The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Unemployment

  • Mr Major’s Speech to General Election Candidates – 22 March 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech given to a meeting of Conservative Party General Election candidates on 22nd March 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me first thank Margaret Thatcher for coming here. Weeks ago when I invited her, she accepted immediately. It is what we would have expected. She is one of the most successful campaigners in our long political history – and no-one expected when the fight began that she would be anywhere other than in the thick of it.

    It is given to few people to change the face of our nation. But Margaret Thatcher did. And I believe her changes have made an enduring impact not only on our country, but on the world at large.

    We know she has many great qualities. But let me single out one. Looking forward. She always looks forward. It’s always on to the next thing, the next challenge. There is always more work to be done.

    As there is for us now. To build on the successes of the ‘80s. That is what our Manifesto does. It builds on Margaret’s legacy. And for the same two reasons. To promote Conservatism – and to beat Socialism.

    The Transformation of Britain

    Let me tell you why we’ll win the Election. We will win because of what we believe. Because of our principles. Because of our policies. And because we set no limit to our ambitions for our country.

    In the 1980s Conservatives built in Britain one of the most successful economies in Europe. Some things did go down, of course. Inflation. Strikes. And the Labour Party. Socialism’s unholy trinity. They all went down. And, together, at this Election, we must keep them down.

    But the things that mattered went up. Productivity. Prosperity. And pride. We grew faster than France, faster than Germany. Manufacturing exports grew faster than America’s, even Japan’s. Taxes on incomes were slashed. The standard of living of the British people has grown as never before. Today the income of a typical family man on average earnings is nearly 40% higher, after tax and inflation, than it was under Labour.

    Defend our record? No, don’t just defend it – go out and proclaim that record. It’s changed the face of Britain.

    Millions more people are owners. Owners of homes. Of shares. Of pensions. People who never imagined such things would ever be something for them.

    Britons have earned more, owned more, achieved more than ever before in our history. That’s what Labour call failure? Well, if that’s failure, there are plenty of countries across the world who’d like a share in it.

    Labour’s smash and grab raid

    Labour couldn’t have done it. But their Mr Smith wants a share in it. And his mock ‘budget’ shows he means to take it. Take it from the people who have earned it. What he proposes is a systematic smash and grab raid on the independent, the hard-working, the middle income families of Britain. Labour’s huge tax burden would shatter their budgets and alter their lives.

    It’s not just the unfairness of it. Or the injustice. It is the effect it would have. It would shut down small trades in droves – the jobbing builders, the electricians, the decorating businesses, all those people who depend on work in homes and offices.

    It would drive away from Britain the huge tide of foreign investment that we have attracted. Does anyone seriously imagine that Japanese, German, American firms would create jobs in Britain with their executives clobbered, and militant shop stewards loose on the factory floor? They wouldn’t. They wouldn’t come. They’d stay away. They’d go away. And the whole of Britain would lose.

    Labour’s tax plans are spiteful. They would hurt millions and millions of skilled people in Britain – and for what? Who gains? In order to pay out between 2 pence and 4 pence a week to 9 million families. Twopence a week – the price of a Polo mint.

    Don’t confiscate wealth – spread wealth

    There is no logic to this. It is the politics of the socialist stone age. The politics of envy. Economically illiteracy with a dash of calculated malice. Intended to wound. Intended to bite. Doomed to fail.

    That is the wrong way for Britain. We don’t believe in confiscating wealth from those who have created it. We believe in creating wealth. In spreading wealth. And we believe in taking the threat of inheritance tax off the back of the homeowners of Britain. What people have spent a lifetime building up, they should be free to hand on to their children. We will give them that freedom.

    Growing wealth to an ever wider number of families – that’s what we believe in. Growing living standards in which all can share, in a growing economy. That’s what our Manifesto promises. It’s for that we must go out and campaign.

    Labour’s Manifesto – £1250 a year more tax for everyone

    How different it would be with Labour. Then your worry would be how to protect your savings, protect your income, protect your home. There’s only one industry Labour would manage to revive – the tax avoidance business.

    But it doesn’t stop there. Yesterday the Chancellor revealed the true scale of Labour’s threat to Britain. All we’ve said up to then was based on John Smith’s absurd little mock ‘budget’. Now we have had a look at that ‘budget’s’ big brother, the other half of Labour’s plans. The spending plans. Their ambitions for other people’s money. Neil Kinnock promised to cost his Manifesto. But the promise “lapsed”. Somehow those costings failed to turn up.

    It’s not surprising he should suddenly forget them. Not surprising he should suddenly clam up. Never lost for a word – always lost in the sums, when it comes to paying for the promises he’s made. Labour are beginning to protest that we are campaigning on the key issues of spending and taxation. I bet they are. Well, I make no apology for that. They go to the very heart of this Election. The choice is clear. What kind of country are we to be? A country in which it pays to be ambitious, in which it pays to be qualified, in which it pays to be successful, in which it pays to work hard or be self-employed? That’s what we stand for. Or a country in which incentive is abandoned – a hands-in-the-pockets Britain where you can only go so far before a Labour Chancellor is at your throat? When all across Europe Socialism is going down and down, we cannot, we must not, we will not bring it back here.

    When you’re on the door-step you haven’t time to get across a long complicated message. You’ve got to keep it simple and clear. So let me give you one message to get across, come what may, at every hour on every day.

    The cost of Labour’s promises. We’ve added them up – £31 billion on top of Mr Smith’s less than complete ‘budget’. To pay for them, on average every person would have to fork out an extra £1,250 a year. I repeat – 1,250 extra to the tax man, on top of everything else they are already paying. That’s the price of Labour. As ever it taxes belief. So take that to every doorstep in the land.

    The challenge to Labour: a straight answer now

    Yesterday we produced a detailed analysis of Labour’s public spending pledges. We have set out their promises in their own words. The Labour leader calls this ‘fantasy’. But that’s just tax avoidance talk. So come clean, Mr Kinnock. Tell the people. Set out your own costed programme. Take all your pledges – one by one. Accept our costing – or refute it. Stand by your promises – or withdraw them. Dig deep behind those pledges and come up with the tax, the whole tax and nothing but the tax. I challenge you.

    The difference between the Parties

    Some people talk of there being little difference between the Parties. Where have they been these last few years? We want to bring income tax down. Labour want to put income tax up. Even this morning, Roy Hattersley, their Deputy Leader, refused to rule out further increases in the higher rates of income tax. Higher rates today – basic rates tomorrow?

    We will bring inflation down still further, set our course for stable prices. Labour will let inflation up again. We will extend choice. Labour will remove choice. We will widen ownership. Labour fight against it. We want to privatise more. Labour want to renationalise – though whether they’ll pay a fair price or not is another matter.

    Little difference? There is all the difference in the world.

    The Conservative Programme

    So go out and tell the people of our programme. Tell them what we are fighting for. Back to basics in schools.

    Go out and tell them we want a return to basics in our schools. Schools free from council control. Schools that reward good teachers. Schools where parents have more power. Schools that are regularly inspected, and that publish their results. Schools that families have the right to choose.

    Long-term lasting jobs

    Go out and tell them the truth about unemployment. Remind them how every move we make to control inflation and build the basis for recovery is designed to defeat it. Explain to them that introducing a minimum wage, bringing back trade union power, and putting up tax would send unemployment through the roof. Ram it home that 87% of businessmen say our economic policies are the best, and so the right way to create long-term, lasting jobs. Warn them that more than a quarter of business leaders say they would actually have to cut investment if Labour won.

    New attitudes in public service

    Go out and tell the people we want a new attitude across public services in Britain. Pride, quality and openness in service. A Citizen’s Charter that puts the customers first everywhere. Improving standards year by year.

    The real National Health Service

    Go out and tell them how we feel about the National Health Service. And by the way it is the National Health Service; it does not belong to the Labour Party. I will never forget what I owe to the Health Service. I will do everything I can to strengthen and develop it. So long as I am Prime Minister the resources we give it will grow year by year.

    But tell the people about the real Health Service. About the record support it is given, the new hospitals, the millions more cases it is treating every year. Tell them about the modern Health Service, the new treatments, the tens of thousands of hip and heart operations that were unknown a few years ago. And, above all, tell them about the miracle of daily care given by the million who work in the Health Service – the night nurse tending the patient in the small hours, the skill of the midwife, the devotion of the junior doctor, the GP rising from her bed at night, the amazing skill of the surgeon.

    And when you tell them all that, tell them how you despise the self-appointed ‘friends’ of the Health Service. Labour’s people who know the millions of things that go right every day, but boast of the few that do not. The people who know the truth, but proclaim the opposite. The people who stop at nothing to run down the NHS and those who work in it. The parasites who swoop on human error and personal tragedy, and can scarce disguise their relish as they do so. If you share my anger about the damage such people do to the Health Service – and to the peace of mind of the sick and the old – then go out and tell the people.

    The Right to Own

    And don’t forget to tell the people that we gave them the right to own, that we stand for wider ownership still. For rents to mortgages, homesteading and imaginative new ways to ownership in housing. For every firm to do more to spread share ownership to its employees – an end to a world in which there were share options for directors, but never for staff. Tell them we will be giving a new incentive, new help to the millions of young people who want personal pensions of their own. I want a growing piece of Britain for everyone – to have and to hold and to leave to their families after them.

    The Power to Choose

    Go out and tell them we stand for the power to choose – in schools, in housing, in the conduct of daily life through lower tax. Tell them we stand for sound money and stable prices. For freedom from trade union dominance. For freedom from council interference. For the family and the individual first, and the state only when needed.

    More privatisation and contracting-out

    Go out and tell them we believe in more privatisation and contracting out. That we want to bring a new spirit into our railways. To open up the musty corridors of Whitehall to new thinking and less secretive attitudes. That we will bring outside skills into lazy and incompetent Town Halls – housing departments that patronise their tenants, white collar services that have never felt the challenge to change.

    The Rule of Law

    Go out and make clear that it is we, and not Labour, who stand for the rule of law, as we always have. We don’t intend to see trade union flying pickets back on our streets. We’re going to sweep the threat of crime off them. And let me say again, we want a return to the old approach in policing – where local bobbies knew everything that was happening on their patch. We want police out there on the beat. And I must tell you, I intend to confront the ideas of some of our commentators that crimes of burglary, car theft are minor matters. Tell that to the widow who has lost her treasures. Tell that to the young mother who finds her car smashed up. Property crime is crime that hurts. And we will tackle it.

    A Brighter Britain

    Go out and tell them we want a brighter Britain in which we don’t just enjoy the heritage of our ancestors, but create something to leave to our descendants. Tell them how we are going to breathe new life into the arts, the sports, the communities, and charities of Britain through our National Lottery and Millennium Fund.

    A United Kingdom at home; no United States of Europe abroad

    And another thing. It doesn’t get the headlines. Doesn’t always arise on the doorsteps. But it is fundamental. For me it is a passionate concern. I believe in a United Kingdom. I understand the emotions in Scotland but Labour’s devolution proposals could lead to the break up our country. Proper debate on them has scarcely begun. They would set us on the road to bitterness, conflict, and possibly, separation. Wherever I go in this campaign I will expose those damaging plans. I urge you to do so with equal passion.

    As for Labour they would sign up to every idea from Brussels – with all the critical faculties of the toady who wants to be accepted. They would sign anything, sign everything, even a social chapter that would destroy jobs by the hundreds of thousands and halt our recovery. Labour would be a pushover in Europe. When it came to our national interests they wouldn’t even try.

    The result of their policies would be a Disunited Kingdom in a United States of Europe. The British people will never agree to that – tell them the scale of the threat and let them decide.

    Maintaining Britain’s standing in the world

    The standing of our country in the world is no light matter. In the last decade we have rebuilt that standing. Britain is now a world leader – a leader with new ideas, a leader for human rights, a leader against terrorism, against tyranny, against all who oppress.

    We cannot be certain what the years ahead will hold. Great opportunities, surely. But great dangers, too. Old lines are breaking. The new order for which we are working is yet to bed down. In a shifting, uncertain world men and nations look for rocks – rocks of principle, rocks of authority to which they can cling. I want a Conservative Britain to be such a rock.

    Firm Defence

    Twice in the last ten years we have faced sudden danger – the challenge of war, the threat of the dictator. We were able through the courage of our armed forces, and with the help of our allies, to meet and defeat those challenges. We succeeded because we were prepared – even for the unexpected. That’s the first rule in defence – unlike Labour, unprepared even for the expected.

    Labour’s Defence Confusion

    The world needs to know where Britain stands. We cannot afford to be defended by men who don’t even know, or daren’t even say, where they themselves would take their stand. For Labour defence is an embarrassment. Some of them hate it. Some of them resent it. None of them sits in the Shadow Cabinet to speak for it.

    Consider Trident. This government is clear. We will order, build, arm, and deploy the fourth Trident submarine. But what about Labour? Is CND out? Or is CND in? Can’t Neil Decide? And Trident? Will they build it? Won’t they build it? Or will they, as some so foolishly suggest, launch it, but send it floating round the world like a defenceless ocean liner? An unarmed Trident? A sort of submarine liner. That wouldn’t deter our enemies. That would have them falling about in ridicule. They would be queuing up to hang out their washing on the Kaufman line.

    Go out and fight for what we believe

    Ladies and Gentlemen, when you’re out there in the front line fighting this campaign at this most crucial election for our country, remember this. You’re fighting for the things that our Party stands for:

    – an enterprising society;

    – a caring society;

    – a genuinely classless society;

    – a country where opportunity is open to all and effort is rewarded;

    – a country that honours its obligations to the poor, the sick, the elderly;

    – a country, respected by all, that stands proud among the nations of the world.

    To those of you fighting an Election for the first time, one final thought. Trust the people. Give them your trust. And on April 9th, you will find, once again, that the people will trust us.

  • PMQT – 4 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir George Gardiner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 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.

    Sir George Gardiner : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to suggest that there is one kind of school that can cater for the needs of all kinds of pupils is an example of the naive theorising that has caused so many problems in education, which we are seeking to address today? Will he continue to press for diversity in education through grant-maintained schools, through city technology colleges and through local management of schools responsive to parents’ wishes?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the premise underlying my hon. Friend’s question. We will certainly continue to encourage diversity through grant-maintained schools, CTCs and locally managed schools, all of which give greater opportunity and choice to parents and pupils. We will continue to offer that choice.

    Mr. Kinnock : At the time when the Prime Minister said that if his policies

    “were not hurting, they were not working,”

    did he realise that those policies would cause the longest recession since the 1930s?

    The Prime Minister : We have taken action to ensure that we come out of this recession in a way that will ensure sustained recovery. As the Governor of the Bank of England said only yesterday, “the conditions are now in place to underpin a sustained recovery.”

    Mr. Kinnock : Having caused the longest recession since the 1930s, does the Prime Minister agree with the words of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said last month : “the policy would not have been different even if we had known the outcome.”?

    The Prime Minister : Caused the recession?–Did we cause it in the United States, in Sweden, in Japan, in Australia, in New Zealand ? If the right hon. Gentleman believes all that, he is certainly not capable of leading his party, let alone this country.

    Mr. Kinnock : There is no question of doubt that this Government caused the recession in this country. Since the Prime Minister made the statement that I quoted, nearly 1 million jobs have been lost, there have been over 100,000 repossessions and 80,000 businesses have been lost, in those two years. This Government caused the recession, they continued the recession, and now they have not got a clue how to get out of the recession.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. Gentleman has to say– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. Gentleman has to say is economic illiteracy. If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about recovery, what does he think that higher taxes would do to it ? What does he think that his jobs tax would do to it ? What does he think that his investment tax would do to it ? What does he think that his minimum wage would do to it ? The policies which the right hon. Gentleman pursues would mean perpetual recession for this country.– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will hon. Members please settle down ?

     

    Chancellor Kohl

    Q2. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of Germany; and what issues he intends to discuss with him.

    The Prime Minister : Chancellor Kohl and I are in frequent contact by telephone to discuss matters of mutual interest. I expect to meet him again soon, but I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Hunter : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the extent to which the German economy has suffered from the worldwide slowdown and the fact that German output has decreased during the past two months for which figures are available? Does not that conclusively show that economic difficulties are not confined to the United Kingdom, as the Opposition try to claim?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend’s question is more apposite than he might have imagined. He is entirely right. I have noticed that fact, even if the Opposition have not. Again, the Governor of the Bank of England noted yesterday that the recession has proved unexpectedly persistent in north America and that in continental Europe, Japan and elsewhere economic activity has slowed and unemployment has begun to rise. Only the Opposition adopt their typical stance. They ignore other countries’ difficulties and concentrate solely on those in this country, to the damage of our interests.

    Mr. Radice : After the two opt-outs negotiated by the Prime Minister at Maastricht, does Chancellor Kohl still think that the Prime Minister is a good European?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman had better ask Chancellor Kohl that question. I have enjoyed the closest possible co-operation with Chancellor Kohl in the past year and I intend to continue to do so in the same capacity in years to come.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Lee : The massive growth at Manchester airport since the Government have come to power–a 1,100 per cent. increase in fixed assets– has given a tremendous boost to the economy and pride of the north-west. Indeed, the north-south divide has now ceased to exist as an issue. When my right hon. Friend next has a free Saturday, will he fly up to Manchester, look at what has been achieved by the airport, and then pop over to Old Trafford to watch a first-class football side in action? It will win the first division championship, just as my right hon. Friend will certainly win the next general election.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not respond to one part of his question. Manchester airport, however, is a success story. It has benefited especially from the growth in the liberalisation of air services and, as a result, three times as many passengers now use the airport as when the Government came to office. That is a direct result of liberalisation introduced by the Government. The concept of a north-south divide was always too simplistic and sweeping. Many areas of prosperity and some of difficulty exist in each and every part of this country– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have less barracking.

     

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

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

    Mr. Cohen : Is the Prime Minister aware that, in my constituency of Leyton, unemployment has risen by 84 per cent. in the past 18 months? As last night the Governor of the Bank of England backtracked over the duration of the slump, will the Prime Minister now institute an urgent programme of recovery? Failing that, will he explain to my unemployed constituents why the Government consider them a “price worth paying”?

    The Prime Minister : Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening a few moments ago when I quoted directly the Governor of the Bank of England saying that the conditions necessary to underpin a sustained recovery are now in place.

    Mr. Allason : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a review is to be undertaken of the use by the security and intelligence agencies of informants and other sources? When he receives that final report, will he bear in mind the fact that the security intelligence agencies rely on the use of informants, and the intelligence that they receive will never be any good unless a measure of protection can be granted to those sources?

    The Prime Minister : We do, of course, constantly keep these matters under review and I believe that it is important that we continue to do so.

     

    Q5. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Winnick : Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that since the Government came into office in 1979 nearly 2.5 million full-time jobs in manufacturing have been lost, 34 jobs for every hour this wretched Government have been in office? In view of the devastation, the unemployment and the misery caused to our people, is it any wonder that the Prime Minister is so reluctant to hold the general election?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is joining the Opposition trend of seeking to talk down what manufacturing and other industries are doing. He should remember that export volumes of manufactured goods grew faster than in the United States throughout the 1980s, that manufacturing grew faster than in France or Italy during the 1980s, and that Britain exports a larger proportion of its national product than Japan, a point recognised by even the Scottish National party.

    Mrs. Peacock : Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending congratulations to a Yorkshire manufacturing company, Spring Ram plc, which at the end of the month will open two new factories in my constituency, creating 400 new jobs, which is at present building two new factories in Barnsley which will create 400 new jobs, and which has a plan to create 1,100 new jobs in Bradford over the next four years?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to send my congratulations to my hon. Friend’s constituents. There are, of course, many other companies up and down the country which are similarly investing and growing, and laying the foundation for prosperity in the 1990s.

     

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

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

    Mr. Carr : Can the Prime Minister tell the House how he squares his vision of a classless Britain with the experience of a constituent of mine from Fulwood, who was told last May that she needed a hip replacement but that she would have to wait 14 months for the operation under the national health service, and who was told that she could have had the operation immediately had she been able to cough up £4,300?

    The Prime Minister : There were no hip replacements available just a few years ago. It is now a relatively routine operation available in the national health service. Hip replacements are becoming more widely available month after month. That is the direction in which we must go to provide the best health service, the best opportunities and the best element of the classless society that I have talked about.

    Mr. Norris : Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing that business needs is for business rates to be brought back under the control of uncapped, loony Labour authorities who will send rates sky rocketing, as they did during the early 1980s? Will he give the House a pledge that such a crazy proposal will never be included in a manifesto issued by the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. It is well known to every hon. Member that under the old system, councils could put up rates by more than the rate of inflation. They did and, among other evils, they forced many jobs out of inner city areas by doing so. Those who doubt that might remember the rate rise of Labour-controlled Ealing council of 57 per cent. in 1987. They might also recollect the wriggling of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on television the other day on precisely that problem. It would be a problem, he said. It would be a problem not just for the Labour party but for business men up and down the country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Since the Government have supported independence in Russia, Lithuania and other parts of the world, when the people of Scotland democratically and peacefully vote for independence, what will the Government say to them?

    The Prime Minister : This Union has served both Scotland and England well, and I would not wish to see it undermined. The proposals of the Labour party, the Liberal Democratic party and the Scottish National party would undermine that relationship that has served us so well in the Union. Devolution is not just a matter for Scotland ; it is a matter for the whole United Kingdom. If an Assembly were given tax-raising powers, how would that fit in with the other fiscal arrangements? What would the increased taxation do to prosperity in Scotland? The hon. Gentleman should put a fair proposal before the Scottish people, not the half-baked one that he has made.

    Mr. Gregory : Will my right hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has not yet asked a question of the Prime Minister.

    Mr. Gregory : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue as the party of denationalisation, and confirm to the electorate of York that the Conservative party will not take away the shares of those who have invested in Northern Electric, British Telecom and other such denationalised companies?

    The Prime Minister : I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. The denationalisation programme has been good not only for the consumer, but for share owning and the improvement of both investment and wealth in this country. We believe in those propositions and we shall continue to support them.

     

    Q8. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 January.

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

    Mr. Jones : I am sure that the Prime Minister will have enjoyed reading the Western Mail last Saturday, where he will have seen the results of a telephone survey showing that the people of Wales now support the setting up of a Welsh Parliament by a margin of four to one. When will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the aspirations of the Welsh and Scottish people cannot be sidelined for ever, and when will Parliament act?

    The Prime Minister : I seem to recall that there was a referendum once before on devolution in Wales when there appeared to be a majority in favour. But the reality was that the referendum showed that there was no majority, and the people of Wales recognised that it would be in the best interests of their country and the United Kingdom to sustain the present arrangements.

  • PMQT – 16 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 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. Winnick : In view of the evidence given yesterday should there not be a full and frank ministerial statement–which should come from the Prime Minister–of what was known inside the Government at the time about the supergun affair? Bearing in mind the number of military items sold to the Iraqi regime by this country right up to the invasion of Kuwait and the highly critical comments made about the conduct of Ministers during the Gulf war, what right do the Government have to lecture hon. Members on the Opposition Benches over defence matters?

    The Prime Minister : In so far as the Gulf war is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is referring to one of the most successful military operations ever undertaken by this country or any other. It achieved its objectives more swiftly and with less bloodshed than anyone could possibly have imagined. As to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, he knows that much of what he said was nonsense. It has been dealt with often enough.

     

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

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

    Mr. McGrady : Could I remind the Prime Minister that one of the consequences of his Maastricht agreement is to prevent Northern Ireland from participating in the new cohesion fund, to the extent of losing tens of millions of pounds? I am sure that he is aware of the total lack of adequate funding for roads, transport and the environment in Northern Ireland, especially now that the Secretary of State has imposed a total moratorium on all public spending in Northern Ireland. Would he assure the people of Northern Ireland and the House that as soon as possible he will remedy that appalling error, and allow Northern Ireland to benefit from the new cohesion fund as a category 1 area?

    The Prime Minister : There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a higher level of public expenditure per head of population in Northern Ireland–and rightly so–than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The establishment of the cohesion fund and eligibility to benefit from it were agreed by all the member states. There is a misapprehension that Northern Ireland is the only category 1 area that will not benefit from that, but that fund is designed to help the poorest member states, not poorer regions or provinces within the more prosperous nations. So, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the purpose for which the fund was devised.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gwilym Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has no plans to increase income tax and national insurance contributions for millions of ordinary taxpayers? Does he agree that it is the height of irresponsibility to try to pretend that there can be a massive increase in spending from day one of a Government if the tax increases to pay for that are to be phased in?

    The Prime Minister : I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that we have made no plans for a super increase in VAT, as the Opposition have apparently considered. There is no doubt that the Opposition are now in a shambles over their tax plans. Their muddled statements show that they cannot be trusted on tax ; they shift their position from day to day. The only thing that is certain is that a party that promises to spend and spend is a party that would have to tax and tax.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister tell us why his record on unemployment is even worse than that of his predecessor?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone in the House and beyond regrets the fact that unemployment rises. That is why we are persisting with policies that will create long-term, permanent jobs for the future. We have put those policies in place–low inflation, lower taxes and lower interest rates. Those are the only measures that will get people into work and keep them in work, which is the only proper policy to follow.

    Mr. Kinnock : Unemployment has risen by nearly 1 million in the time that the hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor and Prime Minister, but still he refuses to do anything useful to stop that remorseless rise. Is it not because he believes that 2.5 million unemployed is “a price worth paying”?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should not be so cheap over such a problem. Unemployment is greater than a year ago in every country in EFTA and in every G7 country except the Netherlands. French unemployment is at its greatest level ever. United States unemployment is higher than for the past five years. What the right hon. Gentleman might also have fastened his mind upon is the fact that reported job vacancies are rising, that the number of people placed in jobs is rising and that there are 500,000 more people in work than in 1979. Those are some of the facts which the right hon. Gentleman should absorb.

    Mr. Kinnock : The right hon. Gentleman is a dodger.

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : In the last year employment in Britain went down by 873,000. Job vacancies are still 10,000 lower than they were this time last year. When Sir Nicholas Goodison of the Trustee Savings Bank says that this is the worst recession in living memory, is it any wonder that the whole country knows that this is the Government of high unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Some people might say that on policy rather than on personal matters the right hon. Gentleman is a tax dodger. He can give no lecture to us on unemployment. [Hon. Members :– “Withdraw.”] His policies would cut jobs across the whole country.

    Hon. Members : Withdraw.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that that was meant in a personal sense.

    The Prime Minister : Indeed ; I expressly said that, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman’s minimum wage would increase unemployment by putting 2 million people out of work. His plans to slash defence budgets by £6 billion would cost 100,000 more their jobs. His tax on jobs would cost another 100,000. He is the only person in opposition to plan for greater unemployment as a matter of policy.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions were to be removed, it would punish not just somebody earning £20,280 a year but would punish anyone who earned £390 in a single week? Does he agree that a proposal that would impose a massive tax burden on 4 million ordinary people could be produced only by a shower such as those who currently comprise the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The House is in a very excited state.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that the Labour party simply did not understand when it drew up its policy that everyone would pay more national insurance contributions in a single week if they earned above one fifty second of statutory UEL. The Independent pointed out, for example, that the Opposition’s tax plans would mean

    “the largest ever peacetime tax increase.”

    The Leader of the Opposition promised explicitly that anyone earning less than £21,000 a year would not pay a penny tax extra in income tax or national insurance under a Labour Government. Clearly, he was wrong about that. He should admit it, and do so publicly.

     

    Q4. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Canavan : Will the Prime Minister confirm that he personally was informed about British Steel’s decision to close Ravenscraig over a fortnight before the official announcement last week–[ Hon. Members :– “Oh?”]–and that instead of trying to reverse the decision, he and the Secretary of State for Scotland took part in a conspiracy of silence? Will the right hon. Gentleman now, even at this late stage, intervene to try to stop the closure, bearing in mind the Government’s responsibility for privatising the steel industry, thereby allowing a butcher such as Bob Scholey to betray the Scottish steel workers?

    The Prime Minister : It is noticeable that the Labour party has not offered to keep Ravenscraig open. I was informed that British Steel would be making a decision on the day that it made the decision– [Interruption.] I was informed in confidence some days before that it would be making a decision on that day. It was a commercial decision by British Steel. It is clear, despite all their words, that Opposition Members would have done nothing different.

    Mr. Irvine : Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence cuts of £6 billion would lead to a massive loss of jobs in defence industries throughout the country? Does he further agree about the hypocrisy of those who call on the one hand for the maintenance of defence contracts in public and, on the other, plan in private for defence reductions?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our policy, both for nuclear and conventional defence, is clear, has been set out in a number of documents and is properly costed. The Opposition do not say where they stand, cannot say where they stand and cannot admit to the jobs that would be lost if their policy were carried out. The Labour party conference has three times voted to cut £6 billion from the defence budget, and we can see the extent to which that would devastate the defence industry and the defence of this country.

     

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

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

    Mr. Madden : Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about which I gave notice to his office earlier this morning? Will he arrange for X-ray and metal detection equipment to be installed immediately at Armley prison in Leeds? I ask for this following a serious breach of security at the prison last Friday, when a visitor inside the prison drew a knife and sought to attack another visitor. As this is the latest in a series of serious breaches of security at prisons, will the Prime Minister call upon the Home Secretary, who has clearly lost control of his own Department and no longer enjoys the confidence of the public, to resign now or else sack him?

    The Prime Minister : First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the detailed point that he wished to raise. Security at prisons holding category A prisoners is already very tight, with rigorous searching procedures. In addition, however, we are providing X-ray equipment, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested we should. A contract has been placed for the supply of this equipment to prisons that hold category A prisoners. Devices have to be specially constructed, and they will be delivered as soon as possible.

    In reply to the hon. Gentleman’s last point, I can say that I have complete confidence in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

     

    Q6. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January.

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

    Mr. Evennett : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to base defence policy on defence cuts–the North Sea oil of the 1990s–is irresponsible and misguided? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition Front- Bench spokesman on Treasury affairs has actually stated this as a belief–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about Government policy.

    Mr. Evennett : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Labour remains unsound on defence?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, it is clear that, as my hon. Friend says, Labour would cut the defence budget to ribbons. It is true that on defence Labour cannot be trusted. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the Prime Minister please answer the matters for which he has responsibility?

    The Prime Minister : I am seeking to do precisely that. It is perfectly clear that, while the defence of this country is the first priority of the present Government, it might not be the first priority of the Opposition if they were to make the defence cuts to which they have committed themselves.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to North East Businessman of the Year Award – 7 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the North East Businessman of the Year Award Dinner in Newcastle on Tuesday 7th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Today I have been able to see at first hand the continuing strength and the enormous diversity of the North East economy. This morning I visited Vickers – one of its oldest and most famous engineering firms. I spent a most enjoyable time clambering around Vickers’ new Challenger II tank. And inevitably my thoughts went back to the last occasion when I climbed on top of a Challenger tank. Just ten months ago in the desert in Kuwait.

    Everyone who went through the Gulf War knows of the efforts made by the Vickers Gulf team. Their ingenuity, their persistence and their sheer hard work ensured our tanks, guns and equipment were ready for action at all times. It made a vital contribution to the war effort – and I was delighted to see that contribution suitably “honoured” last June. It was thoroughly well-deserved.

    At Newcastle Business Park, I opened the new British Airways flight reservation centre. BA is, of course, just one of many enterprises attracted to the new Newcastle Business Park. With some £140 million in private investment, it is already 95 per cent sold or let. And by companies that read like a Who’s-Who of modern, innovative industry.

    That demonstrates another vital feature of this region. An understanding of the need to diversify: an eagerness to use both the public and the private sector to create new facilities; and a determination to attract new enterprise and new firms that will ensure the future growth of the North East.

    Finally, at Amec Offshore, or Press Offshore as many of you will know it, I had the opportunity to see the oil rig fabrication yard. In 7 years, the company’s turnover has increased 10 fold and its workforce by a factor of 4. Today, it has announced a further contract which will create 200 new jobs at Sunderland. Amec Offshore is surely a classic example of the way forward: building on our traditional engineering-based skills and applying them to a new and expanding sector.

    This combination of enterprising incoming firms and traditional strong businesses has given the North East greater resilience in recent years. I know times are hard. I don’t pretend otherwise. But in many ways the North East has proved more robust than other areas in recent months; it has built on its long-standing record in the engineering-related industries and transformed it into a worldwide reputation for success.

    And increasingly the North-East offers a greater diversity of enterprise and employment opportunities than ever before. Whole communities are no longer dependent on single industries; and that offers greater security to future generations than their predecessors ever enjoyed.

    Perhaps that success is best demonstrated by the attraction of well-known Japanese inward investment – Nissan, Fujitsu and Hashimoto. They could have gone anywhere in Europe. But they chose Britain. Chose England. Chose the North East.

    But the future for the North-East is also:

    – about new investment by successful UK firms – Glaxo, MTM and British Airways;

    – about the work of the Tyne and Wear Corporation to rehabilitate old industrial areas, and promote major commercial developments alongside the Tyne and Wear; and about the parallel activity of the Teeside Development Corporation alongside the Tees;

    – about the development by ICI at the Belassis Technology Park to encourage and attract small technology-based businesses;

    – and about the innovation centre at the Newcastle Science Park linked to the City’s university and polytechnic.

    With such a record of innovation, diversification and growth, you may well wonder why this Government is sometimes accused of having no industrial strategy. Well it’s partly politics of course. But also, if by industrial strategy, you mean an obsession with regulation, with intervention, with Government interference, with excessive taxation, then certainly we have no such strategy. What we have is quite different and, I believe, better for our longer term interests.

    Our industrial strategy is clear. It is based on creating the framework in which business and industry can flourish in a decade that will be more competitive than any we have previously known.

    – That is why low inflation is our top priority. Without that our companies cannot compete;

    – that is why we reward initiative and success through lowering taxes: we now have one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the industrial world; we have cut income tax rates and our objective is a basic rate of 20 per cent;

    – that is why we will continue to return nationalised industries to the private sector – we are already discussing the ways in which British Rail and British Coal can be privatised;

    – and why we will continue to free up the labour market.

    Mr. Chairman, we have no intention of adding £1,000 to the annual tax burden on the average family; or of setting a 59 per cent top tax rate.

    And we have:

    – no intention of creating a national investment bank with regional branches trying to second guess business and markets;

    – no intention of introducing a minimum wage, thereby destroying the jobs of many lower-paid workers;

    – no intention of introducing a statutory training programme with every company subject to a half per cent of payroll tax, whatever their size or profitability at the time;

    – no intention of reversing the reforms that have transformed our industrial relations in this country.

    That is also why I was not prepared to sign up to the new Social Chapter at Maastricht. We could not see decisions taken in Brussels that would have reversed the better balance between the two sides of industry that we have achieved.

    Of course, that does not mean we are seeking lower standards for our workers; indeed, people know that in many areas standards in this country are higher than in other European countries. These are matters to be settled between individual employers and their employees – not by central government. And not by agreements at European level between trade unions and employers subsequently imposed by European directives – even though it might be opposed by the British Government, British management and workforce alike.

    We are a trading nation. We cannot flourish unless we can compete on level terms with other countries. That is why we consider a successful outcome to the current GATT negotiations so vital. It is why we are working so hard for the successful completion of the Single Market. And it is why I fought at Maastricht to make sure that in future countries which sign up to Directives implement them in full – or face penalties if they do not do so.

    Mr. Chairman, I recognise that for many sectors in our economy times are hard – in some cases very hard indeed. With growth faltering overseas in the world’s largest economies, our economy has not performed as well in the last year as had been hoped.

    But let us not get these matters out of perspective. We are at a different stage of the economic cycle than many of our competitors. For while Germany and Japan will continue to slow in 1992, I do not doubt that we will see recovery here in Britain.

    I know there is much speculation about the date of the turning point in the UK. Some economic pundits talk of little else. Yet in reality, there is no magic moment, no precise point when recession lies clearly in the past, while recovery stretches out into a better future. Inevitably economic data will show ups and downs and irregular patterns as recession ends and recovery begins.

    Recent economic figures certainly do not support the sudden swing into pessimism which has overcome certain commentators. Of course, there is no point in excessive optimism or trying to talk up the economy. But there is equally a risk in going too far the other way. And I certainly believe that the recent pessimism has been overdone.

    There are plenty of encouraging developments. If you listen to some of the dismal Johnnies you might never realise what has been achieved in the last year.

    We have reduced inflation from almost 11 per cent to around 4 per cent; it is now firmly under control.

    – We have cut interest rates eight times – faster and further than almost anyone expected: for some on annual mortgages, those cuts are only now feeding through into lower mortgage payments.

    – Thanks to our ERM membership, we have been able to bring our interest rate differential against the deutschmark to its lowest level for decades. In the 1980s sterling rates were on average 5 per cent higher than DM rates – today that differential is around 1 per cent.

    – Retail sales are higher than a year ago – and many stores are reporting record sales.

    – The trend rate of increase in unemployment has now slowed substantially.

    And real incomes are rising.

    Too many people seem to be losing sight of the issues that really matter. Governments cannot – and should not – try to adjust the economy month by month, or week by week. Policy cannot – and should not – react to every monthly economic statistic that is released. Our job is to provide a stable and predictable economic framework, with responsible monetary and budgetary policies so that business and individuals can have the confidence to take the right decisions.

    I believe we can look forward to 1992 with confidence. It is not just the Government but virtually every international, City and academic body that expects a return to growth. For we are getting the fundamentals of the British economy right. We have made clear our commitment to exchange rate stability through membership of the ERM. We have brought inflation down and will keep it down. We can look forward to growth founded on economic stability and low inflation.

    But, while we can create the right climate for future growth, it is up to business to seize the opportunities and build our future prosperity.

    What does that mean in present circumstances? Ultimately, at its very heart, business seizing opportunities is about the behaviour of individuals. About how they act. How they decide on their actions. About their skill; their foresight; their knowledge; and the sheer hard work, that they bring to decision-making.

    And it is also often about an independence of thought – what you might term being “canny”. Persisting with a view based on the evidence that the individual believes to be right. Having the initiative to look at a problem in a different way – and thus perhaps seeing the solution and way forward that escaped everyone else. It is about being able to spot and assess opportunities. And then having the skill, foresight and the courage to take the risk and then turn those opportunities into realities.

    And that of course is what tonight’s Businessman of the Year Award is all about. We are here to celebrate successful risk-taking, the very heart of a successful commercial economy. It was that spirit of enterprise which built the North-East in the first place. Now it is transforming the structure and diversity of its economy once again. It will enable that economy to grow and expand in the years ahead.

    I am confident about our prospects for the 1990s. In the last decade the Government and business – working together – turned an uncompetitive, ramshackle, over-regulated economy into an enterprise economy that out-performed most of its competitors. Now, as we come out of our difficulties, we must build on that. We will come out of the recession as we need to – with low inflation, a stable exchange rate and the prospect of steady, sustainable growth.

    If we build on that; if we ignore siren voices offering quack remedies; if we turn aside from re-regulation and higher taxation; if we build an enterprise partnership between Government and industry, then we can create a level of prosperity that exceeds anything we have known before.

    That must be our objective for the 1990s.

  • PMQT – 19 December 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th December 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

    Mr. McAllion : Today Scottish trade unions are lobbying the Scottish Office to support full employment policies. Is the Prime Minister aware that in the year since he took office Scottish dole queues have lengthened by a further 28,000, leaving almost 250,000 Scots without work and leaving him with an even worse record than his predecessor, the former first lady of mass unemployment? Does he agree that the price being paid by 2.5 million unemployed this Christmas is too high, and that if a price has to be paid for the economic mess that our country is in, it should be paid in full by himself and his ragbag of right hon. Friends?

    The Prime Minister : In the period of this Parliament, unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency has fallen by 39 per cent. But I appreciate that every job lost is a personal tragedy for the person involved. The latest figures show that the increase in unemployment is continuing to slow down. Vacancies at November are now at their highest level for some time. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind what is happening elsewhere : unemployment has risen in all the Community countries except the Netherlands, in every country of the European Free Trade Association, and in every G7 country except Japan. That is a reflection of the fact that the world economy is slowing down. The hon. Gentleman would address the problem more accurately were he to acknowledge that fact.

     

    Q2. Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 December.

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

    Mr. Alton : Now that it is clear that pre-Christmas Sunday trading has simply been a stalking horse for all-year Sunday trading, will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating stores such as House of Fraser, C and A, and Marks and Spencer which have upheld Sunday trading laws and refused to break them? Will he condemn those who have flouted the law simply for commercial gain?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows from previous exchanges in the House, following the appeal to the European Court the present law is unclear and no one is entirely certain what the correct law is at present. As the Attorney-General explained to the House some time ago, the law is not suspended and local authorities, who have the primary duty of enforcing the law, should decide their own course of action. I believe that, under existing provisions, that is the only way to handle the matter.

    Several Hon. Members rose —

    Mr. Speaker : Order. As I inadvertently called two hon. Members from the Opposition Benches, I shall call Sir Peter Tapsell.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s raising of German interest rates, at a time when the German economy is in a different stage of its economic cycle from that of France, Britain and the United States, illustrates the great difficulties of a single European currency? Is it not extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition is incapable of understanding that we might frequently find that monetary and interest rate policies were wholly inappropriate to the requirements of this country if we join a single European currency?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes an important point, and one which is especially relevant when the divergence in the performance of the economies of Europe is still so great. If and when there is convergence on a whole range of issues, circumstances may change, but we are certainly many years away from that.

     

    Q3. Mr. Thorne : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 December.

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

    Mr. Thorne : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the news that mortgage lenders are introducing a package to assist people who are in difficulty with their mortgages will be commended throughout the country? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is not something that has arisen in the past few days, but has been carefully negotiated by the Government over many weeks?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right about that. We have been pursuing proposals for some time. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has had a number of discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and others, and he will be announcing a package of measures later this afternoon.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is it not clear from today’s awful rise in unemployment to more than 2.5 million that the recession is continuing? Since the Government obviously have no idea what to do about it, will the Prime Minister give me an undertaking that he will call a general election very early in the new year?

    The Prime Minister : I will give the right hon. Gentleman no such undertaking; nor did he expect me to. What is clear is that the rate of increase in unemployment is beginning to slow, and that is very welcome. The figures are quite clear about that. Also, job vacancies are rising, unit wage costs are falling and productivity is continuing to improve. That is what will make us more competitive and what will create more jobs. It is not a short-term problem; it is a matter that we have to get right to ensure the long-term prosperity of this country.

    Mr. Kinnock : I am sorry that the Prime Minister is continuing to run away from the electorate. Since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, 800,000 jobs have been lost, 80,000 homes have been repossessed, and 45,000 businesses have failed. That is the record of a completely discredited Government–a Government who must go, and quickly.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has no policies whatever to deal with employment. His jobs tax would cost 50,000 jobs; his strikes charter would cost jobs and lose orders; the sweatshop mentality on the Opposition Front Bench would risk losing the 450,000 jobs that have come in; their minimum wage policy would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs; and the abolition, one way or another, of the trade union legislation that we have produced would reintroduce the difficulties that we faced in the 1960s and 1970s. The right hon. Gentleman’s policies would reintroduce the levels of unemployment that we saw in the 1930s.

    Mr. Kinnock : When the Government came into power unemployment was 1.25 million. At the time of the last general election, unemployment was going down. The right hon. Gentleman has spent the past two years as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister. In that time he has put unemployment up by nearly 1 million, so he can offer us no lectures on the subject of unemployment.

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly inform the right hon. Gentleman about matters that he does not seem to understand. Unemployment has risen in virtually every western country in the past decade. Many of the major industrial countries have seen unemployment increase– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. That is a terrible noise to make.

    The Prime Minister : It is clear that the Opposition Whips have been active. Unemployment has been rising in the United States, Italy, France and Canada, and in every country of the European Community. Only the right hon. Gentleman believes that we can be insulated from what is happening throughout the world.

    Sir Robert Rhodes James : As the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, is retiring at the end of the month, would it not be appropriate on behalf of the House and of all parties for my right hon. Friend to record our gratitude and appreciation for a fine international servant?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to join my hon. Friend in that tribute, which I think is the united view of the House. Mr. Perez de Cuellar has had a lengthy and distinguished record as Secretary-General and the House would wish to record its appreciation of his activities and those of his personal representative in securing the release of so many hostages.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

    Mr. Marshall : The Prime Minister approves of the obscene pay rises and profits made by the privatised monopolies. Does he also approve of the scandalous racketeering by the gas, electricity and British Telecom undertakings in imposing huge standing charges, which often amount to more than 50 per cent. of the bill for the most vulnerable people in our society and are causing millions of pensioners and poor people to face a cold and miserable Christmas? Does he have any compassion at all? Will he take steps to abolish standing charges or is he the Scrooge of the 1990s?

    The Prime Minister : I see that the Christmas spirit has descended upon the hon. Gentleman a little early. Standing charges have often been discussed in the House. The difficulty is that their abolition would have a direct relationship to an increase in unit costs, which would bear most heavily on many of the people who are most in need. Therefore, it is not a way to help people who are particularly in need. Many would suffer from that change.

    Mr. Hill : Does my right hon. Friend accept that practically everyone in the House welcomes his initiative on repossessions, no matter what political claptrap we may hear later? The main problem is the dead hand of local authorities, which keep tens of thousands of properties empty. Is it not time for an initiative to make local authorities hand over their property to housing associations, and could regional ombudsman be set up for that purpose?

    The Prime Minister : In a few moments my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out our detailed proposals to deal with the problem of repossessions. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not trail that in advance. My hon. Friend’s point about local authorities in terms of voids and, often, delays in letting is a genuine problem. Performance is patchy in different parts of the country. In many inner-city areas, typically though not exclusively run by Labour councils, the policies followed mean that many properties are left empty unnecessarily when many people could safely live in them.

     

    Q5. Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

    Mr. Michael : On the day when the Prime Minister’s unemployment figures have gone over 2.5 million, will he consider the training and employment needs of adults with learning difficulties, and people over 19 with mental handicaps whom he and his Government have abandoned? Will he consider in particular the training workshop recycling products in my constituency, Track 2000 in Splott, whose income was ended as a result of his cuts in employment training, where the trainers, who are on the dole, and the trainees, who do not get a training allowance, are coming in voluntarily? People are still being referred to the centre by social services because there is nowhere else for them to go. What does the Prime Minister propose to do about that?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely concerned about employment and training, he would be prepared to condemn the Trades Union Congress boycott of employment action, youth training, and training and enterprise councils, but neither he nor his party has done so. In the coming year, about 1 million people will be helped through employment and training programmes to get back to work. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are spending on training and enterprise two and a half times as much in real terms as the last Labour Government. When they left office, they were training 6,000 people a year. This year, we shall be training 260,000.

    Mr. Hayward : Has my right hon. Friend had time to notice this week substantial orders from abroad for British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and Govan Shipbuilders? Is it not churlish that Labour Members have not welcomed any of those orders?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I welcome the substantial orders that have been received and I was pleased to see that in the past few days a number of them have come here. The special order for Govan will be particularly welcome. It is a shame that Opposition Members utterly neglect to welcome the successes of this country and take every opportunity to run them down as well as the prospects of the country.

     

    Q6. Mr. Patchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

    Mr. Patchett : What single word would the Prime Minister use to describe his Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    The Prime Minister : He is a very good Chancellor.

  • PMQT – 12 December 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th December 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Butler : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Butler : Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, by rejecting the social chapter, he is rejecting the strikers’ friend and the creep of socialism?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. At the end of the 1970s, 29 million days were lost in strikes whereas only 2 million days were lost in strikes last year. I have no enthusiasm for returning to the sort of legislation that applied at that time.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister tell us why Chancellor Kohl and his fellow Conservative Heads of Government do not agree with him that, by adopting the social chapter, they will jeopardise jobs?

    The Prime Minister : Because they do not have the trade union structure that we have in this country or the record of trade union militancy that so damaged this country in the 1970s and to which we have no intention whatsoever of returning. If the right hon. Gentleman begins to listen to what many employers elsewhere in Europe are saying, he will learn that they recognise that we made the right decisions.

    Mr. Kinnock : What those Heads of Government do not have is a record of losing 768,000 jobs in their countries in the past 12 months. Four out of every five of the jobs that have been lost in the European Community in the past year have been lost in Britain because of the right hon. Gentleman’s policies. He is the last person to be entitled to think of himself as a protector of jobs ; he is the destroyer of jobs.

    Mr. Major : Throughout the 1980s as a whole, more jobs were created in this country than in any other European country. Indeed, nearly as many jobs were created in this country as in the whole of the European Community. I need no lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about the social dimension. The social dimension to Europe was part of the Single European Act, against which the right hon. Gentleman voted.

    Mrs. Maureen Hicks : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that record? Is he aware that Britain receives almost half the total investment coming into Europe from the United States of America and Japan and that many of the companies involved have the good sense to choose Wolverhampton and the rest of the west midlands? Does he agree that those companies choose to come to Britain because our taxes are low, our industrial relations are good and, most of all, our Government understand business? Does he agree that none of that would be the case if the Labour party was in charge?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right in that diagnosis. She may have read the remarks made yesterday by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which made its position perfectly clear on the agreement at Maastricht. It said :

    “There will be many continental businesses today envying their competitors in the United Kingdom.”

    That is because they understand that the decisions that we have taken are in the interests of British industry, British commerce and jobs for British workers.

     

    Q2. Mr. Patchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Patchett : Given the decision to opt out of the social charter in Europe– [Hon. Members :– “Reading.”]– can the Prime Minister confirm that he is planning– [Hon. Members :– “Reading.”]–to fight the next general election on the slogan “Vote Tory for the lowest wages, least consultation and worst employment protection in Europe”?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman– [Hon. Members :– “Reading.”]–is in no position to talk about opt-outs, considering that his party has opted out of every necessary decision to assist this country in the past 10 years and has backed every inflationary wage claim, every piece of trade union militancy and every policy that would do damage to Britain and its future.

    Mr. Wilkinson : Could my right hon. Friend find time today to think again about the significance of an historic referendum which took place in the Ukraine on 1 December, in which the people of Ukraine freely and democratically voted for their sovereignty and independence? Will Her Majesty’s Government recognise the Government of Ukraine and show that they are on the side of democracy and freedom?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend said, the referendum in Ukraine showed overwhelming support for the independence of Ukraine. [Hon. Members :– “Reading.”] The Foreign Affairs Committee statement on 2 December gave the initial response from the European Community. We shall continue to consult–

    Hon. Members : “Reading.”

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The House well knows the conventions here. It has always been in order for Ministers on the Front Bench to read their answers and it has never been in order for hon. Members to read their questions.

    The Prime Minister : Most people would have regarded what is happening in the Soviet Union as a matter of some importance, not a matter for the fourth-form behaviour that we see on the Opposition Benches.

     

    Q3. Mr. O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : Will the Prime Minister confirm that because of his decision to opt out of the social charter– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I cannot hear everything down here. Perhaps it is just as well.

    Mr. O’Brien : Will the Prime Minister confirm that because of his decision to opt out of the social charter

    Hon. Members : He has said that. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Does the hon. Gentleman want to ask a question or not? Please get on with it.

    Mr. O’Brien rose — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is intolerable. Will the hon. Gentleman please ask his question.

    Mr. O’Brien : Will the Prime Minister confirm that because of his action in opting out of the social charter, Great Britain will be the only country in Europe that will deny its people the legal right to paid holidays? Does not he feel ashamed of that?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman can know what we have agreed not to join. What we have agreed not to accept are the sort of damaging laws that nearly brought this country to its knees when we last had a Labour Government. That is what we are not prepared to accept. Matters such as the hon. Gentleman raised can be dealt with at present under the social dimension to which the British Government subscribe and against which the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) voted.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Hannam : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on helping to create a more outward-looking Europe. In that connection, and in view of the impending serious food shortages in the Soviet Union, may I ask whether he was able to take any initiatives at Maastricht to help move foodstuffs from the Community to the Russian people?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, we were able to take such initiatives. The European Council reaffirmed its determination to act quickly to help the people of the Soviet Union and in particular those who live in the heavily populated areas of Moscow and St. Petersburg. A substantial package of help for the Soviet Union, totalling over $11 billion worth of emergency aid in 1991, has now been put in place by the Group of Seven, under my chairmanship, and the European Community. That includes new commitments of food and medical aid of over $4 billion. Logistical experts will be meeting shortly to ensure that that aid gets swiftly to those in need. I am pleased also to tell the House that the United Kingdom is sending £20 million worth of animal feed aid to St. Petersburg so that livestock need not be slaughtered this winter.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government’s decision to pay the mortgage element of income support direct to lenders is a welcome but wholly insufficient response to the crisis facing thousands of families in Britain because of home repossessions? Does he not realise that unless he is prepared to be more imaginative–for instance, with schemes for converting mortgages to rents–we shall not avoid in the new year thousands of families facing misery, a further plunge in house prices and serious damage to the economy?

    The Prime Minister : The Government are providing substantial help to those who risk losing their homes when they lose their jobs. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, we made new arrangements on 5 November to ensure that income support payments can be paid directly to the lender. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the Government are looking urgently with mortgage lenders at what further measures might be taken to protect those faced with repossession.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : As one who joined the Leader of the Opposition in voting against the Single European Act, before the right hon. Gentleman became a Euro-fanatic, may I appeal to my right hon. Friend to warn the voters about the huge dangers to the much-improved labour relations of Britain if they were to vote into power any Government who were prepared to pass over the power to wreck our trade union reforms by majority vote in Brussels? Will he warn the British people of the damage that could be done to them and the danger to their way of life and democracy?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that if my hon. Friend maintains his position with his normal consistency, the day will come when the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) will join him yet again in that view. On the substantive point, my hon. Friend will know that I agree with him, for I refused earlier this week to agree in Europe to the sort of laws that would have had the effect my hon. Friend sets out.

     

    Q5. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 December.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Will the Prime Minister take time today to meet the Home Secretary to discuss how the Government should respond to the letter they have received from the mayor of Conservative-controlled Bexley drawing attention to the 140 per cent. increase in racist attacks in the area since the British National party moved its headquarters into the area? One of those attacks involved the stabbing to death of Rolan Adams by a racist mob. How does the Prime Minister think that the Government can respond to the Mayor’s request that Bexley council be given the power to close that fascist headquarters before more lives are lost?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of that incident, but I deplore such racist attacks without any reservation whatsoever. I will certainly discuss that incident with my right hon. Friend.

    Mr. Rowe : The channel tunnel is about to become a major part of the United Kingdom infrastructure. Will my right hon. Friend look with his Cabinet colleagues at the fact that Kent is receiving considerable capital-infrastructure funds but virtually all of that money is going on projects linked to the channel tunnel, to the great detriment of Kent’s other needs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his constituency and for Kent generally. I will certainly examine the point that he raises.

  • PMQT – 5 December 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Balanced Budget

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister : Yes, totally cynical.

  • PMQT – 14 November 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. French : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

    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. French : Has my right hon. Friend seen the opinion poll in The Guardian this morning which shows very strong support for his stand on Europe, with the vast majority of people having confidence in the benefits for business purposes of a single market, but showing understandable scepticism about the implications of a single currency? Did he also notice that twice as many people would trust him to negotiate on Europe for this country as would trust the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I did notice with some interest that particular survey. I believe that a majority of people in this country want to make a success of our membership of the Community. There have been many positive developments, a large number of them led by this country such as the introduction of the single market. I see no reason for us to be fearful of developments in the Community–it is often an opportunity, not a risk.

    Mr. Kinnock rose — [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This takes a lot of time out of Question Time.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to tell us why over the last year the unemployment record of his Government is by far the worst of any in the European Community?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, unemployment is rising right across the industrial world almost without exception–in the United States, Japan, Italy, France and Canada. What we are beginning to see in this country–and I welcome it very much–is a sharp slowdown in the rise in unemployment. This is the third successive month that that has happened. I very much hope that that trend will be continued. It is too early to be entirely sure, but it looks as though the tide may well have turned.

    Mr. Kinnock : In the last 12 months net unemployment in the whole of the European Community has gone up by 940,000. Of that total, 768, 000–80 per cent.–has been in this country. Is not it clear from those figures that the unique disadvantage suffered by the people of Britain is that they have this Government with the right hon. Gentleman’s policies, which depend on putting people out of work?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman might look close to home before he makes that general assertion. Unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 37 per cent. since the last general election. The number of new vacancies notified to jobcentres is now beginning to rise. That is a welcome sign. The change in the unemployment position is welcome and I very much hope that it will continue. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that and not tried to isolate the problems of this country as he is well aware that they are occurring everywhere else.

    Mr. Kinnock : My reference arose because the Prime Minister was trying to obscure his record. If he is interested in looking close to home, he should note the fact that while unemployment in my constituency has, tragically, gone up by the figure he mentioned in the course of the past 12 months, it has gone up in his constituency by 110 per cent. That is very close to home.

    Will he now answer the question why in the other 11 countries of the European Community the total rise in unemployment in the past 12 months has been 130,000, while in this country, for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, unemployment has risen by nearly 800,000?

    Hon. Members : Answer!

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Shouting of that kind does not help.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his constituency and mine, but he neglected to mention that in both constituencies the latest figures show a fall in unemployment. If the right hon. Gentleman was genuinely concerned about unemployment, he would now withdraw from the table his minimum wage policy–a policy which would increase unemployment dramatically.

    Mr. Butcher : Given the opinion poll results in The Guardian today, which show that a clear and growing majority of people are against further moves towards European monetary and political union, does my right hon. Friend find it rather curious that both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party favour unilateral disarmament on the question of federalism? To what does he attribute their unaccustomed bravery on that issue?

    The Prime Minister : I find Opposition Members’ position on Europe curious. They appear to be prepared to sign up indiscriminately to anything –to a federal Europe, to huge extensions in competence and to control over foreign policy, defence and immigration. There is no sign from either the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) or the Leader of the Opposition that they would draw the line anywhere on transfer of authority to Brussels.

     

    Q2. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Beith : Does the Prime Minister agree that although there is scope for compromise on many matters at Maastricht, the one issue on which it is impossible to compromise is the difference between those who believe that Britain could and should join in a single currency and those who believe that we should not do so at any price and that we should never even have joined the exchange rate mechanism? Had he not better make that clear to both the Conservative and Labour Members who still believe that Britain could stay out of the developments that will take place in Europe?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might also bear in mind the fact that his party should take account of many of the dangers of what is proposed, for at the moment the Liberal Democrats seem prepared to sign up indiscriminately to what is proposed from anywhere within Europe.

    Mr. David Evans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party is proud to have reduced the basic rate of tax from 33p in the pound to 25p and the upper rate from 98p to 40p? Can he confirm that we shall have one Budget next year and shall not burden the British people with a massive payment of back tax, as is suggested by crackpot Opposition Members?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that we shall have one Budget next year–and that we shall have one the year after and the year after that, as well.

     

    Q3. Mr. Flannery : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Flannery : When will the Prime Minister apologise to the British people for the disgraceful inequities and sheer misery caused all over the country by the poll tax, which he was one of the first people to promote? Does he realise that his failure to do so brings his integrity into severe question? May I suggest that he apologises in a broadcast from No. 10 Downing street, which I understand he occupies temporarily, and that he should give some thought–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is taking a long time. If that is done, I hope that it can be done here.

    Mr. Flannery : He could then give some thought to the inequities of the council tax, so called, which is the nasty twin brother of the poll tax and which will leave debris–caused by the Prime Minister and the Conservative party–all over the country.

    The Prime Minister : In case the hon. Gentleman has not noticed, we are in the process of replacing the poll tax.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones : May I remind my right hon. Friend of today’s unemployment figures for Wales, where both the actual and the seasonally adjusted rates have fallen? Does not that confirm that what we really need is a continuation of my right hon. Friend’s policies, not a regional assembly for Wales, which would be an unnecessary quango that would cost the people of Wales £1 million a week?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree. Unemployment has fallen not only in Wales but in Scotland and in the northern region and I hope that it will soon fall elsewhere, too.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Wigley : How does the Prime Minister reconcile the welcome emphasis that he placed at the Commonwealth conference on the extension of democratic government throughout the Commonwealth with the continuing reluctance of the Government to give any form of democratic control over their own lives to the people of Wales and Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : As I have told the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions, I believe that union in the United Kingdom and the present system of government serve us extremely well. There was a referendum on devolution some years ago and the people of Wales forcefully expressed their view against the principle of devolution on that occasion.

    Mr. Marlow : Could my right hon. Friend reinforce the point that he has just made? There are two alternatives. One is the preferred alternative for Scotland and Wales : the status quo. The other alternative for Scotland is independence. The crackpot halfway-house idea of the Labour party, in which Scottish institutions look after Scottish affairs and Scottish Members of Parliament dabble in English affairs, would be unacceptable to the people of England.

    The Prime Minister : I am in no doubt that the right future for this country is to maintain the union between the United Kingdom and Scotland. Other proposals have no credibility. The self-styled Scottish convention was self-appointed and is unrepresentative, and the introduction of tax-raising powers for Scotland would make it the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom and would destroy and inward investment that has done so much for its standard of life.

     

    Q5. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Will the Prime Minister take time this week to write to the broadcasting authorities to say that he is willing to take part in a live, televised debate between the party leaders during the next general election campaign?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows better than to put questions like that now.

    Mr. Bill Walker : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Scottish Conservative party has debated devolution and that the proposals now on offer from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are flawed and fraudulent? Will he further confirm that they were not an issue in the recent by-election in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the Government remain fully committed to the union–a point which is well recognised in Scotland. The reality of change is certainly understood by the Scottish business community which well knows the impact that some of the alternatives would have on Scotland–they would not have a happy impact.

     

    Q6. Mr. Sillars : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Sillars : When will the Prime Minister of England and that lackey of his in St. Andrew’s house admit that they are bereft of all moral and political authority to govern the people of Scotland? Why will not the Prime Minister accept the challenge of a referendum? Is he feared that he will lose and that independence will win?

    The Prime Minister : The right to govern Scotland flows from general elections. The hon. Gentleman may have noted what a Labour Member said the other day :

    “The party which holds a majority in the United Kingdom Parliament has a mandate for the whole United Kingdom.”

     

    Q7. Mr. Arbuthnot : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.

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

    Mr. Arbuthnot : Can my right hon. Friend comment on the recent improvements unveiled in the Guy’s hospital patients charter, with 3, 500 more patients treated in the first six months, with better staff conditions and with lower waiting lists? Can he compare these facts about the national health service with the fictions put out by the Labour Front Bench?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Just a few months ago, Opposition Members were telling us that trust hospitals would fail and that they should be judged by the simple test of whether they do more or less work on NHS patients. With regard to Guy’s, we now know that they do more and are a success. We will have more of them.

  • PMQT – 5 November 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

    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. Hinchliffe : Is the Prime Minister personally in favour of a single European currency–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : At this moment, in these circumstances, no.

    Mr. Onslow : Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is general support for the emphasis that the Foreign Secretary has placed on the importance of keeping the European Commission out of the nooks and crannies of our national life? Will he, in any negotiations with our European partners, give the highest priority to getting the European Commission under some sort of genuine parliamentary control?

    The Prime Minister : I share the views expressed by my right hon. Friend yesterday. One of the things that we shall be seeking to do in the negotiations on the political union treaty is to try to ensure that the Commission–at present under no effective control–increasingly comes under the control of the most appropriate Parliament, in this case the European Parliament.

    Mr. Kinnock : Since the Prime Minister acknowledges convergence to be a matter of considerable importance in the development of the European Community, why is it, now that the Engineering Employers Federation, the Confederation of British Industry and his noble Friends in the House of Lords have all made cause for new investment incentives for British industry, that he and the remainder of the Government refuse to take such initiatives in order to support this very best way of securing recovery?

    The Prime Minister : On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, convergence is not just important ; it is absolutely vital if there is to be any success whatsoever, or any prospect of a single currency that would not damage the whole of Europe. The most effective way of ensuring that there is investment in this or any other country is to ensure that we have low inflation and the right economic environment.

    Mr. Kinnock : When unemployment has risen by 800,000 in Britain during the last year, when 50 per cent. more companies are in receivership and when manufacturing investment is down by 19 per cent., how can the Government justify taking such a listless attitude to the needs of British industry? Why do the Government refuse to give the same backing to British industry as our European Community competitors give to theirs?

    The Prime Minister : It is not all that many months ago that the right hon. Gentleman was saying to the House and to people beyond it that the most important thing was to get inflation down from its then level of 10.9 per cent. and to recreate the conditions in which people would feel secure to invest. I agreed with the points that he made then and that is precisely what we have done. We are now reaching a position in which growth and investment will reoccur and, as we saw throughout the complete period of the 1980s, there will be a growth in the absolute number of jobs.

    Mr. Kinnock : Since the Prime Minister said that it is important to create the conditions for economic and industrial success, will he listen to the CBI which, in its report asks the Government to take proper account of the interests of manufacturing industry instead of pursuing the policies that they are pursuing? After 12 years, is there any hope of the Government ever taking the interests of manufacturing industry properly into account?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had paid more attention to the CBI yesterday, he would have heard the director general say that since the crash of October 1987, real take-home pay is up by 11 per cent., manufacturing productivity is up by 20 per cent. and manufacturing exports have increased by £76 million for each and every working day.

    Mr. Sayeed : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two essential components for a policy of nuclear deterrence are that one possesses the capability and that a potential enemy does not doubt one’s willingness to use it in order to defend oneself? Does he agree that a few weasel words in a newspaper do not constitute a policy of nuclear deterrence, particularly when the leader of that party has stated clearly that he would never use nuclear weapons, even if Britain were under nuclear attack?

    The Prime Minister : I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. The fact that we have had a nuclear deterrent for a number of years has added materially to our security and I believe that we should continue to sustain that deterrent. It is a matter of regret that the Opposition’s commitment to that deterrent is not generally accepted. The words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), “If we change to win, we could change when we have won”, show that British people will not trust the Opposition with defence policy.

     

    Q2. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November?

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

    Mr. Flynn : Why is the Prime Minister trying to turn the national health service into a family business for card-carrying Conservatives? Why did he appoint two Tory ex-Ministers, the sister of a Tory Minister, the wives of two Tory Members of Parliament and the husband of a Tory Member of Parliament to run opted-out hospitals? Is that what the Prime Minister means when he says that he believes that Conservatives want to use the national health service? They are using it–milking it for their own financial gain.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has clearly forgotten that, for example, Lady Callaghan was an excellent chairman of Great Ormond Street hospital and a number of other wives of eminent people in public life have held that position. It is extremely odd that the Labour party should propose that women should be barred from jobs because of their husband’s position in public life. Among those whom the hon. Gentleman has maligned is someone who has a decade’s experience of working in the NHS. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is a proper contribution to the health service or a proper qualification for the job that she holds, I am very surprised indeed.

     

    Q3. Mr. Viggers : To ask the Prime Minister to list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Viggers : Will my right hon. Friend anticipate the Chancellor’s statement tomorrow to the extent of confirming that funds will be made available to ensure that our armed forces, although smaller, are even better equipped? In particular, will he confirm that conventional submarines will continue to play an important role and that the story broadcast by the BBC last night as a hard fact–that the HMS Upholder class of submarines is to be sold–is completely untrue and without foundation?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm my hon. Friend’s last point. We have shown our commitment to better equipment by our recent purchase of the Westland helicopter and our decision to re-equip the Army with the Challenger II tank. Both were expensive but necessary purchases to ensure that our armed forces have the best possible equipment. That is our policy and will remain so. I am bound to say that that does not seem to be the policy of the Opposition. The principal Opposition party is committed to cutting defence expenditure by a quarter, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is committed to cutting it by a half.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister insists that even if the other 11 go ahead he is prepared to reject an agreement on Europe at Maastricht. Will he describe how he sees the future of this country, should he allow that to happen?

    The Prime Minister : I have repeatedly made it clear in the House and beyond that I am working to seek an agreement at Maastricht that will be acceptable to the House and this country. That remains the position. I have set out our determination to work for that agreement and the principles on which the agreement will need to be based. I have arranged a two-day debate in the House so that I may express that clearly and listen to the views of the House. If I judge that the agreement is in the interests of this country I will sign it. If I judge that the agreement is not in the interests of this country, it would not be right for me to sign it and I will not sign it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Paice : As this is the first Prime Minister’s Question Time since the Commonwealth conference, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his constructive and positive approach to the issues? Will he confirm that he was not detained or locked up and was widely recognised as the leader of this party–unlike the experience of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) after four years as Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that it was an excellent Commonwealth conference. The Commonwealth came closer together than it has been for a long time. There was substantial agreement on changing policies on South Africa, which I much welcome, and there was a warm welcome for our decision to implement the Trinidad terms arrangement, which, if fully implemented by every member, will relieve the poorest countries in the world of $17,000 million of debt.

    Mr. Harry Ewing : Is the Prime Minister aware that just over an hour ago I received a letter from British Alcan, which has a factory in my constituency at Falkirk, informing me that 169 of the work force will lose their jobs, not because they are inefficient but because the machinery on which they work is 50 years old? If that is not proof of lack of investment, what is? Is the Prime Minister further aware that those men like their jobs and that, with his help, they would be able to keep them, but he is not prepared to help them? Try telling men in Falkirk that the economy is on an upturn.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is clearly under the misapprehension that I have been Prime Minister for 50 years–not yet.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Hannam : When my right hon. Friend next meets the British Medical Association, will he raise the success of the first wave of national health service trusts, particularly the success story of the South Devon Healthcare trust? In the past year, it has increased the number of patients by 10 per cent., the number of doctors and nurses by more than 50 and reopened two wards. Will he congratulate the BMA on its wholesale condemnation of the latest Labour party smear leaflet that has been distributed at the Langbaurgh by-election?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to join my hon. Friend in those remarks and to join the BMA in its scathing remarks about the Labour leaflet. The BMA said that the leaflet was in bad taste, and it must be very frightening to the people of Langbaurgh. Like my hon. Friend, I read the report of Labour’s latest scare story about the NHS. I hope that people will realise that what Labour is saying is inaccurate. It is a tissue of falsehoods. I hope that people will look at the real record of improvement in the NHS, not the misrepresentations that they get from the Labour party.

     

    Q6. Mr. Strang : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

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

    Mr. Strang : Has the Prime Minister noticed that the major issue in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election is the widespread public opposition to the application by Foresterhill hospital in Aberdeen to become a self- governing trust? As the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland clearly favours trust status and as the Conservative candidate has come out publicly against it, will the Prime Minister tell the House who he agrees with–his Health Minister or the candidate?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the application for that hospital to have self-governing status has been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has an obligation to study that application and to determine whether it is in order. That is what he is doing. When he has done that, he will announce his decision.

  • PMQT – 17 October 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th October 1991. John MacGregor responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I have been asked to reply My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare.

    Mr. Illsley : Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to join me in condemning the waste of money by Barnsley district general hospital, which is paying for a number of employees to go on a luxury holiday fact-finding mission to a Paris hotel as part of the hospital’s move towards NHS trust status? Is that another example of the Government allowing hospitals to waste money in pursuit of their NHS reforms?

    Mr. MacGregor : I did not know of that incident. Our reforms are achieving considerable savings right across the board, all of which are being directed at patient care.

    Sir Ian Lloyd : If, as has been reliably reported in the press this morning, the Government are–doubtless from the most admirable motives– offering training and education to civil servants from the African National Congress, are not we in danger, first, of assuming an outcome to the constitutional process in South Africa which may be disproved by events? Secondly, are not we in danger of racial discrimination against a significant and admirable people, the Zulus?

    Mr. MacGregor : What is being proposed is training for people who will participate in the Government. The training that we could offer should greatly help with the whole question of race relations and the future of South Africa.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that unemployment in Britain has risen by over three quarters of a million in the past 12 months, that there have been more than 340,000 job losses in manufacturing industries over the same period and that unemployment in our country is rising faster than in any other European Community country? Is not it clear that the Government’s policies are doing long-term damage to the British economy? Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to belong to a Government who are doing Britain down in so many ways?

    Mr. MacGregor : I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at his own policies and realise that they would lose more jobs more permanently.

    Mr. Kinnock : As a direct result of the policies of the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman serves, output and investment continue to go down. Government borrowing continues to rise and unemployment is heading towards 2.5 million for the second time in 10 years under this Government. Is not it clear that the longer that Cabinet members hang on to their jobs the more other people will lose theirs?

    Mr. MacGregor : For every day that the Government have been in office, on average 220 new jobs have been added, nearly 100 new businesses have been created and 880 families have bought new homes. That is our record. Employment is higher than it was four years ago and higher than it was under the last Labour Government and it is higher than the European average. Investment over the period is substantially up. That is why we have been able to achieve this record, which is way ahead of anything that a future Labour Government would do.

    Mr. Kinnock : For the past three years and for next year Britain will be bottom of the investment, jobs, growth and other leagues of the major industrial countries. In Britain, more than 1,000 jobs a day are being lost in industry and services and manufacturing is bearing the brunt of that. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can be proud of nothing in that record. Is not that manifested by the shuffling off of the autumn statement until the end of November because the Government are afraid to bring it forward at the proper time?

    Mr. MacGregor : That latter point is entirely irrelevant. The decision on when the autumn statement should be made will be taken in the normal way. In the period as a whole, just as in recent times, there has been considerable success in getting inflation down to the levels of our major competitors overseas. That is the issue that most guarantees jobs long term.

    As for manufacturing industry, the director general of the CBI said in the summer :

    “Virtually everything associated with our manufacturing base is better than it was”

    in the era of Government interference, lost orders, strikes and horrific inflation. That was the era of the last Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to talk about policies that effectively improve competitiveness, investment and productivity. That is what we have been achieving.

    Sir William Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition spokesmen seem to take particular delight in talking down the British economy– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. MacGregor rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This takes up time.

    Sir William Clark : –and the Government’s achievements in the economic sphere? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the amount of inward investment is proof positive that the foreigner has confidence in this country because the economy is not only sound but is better than it ever has been?

    Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and I apologise if I interrupted him. The Labour party simply ignores all good news and there is a deal of it at the moment. My right hon. Friend is right to draw to our attention examples such as the substantial bringing down of inflation and the high regard of overseas companies, which is shown by their rates of investment in this country.

     

    South London

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an official visit to south London in September and intends to do so again in the future.

    Mr. Hughes : When the Prime Minister or other Cabinet Ministers next come to south London, will they say whether they agree with the comment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, made half an hour ago in Church house, that the inner cities of Britain suffer from severe and divisive inequalities and severe deprivation? If they accept that that is the case, is it Government policy to increase the gap between the richest and the poorest, as has happened over the past 12 years, or will Government policy change under the new Prime Minister, so that the gap between the well off and the poorest will narrow in the years to come?

    Mr. MacGregor : I understand that the Archbishop also paid tribute to the Government’s inner cities programme, which has been substantial–

    Mr. Simon Hughes indicated assent.

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that now, but he forgot to include it in his supplementary question. The inner cities programme and many others, including the urban initiative, have greatly improved the prospects for all our inner cities. There are many examples of that. One of the things from which inner cities suffer is Labour councils.

    Mr. Brazier : Does my right hon. Friend agree that an improvement in the teaching of economic history in our schools–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This question is about inner London.

    Mr. Brazier : I should have said inner London schools, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that every child in inner London should be taught that every Labour Government, without exception, have increased unemployment?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. Labour Governments have increased unemployment, increased waiting lists in hospitals and hugely increased the public sector borrowing requirement to the level to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, if the PSBR were at the level that was reached under the Labour Government, it would be about £50 billion.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Prime Minister if the will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Canavan : Is the Leader of the House aware that the Minister of State with responsibility for health in Scotland is still hell-bent on pushing the Royal Scottish National hospital to opt out, despite opposition from the overwhelming majority of the staff, the local community and relatives of the mentally handicapped patients? Given the Prime Minister’s fine words last week about the power to choose and the right to own, will the right hon. Gentleman defend the people’s right to choose that their hospitals remain owned and administered by local health boards instead of self-governing trusts?

    Mr. MacGregor : There is no doubt that self-governing trusts are already considerably improving the management of the hospitals concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be considering the application to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as others, in the light of consultations.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Does my right hon. Friend agree with the chairman of Granada Television, who said yesterday that the Independent Television Commission had exercised its judgment in favour of quality? Does he recall that it was a Conservative Government who created ITV? Conservative Governments also created independent radio and Channel 4 in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party. Will not yesterday’s decisions mean that the second rate and the incompetent will give way to those who are professional and entertaining? We could not expect the Labour party to begin to understand that.

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. Both choice and quality of television have increased under Conservative Administrations and there will soon be a fifth television channel. We have seen the birth of satellite and cable television, which has expanded the range of programmes that people watch. My hon. Friend is right, too, to suggest that in setting up the Channel 3 and Channel 4 licensing systems, the Government aim to achieve a balance between market forces and quality and to maintain quality. I believe that that is what is happening.

    Mr. Cohen : When the Government did their U-turn on child benefit in the Budget and finally increased it after freezing it for several years, in a peculiar act of meanness they took £1 from the allowance of widows with dependent children. Will the Government recant on that act of meanness and give widows back their £1?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a considerable increase in all social security benefits over the years. There has been a considerable increase also as a result of the targeting of priorities.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 October.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hicks : Does my right hon. Friend recognise the need to revise the arrangements for the payment of European regional development funds, with specific reference to additionality? Is he aware that many people in the regions that have been identified as in need of additional investment believe that we are unable to benefit from the additional resources? Of the £45 million allocated to Cornwall and Plymouth, it will be possible to take up only £27 million because of restrictive measures.

    Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has taken steps to resolve the problems arising from the specific targeting of aid at local level and I shall bring my hon. Friend’s concern to his attention.

    Dr. Reid : Given the Prime Minister’s personal pledge to assist in the regeneration of Lanarkshire and the precedent that has now been set of political intervention in the decisions of British Rail, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will be using their influence to ensure that the new Eurofreight terminal in Scotland is sited at Mossend in Lanarkshire? If it is justifiable politically to intervene in the decisions of British Rail to protect political interests in the south, is not it equally justifiable to protect the economy and the regeneration of employment in Lanarkshire and Scotland?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman knows that I am familiar with Lancashire– [Interruption.] I am familiar with Lancashire because I have just been there, but I meant to say Lanarkshire, where I was born and brought up. The hon. Gentleman’s specific point is not one with which I am familiar, so I shall draw it to the attention of the appropriate Minister.