Tag: Unemployment

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy (II) – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 22nd April 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recession was over and the recovery started].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The economic indicators are looking a lot brighter. We’ve had a whole range of figures that were rather better than many forecasters imagined. I am very pleased to see that but I think we must wait until we see GDP figures in due course.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this was just a modest rebound after a large recession].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it is a pretty remarkable “modest rebound” as you put it, when you see almost every indicator moving in the same direction and doing so quite sharply. Normally, when one emerges from a recession it tends to be rather more jagged and rather more uncertain so I think the trend is undoubtedly in the right direction.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if unemployment falling was just a one off].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to wait and see, won’t we? It is certainly very welcome to see for the last two months that unemployment has fallen and of course three months ago, if you remember, the unemployment rise was actually rather small so it is three months where the unemployment figures have been better than people imagined.

    The level of unemployment is still far too high and we need to get it down. That is why we said some time ago that need a base of low inflation from which we can have an expanding, growing economy. That is the only way to have secure jobs.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the high PSBR].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wonder what you or most other people would have said to me if I had actually cut public expenditure in the midst of the recession? I think many people would have thought that would have been a rather strange way to deal with it.

    A large part of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement is cyclical. It is a collapse of income during the recession: no house sales – no stamp duty; no high street sales – far less value added tax; fewer people in work – a loss of income tax. As that begins to correct itself, a large part of the deficit will itself disappear. There will be more. We shall need some growth. We shall need to look very carefully at public expenditure.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy (I) – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 22nd April 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recession was over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a great deal more confidence among business, I think it is they who by their performance will show whether the recovery is with us. There is no doubt they are very confident indeed now and many of the indicators over recent weeks have been very positive, so that is very satisfactory.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he wasn’t prepared to say that the recession was over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When the recession is over everyone will see that self-evidently. What I think one can see is happening, there is a much greater degree of confidence, exports are rising, one has seen with car sales and a whole range of other indicators that they are getting a good deal better. I want to see those indicators go on getting better, that has been happening in recent weeks, it is very welcome news.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how people knew that the recovery wouldn’t lead to Lawson type boom].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is exactly the right question that people should have in their minds and exactly the right concern that I have in my mind. We said two years ago that there was no short cut out of the difficulties we faced. I said that it would be a difficult period, we had to get inflation down, when we had got inflation down – and I knew it would be difficult, knew it would be unpopular – then we would begin to see recovery.

    We have got inflation down, we are beginning now to see the recovery, I think that is self-evident from what businesses themselves are saying. I have not lost my concern about inflation, I had it two years ago, I have it now, I want to make sure this is a long term sustainable recovery, not a short term boom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recovery was a candy-floss recovery with no recovery in manufacturing].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There has been a great degree of retraining but let us look at more substantive matters of what is actually happening. You refer to a candy-floss economy. The reality is the fact that our exports, a key element in continuing economic recovery, are now penetrating very deeply into both European and markets way beyond Europe. That export growth is at record levels, it is continuing, and that shows several things, that British firms are manufacturing, that they are competitive, that they are prepared to look for markets abroad and that they are successfully doing so. All that is very welcome. The unemployment drop is very welcome, I am delighted about that, most for the unemployed who have found jobs and for their families, but the level is still too high, we need to see a much wider manufacturing base, I shall be talking about that in the next few days and I wish to see that we have the right circumstances to engender confidence so that business can produce the growth we need. Governments cannot do it, they can set the framework, then business can do it, that is what we are seeking to do.

  • PMQT – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 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. Clifton-Brown : Will my right hon. Friend welcome today’s unemployment figures, down for the second month running and coming on top of an increase of 1 per cent. in manufacturing output and 2 per cent. in the retail sales figures–proof that the economy is growing in confidence? Does he agree that it is about time Opposition Members stopped prophesying gloom and doom about the economy?

    The Prime Minister : This is only the second successive month, but today’s fall in unemployment will be seen as very good news by everyone, especially the families of people now back in work. Especially welcome is the fact that the number of unemployed people has fallen in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and in each and every region in England. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are signs of growing business and consumer confidence. I hope that in the future that will bring further good news on jobs, which everyone who wishes this country well will surely welcome.

    Mr. John Smith : While welcoming the fall– [Hon. Members :– “Hear, hear.”]–in the official unemployment total announced today, is it not the case that a total of over 2,900,000 is still far too high and should never have been allowed to reach anything like that level? If the Prime Minister seeks to take credit for a fall of 26,000 in the official figures, is he equally prepared to accept responsibility for the million people who have lost their jobs since he became Prime Minister, the vast majority of whom are still unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : Grudging might be an appropriate word for that welcome, but I at least welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has this month, unlike last month, welcomed the fall in unemployment. Perhaps he might mention to the shadow Chancellor–who said even yesterday that unemployment would go on rising–that he should look more carefully in future.

    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares with me a wish to produce permanent, long-term jobs in a growing economy, perhaps he will also join me in the right policies to achieve that, including welcoming limits on public sector pay, welcoming caps on council spending, welcoming our trade union reforms, dropping his equivocation over strikes and welcoming our reforms to improve education. If he really cares about future long-term employment, will he welcome those? Yes or no?

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister appreciate–[Hon. Members– : “Answer.”]–that unemployment at this continuing high level is in large part a reflection of the underlying weakness of an economy bedevilled by persistent under-investment in manufacturing and skills and menaced by a dangerously high balance of payments deficit? if the Government’s economic policies are satisfactory, why are we suffering a multi-billion pound deficit in our balance of payments at a time of recession? What does the Prime Minister propose to do about that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should lift his eyes. I know that he has to encourage his Back Benchers, but he should know that across Europe, 17 million people are unemployed and it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone except the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is the result of the international economy over many years. There are also 3 million unemployed in France. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants the answer to the question he should look at what is now happening in the economy. Car production figures last month were the highest for 19 years, a survey by the British chambers of commerce shows that business confidence is up, there has been the biggest growth in manufacturing exports for three years, surveys by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors all show good news. In addition, there are extra jobs at Toyota in Derbyshire, Ford in Dunton and Kimberly-Clark in Humberside. Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman welcome what everyone else but him can see?

    Mr. John Smith : Why does the Prime Minister not answer the question that I asked him? Why was it predicted in the Budget that the balance of payments would deteriorate from £12 billion to £17.5 billion? Is there any other country in the European Community with such a miserable prospect?

    The Prime Minister : The European Community as a whole has a deficit, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not know. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is yet again changing horses. Every month he used to ask me about inflation, until it fell when he stopped talking about it. He then started talking about unemployment until it began to level off and fall. Now he has changed horses again. I have bad news for the right hon. and learned Gentleman : he is going to run out of things to whinge about.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pickles : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mr. Pickles : In replying to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend referred to the report of the British chambers of commerce. Did he see in that report that business confidence and business activity are both at high levels? Did he also note that the amount of export orders is at an all-time high? Given that trade union leaders, commentators and even economists now see an improvement– [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Opposition do not like improvements. Does my right hon. Friend, like me, look forward to the time when all hon. Members will welcome good economic news and talk Britain up rather than whinge?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend, of course, is right. Any good news for the economy is bad news for the Labour party. There has been a range of encouraging economic news, but we wish to see far more–to that extent, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition. There has been a range of encouraging economic information- -retail sales are up, exports are up, manufacturing output is up, car production is up, house sales are up and business confidence is up. That is leading to a position whereby Britain will be on the up.

    Mrs. Roche : Given the appalling record of Group 4 prison escort services, will the Prime Minister urge his right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is the chairman of the Tory party, to resign from another Group 4 company?

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the overwhelming vote in Italy against proportional representation– [Interruption.] Does it not reinforce my right hon. Friend’s view that the first-past-the-post system is the best one, and delivers decisive, democratic and honest government? Will he join me, 32 million Italians and the deputy Leader of the Opposition in recommending the first-past-the-post system to the Leader of the Opposition and the Front-Bench team?

    The Prime Minister : This is, of course, a divisive issue, which divides, not least, the Labour party as to whether it is in favour of proportional representation. I have never made any secret of my views on proportional representation. It is one of the few matters on which I share the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. While others have tried to dance on the head of a pin during the election, the Conservative party campaigned four- square for the existing system. It has brought us over many decades stable and secure government. I hope that it will do the same for the Italians. The Italians are right to scrap the backstairs deals that inevitably come with PR.

    Mr. Salmond : Talking of back stairs, does the Prime Minister believe–

    [Hon. Members] : Back stairs

    Madam Speaker : Order. All these interruptions are very time- consuming.

    Mr. Salmond : Does the Prime Minister believe that the provisions of the social chapter are popular or unpopular with the general public? Does he intend to include in his European speech this evening a passage expressing thanks to the leader of the Labour party for saving his political bacon in the referendum vote in the early hours of this morning?

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman will, as he always does, read my speech with great care.

    Mr. Hood : Send him a letter.

    The Prime Minister : I will not promise to send the hon. Gentleman a letter on this matter but, at the risk of leaking my own speech, he may not find the sentence that he seeks in it this evening.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ward : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mr. Ward : Will my right hon. Friend speed up the efforts being made to prevent British industry and commerce being stifled by over-regulation? Is he aware that there is still much evidence that officials are being over-zealous in the interpretations of health, safety and fire regulations, with the resulting damage to British commerce and industry?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right that unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy–I emphasise the word unnecessary– stifle industry and enterprise. I also agree with him that we have to beware of over-implementation of regulations whether from Whitehall, Brussels, county hall or town hall. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my other right hon. Friends are all examining regulations to see what might satisfactorily be diluted or scrapped. This will be a continuing programme and I hope that we shall be able to bring measures before the House before too long.

    Mr. Hood : Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to restate his confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Would he like to describe his position as unsellable?

    The Prime Minister : I know that I am keen on exports, but there is a limit.

     

    Thurlestone Hotel, South Devon

    Q5. Mr. Steen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the Thurlestone hotel in South Devon.

    The Prime Minister : Although I have no current plans to do so, I will certainly bear the possibility in mind for my next visit to the west country. I understand, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage met the proprietor, Mr. David Grose, when he visited the area last Friday. I gather that the hotel has been in the same family since the 1890s and even in difficult times has been expanding its business.

    Mr. Steen : When my right hon. Friend does come to the hotel, I think that he will be fascinated to take a look at the decor, because every room in the hotel is covered in a plethora of red tape. I suggest that the Prime Minister should get hold of the new officials who are zealously interpreting the rules and regulations and make sure that they do not destroy hotels and small businesses. In particular, he should have regard for the undercover operations of the hygiene police.

    Will my right hon. Friend, in his deregulation initiative, make sure that he gets rid of a number of public officials and puts a moratorium on the implementation of rules and regulations–and lifts the burden of such rules and regulations off the backs of the hoteliers?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is well known as a champion both of the south-west and of deregulation. I know how important both are to him and I will take careful note of what he has to say. We certainly wish to cut as much red tape as possible.

    Mr. Hume : When the Prime Minister visits this hotel in Devon, will he give consideration to the fact that this generation of human beings is living through the greatest economic revolution in the history of the world –a technological, telecommunications and transport revolution? Will he bear in mind that it means that the wealth of society is being created by far fewer people and that that in turn has great implications for the role of the state in the social and economic welfare of people? The Government should therefore be paying far greater attention to the role of the state in that capacity, instead of heading in the direction in which they are going : privatisation, survival of the fittest and, ultimately, the law of the jungle.

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right about the fact that this is likely to be one of the most rapidly changing decades in peacetime in the lifetime of even the most venerable Members in the House.

    Technological change is inevitable and should be welcomed. It brings with it great benefits. I know that many people always fear that any technological change will have an adverse effect on jobs. I am sure that that argument was advanced when the wheel and a whole series of other inventions were thought up. We must live with technological change ; we must advance it ; we must make the most of it ; and we must lead it.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Unemployment in Kent – 24 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on unemployment in Kent, made on 24th March 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked about unemployment in Kent in advance of a regional visit to the county]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This has been a different recession from any we have ever seen before. Typically in the past recessions have hit manufacturing industry in the Midlands, the North and the West, Scotland and Wales, the old very high labour intensive industries. This has been a different recession because the root of the recession was the huge increase in property and other prices, mostly in the South and East, and then suddenly the fact that in order to damp down inflation interest rates rose and there was great funding difficulties in areas of high property cost. So it meant that the areas that faced greatest difficulties were the South and the East, not at all typical.

    Now I have to say that it has always been a fallacy that there are not unemployment difficulties in parts of London, the South and the East, that has always been the case, it is just generally in the prosperity it has been more masked than it has, and on this occasion because the North and the West have not had the same difficulties with the recession it has thrown up the South and Eastern problems. So yes I do know there are particular problems in Kent and indeed in other South-East or South-West counties as well.

    What is really going to get those people back to work? I think we have to ask ourselves what it is that will recreate jobs in those areas. I think the East Kent Initiative, that is a private sector led initiative, I think it is very welcome. I think some of the other action the government has taken is very welcome, one can run through a myriad series of particular schemes, all of which I think have a part to play. But what is really going to put the people of Kent back to work is growth in the economy and the right circumstances for people actually to begin creating businesses again and begin to employ. Last year in the depth of the recession how many new firms do you think actually registered for Value Added Tax – not something you would do unless you had to? The answer is 400,000 last year. The opening up of Kent with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the prospects of the East Thames Corridor will make Kent, with that tremendous market in Europe of 340 million people, the biggest free trade market the world has ever dreamed of, will make Kent an absolute magnet for fresh investment and for fresh jobs. And you may be coming here in five years time and saying to me: we are a bit worried about all this investment, it is very good, but what about the environment?

  • PMQT – 18 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 March.

    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. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend recall the agreement and the declaration on the environment reached in Rio last year, which achieved the support of all parties in the House and elsewhere? Does he not think it somewhat two-faced of those who support a cleaner environment in principle to reject any measures to achieve it in practice?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot imagine who my hon. Friend may have in mind, but he is right. I seem to remember that after Rio we were attacked by more than one Opposition party for not going far enough on environmental matters. We made our commitment and we have now take action towards meeting it.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister confirm that, as a result of his betrayal of his election promise not to increase taxes, a typical family will have to pay £8.50 per week in extra tax from next April and £12.50 per week in extra tax the following year?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the wrong person to remind people about ditching election promises. As I reminded him on Tuesday, he said recently :

    “We would be a very foolish party if we went into an election, say ’95 or ’96, with the same policies as ’92.”

    [Hon. Members :– “Answer the question.”] On his specific question, unlike the Labour party, we do not like raising taxes and we do it only when necessary. I said last year that we had no plans to raise taxes–nor did we– but we have an overriding commitment to return the deficit to balance and to take the action necessary to do that. In the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor acted to meet that overriding commitment and in the interests of everyone in the country he was surely right to do so.

    Mr. Smith : The country will have noted carefully that the Prime Minister did not deny that there will be an extra £8.50 per week of tax for a typical family next year and £12.50 per week the year after. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether people who qualify for income support, including millions of pensioners, will receive increases in benefit to cover in full the tax increases on their fuel bills?

    The Prime Minister : I shall deal directly with the point, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman may care to reflect also upon this : does he or does he not agree with one of his Front-Bench spokesmen in another House– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must contain themselves. These interruptions only waste time.

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reflect on whether he agrees with his noble Friend in another House who called for all zero-rated items to be subject to the full rate of value added tax. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with his noble Friend, or does he not?

    As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question about the fuel increase, he should have read carefully what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech. My right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear that there will be extra help for less well off pensioners and other people on low incomes. They will get that help from next April, before the higher fuel bills come in. That help will be additional to the future increase in pensions and other benefits which will take place automatically. Cold weather payments will also be adjusted to reflect increases in fuel costs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also neglected to welcome the fact that fuel prices have dropped since privatisation and that further reductions were announced this very morning.

    Mr. Smith : The country will have noticed that the Prime Minister can never give a straight answer to a straight question. The country will also find it shameful that he cannot give a clear commitment to meet in full the increase in taxes for the most vulnerable members of our society. He has no conscience at all about short changing the poor as well as betraying his election commitments?

    The Prime Minister : What the country may have noticed today, of all days, is that on this occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no mention of and gave no welcome to the fall in unemployment. Neither has he mentioned the substantial real incomes increase in pensions ; neither has he mentioned the uprating next April, or the fact that we have not taken back the money put in the base line for the community charge which pensioners will no longer have to pay. None of these and other matters have apparently occurred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

     

    North-west Kent

    Q2. Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north-west Kent.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits and hope to include Kent among them.

    Mr. Dunn : Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of north-west Kent have always been strong supporters of home ownership and, as such, welcome the changes in stamp duty which will encourage the housing market? They also welcome the new, exciting, radical right-to-buy campaign announced today.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think he will find that that welcome will extend across not just north-west Kent but the whole country. In a recent survey, 89 per cent. of people under 30 said that they wished to own their own homes. We shall again give more of them the opportunity to do so. Raising the stamp duty threshold will halve the number of houses on which stamp duty has to be paid. That, with low interest rates and the lowest mortgage rates for nearly 30 years, will dramatically increase the possibility for millions to become home owners.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 March.

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

    Mr. Prentice : Does the Prime Minister of manufacturing recall that this time last week he did not know the names of the two major competitors of Rolls-Royce and that his ignorance shocked my constituents? Will he join me in condemning the 24 per cent. and 35 per cent. pay increases for the chief executive and chairman of Rolls-Royce at a time when the company is sacking 5,000 skilled workers, including 170 in my constituency?

    The Prime Minister : I have spoken before of my admiration for Pratt and Witney and General Electric. As for the wage increases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, if he were here more often he would know how often I have set out my views on that subject.

     

    Q4. Mr. Sykes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 March.

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

    Mr. Sykes : I know that, unlike the Jeremiahs in the Labour party, the Prime Minister will welcome the news on the unemployment figures that has been announced today. Will he also welcome the freezing of the uniform business rate that was announced on Tuesday, which will further help job prospects?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly happy to do that. The Budget was a Budget for business, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said. The freeze on business rates will help about 800,000 businesses. Nor was that the Budget’s only boost for business. The chorus of welcome for the Budget from business speaks for itself.

    Mr. Ashdown : How does the Prime Minister justify to the nation a Budget which, over the next three years, will require the poorest tenth of people to pay proportionately twice what the richest tenth will have to pay to bail the country out of his Government’s financial failure?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has clearly failed to notice the substantial increase in the proportion of the burden that we are asking people on higher incomes to bear. He has neglected that. I hope that he will join his hon. Friend sitting beside him who earlier this week said :

    “I am in favour of taxes on things that pollute.”

     

    Q5. Mr. Ancram : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 March.

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

    Mr. Ancram : Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members take grave exception to the heavy-handed behaviour of Chinese Government towards the Governor of the Hong Kong? Will he take up with the Chinese Government their threat to set up an alternative government for Hong Kong, and will he remind them that the whole international community expects agreements to be honoured?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. The British Government stand four square behind the Governor and Government of Hong Kong. The Governor has acted sensitively, resolutely and correctly, and we shall continue to make that clear to the Chinese Government. In doing so, we shall underline three points : the Governor has acted entirely within the terms of the documents that we have agreed with China and we expect the Chinese Government to do likewise ; the Governor’s proposals for greater democracy are widely supported in Hong Kong, in the United Kingdom and in the international community, and I believe that they have wide support across this House ; we and the Governor have gone the extra mile in our efforts to consult China. We remain ready for talks without pre-conditions, but no one should doubt that the Governor has our total support.

     

    Q6. Mr. Turner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 March.

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

    Mr. Turner : Does the Prime Minister accept that Budget day will be remembered for many years as Black Tuesday? It was the day of taxes on heating, taxes on beer, taxes on petrol and taxes on cars. Will the Prime Minister tell the House and the Country how many more taxes we shall have to endure before, mercifully, we get to the next general election?

    The Prime Minister : It will certainly be a tax on Labour’s ability to win that election when it comes, for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has put in place the right structure to make sure that we get back the growth, the jobs and the prosperity that we seek. If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more gracious he might, unlike anyone else on the Opposition side, have welcomed not only the drop in unemployment but also the new £100 million manufacturing centre for car components at Wednesbury near Wolverhampton.

    Mr. Bowden : Will my right hon. Friend convey the congratulations of all Conservative Members to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on his speedy clarification of the help that will be given to those on income support and low-pay pensioners? Will he also please look very closely at the position of the nearly 1 million pensioners who do not claim the income support to which they are entitled, as well as those whose income is very slightly above income support level? If my right hon. Friend could find some way of helping those people to pay the extra VAT on fuel, that would be a major step forward.

    The Prime Minister : I know that my hon. Friend will agree with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is right to concentrate extra help especially on the poorest households. He will also know that other benefits will automatically increase with prices through the normal uprating mechanism, and my hon. Friend at least–if not the Opposition– will join us in welcoming the fact that fuel prices have fallen in recent years.

     

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

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

    Mr. Pike : In view of the tax changes announced on Tuesday in relation to mortgage tax relief, will the Prime Minister state whether the Government intend, during the lifetime of this Parliament, to phase out tax relief on mortgages?

    The Prime Minister : No. We made it clear earlier that we would retain the system, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out our immediate proposals.

     

    Q8. Mrs. Ann Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 March.

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

    Mrs. Winterton : My right hon. Friend will be encouraged by the welcome given by the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, to which he recently sent a message of support, to the boost to British exporters from the £1.3 billion of extra export credit announced in the Budget, but will he acknowledge the growing concern about the erosion of our manufacturing base? Will he seek to have published the report on these matters prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry which has recently been the subject of much press speculation?

    The Prime Minister : We have not only, of course, extended ECGD but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has cut premiums over the past few months by as much as 27 per cent. in order to help exporters. We have over recent weeks announced a wide range of policies specifically geared to improve the prospects for manufacturing, both the efficiency of existing manufacturing and the widening of the manufacturing base. I made it clear earlier this week that the paper to which my hon. Friend refers was private advice to Ministers and will not be published.

  • 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.”

  • PMQT – 11 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mudie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

    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. Mudie : Can the Prime Minister tell the House how today’s distressing news that 5,000 Rolls-Royce jobs are to be lost and how the fact that since he became Prime Minister 750,000 manufacturing jobs have been destroyed fit in with any supposed strategy for manufacturing industry? And can he tell the country when it can expect this industrial carnage to end?

    The Prime Minister : Let me respond first to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Rolls-Royce and the distressing announcement this morning of job losses at Derby and elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman will know that Rolls- Royce has two main international competitors, Boeing and Pratt and Whitney. He will know also that Pratt and Whitney has plans to cut 10,000 jobs over the next year or so and that Boeing will cut a total of 28,000 jobs. In both cases, the job losses have the same cause as those at Rolls-Royce–the state of the international market and of international demand. As to what is being done, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not forgotten the long list of things that I set out the other day. If he wishes me to do so, I shall willingly repeat it.

    Sir Terence Higgins : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to have discussions with the leader of the Labour party about the deplorable behaviour of the official Opposition last night, which was clearly encouraged by the Front Bench? Is it not pathetic that the Opposition have to resort to such tactics, instead of using effective debate, as these inevitably bring the House into disrepute?

    The Prime Minister : Any discussions are for my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and his Opposition counterpart. I condemn what apparently happened last night, although I was not in the House. I have to ask why the Leader of the Opposition did not stop it and, more relevantly, why his deputy Chief Whip seemed to be organising it.

    Mr. John Smith rose–

    Hon. Members : Answer.

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Smith : If manufacturing matters to the Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down and listen to what hon. Members have to say and to the responses.

    Mr. John Smith : If manufacturing matters to the Prime Minister, as he would have us believe, what action does he intend to take to prevent the loss of 5,000 jobs at Rolls-Royce?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman still lives in a world in which the Government do everything and everything is the Government’s fault. That may be his vision of the future, but for most people it is their vision of the past, and a past that was not successful. He should remember, for example, the national enterprise board. It picked losers, not winners, it cost millions, and many of its investments, taking the sort of action that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would advocate, subsequently went into liquidation or receivership.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not remember that an Administration headed by one of his predecessors took Rolls-Royce into public ownership, otherwise it would not be there today? Does he recollect that only last week he told us in his The Independent interview that we have undervalued engineering skills? What on earth is the point of his talking about the value of engineering skills when, as Prime Minister, he does nothing about the loss of 5,000 skilled engineering jobs?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman may also recall that we put many industries into privatisation, without which they would not be in profit and creating jobs today. The way to create engineering and other jobs is to make sure that we have a growing economy and the right sort of international competitiveness. We have intervened to get the single market running and we have improved export credit guarantees. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly forgotten all the matters that were contained within the autumn Budget. It is not nannying intervention of the sort that the right hon. and learned Gentleman advocates that this country needs ; it is the sort of supply-side measures that we are taking.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that this litany of self-serving excuses gives no comfort to the 5,000 people who are to lose their jobs, let alone the 10,000 Rolls-Royce workers who have lost their jobs in the recent past? Does he not understand that in France today the Government are giving temporary help to the aerospace industry precisely to keep skilled engineering groups together? Why does not his Government back British industry the way other Governments back their industry?

    The Prime Minister : If France is so successful, why are there 3 million unemployed there? Here is the right hon. and learned Gentleman again with his perennial gloom. He might welcome some of the new jobs announced recently : Digitals move for 1,100 more jobs at Ayr ; the prospect of 3,000 more jobs in Staffordshire ; the new jobs won yesterday in Cambridge ; the 6,000 jobs to be created in Manchester. Why do these always bypass the right hon. and learned Gentleman on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons?

     

    Q2. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Bates : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is vital to the success of the security services that they are kept free from political interference in operational matters? If so, does he agree that the remarks made yesterday by a Labour spokesman on Northern Ireland were a total disgrace and a slur upon the courageous and dedicated way in which the security services carry out their duties on behalf of all of us?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. Those remarks were absurd. They were a slur on officers whose achievements must have saved many people from death or injury. The Opposition would have done better, rather than attacking the police, to join us last night in attacking terrorism. The Leader of the Opposition might tell us whether he stands by what his hon. Friend said or by the police in what they have to do. He cannot do both.

    Mr. Ashdown : On this bleak day for job losses, will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that, while there are 3 million unemployed in Britain, there are also 3 million small businesses in Britain, and a real, extra boost for small businesses could provide a real, extra boost for jobs? Will he cut the uniform business rate and penalise the late payment of bills, or is he simply content to continue to let small businesses go to the wall, as at present, at the rate of 250 a day?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no idea that more than 400,000 new small businesses were formed last year. If he really wants to help create small businesses in future, perhaps he will stop joining others in delaying the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and putting at risk the inward investment that has totalled £100 billion in the past five years. If we have to choose between the right hon. Gentleman’s principles and his action, we had better be careful not to decide on his action until he has done it.

    Mr. Gale : My right hon. Friend will have struck a chord with most of our constituents when he recently drew attention to the corrosive effects of violence on television. Will he now go a stage further and direct the Cabinet’s attention to the further effects of paedophilia created and transmitted by computer which, at present, is not covered by the law? Will he ensure that controls are included in the next criminal justice Bill?

    The Prime Minister : I understand that that is covered by the law. But notwithstanding that, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is well seized of the difficulties raised by my hon. Friend and is examining them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Lewis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Lewis : Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that it is now time to release the capital receipts, long held by local authorities, in order to bring skilled building workers back into work to provide decent homes for the homeless and for elderly people?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman may recall, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer released many of them in the autumn statement and those that have been released are currently being underspent by local authorities.

    Mr. Marlow : We are told that we are winning the arguments in Europe. Does that mean that Mr. Delors, the Commission, Benelux, Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand are now enthusiastic decentralisers? Does that mean that the principle of subsidiarity will allow the House, and this House alone, to make a decision on whether we have a 48-hour week?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, article 3b specifically puts subsidiarity into the EC treaty and changes the situation in the future about that matter. He himself should vote for that instead of obstructing it.

    Mr. Bryan Davies : Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why he has tabled a motion again today to allow debate to continue on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, a motion which has been tabled many times in recent weeks and never moved? Has he made a deal with the Liberals and nationalists this evening, or will he be running away from his second defeat this week?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly is as keen as I am to see progress on the Bill.

    Dr. Spink : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the latest excellent figures for new house sales which were 20 per cent. up in the first eight weeks of this year? The Opposition concentrate on talking Britain down, but is that not good news for Britain?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his point with great clarity. He is quite right about housing. He will know that mortgage rates for first-time buyers are lower today than they have been since 1956, and that is before many families yet feel the benefit of the interest rate cuts since the autumn. Many people are clearly deciding that now is a good time to buy, and I welcome that.

     

    Q4. Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Taylor : Is the Prime Minister aware that prices in the South West Water region have risen 77 per cent. since 1989, faster than in the rest of the country, and are due to double over the next few years, faster than in the rest of the country? When the right hon. Gentleman recently visited Cornwall and Devon, he told the Western Morning News on 5 February that he was looking at action to help people with those problems. He told me last week on 4 March that he defended the price increases that we have seen. Which is right–what he said here or what he said in the west country?

    The Prime Minister : I told the hon. Gentleman last week that the prices were broadly the same as those of Anglian Water, and they are. I can tell him again this afternoon that I am examining the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

     

    Q5. Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

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

    Mr. Atkinson : Is my right hon. Friend aware of a joint media campaign in my area called Action Desk, involving the Bournemouth Evening Echo, the Dorset chamber of commerce and Two Counties Radio, which is designed to beat the recession in our area by encouraging the spread of good news about our economic recovery and encouraging a positive approach by business and individuals?

    Will my right hon. Friend commend this initiative and recommend it to other areas and above all, will he recommend it to the national media in order to counter the doom and gloom coming out of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It certainly is time that we started talking more positively about our good successes and about the opportunities we now have with low inflation and low interest rates.

    Mr. Lewis : What about jobs?

    The Prime Minister : And, in answer to that seated intervention, about the new jobs, many of which I listed a few moments ago. Exports are up; manufacturing productivity is up ; car sales are up ; house sales are up, and one day Opposition Members opposite may begin to acknowledge that.

  • PMQT – 4 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Helen Jackson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

    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.

    Mrs. Jackson : Does the Prime Minister recall telling Parliament in 1989 :

    “I take my own share of responsibility It is not something I seek to heap upon my predecessor”?

    Is he today going to blame Baroness Thatcher for the disastrous damage done to manufacturing industry while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    The Prime Minister : As it happens, my right hon. and noble Friend did more to help British industry than the Labour party has ever done. If the hon. Lady would like an illustration of that, in the 1980s the number of manufacturing companies rose from 144,000 to 165, 000. I will provide the hon. Lady with a long list of other improvements, should she wish to have it.

     

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

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

    Mr. Rowe : In every year of this Conservative Government the Home Office has paid for and researched very carefully experiments using voluntary organisations and others to rehabilitate young offenders. That research has consistently demonstrated a very much better rate of recovery than any other method used. [Interruption.] Every time these experiments have shown–

    Madam Speaker : Order. I have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman. I have heard statements, but no question. I now need a question.

    Mr. Rowe : Is my right hon. Friend aware that every time these experiments are shown to be a success the Home Office funding is withdrawn? Will he make certain that, when such experiments are shown to be successful, Government expenditure is maintained to enable them to continue?

    The Prime Minister : The Home Office always monitors the performance of the projects that it funds to ensure the value for money and efficiency of those projects. Where the projects are efficient, there is a possibility of extending funding for longer than the three-year period.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister explain what he meant when he said that he was a minority in his predecessor’s Administration? Is it not deeply revealing about the Prime Minister that, having run out of excuses for the abject failure of his Government’s economic policies, he is now trying to pin the blame on his predecessor, in whose Government he was responsible for economic policy both as Chief Secretary and as Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is very predictable. He is also misled yet again by newspaper reports, having not read the transcript of the interview. He really should give up reading newspapers ; I recommend it to him. If he had read the source material, he would have read that the question put to me was that the idea got about in the 1980s that making things was not so important. It was not my view, not my right hon. and noble Friend’s view, and not the view of the then Government.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister surely cannot complain about being misrepresented in interviews that he himself gives. Is he aware that in that interview he complained about what he called an inheritance of 15 per cent. interest rates and 11 per cent. inflation? Who does he think was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the preceding years? If we are to make sense of the Prime Minister, does he not understand that he means that he inherited them from himself?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being very slow. I shall explain the whole matter to him again. I suggest that he reads the transcript of the interview. As I explained to him a moment ago, I disagreed with the view put to me by the interviewer, as would my right hon. and noble Friend have disagreed with it. So far as interest rates are concerned, I was referring to the legacy of the recession that we are curing and which has now hit every other nation in Europe.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why a Chancellor of the Exchequer has nothing to do with a recession that occurs in his period of office? Since he has been Prime Minister for more than two years, and since the right hon. and noble Lady is no longer here, why are we still losing 25,000 jobs every month in manufacturing industry and £136 billion in investment under his Administration? It has nothing to do with anyone else.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. and learned Gentleman utterly fails to realise–which is why he remains on the Opposition Benches –is that what needs to be done to put this country in the right position for growth is what we have done. The last time there was 1.7 per cent. inflation was more than 25 years ago. Interest rates are now lower than anywhere else in the European Community.

    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were more aware of the position of manufacturing, he would know that exports are up on manufacturing. Capital spending on manufacturing is up. Compared with 10 years ago, there is exceptional growth in engineering, chemicals and other manufacturing. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman stop talking this country down and start talking it up?

    Sir Dudley Smith : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his sensible policies on the Bosnia-Herzegovina civil war are amply confirmed by current events?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The important matter in the Bosnian war is to give every support one can to the peace talks in New York. They are crucial. They are the only realistic way of achieving real peace, and I very much welcome the Muslim agreement to a document on the cessation of hostilities. There still remains great difficulty in getting agreement on the map, but it is essential that all parties remain at those negotiations and negotiate seriously until we have a satisfactory agreement and the end of this bitter and nasty conflict.

     

    Q3. Mr. Leighton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

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

    Mr. Leighton : No one has spoken more graphically and poignantly about the evils of unemployment than the Prime Minister. Does he recall talking about what he called his “dole hell”, searching for work every day when he was unemployed for 12 months as a 19-year-old in Brixton? Is he aware that in 1962 there was one unemployed person for each vacancy but now there are hundreds? Does he agree that a full employment society is a good society, but that the mass unemployment society over which he is presiding is an evil society? Now that he is Prime Minister, what steps will he take to put the aim of full employment at the top of his agenda?

    The Prime Minister : The first essentials for making sure that we have a society that has full employment are low inflation, low interest rates and the right supply side policy for growth. The right way to make sure that we have skills is to put in place the training programmes that we have put in place, each one of which has been opposed by the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Heald : Does my right hon. Friend agree with Lord Prior’s comments yesterday that the conditions are now in place for British manufacturing exporters to perform better? Will he join me in congratulating the firms in north Hertfordshire that are doing just that, in particular Lucas CEL of Hitchin which is launching its new export product today?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am certainly happy to give my support to those particular projects. We have remarkable opportunities in front of us at the present time, as we find that we are hugely competitive in terms of the cuts in costs that we have seen in the past few years. We need to ensure that on this occasion, even though we have captured export markets, we do not surrender those for the returning home market. We need to keep the domestic market and continue to press ahead with further export markets.

     

    Q4. Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

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

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : Does the Prime Minister agree that the people and businesses of the south-west and especially Cornwall–the poorest county in the whole of the country–cannot be expected to pay the highest water and electricity prices? What hope can he offer those people of a fair deal, given that he has already told them that he will give them no special help?

    The Prime Minister : I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks he will find that the water prices to which he refers are similar in other counties to those in the west country. There is a substantial need to improve the water quality and supply in the west country and also, not least because of the importance of the tourist industry, to improve the bathing waters and other tourist facilities. That is a significant reason for the present level of water charges.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton : Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 300 Members of this House and of the other place recently attended an exhibition of obscene material that had been seized under the Obscene Publications Act 1959? Is he aware that Members were deeply shocked by what they saw and believe that the Obscene Publications Act needs urgent review? Will he accept the invitation that I have written to him to view the material privately so that he may reach his own informed conclusion about what action needs to be taken to clean up this free market in filth?

    The Prime Minister : I have had a report of the particular material to which my hon. Friend refers. I am aware of the nature of it and how offensive it will be to most Members of this House and most people in this country. I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to consider what options exist for taking action against it.

     

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

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

    Mr. Purchase : Does the Prime Minister realise that the people of the west midlands, once the workshop of the world but where now more than a quarter of a million people have been made unemployed in the past 13 years, will take no comfort from the fact that he appears to have gone along with the loss of their jobs? Does he think that they will understand him a little less and condemn him a little more?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the historic importance of the west midlands to manufacturing. He has neglected to mention the assistance in the autumn statement on capital allowances, car tax–very important to the west midlands–and maintained capital expenditure. He has utterly overlooked the lead that this country has taken in seeking a solution to the general agreement on tariffs and trade round, which is vital to the west midlands. He has also overlooked the primary importance of the motor car industry, which was in disarray some years ago under his party’s Government but is now a net exporter and increasingly profitable.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery : Has my right hon. Friend noticed that new car registrations are up 16 per cent. compared with a year ago? Is that not good news? Does he not think it strange that every time the economic news is good, the faces opposite get longer? Is it not time the Opposition stopped talking this country down?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that, and it is a point which I have made in recent days. The increase in car registration is welcome news. It is a continuing trend over recent months. The only people who benefit from talking Britain down are our competitors. I hope that that is understood by every right hon. and hon. Member.

     

    Q6. Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : The Prime Minister is right to give priority to the manufacturing sector of business in Britain, particularly small businesses, but what does he have in mind? Is he prepared to reduce the burden of rates which apply particularly to small businesses? Is he prepared, for instance, to allow small businesses to add statutory interest to bills that are overdue for undue periods of time? There is a long list of tangible things that the Prime Minister could do to give real physical expression to the words that he uttered recently in his interview in the national press. What tangible, concrete things has he in mind?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had been listening a few moments ago, I listed a number of them to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). As to other matters, he must wait and see.

  • PMQT – 2 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 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. Oppenheim : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more power that we can extend to individuals by devolving authority and decision making in our schools and the national health service, the better? Is not the best way to give individuals more responsibility and more control over their lives by reducing the power of the state? Is it the case that, on this crucial test, those who belatedly speak the language of conservatism but still think like socialists, such as the Leader of the Opposition, fail dismally?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description. We believe in giving individuals more choice and more power. I fear that that is not the policy of the Labour party. Labour Members want less choice and more government, rather than more choice and less power for government.

    Mr. John Smith : In that case, can the Prime Minister tell us why he is opposed to a freedom of information Act?

    The Prime Minister : Because we are extending freedom of information in practical ways–unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who would not give information to parents about schools or to users of the health service about hospitals. That is the sort of information which people in the country want, not the sort of information that the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerns himself about.

    Mr. John Smith : If the Prime Minister is genuinely committed to giving information and to open government, can I give him a simple test? How many billions of pounds were lost in the currency dealings in the fiasco of Black Wednesday?

    The Prime Minister : As a former shadow Chancellor, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know that no one knows what the figures will be until those things are unwound, he should not be sitting where he is.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister either does not know how many billions of pounds were lost or is unwilling to tell us? Does not he understand that there is a crucial difference between the national interest and covering up the incompetence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    The Prime Minister : We are dealing with the national interest day after day, with no assistance whatever from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Rev. Ian Paisley : Could the Prime Minister give to the greater number of people in Northern Ireland an assurance that the envoy from President Clinton to which he has agreed will not hold talks with the IRA, Sinn Fein or any other terrorist organisation?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what announcement is made about the fact finder who I believe may come from the United States to Northern Ireland. Many distinguished people from the United States have been there in the past. Many of them have gone back with great enthusiasm for the changes that they have found in Northern Ireland and the great desire among the people of Northern Ireland for a lasting peace.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Pike : After 14 years of Tory government, the unemployed and low paid in my constituency are sick of hearing the Prime Minister saying why we cannot have the social chapter in Britain. Can he tell the people of Britain why France, Germany and all the other countries in Europe can have the social chapter but Britain cannot? Are we a second-class Britain as a result of 14 years of Tory rule?

    The Prime Minister : It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not know his own constituency better, for he would know that unemployment there has fallen 16 per cent. since 1987. He may also have noticed the trend in unemployment in France and Germany.

    Mr. Alan Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the citizen’s charter, which very properly enhances the rights of the citizen, should be complemented by a renewed emphasis on the obligations of the citizen, so that we foster and strengthen mutual responsibility in our society? Will he therefore look systematically to identify and eliminate obstacles that at present discourage voluntary work and charitable activity, including aspects of eligibility for both unemployment benefit and invalidity benefit as well as aspects of the council tax and VAT regimes?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we have done a great deal to improve the quantity and quality of voluntary work in this country. I am happy to examine any practical suggestions to improve it even further.

     

    Q3. Mr. Nigel Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Nigel Jones : May I offer the Prime Minister the chance to welcome Chelsea’s long-awaited victory last night after a change of manager? Does he now understand why millions of unemployed people in Britain would welcome a change of manager of the economy?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may have spent some time rehearsing that. It was not time well spent. Perhaps he needs a training course.

    Mr. Nigel Evans : Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the recent “Small Business Bulletin” from Barclays bank, which shows that there was a 19 per cent. increase in the number of small businesses in Britain in the last quarter of 1992 as compared with the last quarter of 1991? This is good news– [Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear it, but it is good news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it shows the resilience of the small business sector in Britain? When he next has a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he encourage him to introduce on 16 March a small business- friendly Budget which will help our small businesses?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of the small business sector both to the economy generally and in terms of job creation. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

     

    Q4. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Skinner : Does not the Prime Minister realise that after 14 years he stands condemned about the seedy state of Britain today? Pensioners have a job to live ; they do not have two ha’pennies to rub together. The banks rip off customers. The bosses steal the pension funds. Ministers have their debts paid by the taxpayer. Is not that the reason why the British people understand him less and condemn him more?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman must have been taking lessons from the Liberal spokesman.

     

    Q5. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Duncan : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective weapons in the armoury against crime is the right to refer to the Court of Appeal any sentence that may be considered too lenient? Does he also agree that those who voted against that in the House, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), have very little right to posture about crime and even less right to parade their self-righteousness up and down the country?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his own point in his own way. The public rightly expect the sentence to fit the crime. The power for the Attorney-General to refer over-lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal is an important weapon in the fight against crime and one which I believe will have the warm support of people right across the country. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will change his mind. At the moment, his voting record on crime is a worse record than that of an old lag.

    Mr. Redmond : Does the Prime Minister intend to keep his election promises?

    The Prime Minister : All Governments intend to keep their election promises.

     

    Q7. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Paice : Is not it clear that many of the young people who are committing crimes are not unemployed, because they should still be at school? In that regard, may we have a vigorous campaign against truancy, to improve education and to reduce crime?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it is necessary to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it perfectly clear that we need to cut down on truancy and if we are successful in doing that, we are likely to cut down on juvenile crime. That is why in future, against the opposition Labour Members, we propose to include information on truancy rates when we publish how schools are performing. It is vital information for parents and vital information against crime and it would be helpful if the Opposition would support us in that policy.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : Does the Prime Minister agree that the revelation that the Director General of the BBC has been avoiding tax on a massive scale leaves a very nasty taste in the month? Does he further agree that John Birt should pay back to the Inland Revenue all the tax avoided in his period as deputy director general?

    The Prime Minister : Although I am familiar with the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is a matter for the Director General of the BBC and the Inland Revenue.

     

    Q8. Mr. Shepherd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Colin Shepherd : Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity over the weekend to reflect on the revealing remarks of Professor Halsey on the way in which the schools were hijacked in the 1960s and 1970s by the trendy lefties? Is not it clear that now that those pupils who had been hijacked are parents, they are unable to give their families the moral base to know what is right and wrong today? Will he not be deflected from his path?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I believe that Professor Halsey now speaks for the views of parents, whereas he certainly did not in the 1960s. The view of the overwhelming number of parents is that the fashionable theories of the 1960s did immense damage to the quality of education in this country.

     

    Q9. Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Soley : Can the Prime Minister tell me whether it is his policy to achieve full employment?

    The Prime Minister : Every Prime Minister wishes to achieve full employment.

    Dr. Liam Fox : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if discipline is not instilled at home it cannot be reinforced in schools and then enforced in society? Do not the people of this country have a right to expect the courts to be tough on parents who refuse to apply discipline to their children?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. It is necessary to take firm action with that relatively small number of young people who are persistent offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have something to say about that shortly.

    Miss Lestor : Will the Prime Minister take time today to visit one of the nursery schools in my constituency, or in some other constituency, to remind himself that it is 21 years since a previous Tory Government gave a commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds? Does he agree that that promise, far from being fulfilled, is now rapidly being forgotten? If he is really concerned about family life in this country, he will ensure that deprivation and other family difficulties are identified by having children under expert eyes at a very early age? Does he agree that, by his meanness in nursery education, he is depriving hundreds of young children of educational opportunities and of care and attention?

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Lady takes a great interest in this matter. That being the case, she will know that there are more rising fives–four-year-olds–going to school in this country than in any other European country. We have a different pattern of provision, by which our youngsters are brought into school earlier. Notwithstanding that fact, there has been a significant increase in nursery provision.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Local Government Conference – 27 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference, held in London on Saturday 27th February 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Two years ago, at this Conference, I spoke about my roots in Lambeth. It was where I learned how politics shapes people’s lives. That same local government learning curve is followed with benefit by many in our Party – like those who sat in this hall two years ago and now sit in Parliament. They have brought with them the experience of local government: the best experience it is possible to have.

    One thing local government taught me was – don’t always listen to the experts. Listen to the people. It was a lesson I relearned at the General Election. All the experts said we would lose – but we won. And won by doing what the wise men said we shouldn’t do.

    And again, on May 6th, whatever the wise men say, we’re going to see more Conservative Councils and more Conservative councillors. And we’ll do so because Conservative Councils Cost You Less and Serve You Better. And Labour and Liberal Councils cost you more – and serve you right.

    Unemployment

    In a moment I want to turn to the future of local government. But first let me deal with one of the issues that most concern people at present – the need for jobs.

    Every politician cares about unemployment. It’s the trivial politics of simple abuse to suggest otherwise. We all want to see more permanent jobs. But the worst thing any of us can do is to pretend there is some quick fix solution. To kid ourselves and mislead others that with some as yet undiscovered potion there’d be jobs for all.

    As the Government, it is our duty to set out the plain truth. So let me do so. But, because it is relevant, let me first put it in context. Unemployment is not just a problem in this country. It is nearly worldwide. Does anyone think the Spanish government want unemployment at nearly 20 per cent? That France wants three million without jobs? That the [indistinct] government are happy that one in six of their population are unemployed? From Canada to Australia, from the USA to France, from Germany to the UK, unemployment has worsened seriously in every country. In recent days, as Leyland-Daf collapsed in Holland with job losses in the United Kingdom, Volkswagen in Germany cut 36,000 jobs, Boeing 28,000 in the US and Nissan and NTT in Japan announced they would shed 35,000 jobs.

    When pessimists knock Britain and damage our prospects, I hope you will answer back. Set out the facts that show we are poised for recovery. Remind them that interest rates are at their lowest since 1977; inflation is at its lowest since 1967; mortgage rates for first- time buyers lower than at any time since 1956.

    And tell them of our trade prospects. Exports are at record levels. Who would have thought a few years ago that we would be exporting cars to Japan? Yet we’re doing just that – in growing numbers. And now we have the biggest market in the world on our doorstep. More of our workforce in this country are in jobs than Italy, France, Spain, Germany or almost any European country you care to name.

    Last year, in the depths of recession, 400,000 new firms set up in business. In Europe five out of the top 10 companies are British. So are 11 Out of the top 20 and 17 out of the top 30. Today, we have the lowest number of strikes in recorded history. These are the conditions that encourage so many foreign companies to invest in Britain, bringing prosperity and jobs with them. Another £100 million worth of American investment was announced just yesterday creating up to 700 jobs. And on the same day, Michael Howard gave the go-ahead to Derby’s City Challenge Action Plan which will create over 4,600 new jobs. I know there are difficulties. In no sense do I ignore them. But don’t let us overlook the good news or we risk perpetuating the bad news.

    We don’t help the unemployed by spreading doom, gloom and depression. We help our competitors. Other countries don’t talk themselves down. And neither should we. The best way to help unemployed people back into work is to have confidence in our nation and self-confidence in ourselves.

    It has been a long haul to put the economic conditions in place for sustained growth and lasting jobs. Now we must take advantage of them. The European Commission predicts that we will be the fastest growing economy in the EC next year. Let’s prove them right. We have done it before. And we can do it again. And it will help enormously if we ditch this habit of national self-denigration. It isn’t necessary. And it isn’t helpful.

    Getting people back to work will take time and it will take persistence. It will be a hard fight. It will need growth in the economy. But we are determined to achieve it.

    The long-term strategy is right. But we have a short term problem to deal with too. So let me tell you what we are doing. We have a massive programme of support for people who are unemployed. Helping them to find work where possible. Keeping them in touch with the labour market. Encouraging them to use their time constructively. We want to do more to keep people in touch with the world of work, either by giving them new opportunities for work experience, or, in some cases, making sure they take advantage of existing opportunities.

    Our employment programmes are being expanded further from this April. Expanded to offer opportunities for 1.5 million people to get back into work. We are producing practical measures to deal with this problem. Labour call for us to “do something”. But whenever we bring in programmes to help – youth training, job interview guarantees, training for work, Jobclubs, Restart, and our Jobplan Workshops – what do they do? Labour vote against those programmes. “Do something”, they say. Well, they could do something too. Get Out of the ‘No’ lobby and onto the side of those looking for work. And that’s where they’ll find us.

    And one other thing. We reject – and will continue to reject – the Social Chapter. France can complain as much as it likes. If investors and businesses choose to come to Britain rather than pay the costs of socialism in France, let them call it social dumping. I call it dumping socialism.

    Let Jacques Delors accuse us of creating a paradise for foreign investors. I am happy to plead guilty. Again and again we warned our European partners about the Social Chapter. And now that our warning has turned out to be right we are not changing policy. They can have the Social Chapter. We’ll have the jobs.

    The importance of local government

    I don’t need persuading about the importance of local government. I know and feel it in my bones. It forms a central part of my political beliefs. So let me set out for you my credo for the future of local government.

    Above all, I want the 1990s to see a renaissance of local government – with modem, forward-looking local leadership. Rooted in civic pride. Rooted in ideals of public service that made household names of so many Conservative council leaders in the past.

    Second, local councils, like central government, must commit themselves to better quality in public service. People won’t be fobbed off any more with the old excuses – and rightly so.

    Third, local government must work with central government to give people more responsibility over their own lives.

    Fourth, it’s time to set a structure for local government that will last. We need to define its responsibilities once and for all. And then let you carry them out.

    Fifth, we must build a new accountability fit for the 21st century – a new accountability that goes directly from those who run public services to those who use them. Many local government services impact directly on the family. In these areas, particularly housing and education, people want to exercise their own choices, not subcontract them wholly to Government – however benevolent and well intentioned Government may be.

    Local Government Structure

    I believe we have a system of local government finance that will last. Now we must seek a structure of local authorities that will stand the test of time as well. I want this change in structure to be the best – and the last.

    There is, I think, a widespread view that the structure and responsibilities of local government are not as clear as they should be. The pattern is too complex. There is a case for structural change.

    But a structure that lasts will not be one that Whitehall has imposed. It will be one that grows naturally from people’s loyalties and local traditions. That’s why we have no national blueprint for local government structure.

    In the 1880s this Party set out a pattern of local government that endured for a century. In the 1990s I want to agree a new pattern – one that lasts, in its turn, well into the century to come. I want an end to the wrangling and the wrestling about structure and functions. I want agreement about the proper role of local government – where it is, what it is, and how it should perform. I want you to know what that role is. I want the public to know it. Then I want to leave you to get on with the job. My message is straightforward: let’s stop batting one another around the head and get on with good government.

    Where the system works well, don’t let’s change it. And let me tell you one other thing, plain and simple. There is going to be no – repeat no – new tier of regional government set above you. That is a cock-eyed idea of our opponents – without identity, without price, without principle and without purpose. And that applies to our opponents as well as that idea. It’s just another half-baked piece of socialism we can do without. We are getting rid of regional monstrosities in Scotland; we have no intention of re-inventing them elsewhere.

    Local government in the modern era

    We are the Conservative Party. Think what that means. It means we do not change for change’s sake. We only change for improvement. And we look for improvement in local government because we care about it.

    I want our reforms to be the friend of local government, not the enemy. The more effective local government is, the more popular it will be. We want to show people which councils are serving them best – and those councils will be Conservative councils.

    The public pay their taxes compulsorily. They should be given more information voluntarily. That’s why we are allowing the Audit Commission power to publish more comparative league tables of performance – powers I hope they will use. Local people should have the chance to judge how their councils are doing. Let’s give them straight answers to the questions they ask. They deserve them – and we must give them.

    Quality Service from Conservative Councils

    I know that not everyone welcomes the new openness. Even some Conservatives are uneasy. We shouldn’t be. It is one of the great differences between us and the other parties. We recognise that this is the age of the consumer, not the producer. And the new ethos of public service and value for money must apply as much to the local council as it does in the market place.

    No-one here has anything to fear from that. It is in Conservative councils that you’ll find the best quality at the best price. I don’t have to look far for proof of that – Huntingdonshire District have set the council tax for a Band C property at minus £4. But I’m the first to concede that my neck of the woods does not have a monopoly of virtue – Hambleton has come in at minus £10, and Wellingborough even lower.

    It’s in Labour councils that you’ll find the homes left empty, the rents uncollected, the inefficiency and worse.

    If you doubt that’s true, consider this. Labour councils are planning to charge nearly £100 more in council tax than Conservative ones. Liberal Democrats are planning £50 more. That’s the soggy Left for you – Labour will take an arm and a leg; the Liberals an arm or a leg. But the poor old taxpayer is clobbered either way. And isn’t it just typical of the Liberals? They never did know their arm from their elbow.

    Creating a New Accountability

    I spoke also of a new accountability. Let me say more about what we mean by that.

    We mean direct accountability – of supplier to customer. It is parents who have the strongest interest in the success of their children’s school. So give them the right to ensure that the school delivers. Give them the information about how the schools in their town or district are, doing. Give them the chance to choose the school in the first place.

    Council tenants want more control over the management of their lives. So give them the chance to buy – and help them to do so. And if they don’t want to buy, give them the assurance that remote, incompetent and unresponsive management will be shaken up. Give them the information about the standards of service they’re getting, and the right to choose.

    Hardly revolutionary, you might think. Yet there are still some in the Labour Party who claim that to give people more information upon which to base their choices is an assault on democracy.

    Don’t you find that astonishing? Is that not really a perversion of logic and language. How can giving choice be an assault on democracy? How can giving more information be an assault on democracy? So much for the fine talk from Labour about being the Party of the individual. What they mean is that Labour is the Party that likes to tell individuals what to do.

    Let us be the Party that tells individuals what Government is doing.

    We give them information.

    We give them choice.

    And we give them power.

    These are the policies that people want. And if Labour really understood individuals they would know that. All of us here today have a sense of common purpose. Michael Howard and his team have been working hard to build an ever closer relationship between Conservative councils and a Conservative Government. And what you have done to introduce the Council Tax smoothly is a tribute to that new spirit as well. We serve the same people in the same country and we serve them best when we work together.

    Enabling Businesses to Grow

    Let me tell you of some of the other key areas where I want Conservative government – central and local – to be working in partnership in the ’90s.

    All of us in public service have our part to play in getting the economy growing again. You know – as I know – that we are entering a very difficult time for public sector spending. But the truth is that for the economy to grow, we have to reduce the cost of the public sector.

    This year’s local authority settlement is tight. So is public spending as a whole. We have a 1.5 per cent limit on public sector pay. I know many of you are being very robust in your budgeting this year. But with inflation now down to 1.7 per cent, there is no better time for pushing through tough decisions on spending and pay.

    And, in our battle for more jobs, there is more we can do to help business. Take planning. Of course we must cherish and protect our heritage. No one doubts that. But restrictive planning policies can shut the door on business opportunities. Wherever possible, we should be helping new businesses locate in our areas, and help people to move where jobs are available – not stand in their way.

    And you can help, too, by getting unnecessary regulation off businesses’ backs. I acknowledge that we in government have often gone too far in imposing unnecessary regulatory duties on local councils. Well, that’s going to stop.

    But I need your help too. Some council departments enforce such regulations with too heavy a hand. We must stop that as well.

    So here are some questions for you to ask your Environmental Health Officers and your social services departments. And perhaps they should ask their clients too.

    Why do so many nursery schools complain about social services inspection? Do Environmental Health Officers really take account of local needs when they inspect the local shop? Do they insist on higher standards for the private and voluntary sectors than they do in the public sector?

    We have to make deregulation effective. So I ask for your help to do so. It is one sure way of helping businesses to grow. Prospects to grow. And jobs to grow.

    Better Housing

    And, in local government, you have other ways to join us in extending choice and opportunity to all.

    In housing, it was Conservative, councils who pioneered the right to buy. They saw an opportunity to help people achieve their dreams of home ownership. And they did so. And government followed where local government led. As a result, nearly one and a half million council tenants have become home owners under Right to Buy since 1979.

    And don’t believe it when people say that the demand for home ownership is past. I don’t accept that for a second.

    That is why the Housing bill, now before Parliament, gives tenants a new right to become home-owners by converting their rents into mortgage payments.

    And now – with mortgage rates for first time buyers the lowest since 1956 – now is the time to remind tenants that they can have huge discounts when buying their home.

    Michael Howard and his team will be launching a new campaign to spread the Right to Buy. They will be taking that message to more than a million tenants this spring.

    I want you to help them spread that message. Help those people to know the pride of ownership. To have their very own piece of Britain. And to build up something for themselves and for their children.

    Better Education

    We must also give parents a bigger say in the education of their children. More schools are going grant maintained. All schools are running more of their own budgets. And I don’t expect to hear of Conservative councils standing in their way. We must always remember what we are fighting for – and what we are fighting against. In the 1980s, housing was the chosen battleground for the Left. The Right to Buy challenged their biggest power base. Why? Because it gave people what they wanted – independence and a stake in our country’s future. That policy brought great dividends to the Party, our Party which made it possible.

    Education is still a battleground for the Left and for the same reasons. Education can liberate. An educated person is hard to oppress. It is education above all that makes a society of opportunity and breaks the bonds of class. To parents it brings that most priceless gift: the certainty that their children will have better opportunities than they ever had.

    That’s why the Conservative Party – in central and local government alike – must recognise that our education reforms are the most vital of all for our country. Don’t listen to those who want to cloak exam results in secrecy. Don’t listen to those who want to keep parents locked outside the school gate. I won’t mince my words: the campaign against testing is a disgrace – a smokescreen thrown up to cover the disastrous results of failed educational theories.

    So let’s make parents and pupils the driving force in our schools. Let people in years to come look back and remember that it was we – we in this Party – who set the course for a revolution in the standard and quality of education. Who threw away the nostrums of the ’60s. Who let our teachers do the job as commonsense tells them best. There’s a lot at stake in this battle. So go out and win it.

    The Message of Conservatism

    This Spring, we face County Council elections. Take this message with you as you campaign.

    If you want to keep the Council Tax low, vote Conservative.

    If you want high standards in schools, vote Conservative.

    If you want local government that puts people first, vote Conservative.

    Our councillors know no equals in dedication, determination and commitment. You get involved to make things better. You don’t turn away and leave it to others. So don’t be bashful. Go and get out there. Tell them what you stand for. Tell them what you have achieved. Tell them what you plan for the future.

    That is what you’ve always done. That is why you win. And that is why you’ll deserve to win again on May 6th.