladies and Gentlemen, when I think of the rights of individuals I place at the top of my list the freedom to walk the streets and to open the front door without fear. Crime is a corrupting evil. There are those, like Mr Hattersley, who blame greed and affluence one year and poverty and unemployment the next. He rings the changes and contradicts himself – when he’s not contradicting his colleagues – to suit the mood of the hour. He and his Socialist friends always blame crime on the Government – never the criminal.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I understand about hard times. I understand about unemployment. But I also understand about personal responsibility, about the decency that is the very bedrock of British character. In whatever place, in whatever station of life, the vast majority of British people detest crime. They want an end to it. And they know it’s the criminal, no-one else, who is to blame.

    So let’s have no more of Labour’s posturings. No more excuses about society being always to blame. I accept no excuses for the criminal conduct. And nor should anyone who seeks high office in Britain.

    Since 1979 we have put 16,000 more police into the fight against crime. The next Conservative Government will keep up the battle. Back our police. And bring in new methods of policing to keep more of them out on the beat among people they know. That is what the public want. And it’s the best way to stop crime and catch the criminal.

    In the growth of crime, there is one statistic that should make us all stop and think. It is the growth of crime against property by juveniles. I think sometime we have been so tolerant in understand crime at an early age that we seem to have accepted it. I believe we should be more severe in our condemnation of crime at an early stage so that the young criminal knows we won’t accept it. That is a job for the Government. That is a job for schools. That is a job for families. It is a job for each and everyone of us if we are to nip crime at the roots and prevent it from growing. But not only that. We also owe it to our young people to let them know what is acceptable and what is not. And it we don’t do it we let them down.

    A word about Labour’s attitude to terrorism. Year after year, for 10 years in succession, they have voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act – and they are pledged to repeal it. Don’t tell me this is a brand new Labour Party.

    Socialism represents the past

    The decade gone by, the 1980s, was one of the most historic decades of the century. It saw a battle raging between socialism and the people – nowhere more clearly than in Eastern Europe. Socialism lost, the people won.

    That battle took place in Britain, too. And in the 1980s, here, Socialism lost, the people won.

    How could it be otherwise? Socialism is over. It belongs to the past. It failed – totally. And it deserved to. In Eastern Europe, in its most brutal form, it suppressed human rights and dignity. In Britain, whenever Labour formed a government, it ended in incompetence, frustration and chaos.

    Now Labour would have us believe that their latest brand of socialism is a much watered down variety, that their views have changed. Don’t you believe it. What has changed is the coloured wrapping, the decoration. Mr Kinnock has tinkered with Labour policy not because he wanted to, not because his views had changed, but because his pollsters told him Labour’s face wouldn’t do, they needed a new one if the Party was ever to win again. That is the litmus test of Labour’s convictions. Anything to win.

    Let me remind you what Mr Tony Benn said – only last autumn – about Labour policy. I quote: “We’ve changed our mind to win, we could change our mind when we’ve won … there’s nothing pre-set about the policies of the present Labour Party”.

    Roll that around in your mind: “we’ve changed our mind to win, we could change our mind when we’ve won”. No-one can say they haven’t been warned.

    Do you know what I think of Labour? Labour are like Sunday converts. They come to church on the Sabbath – but boil the missionaries the rest of the week.

    Leadership

    The Labour Party have been wrong on all the great issues in recent years. When we stationed cruise missiles in Europe, where were the Labour Party? Opposing us. Yet by stationing those missiles we made the world a much safer place. They wouldn’t station missiles facing the old Soviet Union. But because we did, today there are far fewer missiles facing us.

    Let me give you another example and take you back a few years. To the days of Soviet dictatorship and tyranny, when military might controlled the nations of Eastern Europe.

    Every voice in the West speaking up for freedom was heard by those brave men and women struggling for freedom. It gave them hope. It strengthened their resolve.

    And when all this was going on, where were Labour? Were they alongside the Conservative Party in speaking up for human rights in the Soviet Union? They were not. They saved their breath for attacking the values of the Western democracies, rather than the evils of the Soviet dictators.

    Nothing was more repellent than to see those Left-wingers in the Labour Party parade their conscience and bleat about human rights – not in the Soviet Union, but in their own country. How loath to criticise the Soviet Union. But how ready they were to attack the United States.

    I am not talking about obscure Left-wingers. I’m talking about the people who now lead the Labour Party. It was their leader himself who said that there was an equality of threat between the United States and the Soviet Union – one of the most gloriously naive statements ever made by the leader of any national party – except perhaps the Monster Raving Loonies.

    On every important issue, the Labour Party has been swerving all over the place – up and down, backwards and forwards, from side to side. On Europe. On defence. On one-sided disarmament. How can anyone trust such a Party?

    They always have a policy for the day. But that’s the trouble – it’s just for the day.

    Overseas governments don’t know where they stand. We don’t know where they stand. Even they don’t know where they stand. And they say they want to form the next government. That is not going to happen. One Party – and one Party only – stands foursquare in their way, stands for tomorrow’s world instead of back to yesterday. That is our Party – the Conservative and Unionist Party. The present and future Government of this country.

    Peroration

    What is it that we offer? A strong Britain, confident of its position; secure in its defence; firm in its respect for the law. A strong economy, set on the road to stable prices – in which taxes can fall, savings can grow, and independence is assured.

    For every family, the right to have and to hold their own private corner of life; their own home, their own savings, their own growing piece of Britain for the future – and for their children’s future.

    We Conservatives are building a country in which every family has the power to choose and the right to own, in which everyone has a fair share in Britain.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, in this Election there is a clear and straightforward choice to be make. Is enterprise to be crushed or encouraged? Is choice to be reduced or widened? Is income tax to go up or come down? Is our defence to be weak or strong? Is the United Kingdom to be broken up or is it to be upheld?

    This Election is about the kind of country we want to live in. I know the answer. You know the answer. And I believe the British people know the answer. That is why on 9 April they will give us a resounding victory.”

  • PMQT – 11 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Patrick Duffy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 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.

    Sir Patrick Duffy : Is the Prime Minister aware that whatever reservations hon. Members may have about the rigour of his counter- inflation policy and its impact on growth, jobs and investment, it would attract more support if the Government had a more even-handed approach to it? How does he explain, for example, the statement last night by the latest power chief to receive a big pay rise–Mr. Weston of MANWEB–that the Government knew that his salary would soar?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman may know, the gentleman concerned has withdrawn that statement and withdrawn it unreservedly. As MANWEB said :

    “the higher levels of pay were not agreed until after the offer for sale was announced in November 1990. The Government did not place any restriction on the regional electricity companies in announcing likely figures at any time.”

    That was what was said and I endorse that as an accurate statement. Salaries after privatisation are and must be a matter for the company. But I have made my view perfectly clear; in my judgment those salaries should reflect what is reasonable. But it is a matter for the companies and not for me.

    Sir John Farr : Might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has had a chance today in his list of engagements to look at the recent announcement by the Labour party that it apparently intends to–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The question must refer to the Government’s responsibility. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been away for a while, but his question must refer to the Government’s responsibility.

    Sir John Farr : I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will see it as his responsibility today to have an early debate on our nuclear deterrent and the need for us to keep it. Apparently the Opposition’s policy has suddenly changed. Rather than an announcement in the media, we should have a full, proper and open debate on the Floor of the House.

    The Prime Minister : First, I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his absence. We are very pleased to see him back in his place.

    My hon. Friend touched on defence, a matter of great importance not just to the House but to everyone in it and beyond it. I believe that there is considerable doubt about the position of the Opposition on defence, and I hope that they will take an early opportunity to make it clear whether they are unilateralist and in what circumstances they would use nuclear weapons.

    Mr. Hattersley : Does the Prime Minister still stick to his prediction that the British economy will recover during the second half of this year?

    The Prime Minister : Apparently the right hon. Gentleman does not want to discuss defence quite so soon. I remain of the opinion that I have expressed before in the House and which has been endorsed by the OECD and the CBI : that we shall begin to move out of recession in the second half of this year.

    Mr. Hattersley : Has it escaped the Prime Minister’s notice that the second half of the year began 11 days ago.

    Hon. Members : Oh!

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Hattersley : If the right hon. Gentleman’s prediction has any veracity why are we still at the bottom of the economic league? Why do we have the worst record of investment, unemployment and growth of all the G7 countries?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman might study the diary a little more closely to find out how long the second half of the year lasts. As usual, he is facing backwards. Five per cent. off the inflation rate and 3.5 per cent. off interest rates are both essential ingredients to get the economy moving again. That has happened and it will continue.

    Mr. Hattersley : With reference to the diary, I take it that the Prime Minister is now saying that the economy will begin to improve by Christmas. Every time he makes a prediction about improvement, he gets further and further away. I shall therefore ask him a simple question based on his own pathetic analysis of when the economy might begin to improve. First, can we be assured that by Christmas and in the three areas about which I have asked the right hon. Gentleman–investment, unemployment and growth–this country will be doing at least as well as Greece, Portugal and Turkey? May we also be assured– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Hattersley : Will the Prime Minister now also answer the question from which he ran away last Tuesday? Since, during the three years of decline, he has been Chief Secretary, Chancellor and Prime Minister, will he accept his own responsibility for those three years of disaster?

    The Prime Minister : On the subject of predictions, with which the right hon. Gentleman began his lengthy third question, he will recall predicting that unemployment would be 4 million in 1987–he is in no position to talk about predictions. As for the position at the end of the year, as a former sacked shadow Chancellor the right hon. Gentleman should know that we will set out our predictions in the autumn statement.

    Sir Peter Emery : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he and his Government will ensure that the military level of our forces will always be sufficient to meet the defence needs of the realm and of our military commitments overseas?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir.

     

    South London

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

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and I very much hope to include south London among them.

    Mr. Hughes : Given that youth unemployment has risen in the four inner south London boroughs by 53 per cent. in the past year, and that more than one in two crimes in the capital are committed by young people, will the Prime Minister, as a south London boy who became the youngest Prime Minister this century, make a personal commitment to the young people of south London by coming to visit them and the youth service south of the river, to see their desperate state and to make sure that he and the Government commit the personnel, resources, training and jobs to ensure that young people today have the opportunities that he is glad he had?

    The Prime Minister : I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the opportunities that are necessary for young people in the inner-London area. One of the principal problems for many years was the treatment of education under the regime of the Inner London education authority, which has been continued by the disgraceful attitude that some of the inner London boroughs take to the way in which they deal with education. That dramatically damages the employment prospects of youngsters. Another factor that caused unemployment in inner London was the capacity of Labour councils, under the old system, to put up business rates to such an extent that businesses left inner London.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : If my right hon. Friend gets the chance to come to south-east London, he will find himself in the area covered by the Greenwich building society and the Woolwich building society. Will he see whether it is possible, on Monday when clause 52 of the Finance Bill is considered in the House, to have an open debate on the way that that clause adversely affects the Greenwich building society, but not the Woolwich building society, so that Parliament can decide openly what should happen in the future?

    The Prime Minister : Parliament is always in a position to decide openly on the matters before it, and that will undoubtedly be the case when we debate the Finance Bill.

    Ms. Hoey : The Prime Minister knows that unemployment has risen in south London, and that he has cut training places there. When will he put more money into training there and give young people real training prospects?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady knows, quite apart from the general employment prospects and training that have been increased over the years, we have established two city technology colleges in south London. These will dramatically improve the prospects of the pupils in them. Prospects would be improved even more were other schools in inner London to adopt the same disciplines and to offer the same certainty of good education that CTCs offer.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

    Mr. Bruce : My right hon. Friend will know that the people of south Dorset believe in a strong, credible and clearly stated defence policy. Will he ensure that the policy for defence is both credible and will deter aggression, and that it is well understood? That will be in contrast to the party opposite, which believes in fudged words, so as to avoid the wrath of its Back Benchers.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right, and I believe that he speaks for many people who do not trust the Opposition on defence. Yesterday, they produced a defence policy which appeared to protect them rather than the country. People will have noticed that. One cannot defend the country with a couple of sentences tucked away in an article in The Guardian. This country knows the Opposition only too well and it knows their unilateralist tendencies.

    Mr. Wilson : Less than a week ago, the Bank of England was giving a clean bill of health to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Less than a week ago, the Department of the Environment was issuing that bank’s name as one suitable for local authorities to deal with. If officials of these two organisations, sitting in the heart of London, can make such a catastrophic error, does the Prime Minister have any sympathy with the officials of small local authorities in far-flung parts of the country which might have taken the advice of the Bank of England and the Department of the Environment? Will the Government and the Bank of England face up to their responsibilities in this matter?

    The Prime Minister : The Bank of England acted as soon as it had evidence on which to act, and that has been made clear. It would not be right to give preferential treatment to local authorities over other depositors of the BCCI. Any accountant of finance director should know that if an institution pays over the market rate of interest, it is in the form of a risk premium. Local authorities have a duty of care over the funds entrusted to them and that implies taking a prudent view of risk and spreading risk.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Maureen Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

    Mrs. Hicks : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the drawing up of the Government’s Green Paper on industrial relations, he will take full account of the poll in The Guardian today, which shows clear majorities against a return to secondary action, flying pickets and unofficial strikes –policies which are all supported by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our trade union legislation has brought unprecedented improvements in industrial relations. Of course, they are unprecedented improvements which are not welcome to the Labour party. As Mr. Ron Todd said earlier this week :

    “Tory industrial relations law has got to go. There is no fudging the issue.”

    Labour’s position is absolutely clear. As the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said when he spoke to the TGWU yesterday– [Interruption.] As the right hon. Gentleman said– [Interruption.] I can wait, Mr. Speaker– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us hear the end of the Prime Minister’s answer.

    The Prime Minister : I know that Labour Members are embarrassed by what their leader said, but they are going to hear it. He said about the TGWU :

    “This union is the Labour party in so many ways.”

    He was right. The union calls the shots, it chooses the policies, and it even picks the leaders.

  • PMQT – 9 July 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

    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. Griffiths : The Prime Minister must be aware of the 253 per cent. pay increase of the chief executive of Yorkshire Electricity–yet another in a long line of outrageous pay increases to the chiefs of former publicly owned industries. Is not it true that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to do anything about those pay rises because of his friends and former colleagues on the boards of those companies, who are stuffing their pockets with money as fast as it can be snatched from the long-suffering consumer?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman gives a prize example of Labour humbug. The Labour party’s policy document “Opportunity Britain” states :

    “British industry now needs a long term commitment from Government but not in the form of second guessing industry”.

    The hon. Gentleman should remember that.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones : May I remind my right hon. Friend that, so far this year, his Government have supported the creation of 4,500 new jobs in Wales and nearly £352 million of investment for the Principality? Every announcement of such good news has been greeted contemptuously by Labour Members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tactics of the luddite left are the surest, fastest way of undermining investor confidence?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has just returned from the United States with a significant package of job-creating projects, promising more than 500 new jobs. I should have thought that the Opposition would welcome that.

    Mr. Kinnock : When the Prime Minister meets the Heads of Government of the G7 major industrialised nations next week, will he explain to them how he managed to get an oil-rich country like Britain to the bottom of the employment, growth and investment leagues?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should look at what has happened over the past 10 years, when our growth has far outstripped that of almost every other industrial nation. Over the decade as a whole, we have one of the best job creation records of any nation.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister chooses to speak of the past. Will he therefore recognise that, for the past three years, we have been at the bottom of those employment, growth and investment leagues and that, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with his policies we will be in that position again next year? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is the first time that any country has been at the bottom for four consecutive years? As the right hon. Gentleman has been a Treasury Minister or the Prime Minister over the whole period, does he agree that he should accept unique responsibility for this unique failure?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should have read on in the OECD report, where it was made clear that lower inflation is the essential condition for sustained growth. Everybody recognises that except the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, only last week at the National Economic Development Council, trade unionists such as Mr. Jordan, Mr. Edmonds and Mr. Willis all supported the steps to reduce inflation. Only the right hon. Gentleman does not know where prosperity begins.

    Mr. Kinnock : By pushing the economy into deep recession, the Prime Minister can, of course, reduce inflation. Does he think that, under his policies, he will be higher placed on the growth, employment and investment leagues next year? Does he recognise that, if he is not, he is just laying the seeds for further inflation?

    The Prime Minister : We are absolutely refusing to take action now that may lay the seeds for future inflation. We are determined to ensure that we not only get inflation down but keep it down. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we shall not take the easy option now at the risk of problems later.

    Mr. Robert Banks : Has my right hon. Friend read the reports of the conference of the Transport and General Workers Union–the union which, incidentally, sponsors the Leader of the Opposition–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This must be related to the Government’s responsibilities.

    Mr. Banks : Has he read about its calls for the scrapping of all trade union laws, with the consequent return of Mr. Ron Todd’s secondary strikes and flying pickets? Is not he thankful that in framing industrial laws, his party conferences have not been tainted by the block votes of the trade union ballots?

    The Prime Minister : It is perfectly clear that Labour Members are sensitive about their relationship with the trade unions. They are right to be, because their idea of democracy is demonstrated every year when the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union visits the Labour party conference–one man, 1 million votes, and the right hon. Gentleman does as he is told.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hoyle : When the Prime Minister takes time off from his engagements, will he do what the Home Secretary so conspicuously failed to do yesterday and accept total and unconditional responsibility for the appalling lapse in security that allowed two alleged terrorists to escape from Brixton gaol? Does not he realise what an enormous propaganda coup the Government have given the IRA?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone shares the concern at the lapse in security yesterday which resulted in two prisoners escaping. That is a matter of genuine regret, not least by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Those problems have occurred before under previous Governments, but only this Government have taken action to tighten security, improve the conditions of prison staff and provide new and proper prison places.

    Mr. Butterfill : Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that a minimum wage would be damaging but that a minimum wage based on median wages would be the worst of all, because it would continue to ratchet upwards as the median moved upwards? That would lead to a catastrophic rise in wages, destruction of jobs and a policy that could have been dreamt up only by a shadow Cabinet controlled by 18 trade union-sponsored Members out of 20.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is now generally understood by everyone except those on the Opposition Front Bench that a minimum wage policy would devastate British industry and create a substantial amount of unemployment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Banks : As the Prime Minister says that he believes in the creation of a classless society, will he assure the House that he will not recommend the creation of any hereditary peerages?

    The Prime Minister : The subject of honours is not a matter that I am required to answer in front of the House and I do not propose to do so.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Hannam : Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the admission by Iraq that it has been developing a nuclear weapon? Does he agree that any responsible political party in this country should give a firm pledge not to give up nuclear weapons as long as other countries still have them and countries such as Iraq are developing them?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend and can certainly give him the assurance that he seeks. Iraq has now admitted to having a secret uranium enrichment programme. That is a clear violation of the nuclear safeguards agreement and of Iraq’s non-proliferation treaty obligations. As I said some time ago at the Scottish conference in Perth, we shall ensure by whatever means it takes that Iraq can never again build up a capacity to threaten its neighbours with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

    Mr. Ashdown : Leaving aside for a moment the question of how the Bank of Credit and Commerce International got into its present position, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he personally understands the scale of the tragedy that is befalling BCCI investors? Is he aware that in some communities in Britain, up to 30 per cent. of traders are account holders in BCCI? Will he look at the rules governing compensation, which many regard as incapable of meeting the needs of those innocent people whose livelihoods are being destroyed?

    The Prime Minister : I do, of course, understand the depth of tragedy that the apparent collapse of BCCI may mean. As yet, we are not sure what the outcome of the Serious Fraud Office investigation, the Bank of England investigation or other matters will be. The deposit protection fund was explicitly set up to protect small depositors, particularly those people with whom the right hon. Gentleman is most concerned, and it will apply in these circumstances.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert G. Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the private Member’s Bill that would give the National Audit Office power to cost Opposition policies? If the Bill becomes law, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the National Audit Office will be given sufficient staff to carry out that important task because it is a big job–commitments are added week by week and speech by speech by Labour spokesmen–or is it a task which would be beyond anybody?

    The Prime Minister : I welcome my hon. Friend’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion, but I fear that he suggests a little too much. Only last Friday, the Labour party explained that its regional assemblies would be funded by block grant from Westminster. As usual, no price tag was attached and we may yet have to determine what that price tag is. As many hon. Members may have seen on “Panorama” last night, a member of the Labour party, Professor Rowthorne, summed up the matter adequately. Asked about Labour’s spending plans, he said :

    “Frankly I think they don’t add up. If you take their whole list of spending plans and say where’s the money for this going to come from I think the answer is–I have no idea.”

    We have a very good idea–from the taxpayer’s pocket.

    Mr. John P. Smith : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reassure the people of Wales by condemning the ludicrous suggestion that the Royal Welch Fusiliers could ever be merged with the Cheshire regiment, or that the oldest and one of the finest regiments in Wales could ever be disbanded?

    The Prime Minister : We have very great concern for the regimental structure, which is more than the Opposition have shown during the past few years. Final decisions on “Options for Change” will take account of all relevant factors. Those decisions have not yet been made. When they are, my right hon. Friend and I shall be here to answer for them.

     

    Q6. Mr. Riddick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Riddick : When my right hon. Friend met the leaders of the trade unions yesterday, did he feel that his position was significantly enhanced by the fact that those same trade unions do not wield 90 per cent. of the votes at his party’s conference and do not provide 70 per cent. of the funding for his party and that 18 of his Cabinet Ministers are not sponsored by trade unions?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I agree that that gives me a degree of freedom not open to everyone else. There is no doubt that Conservative employment laws have brought about a record on industrial relations which is currently the envy of the whole of Europe. We had fewer strikes last year than at any time since the war. In contrast, Labour’s strikers’ charter gives the unions exactly what they want and no one can doubt their ambitions. As Ron Todd said I shall read this slowly so that hon. Members can listen :

    “We do not want to go back to 1979–things weren’t that good even then.”

     

    Q7. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

    Mr. Winnick : As hostilities are being renewed, with accusations and counter-accusations by former Cabinet Ministers, is there any truth in the rumour floating round Westminster that a small EC peace-keeping mission is to come over here to try to restore some peace in the Prime Minister’s party?

    The Prime Minister : No, Sir.

  • PMQT – 4 June 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Written Question on the TUC – 22 November 1979

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Commons question regarding the TUC, made on 22nd November 1979.

    Mr. Major asked the Prime Minister when next she expects to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress.

    The Prime Minister No dates have been arranged.