Mr. Chairman, Members of the Institute of Directors, Ladies and Gentlemen.
It is not easy to address this Conference at this time. For one has only to read or listen to the daily ration of news to know that this has become one of the silly seasons, when mundane events are taken to mean great things!
If I list the Government's achievements, people say I must be planning an election. If Nigel Lawsonthe Chancellor smiles, interest rates must be coming down. I just hope my visit to a fruit and vegetable market in Leeds last Friday isn't read as another policy on agriculture … . I think we've got enough of those already!
So let me tell you what I am not going to do this morning. No election teases. No Budget hints. And certainly no mother-in-law jokes.
I want to look back for a moment to 1979. We knew we faced great difficulties. And you, John Hoskyns, were more prepared than many for the long haul.
In those early days, the No.10 Policy Unit went into purdah for several months working out how to get from where we were to where we wanted to be. Stern faced, you stalked the corridors of No.10 warning against the superficial solutions and the easy compromises. If I asked for a joke for a speech, I got back twenty pages of strategic analysis. [end p1] You called it, I think, a long campaign.
Well, John, although we didn't follow it entirely with your help we did find the bridge between the past and the future; between expectation and reality; between potential and fulfilment. And we totally rejected short-term compromises. As the Chinese proverb says: “It is sometimes unwise, when crossing a chasm, to attempt it in two stages” .
Mr. Chairman, the chasm is always there. Waiting to trap the faint-hearted, the compromisers, and the weak-willed. But now we have crossed it, look at what we have found to be possible, that in 1979 seemed to many beyond our reach. One American newspaper, comparing now with 1976 and the IMF, headlined the news: “A decade after bail out, Britain is number two creditor” . And yes we are—our assets overseas are second only to those of Japan. They are already providing the nation with a good income and can do so for decades to come.
Even the Press at home is starting to recognise the achievements. You may have seen a headline the other day: “Industry's miracle revival” .
Our economy is strong. Britain's industrial base is now healthier than at any time for at least a generation. Since 1979 our manufacturing productivity has grown faster than that of Japan. Faster than Canada, faster than Italy, faster than France, faster than the United States and Germany. [end p2]
And since 1983 we have also had faster economic growth than any other major European country.
But of course statistics never tell the full story.
Those achievements reflect the personal efforts of the many thousands who work together to make them possible. They are your achievements and those of the people who work for you. —The people who work, for example, in our giant companies; 112 of them have a turnover of more than £1 billion a year, and some have profits of over £1 billion a year each; —People who work in our myriad small businesses which together employ 35 per cent of the labour force; —the achievements of our pharmaceutical companies, building on their strengths in R&D, and earning profits from around the world; —the achievements of our textile companies; they are making a come-back; they have invested heavily in the latest technology to offset the lower labour costs of their competitors in the Far E* they have learned to respond more quickly than their overseas rivals; to the changing needs of fashion.
—the achievements of the City, earning a net £7½ billion a year in foreign exchange for the whole nation, maintaining and strengthening London's position as a pre-eminent centre for international finance, and making an enormous contribution to our balance of payments; [end p3] —our newly privatised companies—Jaguar, British Telecom, British Aerospace, British Gas, Amersham International and only this month British Airways, enjoying their new freedom to meet the competition on equal terms and to prosper. —and you Mr. Chairman will surely not allow me to forget, and nor would I wish to the great story of North Sea oil, a story of enterprise and success.
Of course there are problems still to be solved. There always will be. The pace of change, new products, new markets, new competitors, will make sure of that. But there are some commentators who have made their careers pointing to our difficulties, talking down our successes and telling business how to do its job. You know the kind of thing. Well let me say to them: if you can do it better, you go and do just that.
THE REASON WHY
The success is there for all to see. What has brought about the transformation?
I would suggest three things. FIRST the reform of Trade Union legislation; together with the Government's resolve in standing up to overmighty unions, has brought about a whole new atmosphere in industrial relations. It is not only the fact of the legislation, but that its provisions judged aright the mood of the shopfloor. The men and women who worked in industry were fed up with being controlled by those trades union bosses who were more interested in personal power than the [end p4] prosperity of their members and the future of the business. So the old confrontation had a chance to be replaced by the new co-operation, to everyone's advantage. And people have risen to the challenge. They know their future depends on their company's ability to beat the competition. And this afternoon, a new Green Paper on trades union reform is being published. Its purpose is further to strengthen the rights of the individual in relation to trades unions.
SECOND this Government has given back to management both the freedom and the incentive to get on with the real job of managing. No longer do representatives of industry, unions and Government make deals behind closed doors—usurping the role of management. And as for the many controls: —Price control—which didn't and couldn't control inflation—has gone. —Incomes control—which only stored up trouble for the future—gone. —Dividend control, industrial development certificates, and exchange control—all of which distorted decisions—have been abolished. The ability to manage and the scope for enterprise have been restored to business managers, and management has increased in efficiency and stature.
And the THIRD reason for our success? Technological change, so long resisted as the enemy of job security, is being harnessed as the way to future prosperity. Just a few days ago I read this quote in one of our newspapers: “One year on from Wapping the lesson for me is that you cannot postpone change, and you certainly cannot [end p5] stop change. If you attempt it the results are so often much more unpleasant for the very people one is trying to protect” . And that is a statement by Brenda Deanthe leader of a printing union. Even Fleet Street has come to recognise that the old resistance to change, the old adversarial relationships, cannot protect living standards or jobs. Indeed they undermine both.
RESKILLING BRITAIN
Mr. Chairman, “Re-skilling Britain” is your theme—and there are few more important now or in any year.
And in many ways this splendid Royal Albert Hall is an appropriate place to discuss it. For in the age of ALbert and Victoria this country's skills were recognised as pre-eminent throughout the world. A few yards from here stands the original site of Joseph Paxton 's great Crystal Palace, that grand display of national self-confidence. With its 294,000 panes of glass, 4,500 tons of iron, 24 miles of guttering, and its 100,000 exhibits from our far flung Empire, that huge exhibition, more than three times the length of St. Paul's, went from first gleam in the eye to opening day in just twenty-three months. That was 1851. But of course they didn't have to get planning permission then!
Then as now the factor that made the difference was people. Their vision. [end p6] Their talent. Their enterprise. Their skills which translated the dream to reality.
Part of our response today must be to enhance the skills and abilities of our people. For even at a time of high unemployment, employers tell us they are unable to find people to fill some vacancies because so many of those seeking work do not have the skills or qualifications needed in today's world.
The Government is helping to match skills and jobs.
Of course it all begins at school. So we are working to strengthen standards of numeracy and literacy, and a programme to encourage technical and vocational education is now being introduced into our secondary schools right across the country.
After the school years, the Government is co-operating with industry in the most comprehensive programme of training and re-training ever undertaken in this country. —The largest contribution comes through the YTS, which now guarantees a place on a training programme to every unemployed school leaver under eighteen. By this summer up to half a million young people will be in training. With your help, everyone under eighteen now has the opportunity to gain a recognised qualification that will help them into work. No-one under eighteen now need be on the dole. —But we are now going further. [end p7] We have just announced the new Job Training Scheme, particularly for eighteen to twenty-five year-olds who are without work. Those trainees receive six months' training and practical work in skills where there is a shortage, leading to a recognised qualification. As many as 250,000 young people a year will receive this training in co-operation with local industry. —And with our Restart Programme, of which you have probably heard, we shall now be interviewing all the long-term unemployed every six months to help them into work or into appropriate training programmes that will give them a better chance.
I congratulate and thank all those companies which play so important a part in these training schemes. I have witnessed for myself on so many occasions the effectiveness of the training which they give.
I know you will feel frustrated, as I do, that with such massive amounts of expenditure of both private and public money the process of matching jobs to skills is so painfully slow. But training and education are neither easy nor quick, especially for the habit of enterprise.
Nevertheless new jobs are being created and are being filled. I doubt very much that you would have believed me had I stood here in 1983 and forecast a million new jobs within three years. But that is what has happened, helped by the creation of 550 new businesses each week. And now for five out of the last six months unemployment has been falling, and fastest in the North, the North West, the West Midlands and [end p8] Wales. That is a trend we must hope will continue.
But training and retraining should never be seen as a palliative for unemployment. they are and must be seen to be a fundamental part of every business, and of our national life. I hope that the new confidence brought about by our policies will enable you to increase your investment in training.
FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. Chairman, you will not expect me to say anything about the Budget—but I should like to say something about our approach to economic policy.
The Government's management of the economy over the last eight years has produced low inflation and six years of continuous growth. It has led to a higher standard of living than ever before and to a resurgence of industry and commerce.
The background to these achievements and a fundamental cause of them has been the Government's consistent and prudent approach to the management of its own finances. We see a sequence in which prudent financial management has contributed to growth, and growth in turn has helped towards lower income tax, lower borrowing and scope for higher spending on priorities, such as defence, law and order, pensions and the health service.
Lower income tax is undoubtedly an incentive to the higher growth from which all else comes.
We have reduced income tax and we have made quite clear our intention to reduce it further. [end p9] But we can only do that at the pace dictated by prudence. Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 1300 24 February 1987
Now there are who suggest that it is wrong to want to reduce income tax further. I believe it is wrong for the State to take and spend so much of people's earnings that they are left with too little for their own families and to save for their own future. We believe the citizen is entitled to keep the lion's share of his earnings. End of section checked against BBC Radio News.
We also believe in wider property ownership—houses, shares, building society accounts, pension schemes, savings—property in all its forms. For ownership brings dignity, self-respect, independence and security for the future. It is a fundamental freedom.
CONCLUSION
This is a Government which is constant in its purpose and consistent in its direction. —a Government strong enough to hold to its course whatever the storms and buffetings. —a Government whose confidence derives from its being in tune with the aims and ambitions of the people. This is a Government which has work yet to do. And it is my hope and dream that we may complete the task to which we have set our hand. Question and Answer session begins [end p10]
Chairman
Prime Minister, you said that you kindly would answer questions and I have a number here that deal with one of the main elements of your talk this morning, namely on education, in which you told us quite a lot of the various Government initiatives in retraining and reskilling.
I have two questions here though here which deal, I think, or ask, on the rather more formal side of our educational system:
Would you agree that our formal education system is doing a worse job than ever before, and in what sense could they be regarded as poor and could be improved?
Another one, dealing with the universities:
The leading article in “The Independent” this morning said that our universities are now seriously underfunded, resulting in a loss of staff and lowering of student numbers. Would you like to comment on that please?
Prime Minister
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that the first two questions come on education. I know you feel strongly about some of the shortcomings.
Let me make it clear there are some children in some local education authorities who are receiving a superb education. Others [end p11] are receiving not a good education, and I am afraid a fair sprinkle of political indoctrination—and that just simply will not do.
We are going to make considerable changes.
First, we believe that there must be more powers to the head teacher and parents and governors than there are at present. We believe they will see that the children have a much better curriculum and are taught what we would call “true education” .
We also are taking steps to try to secure more choice, particularly for parents in inner cities, where some of the educational problems are at their worst; and as you know, we are setting up some twenty city technological colleges and, indeed, the first one is being created in Solihull in Birmingham today; city technological colleges, with the help of industry, to give excellent technological and basic education—but the real reason is not only that; it is to give some parents the choice to enable them to get out of the hands of some of the local education authorities who are not giving the children proper education.
We also are going, for the first time in our history, to lay down a basic curriculum of certain subjects which must be taught in every school and tests of attainment of the pupils will have to be carried out at various stages throughout their educational career. I hope and believe that this will be welcomed by most parents and by most employers.
Where things are going well, we do not wish to disturb them—leave them to continue to do well. Where they are not going well, we must in fact take the steps which I have enumerated to see that children, after eleven years of compulsory education, come out properly equipped in literacy and numeracy, properly equipped in [end p12] the disciplines, knowing some of the technologies, and properly equipped for the world of work which they will face.
With regard to universities, the funding has been increased and we have tried in fact, together with your help, to get closer cooperation between universities and companies, because although we have some brilliant inventions, you know we do not always manage to translate those into profit-making projects. Indeed, some of our excellent research work is taken up with great enthusiasm by overseas countries. But, in fact, if you take polytechnics and universities together, you will find that there are now about 140,000 more students in graduate training than there were when we first came to power.
Do not underestimate the work done by polytechnics. Those were created mainly for vocational training and they are in fact doing a splendid job.
We do hope to get more into what is called the “switch scheme” , where we and you have put money into the universities for greater cooperation.
We are hoping for great things from what is called a “link scheme” —the jargon in this subject is terrible!—it is called a “link scheme” —a “link and a pull-through scheme” ! Would you believe it! What are you pulling through? Let me tell you! You are trying to pull through the results of research into industry to get that research translated into profitable products, so when we have got the profitable products we have then got more work for more research and so on and on goes the wealth-creating cycle. Indeed, with all of those, we are trying to get our universities and polytechnics taking an ever more active part in the fundamental work of wealth creation. [end p13]
Chairman
Here is one, I think, that is on a related education theme, but to do really with what businesses themselves and companies can do to help the education—and I believe—the wealth-creation climate in this country and whether perhaps, as you have gone around the country, whether you have seen sufficient links between companies—as our questioner here has one of his own up in Stockport, where for the last three years they have adopted a local school.
Prime Minister
I think that is one of the ways to go. I find enormous variation as I go round.
I think what you have to do, if I may ask you to do, is take much more interest in the work of your local schools. I mean, the fact is that unless you do so, then there are not many people teaching in that school who will have very much idea about the world of enterprise and industry. Teachers will have gone from school to university, back to school, and unless we get interest by local business of all kinds—sometimes it is through parents talking, sometimes it is through industry going in and taking a real interest in what the pupils are doing—that it comes that way.
I have seen that working in many areas, and there is also a marvellous scheme called “Young Enterprise” which teaches young people actually how to set up companies, produce products, how to sell them, how to market them—and I have seen that working very well. [end p14]
I also hope you will take a good deal of interest in our technical and vocational initiative which is going now nationwide. We had great difficulty in getting that into a number of schools because the education system itself was not prepared to take it. So really due to David Young and Keith Joseph 's initiative: they came to me one day and said: “The education authorities are not taking it up. We are going to put up money from the Manpower Services Commission for schools to bid for, for technical and vocational education in all the technologies!” Of course, the moment you did that they all wanted it and it is going very well! But we had to go around in a different way.
It is easier, you know, to produce equipment and to build buildings than it is to get the requisite number of teachers, but we are now training the teachers. Again, I have been round, and all of a sudden young people are seeing a different world and when they see that what they are learning is going to help them with the world of work they are really quite excited about what they are learning about business.
So really, my whole message to you is to get more and more involved at every stage in the education system, because in this country we want the essence of wealth creation, which is the key to our prosperity, the key to our standing in the world, to be more and more a part of the daily thinking and education both at school and at college. [end p15]
Chairman
There are two here on local government and rates. One of them, I think, captures what our colleagues have in mind.
In the context of reskilling, we are told that it is healthy for industry, but we are also told it involves investment. The questioner comes from Sheffield and his question is:
How is one meant to afford to invest when we are tied to a city whose council seem to be able to charge what they want in rates? When will extreme left councils be brought to book and accountable to the industry which pays their way?
Prime Minister
Yes. There is not the slightest shadow of doubt that some councils are not interested in private enterprise and are more interested in control of the lives of the people within their borders than in securing business which will bring jobs and prosperity.
Now, I think we have got that on a bigger scale than we have ever had it before and you have seen some of the reports from the National Audit Commission.
At the moment, we have a Bill going through the House of Commons to reform the rating system in Scotland. It is even more urgent in Scotland than in England, because they had a rating revaluation which produced a lot of distortions and we just could not leave it much longer.
That will be followed in the next parliamentary session—whether in this Parliament or the next—(applause) I have not finished! … whether in this Parliament or the next by a Rating [end p16] Reform Bill to apply to England and Wales. In that Rating Reform Bill, we are going to take away from local authorities the power to charge what rates they like on industry, because high rates are driving away business and they are stopping the formation of small business, and over a transition period of five or six years they will become a unified business rate.
Now, it will have various effects up and down the country, which is why we have to have a long transition period, because good authorities are careful with their spending money and they know the effect of having high rate increases, and there are some which merely use industry to milk and spend the money not always on sensible projects. So that rating reform will come in, which will also completely transform domestic rating as well, and it will transform also that terrible thing known as the “Rate Support Grant” which has about fifty different criteria for its distribution which no-one understands. It is a fundamental piece of legislation and I look forward to it being introduced and even more to securing its total passage through the House of Commons and their Lordships' House on to the Statute Book. (applause).
Chairman
I have a number of other questions, Prime Minister, to take you into the next Parliament, one on the competitive tendering for local government services:
After years of promises of Government action and the failure to include it in last week's Local Government Bill, can you assure us that competitive tendering for local government services will be included in the Party's manifesto at the next election? [end p17]
Prime Minister
Yes. (applause) I am sorry it had to be taken out. There are several things which had we left in that Bill it would have had no chance of getting through in this session. We had to put a number of things in that Bill to deal with some of the financial abuses of local authorities, particularly some of the deferred purchase schemes. It was important to get those through, so the other things have had to take a back seat for the time being, but the answer to the question, as I indicated, was yes, but I thought you might like to know the reason for it.
Chairman
And Sunday trading is next.
With regard to Sunday trading, would the Prime Minister confirm her continued support for the amendment of the Shops Act and the likelihood of this appearing in the Conservative Party Manifesto for the general election?
Prime Minister
It is one of these difficult problems. Everyone agrees that the law at the moment makes nonsense, and we cannot get people to agree how to change it. So after the Major Report, we accepted the conclusions of the Report and went for a complete deregulation. As you know, that did not get through.
I agree that the Sunday Trading Law is a mess and we shall have to find an agreed and reasonable way of amending it. We shall continue to look for it, but until we have got some kind of agreement, I do not think that there is much point in bringing [end p18] forward legislation. We have got to work to get agreement first.
I think some people will agree to some things. I myself do not think it is any answer to say: “Leave it to the local authorities” because they are so disparate in the way in which they apply the law.
So yes, I accept the need to change the law. It is finding an agreed way which will steer it through the Commons and the Lords.
Chairman
Now a question on the EMS.
When will the Prime Minister join the EMS and thus get assistance from other central bankers to keep sterling at its present advantageous level for us exporters?
Prime Minister
Look! First, the EMS will not necessarily keep sterling at any particular level against the dollar or any of the currencies in the EMS at any particular level against the dollar. It is not that kind of system. Nor can you, by a system, keep a currency at a particular level, except by prudent management of the economy and then how it compares with other economies, and you have seen in the EMS that you have changes in the values and you have seen the argey bargey that you have to go through to get it.
There are several things that some of the currencies in the EMS have not yet got that we have, and it would be a much better system if they had, and I think if they were to concentrate on some of those things. [end p19]
For example, they have not got freedom of capital movement. Germany has, we have. Holland has, but the others have not. They have got very considerable restrictions on capital movement.
We run very different internal systems as you know, and those can cause differences in the value of their currency.
The problem of going into a fixed snake is this:
You have only got two ways of defending the value of your currency, and the moment you go to a fixed arrangement there are some speculators who will pitch you up against the limits to see how you are going to defend them, and there are only two ways in which you can:
One is by using scarce reserves, and there is no way in which you can carry on with that for very long. And the other is by swinging up an interest rate very sharply, and you have no possible choice but to do that.
Now, at the moment I have recoiled from that. I do not think it would be in our best interest, but I do hope—and when I talk to the EMS I say to them: “Look! You talk to us about coming into your system. You get some more freedoms in your system that we have got, so that we are much more likely to be similar types of currency and then it would make it a good deal easier!” But do not think, I beg of you, that there is a miracle way of retaining the value of your currency.
Something like 95%; of the movements in currency are not trading movements—they are speculative movements—and the only way to keep a stable value of your currency is when all countries in the world run their currencies prudently, without large deficits, in such a way as to have low inflation. Even then, you will get [end p20] problems, with sudden changes in the prices of commodities, but I would submit to you that we could not have achieved the value of sterling now, both in relation to the dollar and the deutschmark, that we have had we been in that EMS. We could not have had the value to the dollar we have now and the value with the deutschmark, and I am interested that that is the one you would like to retain. (applause)
Chairman
Prime Minister, you mentioned tax in your talk and you also, though, reminded us of the imminence of the Budget and the constraints that that imposes, but I have a question here that is concerned about the brain drain to the United States as a result of their reduction to below 30%; in their highest rates of tax.
Would you like to comment on that?
Prime Minister
Yes, it is worrying that the United States federal tax, their top rate will be lower than today's standard rate of income tax. There also, of course, are some state taxes on top of the federal taxes and they have made many other changes. Yes, I do find it very worrying and I am constantly saying to people that unless we can keep the best management and the best managers, the best engineers and the best scientists in this country, we shall be depriving ourselves of the means of future prosperity.
It is very much for this reason that against great comment from some sources, we took down the top rate—it was 60%;—from its former 98%; for savings and 83%; earnings. At that time, it was [end p21] about the average of all the European rates.
We also improved enormously the stock option systems, because that too we found was taking a number of people over to the United States.
I cannot say anything more about it, but it is something we shall have to keep a close eye on, because wealth creation is what we need in this country and we need the best managers, the best engineers and the best scientists as well as the best people in the entertainment world, in the arts world, which adds so much, in the literature world. We want Britain to be a place where they are proud to be and where they wish to continue to be domiciled.
Chairman
Now, on management, what can be done in your view to encourage more women to play a greater role in British management?
Prime Minister
I think we are getting more women playing a greater role in British management; more women in the City, more women in business; but I do not find now the prejudices against women that there used to be. I find that if industry finds a woman who is very very able she is just as likely to be promoted as any other person of ability and that is really what we want.
It is much much more difficult to get more women to come into parliamentary life. I think there are quite deep-seated reasons for that, but most of us would like to see more. First, because we believe they have a great deal to offer, and it would also make the rest of us a good deal less conspicuous and we should be normal [end p22] instead of being looked at as something of a phenomenon. I do not like being a phenomenon—I prefer to be a human being of the feminine gender! (applause)
Chairman
A sensitive subject, but one which affects many of us in the audience now:
The Institute of Directors in South Africa is a positive force for change, for new creation and for the training and upgrading of the skills of the black majority.
Can we count on your continued support in the future for the more enlightened business sector?
Prime Minister
Yes, I agree with you, that I think industry in South Africa has led the way to breaking down apartheid, because it has given far more training, far more skills, and has broken down the barriers at some of the frontiers, and we have constantly been saying that if you put on sanctions against the very people who have been trying to break down apartheid, you are in fact doing a great disservice to the whole of South Africa, and to put on sanctions would be the very last thing that would help anyone in that country, and as you know, we have stood out against sanctions, and we shall continue to do so, but I would like to say thank you to the many people in industry over there who have led the way in trying to get rid of apartheid. (applause) [end p23]
Chairman
Prime Minister, I think we have …
Prime Minister
Is that all?
Chairman
Do you want one more?
Prime Minister
I will take a couple! I have got to go and do it in the House of Commons this afternoon, so I might as well get as much practice this morning (laughter and applause).
Chairman
About the health industry. Health is a growth industry which people want and will pay for in one way or another.
Are we right to organise what should be a demand-led industry by tight supply-side controls?
Prime Minister
Well, I really would like to ask the person who has asked that precisely what he means!
Even if you have a demand-led industry, someone has got to pay for it and the payment can only come in one way—out of the pockets of the people—and insofar as it is referring to the Health Service, the day I walked into No. 10 Downing Street the amount of money spent on the Health Service that year was £7½ billion. This [end p24] year, it is £18.¾ billion. That does not sound to me like supply-side constraints.
I remember that in 1977 under the previous government, there was a royal commission—a commission under Alec Merrison whom you all know, very able,—who looked into the financing of the Health Service and he said: “Look! We had no difficulty in believing one witness, that the Health Service could take the entire national income, such are the demands!” Once you have something which you do not pay for at point of demand, once you have new treatments coming along, of course the demand is infinite. But it is does not matter who you are, what government you are, you have got to decide your priorities.
There has been much more money made available, more doctors, more nurses, but you know, in the last two years, I think for the first time we have concentrated on getting a system of good management into the Health Service, because there was no management. There was what was called “management by consensus” which meant that the decisions waited to be taken and were not taken on time.
Roy Griffiths is now looking into the management and just this last few months we really decided we must give priority to getting down the waiting lists; but instead of just allocating a bit more to each of the area health authorities, we put up £25 million extra this year and said: “Now look! You bid for it! We want the maximum number of reductions in waiting lists. You bid for that money and tell us how much you can get the waiting lists down in some of the big areas by the use of this money!”
And, of course, we have come in with bids which should help to have 100,000 more operations or treatments which avoid operations [end p25] than we would ever have had before.
We shall repeat it again next year.
It is not only the amount of money; it is the management of that money and the value for money, and I think that this Government is handling it better than any previous government and certainly, the resources which are available, the capital resources, the equipment, the number of doctors, the number of nurses, the number of physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and the way in which they are paid, is a vast improvement than anything previously.
It is the biggest organisation in Europe and there is no way in which Government can manage every hospital, even though we get complaints about it. You have to rely on good management. You have to rely on the cooperation of doctors and nurses and ordinary staff and thanks to Roy Griffiths and thanks to his Report, and thanks to the new spirit in the Health Service which there is, that is now happening and I hope you will agree that we have a good Health Service, because although you see lots of comments and complaints, when you see people, as I do going round the hospitals, they are full of gratitude for the treatment that they have received.
Now, I am not sure whether that was the answer the questioner expected but it is not a bad answer to be able to give! (applause)
Chairman
Prime Minister, as usual, you have dealt with all the questions so expeditiously that I have run out, but I am delighted to see that I am in time, so I will not get into trouble from my [end p26] superiors—and you are never in trouble from yours!
I think that the warmth of your reception when you arrived here said far better than anything that I can how much we appreciate your being with us today, the admiration and respect in which all of us here hold you and I am sure that as you leave us now, as you go out, the warmth of your retirement applause will tell you better than I can again just how grateful we are for your having been here. Thank you very much indeed! (applause)