The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Unemployment

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy – 25 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made in Washington on 25th February 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked about the state of the economy and unemployment]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you have to accept the fact that it isn’t just a problem in the United Kingdom. I know that is not any comfort to the people who are unemployed in the United Kingdom but neither is it any help to suggest that it is uniquely a United Kingdom problem.

    In Japan, in Germany, in the United States and in all sorts of other countries there have been large job losses in recent months and for the same reason – because the recession we face in the United Kingdom is a recession that is biting painfully everywhere. The point is what can we do and what has happened?

    What we need to do to get people back into secure employment is to take the decision to get the economic fundamentals right. Some months ago, we had an inflation rate that was much higher – it is now down to 1.7%; we had interest rates at 14% – they are now down to 6%; we saw no signs of increasing re-investment – we are now beginning to see those signs of re-investment and we have also made some further progress towards the determination of the world trade talks which will lift world trade and create jobs everywhere.

    They are practical measures, sound bite politics criticising the Government may be part of the party political plan but it is practical measures like these that will provide secure jobs for the future and that is what concerns me.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked whether the Government had made mistakes]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If it satisfies you, no government that has ever been in office has failed to make mistakes. What we are concerned about is getting people back to work. It is the future. We are going to be living in this decade in the most competitive decade that we have ever seen. That means we have to have a competitive economy, it means in terms like inflation we need to be at least as good and hopefully better than our principal opponents.

    One of the points I think many people have failed to recognise about the changes in British industry is that we now have the most effective productivity rates anywhere in Europe. That is vitally important because it means we are competitive. Our exports are growing. People often saw years ago us having a declining share of world trade. It is now stabilised and potentially growing for the first time in generations. That is important because of what it means for our prospects in the 1990s. Unless we out-compete other countries we will have no secure prospects so we need the circumstances to make sure we can do that and that is what we putting in place.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked about whether enough was being done about job creation and school rebuilding]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But you overlook what we did in the Autumn Statement. We did create a job-creation programme in many of the measures that the Chancellor actually took in the Autumn Statement.

    The point that I am making is a different point, that to believe that you can actually solve the problem with short-term palliatives is wrong. We have put in range firstly the job-creation measures that the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement and secondly, to deal and assist with people who are unemployed at the moment, a wide range of training and other programmes. It is important to keep people who are out of work in touch with the world at work and to provide them with training opportunities so that they can use their skills. That is what we are doing.

    It is a three-pronged approach, get the economic fundamentals of interest rates, inflation and supply-side policies right, then have the right training programme so that people can benefit from those during the period that they are unemployed. Those are the sort of measures that are necessary.

  • PMQT – 23 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Kim Howells : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

    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 meetings with ministerial colleagues and others later today.

    Dr. Howells : Does the Prime Minister agree that it is one thing to blame the chairman of the Conservative party for having sent advisers to try to help undermine the Democrats’ presidential campaign, but that it is quite another for him to try to dodge the blame for illegal searches of Home Office files? Does he accept the blame for those illegal searches, and if he does not will he institute an investigation to find out who conducted them so that he can sack them?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is characteristically wrong on both points. Let me set out the facts for him. No one was sent by the Conservative party to take part in last year’s presidential election campaign. Two members of staff were invited privately by people in the Republican party. Their fares were paid by people in the Republican party ; they travelled in their own time ; and they paid their own personal expenses. Their expenses were not paid by the Conservative party. In contrast, the Labour party sent people, including its deputy leader, to the Democrat headquarters. It is not the least of the tributes to President Clinton that he won the election despite Europe’s most frequent losers giving him advice. The Home Office’s press office received inquiries in early October about whether Mr. Clinton had applied for British citizenship. Inquirers were told that, in accordance with normal practice, details about individual applications could not be disclosed to third parties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept that that is the fact of the matter.

    Sir Terence Higgins : As, unlike the previous Labour Government, this Government are not obliged to do what the IMF tells them, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity in Washington to explain to the IMF that the economic recovery is still fragile, that the size of the public sector borrowing requirement is still due to a large extent to the recession and that an increase in taxation at this stage in the economic cycle would stultify growth and be likely to increase rather than diminish the size of the fiscal deficit?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend, as a former distinguished Treasury Minister, will expect me at this stage of the economic cycle to take note of his comments rather than to respond in detail to them.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister appreciate the full significance of the latest figures showing 1 million long-term unemployed? Is it not appalling that 20 per cent. of the long-term unemployed in this country are aged between 18 and 24, many of whom have never had a chance to work?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the number of long-term unemployed is too high– higher than anyone would wish to see. That is why we are seeking to reduce it. That is why we have put in place the most varied comprehensive programme ever to help people who have been unemployed for six months or more. Next year there will be more than 1,200,000 places on a number of schemes to help the long-term unemployed, including training for work, job clubs, business start-ups and restart courses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering how we might further help the long-term unemployed. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to match his words with action and support any proposals that we may have.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it remotely satisfactory that a problem has to reach crisis proportions before it gets on the Government’s agenda? Is it not the case that, whatever the Government say or have been doing, unemployment goes up every month? Indeed, it has gone up every single month since the Prime Minister took office. I will give him one simple and practical suggestion. Why does he not let local authorities spend their own money which they have got from asset sales to build homes and put people back to work? He could do it tomorrow. Why does he not do it?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls the autumn statement, he will know that my right hon. Friend increased the amount of local authority assets that could be used and that local authorities underspend the amount that they are permitted to use. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so sure that it is this Government’s policies that cause unemployment, how can he explain the fact that unemployment is rising right across Europe and the world and that Governments of all complexions, including socialist Governments in France and Spain, face similar problems? If there is an easy answer, why is it that those socialist Governments and others have failed to find it?

    Mr. John Smith : Why is it that the Prime Minister fails to understand the deep concerns in this country? Is he aware that, in the context of high and rising unemployment and high and rising crime, it was reported yesterday in The Daily Telegraph that only 10 per cent. of the people of this country felt that we were a nation at ease with ourselves? Since the Prime Minister is so good at blaming everyone else, who does he blame for that sad state of affairs?

    The Prime Minister : I say categorically to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not fail to understand the problem of unemployment; I understand it very well. That is precisely why, over the last two years, we have put in place extra schemes–training for work, job clubs, job interview guarantees, business start-ups, workshops and restart courses–all to help people who are unemployed to get back into work. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman admits abroad that it is a worldwide problem, he does not have the courage to admit that here. He comes here with only sound bite politics rather than any constructive help.

    Mr. Ashby : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the way to improve the unemployment situation is to improve manufacturing industry, not, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, by allowing local authorities to spend their capital? Does my right hon. Friend accept, further, that in real manufacturing industry–the engineering industry–there are real signs of improvement and activity and that there is increased employment? Will my right hon. Friend see that that improvement continues by ensuring that we do not have increased taxation, that interest rates are kept low and that there is more capital investment and not so much tax on it?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend sets out a number of important points. Quite apart from the present inflation position and level of interest rates, there are a number of other signs that bode well for our competitiveness and for job creation in the future. United Kingdom unit costs are now growing more slowly than those in Japan and Germany. Earnings are growing more slowly than for 25 years, making us more competitive. Export volumes were at record levels at the end of last year. Our share of world trade has stabilised after decades of decline. Productivity is at all -time high levels. Those are the essential ingredients for growing prosperity and secure jobs in the future, and those are what we are seeking to provide.

     

    Q2. Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Fraser : Is not the Prime Minister appalled by the fact that when the Conservatives took office in 1979, unemployment was just over 1 million and that now the number of people unemployed for more than 12 months is over 1 million? May I suggest that, as he crosses the Atlantic this afternoon, he dips into “Bonfire of the Vanities” and contemplates the extent to which economic trends in this country are beginning to replicate the horrors of cities in the United States, and perhaps he could resolve to give up making excuses during Lent?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might do well to reflect on the levels of unemployment throughout the Community, now at 17 million. He might show his concern better if he and his party did not oppose every job training scheme that we produce. While he invites me to look into “Bonfire of the Vanities”, he might look into affairs in his borough, where there is the highest poll tax in Britain, the largest number of uncollected rents, the largest number of empty properties and where he and his party have brought despair year after year after year.

    Mr. Gallie : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the actions of French fishermen today in destroying £10,000 worth of fish en route from Ayr to Germany? Does he recall similar incidents last year, when £30,000 of produce was lost in a similar manner? May we have an assurance that he will approach the French Government to make sure that the culprits are brought to justice and that compensation is paid to all in Britain who lose out in such circumstances?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes the point. Officials have already lodged protests with the French authorities about the incidents in Roscoff during the weekend. We shall continue to leave the French Government in no doubt that we expect them to act where necessary to safeguard free trade, to pay compensation when losses have occurred and to bring the perpetrators to book. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

     

    Q3. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Enright : If a principal duty of a Government is the prevention of crime, have not the present Government failed spectacularly? Should not the Prime Minister immediately announce the establishment of a royal commission to make urgent proposals on the subject? Or will he just watch the downward spiral continue with the gaze of the dog that does not understand?

    The Prime Minister : As I arrived today, the Under-Secretary of State for Health was setting out a list of measures designed to deal with crime that the Opposition had opposed. To illustrate its depth of concern about the matter, the Labour party had 155 words on the subject of crime in its election manifesto. By contrast, since 1979 we have increased the maximum penalty for trafficking in hard drugs to life imprisonment ; introduced a power to confiscate drug traffickers’ and other criminals’ assets, against the opposition of the Labour party ; increased maximum penalties for carrying firearms to life imprisonment, for cruelty to children to 10 years and for insider dealing to seven years. I will take Opposition Members seriously on matters of crime when they support, for example, the prevention of terrorism Acts, and we shall give them an opportunity to do that within a few days.

    Mr. Luff : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plans by Jaguar Cars to invest £500 million in the production of a new car at Coventry and of the increases in production planned by Rover Cars, including the excellent Land-Rover Discovery car, which many hon. Members are proud to drive? Does he agree that that is excellent news for the west midlands and the whole British motor vehicle industry?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend and I am–of course –aware of the large investments by Jaguar and Rover. Not only is that excellent news for the motor industry and the west midlands, but it demonstrates the continuing commitment to the United Kingdom as a key manufacturing base by Jaguar’s parent company, Ford. The British motor industry was a relic of an industry 15 years ago. It is now profitable, expanding and exporting as a result of our policies.

     

    Q4. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Beith : Why does the Prime Minister think that the long list of measures that he has just read out, and which his Government have successfully carried through the House to deal with crime and juvenile crime, has simply not worked? Could it be that crime has become too easy, that violence has become too much the theme of television and videos, that respect for other people has gone too much out of fashion and that too many young people see no stake for themselves in society but see more of a future in crime and the black economy? Does the Prime Minister not have to reach out beyond any one party in order to tackle such issues?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say a moment ago, and I addressed a good deal of that in a speech a fortnight or so ago. There is a responsibility that spreads far beyond any Government. It most explicitly includes a responsibility within the family circle. It most expressly includes the churches and it most expressly includes the schools to ensure that there is no truancy. Those children who truant are far more likely to be involved in juvenile crime. It is for those reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing measures to deal with juvenile crime very shortly.

  • PMQT – 18 February 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Havercroft

    Q1. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister when he will pay an official visit to Havercroft.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Yorkshire among them.

    Mr. Enright : Is the Prime Minister aware that miners from Havercroft, who have been blackmailed into taking redundancy payments, do not count among the 3 million unemployed? Is he further aware that if the pit at Grimesthorpe were to be closed, male unemployment in the area would be one in three? Will he today, therefore, guarantee the future of Grimesthorpe, not least because it is commercially profitable?

    The Prime Minister : No one is blackmailed in the way the hon. Gentleman says. The position of Grimesthorpe, as with the other pits, will be covered in the review being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18 February.

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

    Mr. Jones : Does not Britain need a national strategy to combat the evil of mass unemployment? When will the indecision, drift and the weakness come to an end? Has not the right hon. Gentleman’s conduct of Her Majesty’s Government in recent times been a disgrace? If he cannot give a lead to our nation, should he not go?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is well rehearsed, but not well informed. If he had been well informed, he would have known, for example, that in a recent speech in Athens the Leader of the Opposition admitted that unemployment was a problem not only in this country but right across Europe. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that, why cannot the hon. Gentleman?

     

    Q3. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Oppenheim : Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to the social chapter there can be no free ride, that such benefits have to be matched by increased productivity or they will add only to unemployment and that the best way to get sustainable long-term jobs is to continue with structural reforms, particularly improving education, rather than engaging in short- term bail-outs and subsidies for unsustainable industries? Would not policies like the social chapter, increased payroll tax, a statutory minimum wage and the repeal of trade union laws–all Labour policies–add to unemployment rather than improving the situation?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. There is no purpose in the Opposition saying that they care about unemployment when they are committed to policies that will put up unemployment and keep it up. Until they drop their support for the social chapter, the minimum wage and windfall tax, they are in no position to lecture anyone about job losses.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the country will never forget that it was his Government and his Chancellor of the Exchequer who told us that unemployment was a “price well worth paying”? On the day when unemployment has reached the tragic total of 3 million, will he now publicly repudiate that heartless approach?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that we have set in place–[Hon. Members : “Answer!”] We have set in place to assist people who are unemployed a comprehensive system of schemes unmatched in the history of this country and unmatched elsewhere in Europe–[Hon. Members : “Answer the question.”]–the training for work programme, the job clubs, the job– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I will not have hon. Members shouting down any other right hon. or hon. Member. I warn Members that I shall use the authority that this House has given if this continues.

    The Prime Minister : I was trying to inform hon. Gentlemen, who were shouting out, of the assistance that has been put in place to help people who are currently without work to be trained and to get back in work, which I should have thought was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I would wish to see done. I repeat for his benefit : the training for work schemes, the job clubs, the job interview guarantees, the business start-up schemes, the job plan workshops, the restart courses–constitute an unprecedented amount of help to deal with a problem which exists in this country and in every country in Europe.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that unemployment at this menacing level is not just a personal disaster for millions of honest and decent people who want to have the independence and dignity that employment can give them, but also an economic millstone around this country’s neck? Does he not understand that unemployment at this tragic level costs Britain £27,000 million per year and that we lose 780 million working days? Is that not economic madness as well as social tragedy?

    The Prime Minister : Of course we appreciate that fact. That is why we are seeking, first, to help those who are unemployed, and also to create the circumstances to make sure that they have permanent, long-term, sustainable jobs in the future. We are determined to bring unemployment down, and we will–but with our policies, not with the lack of policies of Opposition Members. I repeat that we have put in place the most comprehensive training programmes ever to help unemployed people. We shall be introducing new training schemes with almost half a million new training and employment places in April. In terms of getting permanent, sustainable jobs, we have brought inflation down to its lowest level for 25 years, my right hon. Friend’s autumn statement put in place further policies for growth, interest rates are at their lowest level for 15 years and retail sales are rising. Those are the facts which bring positive hope for the unemployed, not the empty rhetoric of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Mr. John Smith : If those schemes were of any value, if they were successful, and if the Prime Minister really cares about bringing down unemployment, why has he stood idly by and allowed it to rise in every month of his period of office? Is it not rather contemptible, on this tragic day, to be seeking to blame others and to abuse his opponents? Is it not time that he accepted the responsibilities of his office and did what the country desperately wants him to do–put bringing down unemployment at the top of our national agenda?

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say at the outset of his remarks was very revealing : if, he said, these schemes are of value. Does that explain why the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party have opposed every training measure that we have put in place for unemployed people? The facts are that the Government have put in place nearly 1 million training and employment opportunities this year, and we plan to increase them by half a million in April. I would find the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s concern more convincing if he had just one decent economic policy to tackle unemployment. Instead, he has two bad policies. The first is the tax on excess profits : the old Labour party speaking again–they do not like profits, they want to penalise success, and they will never understand that profits fund investment and finance jobs. And now they want a training tax as well to put more people out of work. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have a word with his transport spokesman, who said of the minimum wage– [Interruption.] I know Opposition Members do not like it, but they had better listen. His transport spokesman said : “I knew the consequences were that there would be some shakeout, any silly fool knew that.”

    Madam Speaker : Has the Prime Minister completed his answer?

    The Prime Minister : I sat down, Madam Speaker, because you were getting up. I will repeat the quote from the Opposition transport spokesman. [Interruption.] They do not like it, but they are going to get it. I repeat the quote from the shadow transport spokesman, who said of a national minimum wage :

    “I knew the consequences were that there would be some shakeout, any silly fool knew that.”

    It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) did not know that and did not oppose a policy which would lose jobs.

    Mr. Robert Banks : Has my right hon. Friend seen reports showing that not only is Nissan in Sunderland exporting cars to Japan, but Vauxhall is now exporting Astra cars to Japan? Is that not a remarkable turnround in the fortunes of British car manufacturers, good for jobs and good for exports?

    The Prime Minister : It most certainly is. We all recall the state of the car industry in the 1970s. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that this is welcome news for British car manufacturers, proving that they can compete with the world’s best on quality, price and productivity both in this country and in exporting.

    Mr. Ashdown rose–

    Mr. Skinner : You bailed him out.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat. Time is passing.

    Mr. Ashdown : Why does the Prime Minister always use his time to tell us what the Opposition said instead of telling us what he will do? Last night President Clinton gave his country hope through strong leadership and a clear programme for renewal. Is it not fortunate that the Prime Minister does not have to make a state of the nation address because it is clear that if he did he would have noting to say, not even, it appears, “Sorry”?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard a long list of action that the Government have taken. Since he did not listen, let me give him more information. The £2.5 billion spent on training measures is two and a half times as much as any previous Government spent. We had the package of measures in the autumn statement to boost the construction industry by releasing capital receipts, the assistance for manufacturing industry by introducing new capital allowances, and the extra help for exporters. The right hon. Gentleman is leader of his party. Where has he been that he knows none of this?

    Mr. Lidington : Is my right hon. Friend aware that businesses in the Thames-Chiltern area are reporting increased exports to the middle east, the far east and north America? Does he agree that in a world economy which is becoming more and not less competitive, permanent jobs and prosperity will depend on the enterprise and hard work of businesses like those and not on the meddlesome bureaucracy and cheap answers proposed by Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right. In a fiercely competitive world, it is only if we have the most competitive industries that we can look forward to job creation or to increasing prosperity. That is why it is necessary to get inflation down. That is why it has been necessary to get interest rates down and why the improvements in productivity which are becoming so remarkable are one of the best indications of our future prospects. They are good prospects as a result of the measures that we have taken and will continue to sustain.

     

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

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

    Mr. Trimble : I have here a letter from the Fair Employment Commission refusing assistance to one of my constituents with regard to his complaint that he had been discriminated against by the civil service. Incidentally, the letter is signed by the public servant who suggested recently that photographs of Her Majesty should not be displayed in a public building. The clear implication of this letter is that criteria, instead of being set objectively by reference to the nature of the job, should be manipulated in order to achieve the quota–

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question. We now have the background.

    Mr. Trimble : The Fair Employment Commission described this manipulation as affording equality of opportunity. Does the Prime Minister agree that such criteria should be manipulated for the purpose of achieving the commission’s job quota in every place of work?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had let me see the letter, I should have been able to give him a detailed reply. If he does so, I will examine the letter and respond to him in detail. As I have not seen it, the hon. Gentleman cannot have expected a reply of any sort.

  • PMQT – 9 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

    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. Amess : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on launching a fundamental review of all Government spending, just as Conservative-controlled Basildon is currently doing? Does he agree that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure the best possible value for every pound of taxpayers’ money that is spent?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend so often reminds the House, where Basildon leads others tend to follow.

    I welcome yesterday’s statement by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Government spend over £250 billion a year of taxpayers’ money. I believe that it is necessary to look very closely at the way in which that money is spent and at where it is spent and to ensure that we obtain the best possible value for every pound that is spent. It is for that reason that we are conducting the review.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Prime Minister recall the promise that he made during the election campaign only 10 months ago? He said that the Government had no plans and no need to extend the scope of value added tax. Does he stand by those words?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady knows that we are near to the Budget. She must wait.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Prime Minister made just that promise to the British people when he needed their votes. Why will not he make it now?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady knows that we are close to the Budget. She must wait.

    Mrs. Beckett : At the time of the election, the Prime Minister and all his colleagues promised no change in VAT, no other new taxes or charges and no cuts in the public spending plans that they had put before the British people. Is not it clear from the Prime Minister’s refusal to answer a simple question that all his promises had a sell-by date of 9 April?

    The Prime Minister : It is not remotely clear from that. What is clear is that we are close to the Budget and the hon. Lady will have to wait for the Budget to find out what it contains.

    Mr. William Powell : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the article by Robert Fisk in yesterday’s edition of The Independent which describes systematic rape in Bosnia? Has not the time come for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal, so that those responsible for the perpetration of such foul crimes can be brought to justice? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that, under the authority of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, such a tribunal is established as quickly as possible?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen the article to which my hon. Friend refers, but, as he will know, we have been considering that matter in concert with the United Nations for some time.

     

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

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

    Mr. Heppell : Is the Prime Minister aware that unemployment in my constituency, in the once-prosperous city of Nottingham, is now higher than in any Scottish or Welsh constituency, having risen by 44 per cent. between 1990 and 1992? With three out of 10 males now unemployed, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect unemployment to start to fall?

    The Prime Minister : I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s concern about unemployment, but I would respect it more if he did not support policies that would deliberately put people out of work– [Interruption.] –rather than back into work. He and his party have consistently argued for a national minimum wage and even the Fabian Society has recognised that

    “an inescapable part of a”

    national minimum wage

    “policy is increased unemployment.”

    Perhaps that is another policy which the Labour Front Bench could ditch.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government support the Owen-Vance peace plan and that they will continue to keep up their pressure on the warring parties to comply with that plan? In the meantime, will he confirm British support for the humanitarian aid now going to Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. I confirm both points. The Government’s policy is fully to support the Owen-Vance peace plan, which was developed out of the conference that I chaired in London last August. We also wish to maintain the conditions in which our forces can support the United Nations humanitarian effort, without which many thousands of people alive today would otherwise have been dead. But we believe it to be necessary to increase the pressure on the parties to help seek a solution. The United Kingdom has put forward proposals for tightening the operation of sanctions across the Danube and for increasing the isolation of Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs if their aggression persists. I hope that that policy will be supported throughout the European Community and the United Nations.

     

    Q4. Mr. Austin-Walker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Austin-Walker : Will the Prime Minister find time today to examine the effects of land contamination on job creation? In particular, will he examine the position of the Woolwich Arsenal site, which once employed 80,000 people in a single factory, but which now lies derelict in an area where male unemployment tops 62 per cent? Will he give a categorical assurance that, as the contamination was caused by the Ministry of Defence, the Government will meet the full cost of decontamination on that site and the neighbouring Thamesmead area?

    The Prime Minister : The Secretary of State for Defence will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, will examine the matter and will respond to him.

     

    Q5. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great teaching profession clearly welcomes higher standards through the national curriculum, but appears to be flinching from achieving them through standard assessment tests? Does he further agree that it is vital, above all in the interests of our nation and our children, that the tests go ahead without delay?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that we need national tests to raise standards and it is our intention that they shall go ahead. They are and remain a vital part of the national curriculum. Children need them, parents want them and I expect teachers to supervise them.

    Mr. Llwyd : Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will meet the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shortly to discuss his disgraceful betrayal of British farmers with the proposed cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances–despite the promise, fewer than 18 months ago, that they were safe in his hands?

    The Prime Minister : I meet my right hon. Friend many times a week, but, regardless of the cut in HLCAs to which the hon. Gentleman refers, hill farmers’ incomes will be between £60 million and £70 million higher as a result of increased sheep premiums, the green pound devaluation and other market factors.

     

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

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

    Mr. Nicholls : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while any convert to conservatism is always welcome, if that conversion is coupled with a continuing opposition to British Rail privatisation, grant- maintained schools, GP fund-holding practices and compulsory competitive tendering, it shows that the conversion is insubstantial and entirely unreal? Is not that now the position of the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I welcome all conversions to conservatism, especially death-bed conversions–but they must be genuine conversions, not conversions that use the language of conservatism but remain wedded to the instincts and policies of socialism. Until the right hon. and learned Gentleman formally drops his commitment to clause 4, his opposition to privatisation and his idiotic proposal for a windfall tax, no one will take his conversion seriously.

    Mr. Terry Davis : Will the Prime Minister find time today to tell the President of the Board of Trade to get round the table with the Leyland DAF receiver, the management and the unions, in an attempt to save the van factory in Birmingham, which has a highly skilled and motivated work force of 2,000 people?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the receivers. Several Hon. Members rose —

    Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats.

    Mr. Forman : When my right hon. Friend is considering new measures to help the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, will he give careful consideration to the idea of relaxing the social security rules that affect availability for work, so that it is possible for people to do more than 24 hours a week of voluntary work and more than 21 hours a week of educational study–to their benefit and that of the country?

    The Prime Minister : We have looked and are looking at a range of measures that might encourage people back into work. I cannot give my hon. Friend a particular undertaking on the point that he makes, but we are looking at a range of ways to assist.

     

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

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

    Mr. Turner : The Prime Minister’s record is not a good one. Since he came to office in 1990, more than 1 million people have joined the unemployed queues and more than 100,000 training places have been lost. Is this the vision of Opportunity Britain, or is it a sign of the growing army of jobless whose lives have been wasted by the Government?

    The Prime Minister : What we have sought to do and are doing is to put in place the economic circumstances that will create genuine and lasting jobs. That is why we have cut inflation to its lowest level for six years, brought interest rates down to their lowest for 15 years and put in place the most comprehensive training programme ever seen in this country. That is the only way to secure long-term, permanent jobs–not the quick fixes so beloved of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

     

    Cleethorpes

    Q8. Mr. Michael Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Cleethorpes by train.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include my hon. Friend’s constituency among them.

    Mr. Brown : I am delighted to hear that reply. Does my right hon. Friend recall the days when he and I used to travel on the train to Cleethorpes, which used to stop at Huntingdon? Is he aware that if he makes his official visit to Cleethorpes by train, after May this year he will have to change at Newark and hang around on the platform catching flu for hours on end because British Rail is taking away the direct train service to Cleethorpes? Does he agree that it is vital that British Rail should continue that service at least until the Railways Bill is on the statute book, when we can take advantage of the franchising opportunities of privatisation?

    The Prime Minister : I recall those journeys with my hon. Friend with great pleasure, but British Rail’s monopoly service means that it decides what services to run in the light of its view of passenger demand. I stress to my hon. Friend that British Rail’s reluctance to change its service now is no bar to subsequent changes. The privatisation proposals will break British Rail’s monopoly and will bring in private sector operators and I believe that part of those franchises will provide a better, cheaper and more effective service for the commuter.

  • PMQT – 4 February 1993

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Liam Fox : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

    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.

    Dr. Fox : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the positive response to what he said last night–that the Government will consider new ways to give extra help to unemployed people and to keep them in touch with the jobs market? Is not that open-minded approach in stark contrast with the closed minds but open mouths of Labour Members?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. My concern is to make sure, wherever possible, that we keep unemployed people in touch with the world of work. Both here and elsewhere, that is a vital issue and I believe that we need a public debate on it. It is right to look at all the radical options and we propose to do so. That may mean offering more opportunities, for example, of volunteering, or extending an element of compulsion, which we already have in Restart. I do not believe that we should shy away from considering those options, and we will not.

    Mr. John Smith : After a week of chaos over Government economic policy and yet more redundancies in British industry, does the Prime Minister understand that it is vital for British manufacturing industry that Leyland DAF should not be allowed to collapse, as there are 5,500 jobs at stake in the company and 10,000 among its suppliers? Will the Prime Minister undertake that if the Dutch and Belgian Governments rescue their parts of the company, the British Government will do at least the same for Leyland DAF?

    The Prime Minister : No. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the receivers appointed yesterday at Leyland DAF have made it clear that they believe that at least parts of the business can be saved as a commercially viable business without unnecessary state hand-outs. I believe that that is the way to proceed.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand the concern which exists in the country because of the Government’s record of neglect of manufacturing industry, and the hesitancy and ambiguity of statements made by the Government? Can the Prime Minister not give a clear undertaking that he will do for Britain what the Dutch and Belgian Governments will do for their countries?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking us to do what has been tried in the past by previous Labour Governments and others and has failed. He should recall the disastrous outcome of the Labour Government’s merger of Leyland with the British Motor Corporation, involving millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money; later they had to nationalise it, which cost even more millions. Much of that money paid for wasteful working practices and unjustified wage increases insisted on by the unions. That was Labour’s idea of industrial strategy and it is clear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it still is. He has learnt nothing.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that that long answer will cause even greater concern to the people in Leyland DAF? Does he not understand that in the real world outside the Carlton club people see a Government lurching from one muddle to another, whether it be interest rates, defence cuts or workfare? Can he not set one simple objective and stick to it? Leyland DAF is a vital British interest and it ought to be secured.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade set out our position quite clearly the other day. Hon. Members must understand that we are not prepared to spend taxpayers’ money to provide working capital for companies in difficulty. Many private companies need more working capital from time to time ; it is simply not realistic to expect the Government to provide it. That approach was tried in the 1960s; it failed. It was tried in the 1970s; it failed. That is the economic reality which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should face up to.

    Mr. Onslow : Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday’s announcement about the size of the Army is particularly welcome as renewed proof that the Government are ready to respond to changing circumstances overseas? As the Opposition are committed to a 25 per cent. cut in the defence budget, will he use his influence with the Leader of the House to make sure that we have an early debate on the subject?

    The Prime Minister : The measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday are a small but necessary adjustment to a changing world situation. They will ensure that the Army has the flexibility and resilience necessary to meet challenges in the years ahead. Had the Opposition been in power and carried out their defence policies, they would have slashed £6 billion off defence. I wonder what they would have said then about the defence jobs that would have been lost.

     

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

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

    Mr. Galbraith : In view of the continuing uncertainty in the money markets, can the Prime Minister say whether his Chancellor will be presenting not only the March Budget but the December Budget? May I have a straightforward answer? Will the current Chancellor be presenting the December Budget–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot imagine anyone other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer presenting a Budget.

     

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

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

    Mr. Duncan : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that criminals, even teenage criminals and other young offenders, are responsible for their own actions and deserve to be punished accordingly? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that it is Government policy to punish such young offenders and not to make excuses for them like the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no excuse for crime. Society is not to blame, and individuals are. For a small number of persistent juvenile offenders we need a new approach. We need new powers to put them into secure accommodation where they can be trained for a useful future. Unless they are trained at an early stage, we betray them, for we leave them in a position where they may believe that crime is justifiable and then wreck their lives as well as other people’s.

    Mr. Ashdown rose– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is a very important time, not only for the House, but for people outside who watch and attempt to listen to us. The House must come to order before we can make any further progress.

    Mr. Ashdown : In the light of the Prime Minister’s previous answer and his speech last night, will he assure the House that he understands that any scheme designed to make the victims of his policies the inmates of a compulsory ghetto of low wage and no hope would be rightly condemned? But a policy and programme designed to give the long-term unemployed real training and real job experience–one like the community programme from which I and thousands of others benefited 10 years ago–would be well worth considering.

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had read my speech before asking his question he might not have asked it in that form.

     

    Q4. Mr. Sumberg : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Sumberg : Has my right hon. Friend noticed reports in today’s press that the National Union of Teachers is requiring its members to boycott the English test for 14-year-olds? Is not that disgraceful decision a grave disservice not only to parents and children but to the vast majority of decent and honourable teachers who serve the community?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I believe that it is a disgraceful decision, and one which, in time, the NUT itself will regret. English is the single most important subject in the curriculum, and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to insist that grammar and standard school English should be taught in our schools. I condemn without reservation the action proposed by the NUT and I utterly deplore the politically motivated campaign being waged by some members of that union. They said yesterday :

    “A boycott of English tests presents militants with an opportunity to broaden the current struggle.”

    Those militants are playing politics with children’s futures, and the sooner the NUT denounces them the better it will be for everyone.

     

    Q5. Ms. Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Ms. Eagle : Is the Prime Minister aware that this week sees the 75th anniversary of the occasion of women’s gaining the vote? Is it not an insult that his Government have decided to celebrate this great anniversary by abolishing wages councils, thereby adversely affecting the earnings of 2 million women?

    The Prime Minister : Certainly not. We believe in equality.

     

    Deregulation

    Q6. Mr. Jenkin : To ask the Prime Minister what conclusions were reached at his seminar on deregulation held on 2 February.

    The Prime Minister : We agreed to review all 7,000 regulations currently imposed on businesses, with the aim of abolishing regulations wherever possible. Where they cannot be abolished–for overriding reasons of health or safety, for example–we shall work to simplify them. We agreed also that future proposals for new regulations must always spell out the costs to businesses of complying with them. We must not impose burdensome regulations on business unless they are absolutely necessary, and we are determined not to do so.

    Mr. Jenkin : I thank my right hon. Friend for his response, which will be most welcome to businesses in my constituency and in all other parts of the country. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his junior Ministers have absolute freedom to seek out and destroy unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation, in whichever Government Department or whichever institution it may reside?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is precisely the task that I have given to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. There is a problem with excessive regulation in Brussels, but there is also a problem in Whitehall. We need to deal with both.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. McGrady : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 February.

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

    Mr. McGrady : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the patients charter that he had published and so ardently supported? The charter sees clinical effectiveness and accessibility as the twin pillars of a good acute hospital service. Is the Prime Minister aware that in many areas, and in particular my constituency of South Down, with an area of 750 square miles, all hospital services are being abolished? Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that action as contrary to the patients charter, and will he take a personal interest in seeing that those scandalous proposals are abandoned?

    The Prime Minister : I was certainly not aware of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to investigate and report back to me.

    Mr. Shersby : Further to my right hon. Friend’s earlier reply about juvenile offenders, does he agree that the two single most important actions that the Government can take to deal with the problem are, first, to stop juvenile offenders reoffending on bail and introduce legislation to deal with that secondly, and to provide the resources for secure accommodation so that youngsters who persistently reoffend can be locked up?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the two points made by my hon. Friend. I assure him that we have both those matters in mind.

     

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates

    Q8. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to prevent Ministers from granting public interest immunity certificates in relation to export licences.

    The Prime Minister : The law on public interest immunity has been developed by the courts over time, and they are the ultimate judge of where the balance of the public interest lies. Public interest immunity is within the terms of reference of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry and we await his report.

    Mr. Dalyell : Should it not be the House of Commons now, rather than Lord Justice Scott in the ever-receding future, that asks for an explanation as to why–in order to protect five Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary–Alan Moses QC for the Crown in court, and the Attorney- General on 12 November, were very seriously economical?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Claiming public interest immunity is an obligation, not a privilege. In any case, the prosecution in the Matrix Churchill trial failed not because of the disclosure of documents but because of the change of evidence of a key witness. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the outcome of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry.

  • PMQT – 28 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Burns : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making official visits to India, Saudi Arabia and Oman. I am pleased to advise the House that, following discussions with the Sultan of Oman, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that Oman is to purchase the Challenger 2 as its new main battle tank, together with its armoured repair and recovery vehicles. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating Vickers Defence Systems on its well-deserved success in the first export order for Challenger 2.

    Mr. Burns : Notwithstanding that extremely good news, on a slightly different subject, has my right hon. Friend had time today to see the deeply disturbing allegations of fraud in Hackney, coming on top of the discovery of possibly record local government fraud in the Labour London borough of Lambeth? Will he assure the House of the Government’s determination to root out the systematic cheating and defrauding of charge payers?

    Mr. Newton : Yes. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend of our determination in that respect and I have no doubt that we shall be joined in it by the Opposition Front Bench. I have also, I may say, been doing some research on what the commentators have been saying and I came across this one which said :

    “in many areas Labour local government is lacklustre and incompetent. In a few it is simply corrupt and nepotistic. “This is nothing new. Ineffectual or rotten Labour councils … have been a feature of British political life for as long as anyone can remember”.

    That was in Tribune .

    Mrs. Beckett rose–

    Mr. Cryer : If that was in Tribune what about New Statesman ?

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is the Lord President aware that the December trade deficit of more than £1.5 billion is the worst for two and a half years and that whatever gloss he may put on it, the country is still in deep recession and deep trouble with no sign that the Government are prepared to do anything about it?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that the trade figures recently have shown that for the first time for a very long time our share of world trade in manufactures has stabilised and that the figures– [Interruption.] that is, after decades of decline. The figures today, which inevitably reflect to some extent the consequence on import prices of the depreciation of the pound, also show that export volumes were at record levels for the three months to December ; they were up 5.5 per cent. on the year before in the face of a slowdown in world trade, and there are particularly encouraging signs of a continuing increase in car and other manufactured exports.

    Mrs. Beckett : I suppose that that was the gloss. The reality is that, despite a huge devaluation, exports this month are down, while imports continue to rise. That is unprecedented during a recession. Is it not the case that we now have a payments deficit and a budget deficit, and that, for the past three years, 400 people have lost their jobs every day in London alone? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the people of Britain are worried sick about this, and that the only people who are not are the Government?

    Mr. Newton : The reality is that inflation is at its lowest for six years, that interest rates are at their lowest for 15 years, that productivity is at an all-time high and that all surveys show an increase in business confidence. As I said on Tuesday, it is time that the Opposition stopped trying to talk that confidence down again.

     

    Q2. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Amess : Crime in Basildon has fallen over the past year. Does my right hon. Friend think it right for a mass murderer to be interviewed on television about his crimes, on the grounds that it is of educational value and in the public interest, when common sense tells us that it might well put ideas into the mind of a disturbed person? Does my right hon. Friend think that right? The majority of my constituents in Basildon do not.

    Mr. Newton : I think that I can safely say that the same is likely to go for the majority of my constituents in Braintree. I can do no better than reply to my hon. Friend by referring to what my vigorous right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said on the radio this morning. He said :

    “it is in my opinion contrary to public interest for somebody who is a mass murderer of his kind”–

    of Nilsen’s kind, that is– [Laughter.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Very amusing, but I think that the Leader of the House wants to get on.

    Mr. Newton : The Leader of the House wants to complete the quotation, Madam Speaker.

    My right hon. and learned Friend said that it was wrong for “a mass murderer of his kind to be allowed publicly to relate his offences in this way–it’s bad taste, bad judgment and it’s totally insensitive to the feelings of the victims of people he killed”.

    Mr. Ashdown : If things are so wonderful, as the Leader of the House claims, will he tell us whether he can recall a time when any Government have presided over unemployment of 3 million, while borrowing £1 billion a week and running up a trade deficit that is heading towards £20 billion a year? Is not that, by any standards, the mark of an economic policy that is floundering and a Government who have failed?

    Mr. Newton : I am somewhat surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman joining Labour Front Benchers in their exercise of talking the economy down again. I repeat that the conditions for recovery are in place, and confidence is growing. I would expect to have the right hon. Gentleman’s support in ensuring that that continues.

    Mr. Dickens : Will my right hon. Friend welcome the reduction in interest rates that was announced this week? It has saved British industry £1 billion. Is it not particularly helpful for our manufacturing industry, and to all those with mortgages and overdrafts? Is not some good news coming out of all the gloom? [Interruption.]

    Mr. Newton rose–

    Madam Speaker : Order. All this hilarity is a waste of valuable question time.

    Mr. Newton : The reduction in interest rates is indeed extremely good news. My hon. Friend might have extended the point that he made in his question by saying that, with the interest reductions that have taken place since 1990, we have seen £11 billion cut off the costs of British industry, and £160 off an average mortgage payment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Martlew : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Martlew : Will the Leader of the House inform the Prime Minister, when he returns, that in the western part of the United Kingdom there is a great deal of concern about the fact that the Government are failing to give British Rail the necessary resources to upgrade the west coast main line? Does he agree that, without that investment, the economies of the west midlands, north Wales, the north-west of England, Cumbria, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be grossly disadvantaged? Does the Leader of the House agree also that it would be nonsensical for the Prime Minister to underestimate the political influence of areas that account for one third of Members of Parliament?

    Mr. Newton : Should I be able to find the necessary extensive opportunity, in the wake of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I shall, of course, report his views to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have no doubt, however, that my right hon. Friend will disagree with the hon. Gentleman just as much as I do, against the background of the fact that British Rail’s external financing limit next year is to be nearly £1.5 billion.

     

    Q4. Mr. Rathbone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Rathbone : May I ask my right hon. Friend to request the Prime Minister to review the policies of the British Government and of the European Community towards Israel in the light of the horrible deportations that have taken place there and of the upholding of those deportations by the Israeli supreme court yesterday, and thus bring pressure on the Israeli Government to accept as swiftly as possible United Nations Security Council resolution 799?

    Mr. Newton : It is obvious from the response to my hon. Friend’s question that his concern is widely shared in the House. He will know that the British Government continue to urge the Israelis to comply with United Nations Security Council resolution 799. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sent a personal message to the Israeli Foreign Minister last week, and they will meet in Brussels on 1 February, when, as my right hon. Friend has already told the House, he will emphasise the need for the Israeli Government to take urgent steps to solve the problem of the deportees.

     

    Q5. Mr. Gunnell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Gunnell : Will the Leader of the House give his estimate of the total number of jobs, in both the public and the private sectors, that are at risk through rail privatisation? Does he agree with Lord Prior’s assessment that there will be 12,000 potential job losses in the areas of rolling stock and signalling? While I welcome the news for Leeds about the Challenger tank, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he agrees that more Yorkshire jobs will be lost in railway engineering factories in Hunslet, York, Wakefield and Doncaster as a result of these threats, unless there is action within weeks, rather than months or years?

    Mr. Newton : I do not agree. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend’s proposals for rail privatisation and the development of competition are the best means of ensuring an effective and efficient railway system and of guaranteeing jobs for many people in the long term. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that his area, Leeds, and Newcastle, because of the Vickers presence there, are among those that will benefit from the work that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done on his visit abroad.

     

    Q6. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert : Will my right hon. Friend spare some sympathy today for our Community partners, the Irish, whose traditional luck seems temporarily to have deserted them? Whereas Irish overnight interest rates have gone up to 100 per cent., we in liberated Britain have the lowest rates for 15 years, to the great benefit of business, industry and millions of home owners.

    Mr. Newton : I very much share the pleasure that my hon. Friend has expressed in what we have been able to do over interest rates. It shows that we are now moving in the sort of direction that both British industry and the whole of the British people want to see in achieving economic recovery.

  • PMQT – 26 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th January 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Battle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making official visits to India and Oman.

    Mr. Battle : Is the Secretary of State for Employment telling the truth when she says that the President of the Board of Trade did not consult her about pit closures?

    Mr. Newton : If the hon. Gentleman thinks that my right hon. Friend was not consulted, would he like to tell me how it was possible for her to announce on the same day a wide-ranging package of measures directed at employment?

    Mr. Rowe : My right hon. Friend will be aware that as our trade with the European mainland constantly increases, a large proportion of it must pass through the county of Kent. Is he aware that the county of Kent and all the district councils in Kent are desperate to have a considerable portion of that freight transferred to the railways? Will he ensure that when Ministers are considering the present proposals for the railways and the channel tunnel rail link, they do everything in their power to ensure that it is made possible for freight to be carried on the railway rather than on the cluttered roads of Kent?

    Mr. Newton : As my hon. Friend knows, it is precisely to improve the efficiency and attractiveness of rail freight that many of our proposals in the context of the future of the railways are directed.

    Mr. John Smith : Given that the crisis in the coal mining industry arises directly from the Government’s rigging of the electricity market, why will the Government not accept that reform of the market to allow coal to compete fairly is the crucial and overriding issue?

    Mr. Newton : I do not accept for a moment the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s suggestion. The problems in the coal industry arise from a long -term decline in the demand for coal which is being seen throughout the western world. The Government’s policies are directed to addressing that and to securing the best possible future for the coal industry.

    Mr. John Smith : It is little short of astonishing that, even now, Ministers do not understand that the crisis arises from the botched privatisation of the electricity industry and not from any weakness in the British mining industry. Are the Government not aware that what the industry and the nation need is not some short-term fix to save the Government’s face but a reform of the electricity market to allow British miners to compete fairly?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will shortly bring forward proposals directed at the outcome of his review of the coal industry. Meanwhile, if I find anything astonishing, it is that on a day when interest rates have fallen to their lowest level for 15 years, the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot even congratulate the Government.

    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the Confederation of British Industry’s latest poll, which shows the biggest increase in business confidence for five years? Does he agree that low inflation, low interest rates and a very competitive exchange rate give British producers a real edge in world markets?

    Mr. Newton : I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We now have inflation at its lowest level for six years, interest rates, as I said, at their lowest level for 15 years, mortgage rates likely to be at their lowest level for nearly a quarter of a century and a marked increase in business confidence. We need Opposition Front-Bench Members to stop talking that confidence down.

     

    Q2. Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Rev. Martin Smyth : In the light of press reports confirming the “Timewatch” programme and–as some of us have known for a long time–that the Dublin Government supported the growth of the provisional IRA in 1970, will the Leader of the House join the defence correspondent of The Daily Telegraph this morning in urging the Foreign Office and the Northern Ireland Office to engage in a diplomatic offensive against the Dublin Government to defeat terrorism and thus release 10 batallions of the Army to engage in international peacekeeping ?

    Mr. Newton : While I understand why the hon. Gentleman thought it right to raise that point, I have no intention of commenting on allegations relating to events nearly a quarter of a century ago. What matters now is the shared determination of the British and Irish Governments to resist terrorism from whatever quarter, and I know that we have the hon. Gentleman’s support in that.

    Mr. Budgen : Will my right hon. Friend reflect that had we not so fortunately come out of the exchange rate mechanism on 16 September we might now have interest rates at something between 10 and 15 per cent. imposed upon us by the Bundesbank and against the interests of the British economy? Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to suggest to the Prime Minister that the best thing that he could do to revive confidence in the British economy would be to say that we shall never return to the ERM and that we want nothing whatever to do with a single currency in Europe?

    Mr. Newton : I do not think that, however enticing it is, I shall follow my hon. Friend into speculation about what would have happened if something that already has happened had not happened. He will know what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about the ERM and I do not propose to elaborate on it now.

     

    Q3. Dr. Berry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Berry : Taking a more serious perspective on the economy than previous comments from Conservative Members, will the Leader of the House explain to the 4,637 unemployed people in my constituency of Kingswood and the 5,000 in his constituency of Braintree how it is that they are “a price worth paying” for the worst economic record of any post-war British Government?

    Mr. Newton : What I would say to those for whom concern is mutual on both sides of the House is that the policies that we have been pursuing and which have produced the results to which I adverted a few moments ago are providing the best basis for overcoming those concerns.

     

    Q4. Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Bottomley : May I suggest to my right hon. Friend the point that he has made which will get the greatest echo from all political parties? The boost to jobs, the reduction in mortgage payments and the boost to capital investments from low interest rates will make people ask whether it is possible for the Leader of the Opposition to join with the Government in helping to attract more foreign capital investment into this country–and more jobs–so that fewer people will be out of work.

    Mr. Newton : It would certainly be very welcome far beyond the confines of the House if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give any sign whatsoever that he sees what would be required. Instead, he promises payroll taxes, excessive profit taxes, social chapters and the rest of it, which would keep foreign investment out for good.

     

    Q5. Mr. Tony Lloyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Lloyd : Continuing with the bipartisan interest in unemployment, may I tell the Leader of the House that in my constituency mass unemployment during the 14 years of Conservative government has resulted in high crime rates, the sale of drugs and its associated violence and individual family tragedies? My constituents are now incredibly angry at the inaction of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Rather than asking my right hon. and learned Friend to help them out, will the Leader of the House tell us what the Government plan to do about these problems, when will they do it and when can we see some results?

    Mr. Newton : I find that a strange question, especially against the background of our exchanges so far and on the very day that interest rates have fallen to their lowest level for 15 years. What is more, the hon. Gentleman might at least have acknowledged that unemployment in his constituency last month was 16 per cent. lower than in 1987.

    Mr. Butcher : Did my right hon. Friend notice the very welcome announcement by Jaguar in Coventry that it is to invest £700 million in developing three new models for the market? When our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister returns to the House, could he pass to him an invitation to visit Coventry so that he can show his support for the engineering profession and the engineering industry which will spearhead our recovery?

    Mr. Newton : I note my hon. Friend’s request, which I shall draw to our right hon. Friend’s attention when he returns. One of the encouraging signs in our economy during recent months has been the renewed strength of the car industry, in part as a result of the very overseas investment to which I referred earlier and which certainly would not have come here had the Opposition had their way.

     

    Q6. Mr. Gerrard : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Gerrard : Does the Leader of the House recall that in March 1991 the Government tried to buy their way out of their troubles with the poll tax by reducing it by £140 a head? They found the money to do that by raising VAT from 15 to 17.5 per cent. Now that the poll tax is finally about to disappear, can we expect VAT to be cut by 2.5 per cent? If not, why not?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman can expect the introduction of a system of council tax that will be a great deal better than what his right hon. and hon. Friends are offering with a return to the rates.

    Mr. Tracey : Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the fullest possible investigation is being undertaken into the behaviour of Lambeth borough council, where one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated in local government appears to have taken place?

    Mr. Newton : I think–I hope–that I can speak for both sides of the House in expressing concern about the allegations of a breakdown in financial control in the London borough of Lambeth. The proper authorities- -the Audit Commission and the police–will be investigating the matter. As my hon. Friend says, if the allegations prove to be true, it will be a good illustration of some of the problems in Labour local authorities. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will join us in condemning them.

     

    Q7. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hoyle : Does the Leader of the House agree that when considering energy policy, we should look not at short-term market forces but at long- term needs? That applies especially to collieries threatened with closure, such as Parkside. It has always been highly profitable and it has reserves for 70 years. Should not the future of such collieries be based on the future demand for coal, which will become increasingly competitive as other fuels become more expensive?

    Mr. Newton : By now, it must be clear to all in the House that the review is very thorough and is not looking simply at the short term. It is taking account of the reports by Committees of the House and a wide range of independent consultants. The results will be made known in due course, as appropriate.

    Mr. Milligan : My right hon. Friend has just explained the position in Lambeth, but is not Lambeth only one of many similar Labour local authorities throughout the country? For example, Monklands and Sheffield have been misusing taxpayers’ funds, yet they have some of the poorest taxpayers in the country. Has not the time come to have a full public inquiry to discover whether there is a common thread?

    Mr. Newton : As I have already indicated, in the first instance inquiries into allegations of the sort that have been made against a number of authorities–by and large, Labour authorities, as my hon. Friend has said–are matters for the Audit Commission and the police. Were a common strand to emerge, I should expect the concern to be reflected on the Opposition Front Bench, and not just on the Government Front Bench.

     

    Q8. Mr. Mandelson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

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

    Mr. Mandelson : What does the right hon. Gentleman think the behaviour of British Airways towards Virgin Atlantic says about the business ethics of British Airways, and what does he think the failure of anyone at the top of British Airways to resign says about the integrity of that airline’s management?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that these matters have been the subject of legal action between Virgin and British Airways. That being the case, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

  • PMQT – 21 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

    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. McAllion : Is the Prime Minister aware that the murderous attacks on Iraq, which he supported, have killed at least 45 Iraqis–who were themselves innocent of any violation of international law–have made international lepers of Britain and the United States and have, in the eyes of the democratic opposition in Iraq, served only to strengthen the position of the tyrant Saddam? Does he understand that the crimes that he has committed against innocent Iraqi people may have been undertaken in his name, but were not in my name or in the name, I believe, of the vast majority of the British people?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. From the expressions on the faces of most of his right hon. and hon. Friends, neither do they.

    Mr. Faber : Given that yesterday was the inauguration of President Clinton, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United States remain our strongest ally, as indeed we do theirs? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that the special relationship is greatly valued by Britain, as President Clinton has already done?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can certainly confirm that to my hon. Friend. There has been a very close relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States for many years. It is a practical relationship, quite apart from the political and military relationship. For example, the United Kingdom is the world’s largest overseas investor in the United States and our exports to the United States last year were some £12 billion. I know that President Clinton will have the good wishes of the entire House and I know that he knows that he can look to this country and this Government as firm friends of the United States.

    Mr. John Smith : In view of the horrendous rise in unemployment announced today–almost 61,000 in one month–when will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his economic policies have failed the nation and are now blighting the lives of millions of British families?

    The Prime Minister : Today’s figures on unemployment are clearly deeply disappointing. They reflect the job losses in the pipeline that were announced last autumn and have now come through. I do not doubt the concern about unemployment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman voices, for I share that concern ; so does everyone on this side of the House. We wish to see unemployment falling and people getting back into secure and lasting jobs. That is my objective, just as much as it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s. But there must be a dual strategy for long-lasting solutions to unemployment. First, there must be solid foundations for economic recovery–low inflation predominantly among them–and secondly, wide-ranging help for the unemployed. That is in place.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister expresses concern for the unemployed, but is he not the same right hon. Gentleman who told us that if it is not hurting it is not working? Is he not the Prime Minister whose first reaction to the announcement of the pit closures was that they had to be closed “cleanly and quickly”, and whose Chancellor believes that unemployment is a “price well worth paying”? How can we believe that his expressions of concern are genuine when we take all those factors into account?

    The Prime Minister : One of the principal causes of unemployment in countries around the world as well as here is the difficulty faced with inflation. It is this Government who have had the courage to stick with policies to get inflation down, and the reality is, despite all his rhetoric neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman nor his hon. Friends have set out a coherent policy for dealing with unemployment. When they produced their phoney budget, they knew that it was a budget that would increase taxes and put up jobs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman still has not responded to the question that he could not answer on Tuesday. How much money would his new tax on windfall profits raise? If he cannot tell us, how can he make the claims for it that he does? Can he guarantee that it will last only a year? No, he cannot. The fact of the matter is that he has no policies other than to complain about the Government, and no idea how to deal with the economy or unemployment.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the nation is tired of feeble and lame excuses? It is also tired of the right hon. Gentleman blaming everyone in the world but himself. When, at long last, will he give the attack on unemployment the priority that the nation demands?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman has to accept economic reality. He should recognise that economic reality requires that you get inflation down and competitiveness up and those are the policies that we are pursuing. He should recognise also the effect of his policies : crushing profits does not create jobs ; tax structures that drive away inward investment do not create jobs ; piling burdens on business does not create jobs ; the social chapter will not create jobs. Those are the policies of the Labour party ; they are policies which would deliberately drive up unemployment and not create the conditions for lasting employment.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth : Further to what my right hon. Friend said, does he agree that one of the best ways of helping British industry would be to cut the red tape bureaucracy and regulation with which it has been overburdened for far too long? Does he agree that a new deregulation drive would help industry to create new jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the consistent need persistently to bring down the level of regulation and red tape. The more we can rid business of red tape and regulation, the more British business can get on with creating wealth and generating new jobs. As my hon. Friend will have heard last week in the House, I propose to hold a seminar at the beginning of February– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. The Prime Minister must be heard. We cannot– [Interruption.] We cannot make progress– [Interruption.] I like good humour, but there are times when we have to keep quiet and listen. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : –at which every Department in Whitehall would come along with regulations that Opposition Members would support and which we propose to remove from business to increase competitiveness.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gapes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Gapes : In the light of today’s report by the Employment Select Committee, will the Prime Minister apologise to the House, to the British people and to the miners for saying on 16 October that it was better to sack 30,000 mine workers “quickly and cleanly” than to institute a full review of the pit closure programme?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrases his question tells us a great deal about him. What we are seeking to do is to create a viable coal industry with a fitter future. The hon. Gentleman might recall how many mining jobs were lost under Labour Governments, for there were more lost than there ever have been under Conservative Governments– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Having asked his question, the hon. Gentleman should not bawl and shout from a sedentary position.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Is my right hon. Friend aware that 642 schools have already applied and balloted for grant-maintained status? Does he agree that that is a formidable expression of public and parental opinion? What advice does he give to Opposition Members who persist in their ill- conceived hostility to grant-maintained schools?

    The Prime Minister : In fact, as at the end of last afternoon there were 648–another six have decided to become grant maintained. That is because parents are increasingly seeing the benefit of independence from local authority control. They are voting for grant-maintained schools in increasing numbers and the reason for that is entirely clear. Since opting out they have discovered that they can employ more staff, take on more pupils, enhance special needs provision and provide more books, because they have the freedom to put the money in the classroom where it belongs, and are not subjected to unnecessary control from county hall.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Marshall : Does not the Prime Minister realise the catastrophic consequences for unemployment if either Devonport or Rosyth dockyards closes? As well as the folly to the nation of concentrating defence work on one site, does he accept that 18,000 jobs are at risk in Rosyth, and that there is a solution that will keep both dockyards open? Does he agree that that solution is to give Devonport the surface ship work that it does best and to give Rosyth the submarine work that it does best? Will he support that solution? If not, why not?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party, many of whom would abolish nuclear weapons, and nearly all of whom would dramatically reduce defence expenditure. I think that the hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind before he criticises this Government for their defence policies.

     

    Q5. Mr. Mans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Mans : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Chancellor of the Exchequer has no intention in his Budget of introducing a windfall tax on the privatised utilities, as that would deal a body blow to the 10 million people in this country who have invested in those utilities and would discourage the wider share ownership that we all want in the future ?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly offer that assurance to my hon. Friend. As he rightly says, there are 10 million shareholders, many with very limited shareholdings, with a stake in the utility industries in this country. We understand that it is investment which ultimately creates jobs and that taxation on investment destroys jobs.

     

    Q7. Dr. Berry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Dr. Berry : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to early-day motion 330, which calls for the early introduction of a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Is the Prime Minister aware that this early-day motion has substantial cross-party support–in fact, the greatest volume of support of any early-day motion submitted this Session? Does he accept that disabled people want action–very speedy action–and can he confirm that he will respond positively to the early-day motion?

    The Prime Minister : For a year I was, of course, the Minister of State responsible for disability, and I am well aware of the Government’s excellent record in increasing the benefits for disabled people and providing a much wider range of facilities for them. That is a record unmatched by any other party in the House.

     

    Q8. Mr. French : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. French : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country’s privatisation programme has been widely applauded and copied in many parts of the world? Can he confirm that, notwithstanding the current criticisms of the British Rail proposals, he will forge ahead with the privatisation programme and will bring forward other candidates, including the Post Office, at an early date?

    The Prime Minister : We propose to proceed not only with the programme of privatisation but with programmes of more contracting out and more market testing. In the current year Government work worth about £1.5 billion will be market tested and, where appropriate, put out to the private sector if that sector can deal with it more efficiently.

  • PMQT – 19 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

    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.

    Sir John Hannam : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the social chapter, which he skilfully negotiated out of the Maastricht treaty, would destroy investment, business confidence and jobs in this country? Is it not therefore the greatest hypocrisy to support such a damaging measure while at the same time claiming to care for the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. When I negotiated Britain’s exemption from the social chapter I seem to recall that I was accused of making Britain a paradise for foreign investment. I hope very much that that proves to be true. The reality is that the Opposition disagree about that. The truth is that they are hostile to industry and do not understand business. Until they drop their commitment to the social chapter they cannot also claim to be seeking lasting jobs.

    Mr. John Smith : On that very subject, is the Prime Minister aware that of all the Prime Ministers we have had since the war, he has the worst record for growth, the worst record for investment and the worst record for jobs? Is he not ashamed of such a miserable record?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a fine one to talk about records. His record as shadow Chancellor lost Labour a record fourth election precisely because he proposed record tax increases.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not note that he failed completely to deny that he had the worst growth record, the worst investment and the worst employment record? Since there is anger throughout the country [Interruption] –I hope that Conservative Members will not treat unemployment flippantly. Since there is growing anger throughout the whole country at rising unemployment why does the Prime Minister not agree to put a windfall profits tax on the excess profits of monopoly privatised companies and use the money to create jobs?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman also forgot to mention another record of mine ; the record for bringing down inflation so that we can recreate lasting jobs. The fact is that what we just heard is the old Labour party speaking ; the party of the 1960s and 1970s. They hate profits. They would rather have nationalised industries making losses than privatised industries making profits. They cannot stand firms being successful and they do not understand that firms need profits to provide investment, to provide growth, and to provide jobs. That is why their record in government has always been one of complete and record failure.

    Mr. Smith : Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country why it was all right for a Conservative Government to introduce an excess profits tax on banks in the first recession but now to oppose an excess profits tax on the privatised utilities? Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that every pound of these excess profits and of managers’ fat salaries has come from the British people? Is not it time that they got some of it back to create jobs for them and their families?

    The Prime Minister : I am quite happy to educate the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that, since he clearly does not understand. In the early 1980s interest rates were raised sharply to control inflation. At that time, the banks did not pay interest on current accounts. As a result of that, they genuinely made windfall profits. That was why the Government taxed them. The utility tax that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. I cannot hear the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : Labour Members do not like understanding reality ; they do not like it at all. The fact of the matter is that the utilities are already regulated. If they make excessive profits, the regulator can change their pricing formula, and he has already changed BT’s from RPI minus three to RPI minus 6.25–real price cuts for consumers, which we never saw under a nationalised industry. That is why the appropriate policy is tough regulation, not 1960s artificial control.

    Mr. Sims : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shares the widespread concern about the collapse of criminal proceedings against a couple whose daughter died a violent death because they invoked their right to say nothing. Is he aware that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has details of 10 similar cases? Whatever the arguments may be for or against the right of silence in cases generally, is not there a strong argument in favour of reviewing its application in cases where children have been cruelly treated or even killed?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot, of course, discuss the particular case raised by my hon. Friend, but I understand the concerns that he expresses. Decisions on whether to prosecute are entirely for the Crown prosecution service. My hon. Friend may know that the right to silence is one of the matters being considered by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. I would not wish to anticipate its report.

     

    Q2. Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay : Will the Prime Minister give the reason for the rising and record levels of unemployment in Essex–a county which includes my constituency of Thurrock and, of course, the betrayed people of Basildon?

    The Prime Minister : I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that is very clear about unemployment : it will fall as a result of this Government’s policies. That is what he had better understand.

    Mr. Couchman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic indeed that in the very week when the Leader of the Opposition produces a phoney budget for jobs the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is seeking to destroy 140,000 Sunday jobs, which are vital to many families in this country?

    The Prime Minister : On this and other issues the reality is that Labour policy is inconsistent. It changes not only from election to election but from week to week. Not long ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) proposed the biggest tax increases in peace time. Nine months later, he said categorically that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor should not increase taxes in the Budget, but 10 days later he calls for a windfall tax.

     

    Q3. Mr. Rooker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Rooker : Can I ask the Prime Minister if, until unemployment starts to fall, he will make it part of his political strategy to assist the unemployed by easing the rules on social security benefits so that those unemployed people who have household responsibilities and who are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s can genuinely take advantage of opportunities to improve their education and training rather than, as at present, be penalised if they study too much or lose their homes if they have household responsibilities? For a very small investment in people, we could have a huge return for the country.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman makes a point which is well worth considering, and in the past we have looked at some matters related to it. This is the sort of matter which we are prepared to examine. The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience in social security that there is significant help, for example, with mortgages, and he will also know the additional help that is being given to people towards training and studying.

     

    Q4. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning trendy, mixed ability teaching– [Interruption.] Opposition Members are products of it–which has so damaged the education of millions of children since the 1960s? [Interruption.] I hope they care. Are not moves to return the teaching of children to traditional methods just plain common sense? Is it not now also time to end trendy teacher-training methods?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is a distinguished former head teacher so I particularly welcome his remarks. I agree that the way forward is to return to the basics of education, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said yesterday that we had plans to strengthen primary education. I am sure that we are right to look carefully also at getting the teaching methods right. Common-sense, practical teaching which puts good teachers in front of good children is undoubtedly the right way to improve our education system.

    Mr. Ray Powell : Is it not fair that when an hon. Member is named or mentioned in a Prime Minister’s question the Member involved should have the right to reply? I respect and thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Give the hon. Gentleman a chance to put his question.

    Mr. Powell : Obviously, the Prime Minister, as with a lot of the policies that he has presented to the House, is misguided and is misrepresenting facts. The question that he was asked regarding a Bill that I will present on Friday

    Madam Speaker : Order. I must now call the hon. Gentleman to order. I am looking for a very direct question to the Prime Minister, right away.

    Mr. Powell : The Bill is an all-party Bill supported by five of the Prime Minister’s colleagues. It is not a Labour party Bill and therefore the Prime Minister should correct the answer that he gave just now.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be a firm advocate of his own Bill in a few days’ time. I can tell him that in due course my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will bring proposals to the House and will give it a series of alternatives upon which to make up its mind on this thorny issue.

     

    Q5. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.

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

    Mr. Field : Does my right hon. Friend welcome the publication of the highway code today ? Will he ensure that copies are made available to Opposition Members, some of whom seem to be stuck on a roundabout, uncertain as to which exit to take, while others seem intent on overtaking their leaders on the inside, while we on the Government side look forward to a major road ahead?

    The Prime Minister : I should like, if I may, to try to respond to that testing question. I very much welcome the publication of the new highway code. I am bound to say that it does seem to me extremely important that the Leader of the Opposition perhaps should study it. He might learn, after his proposals this morning, that he should not signal right when he is turning left.

    Sir David Steel : Will the Prime Minister clarify the support that the Government give to enforcement action against Saddam Hussein? Is it correct that that support will be given only as long as the action is in accordance with international law in agreement with our coalition partners and involves the minimum necessary use of force?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that that has been the position thus far, and it is our position, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Defence Secretary set out the other day.

  • PMQT – 12 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Olner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

    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. Olner : I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Many hundreds of skilled workers in my constituency are, unfortunately, out of work at the present time. Quite frankly, they are suffering from the Government’s failure to support employers. Can we look forward in 1993 to no more false dawns but to positive action on jobs so that my constituents and their families can regain some dignity?

    The Prime Minister : We all wish to see recovery–there is no difference between any hon. Members on that subject. We shall get lasting recovery only if we have the right basics. These include low inflation, modest interest rates and the right exchange rate. They are now all in place.

    Mr. Day : Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that the National Union of Teachers is to organise a boycott of tests for 14-year-olds? If those reports are correct, will he condemn such action as disgraceful and highly damaging,

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly prepared to condemn any such call and any such action. I suspect that teachers will be far too sensible to take any such action. Those tests are vital. They are good for children, parents want to see them, teachers need to know how well the children are performing, and parents have a right to know how well their children are performing. Those tests will provide that information.

    Mr. John Smith : Since the wrecking of the Braer is a major environmental disaster and one which could happen again before the inquiries that were announced yesterday have been completed, will the Prime Minister take interim action now to protect our coastlines? Will he convene an urgent meeting with the oil companies to obtain an assurance from them that only the safest routes will be used for the transport of oil while the inquiries are going on? Will he also agree to proposals that have been made to make adequate radar facilities available in sensitive areas so that the continuing traffic in oil can be monitored while the inquiries proceed?

    The Prime Minister : I will certainly invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to examine those matters. They may have many ramifications and I think that I should have them examined before I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a concrete answer.

    Mr. John Smith : I at least welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to refer this to his right hon. and learned Friend, but I ask him to engage himself in this important matter. Will he bear in mind that it is frequently the case in matters of aviation that interim action, such as the grounding of aircraft, may be taken while inquiries are being undertaken? Will he bear in mind the acute anxiety that exists in areas all round the coast at what has happened in the Shetlands? May I invite him to look into it personally and to make an early report to the House?

    The Prime Minister : That may well be. As I indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a moment ago, it is prudent to examine a matter carefully before making a commitment. [Interruption.] Were I to make a commitment without doing so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be right to be critical. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend will examine it carefully ; he will report to me and we shall report to the House.

    Mr. Nigel Evans : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that private sector skills have greatly benefited industries such as Rover cars, gas, electricity and British Telecom, following policies which the Opposition have opposed at every turn? Will he confirm to the House today that soon these same private sector skills will be made available to British Rail?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly offer that assurance, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will give further details later this afternoon.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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

    Mr. Ronnie Campbell : Is the Prime Minister aware that Swan Hunter shipbuilding on the Tyne is now on the verge of complete closure, with the loss of 2,000 jobs and disaster for the north-east? Can he therefore confirm that the new helicopter carrier is still in the programme to be built on the Tyne?

    The Prime Minister : We have received tenders and we are considering them at the present time.

    Mr. Dykes : If my right hon. Friend has time to think about it today, will he agree that legitimate attempts to protect the privacy of prominent and other citizens alike should not be used as an excuse to launch a fundamental attack on the freedom of the press, which is so vital to a thriving democracy?

    The Prime Minister : The Government have now received the report of Sir David Calcutt and we shall publish it shortly. The whole House will then have an opportunity to make up its mind on the contents of the report.

    Mr. Ashdown : In view of the grave news of the breakdown of the Geneva talks as a result of Bosnian Serb intransigence, will the Prime Minister now confirm that the British Government are prepared to act with others to protect against the future elimination of the Muslim homeland, to maintain the isolation of the Bosnian Serbs and to increase the pressure, political and military, to force the Bosnian Serbs to return to the peace table?

    The Prime Minister : I share the right hon. Gentleman’s regret at the breakdown of the discussions in Geneva. I believe that Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen have done an outstanding job. They have put forward a fair plan. It is a matter of great regret that the Bosnian Serbs are unpersuaded and unprepared to accept it. Sooner or later there must be a negotiated settlement ; the only question is whether it comes now or following further repression, further suffering and further difficulties. The international community will wish to apply further pressure if the Bosnian Serbs continue to reject this settlement.

    Mr. Mark Robinson : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me on the important role that small and medium-sized businesses will have to play in economic recovery? Will he undertake to sweep away the unnecessary layers of red tape and bureaucracy which so tie down some of our small businesses?

    The Prime Minister : I have indicated that it is certainly the Government’s intention to do so. We have already made good progress since the election, but I now want us to go both further and faster. I have therefore asked every Department in Whitehall to prepare plans for action on deregulation. I shall be meeting every Secretary of State in early February, with their permanent secretaries, and I hope that we can then draw up a detailed plan for deregulation of burdens on business.

     

    Homelessness

    Q3. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Prime Minister, when he next expects to meet representatives of London’s homeless.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing meets representatives regularly.

    Mr. Corbyn : Is it not about time the Prime Minister met representatives of London’s homeless to learn that 40,000 families–about 100,000 people–spent Christmas in temporary accommodation, a 10 per cent. increase on a year ago, that there are 50,000 single homeless in London and more than 2,000 sleeping on the streets, a 10 per cent. increase on a year ago and a fivefold increase on five years ago? Is it not about time money was provided to local authorities to buy and build so that families can grow up in decent accommodation rather than suffering the indignity of bed and breakfast accommodation, and public resources were put where they are needed to provide decent homes for the people of this city rather than building empty office blocks for speculative gain?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention the number of empty houses either in his own local authority’s stock or in that of many local authorities. Liverpool, Hackney, Burnley, Manchester, Salford and North Tyneside all have a very bad record on empty properties.

    When my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing or I next meet representatives of the homeless we shall be able to tell them that recent figures show a continuing decline in the number of families in bed and breakfast accommodation, nationally by 23 per cent. and by 30 per cent. in London and the south-east. I shall be able to remind them of the £750 million housing package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement. That will further reduce the numbers in bed and breakfast. I might also remind them of the £100 million scheme for sleeping rough which has been amazingly successful.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Riddick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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

    Mr. Riddick : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things that the British people expect from the Conservative Government is tough action on law and order [Interruption.]

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

    Mr. Riddick : Does the Prime Minister share my concern about the increasing problem of persistent young offenders carrying out crimes such as car crime, burglaries and joy riding? Will he confirm that the Government will take tough action to combat those problems–unlike the Labour party, which is soft on crime?

    The Prime Minister : I will take scoffing from the Labour party on law and order when they begin to support the prevention of terrorism Acts– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : The House must come to order to hear what the Prime Minister has to say–[Interruption.] All parts of the House, for that matter.

    The Prime Minister : On the assumption that Members of the House did not hear what I said a moment ago, I shall repeat it for their benefit. I will take words from the Opposition on law and order when they stop opposing the prevention of terrorism Acts.

    I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about law and order. I certainly share his concern about the persistent offending of so many young people. I have therefore asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to look urgently at the existing arrangements for dealing with juvenile offenders and to consider what new measures it is sensible to introduce. This is one of the areas of greatest concern in the growth of crime statistics and one with which we are determined to deal.

     

    Q5. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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

    Mr. Skinner : Does the Prime Minister agree that the biggest problem facing this country at present is the scourge of mass unemployment? Is he aware that it is costing £9,000 for the taxpayer to finance somebody out of work? That is a total cost of £30 billion out of a public sector borrowing requirement of £37 billion. If the Prime Minister tackled that problem, he would be tackling the economy’s problems as well. He has the fate of 100,000 people in his hands–30,000 of them miners–in the course of the next few weeks. He could resolve the problem easily. If he will give a subsidy of only half that which is given to nuclear power he will be able to save all 31 pits and 100,000 jobs, export coal to every continent in the world and resolve some of the balance of payments problems as well. Will the Prime Minister stop dithering and do it?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the scourge of unemployment. The difference between him and me would be the right method with which to deal with it and to ensure that there are long- term jobs subsequently available. I note what he says about the problem of the pits, but I have no intention of anticipating the coal review, which will be brought before the House as speedily as possible. While the hon. Gentleman continues to support policies such as a payroll tax on jobs, the social chapter, and a national minimum wage, he is not in the best position to lecture us about job losses.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nicholls : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 January.

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

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the wider implications of the rundown or closure of Devonport dockyards? Does he appreciate that the continuing uncertainty is causing unhappiness not just in the city of Plymouth but throughout the west country? I appreciate that he cannot announce a decision today, but will he at least assure the people of Devon and Cornwall that when the time comes for that decision to be made he will have their concerns very much in the forefront of his mind?

    The Prime Minister : I appreciate the great concern in the minds of the people of Devon–and, indeed, of those of near Rosyth–concerning the decisions that need to be taken about the dockyards. I know that that uncertainty is worrying people. The Secretary of State for Defence will announce our proposals as soon as he can. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no undue delay.