The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 January 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Electronic Mail

    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.

    The Prime Minister: My office is currently studying options which would provide electronic mail access to Downing Street. A decision on the feasibility of such a service will be made as soon as possible.

     

    Internet

    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server “open.gov.UK” or any specific departmental server.

    The Prime Minister: My office is about to begin trials of a system that will connect Downing Street to the Internet. The trial will examine the possibility of offering a World Wide Web service to Downing Street. The trial will also examine ways of allowing users to electronically retrieve documents which would normally be available through more traditional sources. Any system chosen would not replace any of these normal distributions methods.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference on VE/VJ Day Commemorations – 11 January 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s press conference, with Viscount Cranborne, given in London on Wednesday 11th January 1995 regarding the Government’s plans for the VE Day and VJ Day Commemorations.

    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE:

    Good morning, Prime Minister, Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Robert Cranborne, I am the Chairman of the Steering Group which is coordinating the commemorations for the end of the war – VE Day and VJ Day. I would like to thank you very much, Prime Minister, for coming here this morning and for launching the programme which we have in mind for this summer in May and in August.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Robert, thank you very much indeed. Perhaps firstly I might thank you all for being here this morning to launch what I think is going to be a very remarkable commemoration.

    This year is the 50th anniversary of the Second World War, the most devastating war in history, the cause I think well known to all of us – Nazism in Europe and militarism in Japan. And perhaps as much as any war in history, this was a people’s war against tyranny, its impact was made ever more devastating by the use of modern technology. Untold millions of people died in that war, servicemen and civilians alike. Some of mankind’s greatest aesthetic achievements were destroyed and tragically, even at the moment of liberation, millions of people were enslaved again.

    But of course in the end the tyranny lost, those who remained enslaved for four decades after 1945 now have their freedom. It was for them a long and painful wait. But they would not have obtained that freedom at all if the Allies had not won that war in 1945, liberty would not have been possible today in Eastern Europe, nor frankly, if we had lost, would we have had liberty in Western Europe either.

    It is for those reasons and many others, familiar I think to everyone in this room today, that it is absolutely right to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of the War.

    Our commemorations are going to focus on two of the most significant dates this century, VE Day when the fighting ended in Europe, and VJ Day when the war as a whole came to a close.

    We have considered and consulted very carefully about how best to commemorate these great events. We rested very heavily on the advice and the guidance of the Veterans organisations who perhaps best represent the men and the women who fought in those wars and who won them. And I am delighted that we have with us today Lord Slim, whose father commanded the 14th Army in Burma, and Field Marshal Lord Bramall who fought himself as a young officer in the Normandy campaign.

    Let me turn directly now to the two specific anniversaries. The anniversary of VE Day will be marked, across the nation, over the weekend of 6-8 May. The theme is reconciliation, a celebration of 50 years peace in Europe and hope for the future. Above all, the expectations that the young people of all nations will continue to live in a peaceful Europe as this century draws to a close and as we prepare for the next Millennium.

    Commemorative events will be held right around the country. In London, the focal point will be events in Hyde Park which will bring together veterans, families, young people and the leaders or representatives of all the countries that played a significant part of the war in Europe. They will join in a national and international celebration of the peace which we so dearly cherish in this country.

    In addition, Her Majesty the Queen will attend a Service of Remembrance at St Paul’s and host a lunch at Buckingham Palace in honour of Heads of State and other representatives.

    The VJ commemorations in August will have quite a different theme. They will provide the opportunity for the nation and the Commonwealth to give thanks for the end of the war and to remember solemnly the sacrifices of the war-time generations. First and foremost we will pay tribute to the veterans of these islands and the Commonwealth. But the Second World War of course was total war, the entire nation was mobilised, not just the men and women in uniform. So we will remember also the wider contribution of the Merchant Navy, the landgirls, the Bevan boys, the ambulance and fire services, and many more, all of whom in their separate ways, through their own efforts and their own determination, played a vital part in winning the war.

    Events to mark VJ Day will include a Service of Remembrance at Buckingham Palace, including a march of veterans who served with Commonwealth forces. Our five years of World War II commemorations will end on a solemn note on the evening of 20 August when a Beating Retreat and Sunset Ceremonies will be held in London, in Edinburgh, in Belfast and in Cardiff.

    In a few moments the Field Marshal will no doubt wish to remind you of the companionship and the caring which the Royal British Legion and other veterans organisations and charities provide, and I would certainly wish to share in his appreciation of their remarkable work over so many years.

    Later this month will see the launch of the Tribute and Promise Campaign. The tribute reflects the nation’s gratitude and our acknowledgement of the debt that we owe to our veterans’ sacrifices. The promise is a reaffirmation by the voluntary organisations that the caring and the companionship will not end when the commemorations end. I welcome the objectives of the campaign and I am delighted that they will take a prominent part in the open air service outside Buckingham Palace on 19 August.

    Our commemorations to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of the war will give the nation the opportunity to remember the actions and the sacrifices of those who won the war. The best way to keep pace with them is I believe, as the Queen said in her Christmas broadcast, to resolve to cherish our liberty, to be considerate to our neighbours, be friends with people of different races and religions, and to recognise our faults before we criticise others.

    We all have a responsibility to honour the peace these commemorations mark. I hope that we can all work together towards making them a success. I hope that you all have the full details of the commemoration in your packs. I would like in a few moments to invite Lord Bramall to say a few words on behalf of the veterans’ organisations. And then, unless Robert Cranborne, who is leading the overall steering committee would like to add anything further, we will seek to take your questions.

    Let me just add a final point. I believe these commemorations are not just a casual event. These commemorations actually mark one of the most remarkable events in the whole history, not just of this island race, but of the world as a whole. If it had not been for the events marked by these commemorations this year, you and I would not be sitting here today, we would not have the sort of country that we have today, we would not have the nature of Europe that we have today and I doubt very much that we would have the peaceful nature of the world at large that we can see in so much of the globe at present.

    That was what was at stake in the 1939-1945 war, that was what was won for us by the people who directed that war, who fought in that war and who won that war. I have not a shred of doubt that it is not only our privilege, but our responsibility, to mark those remarkable events with the commemorations that we will hold this spring and in August.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    JOHN SMITH (UK NEWS):

    Could the Prime Minister tell us what consultations took place with the governments of Germany and Japan concerning the tone of the celebrations and commemorations that he has outlined and also if their heads of government and veterans organisations have been invited to play any part?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have discussed our plans with a lot of nations, we have certainly discussed them with the Japanese and we have discussed them with the Germans and they are content with the plans that we have in mind. Detailed planning beyond that has been dealt with here in this country with the degree of consultation that I referred to earlier and that Lord Bramall mentioned as well, but yes, there has been consultation with both the nations you mentioned.

    QUESTION (POLISH NATIONAL PARTY):

    Prime Minister, is there going to be any mention throughout the celebrations about the Polish General [inaudible] who recently died in Edinburgh and who contributed to the Second World War victory without dispute?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I will ask Robert to respond to that. I am surrounded on this platform – and indeed in the rows immediately ahead of me – by those people who spent not many hours but literally days and weeks working on the details so I am extremely well-served on this occasion and I think I will invite Robert to respond to you.

    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE:

    May I make a general point about the Polish contribution to the Second World War? I have personal links with Poland which go back to the earliest years of my childhood. I was brought up on the dramatic story of Polish heroism in 1939 but perhaps above all on the debt of gratitude that we the British people owe the Polish people. I suspect that it would have been very difficult for us to have won the Battle of Britain without the contribution of Polish pilots and indeed pilots of other nationalities, including Czechs and Americans and it is extremely important to us that the Poles perhaps above all, as one of the principal victim nations of the 1940s, should be in a position to receive the gratitude of this country and that includes not only those who have survived but perhaps more important, those who died whether as military men or indeed in the concentration camps of Europe so I hope that that is a message that you will be able to take back to Poland and that the Polish people will be aware of the gratitude of the British people and we are aware of the debt that we owe them.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I add a further point to that about Poland? I had the pleasure and privilege last year of attending the commemoration of the Warsaw uprising, a remarkable evening in Poland attended by the President of Germany and the heads of a lot of other governments as well and I suppose one of the most tangible successes you can see of the last fifty years and why reconciliation is such an apt theme for us this year is that even as we speak today Poland are applying to join the European Union and the two principal supporters of Poland joining the European Union as soon as it practical are the governments of the United Kingdom and of Germany and I think that is a very practical illustration of the way in which reconciliation is working not just in terms of commemoration vital and necessary though that is, but also in terms of the practical changes we are seeing on the continent of Europe that could not have occurred but for the success of the Allies in the War.

    JONATHAN MARCUS (BBC WORLD SERVICE):

    Prime Minister, you answered the question about the contacts with the German and Japanese authorities, you have said that they were happy with the nature of the celebrations that were taking place. I think there is some difference in the nature of the presence and representation at the various celebrations from Japan and Germany and could you outline why there is that difference?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    VE-Day relates specifically to the European theatre and we are inviting to the VE-commemorations over fifty heads of state or government or their representatives of all those nations that participated significantly in the European theatres of war; attending also will be ambassadors from other countries.

    We have, as I said, discussed our plans both with the Germans, the Japanese and of course with other countries as well though your question related particularly to them. They are content with the arrangements. Ambassadors from the world’s nations, including of course the Japanese ambassador, will be invited to appropriate events during the international commemorations between the 6th and 8th of May. I hope that meets the question you put to me.

    QUESTION (TASS):

    Is there any information whether President Yeltsin will be amongst the fifty heads of state to participate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is too early to say precisely who will be coming. Invitations are just going out and it is too early to say yet who will be coming. Early indications are that we will get a very significant response to the invitations but we don’t yet know precisely who will be here.

    COLIN BROWN (THE INDEPENDENT):

    Lord Bramall, a great deal has been said about reconciliation today. Could you say whether the veterans would regard it as still premature after fifty years to see units of the German army on the streets of London?

    LORD BRAMALL:

    It is an entirely hypothetical question, isn’t it, because there won’t be units of the German army walking down anywhere because the emphasis on the 6-7-8 May will be on youth and reconciliation and looking forward and there will be no military parades at that time at all and at the time when there will be a military parade of course it is entirely a national and Commonwealth thing so the question just doesn’t arise.

    VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE:

    Of course, it is perhaps worth noting that the people during the run-up to D-Day who were most anxious that at a certain point the Germans should be represented in a spirit of reconciliation during the course of the whole series of Second World War 50th anniversary commemorations were representatives of the British armed forces, both present and retired.

    I have found during the course of the last eighteen months that there is nobody more dedicated to the spirit of reconciliation with Germany than veterans in this country and as you well know I am sure, there are already many opportunities and reunions for that reconciliation to take place on an annual basis.

    QUESTION:

    Could the Prime Minister please answer the question as to whether the heads of state of Germany and Japan and indeed the other Axis Powers have been invited or not and whether any of their veterans will be attending?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think those questions have been answered if you read the transcript but I will make it clear to you again.

    We have invited to the VE-commemorations fifty heads of state and government from the nations that participated in the European theatre of war; that includes Germany but not Japan of course.

    The commemorations later in the year in August are a separate sort of commemoration, they are commemorations more for the Commonwealth, they are not commemorations that involve heads of government elsewhere. The Japanese ambassador will be attending between 6-8 May as I said earlier as will ambassadors from other countries around the world.

    QUESTION (BBC NEWSROUND):

    Prime Minister, what part do you expect young people to play in these commemorations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think young people, successive generations, are the principal beneficiaries of the outcome of the War; it was their future that people fought for, it is their future that is being built now. I hope they will not regard it is a piece of ancient history; I hope they will regard the outcome of the War as something that was as significant to their lifestyle and their future as anything else that has happened in the last fifty years so I hope they will take a very great interest in the commemoration ceremonies, I hope they will attend them. I hope they will take the opportunity where they can’t attend to watch them on television.

    I would echo very strongly what Robert Cranborne had to say about the remarkable coverage across the media as a whole of the D-Day celebrations. I had the pleasure of being at Arramanche and in other places but I saw subsequently the television pictures; I found it as moving watching them afterwards as it was being there seeing them live. I think they will have that impact upon young people as well.

    It is often the view of people that we are cynical these days beyond the levels of cynicism that existed in past generations. I don’t believe that to be true, I think D-Day gave the lie to that argument. I think there will be a much greater depth of understanding and interest amongst young people than many perhaps would suspect and I thoroughly welcome that. It is their country, it is their future, it was for them that the people who won’t be here and who fought in the War and the people who did and are still alive that they made those sacrifices. I think it is about young people, I hope they will take a great interest and I myself believe that they will.

    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE:

    We had a directive from the Prime Minister – a directive which seems to me to be an extremely sensible one for the reasons he has given – that young people should play a very prominent part in the VE-Day commemorations above all because we were thinking about peace, about reconciliation and the future. Therefore, young people will play very much a part in the events of the VE-Day weekend but more than that, in view of what the Prime Minister said about education, the Secretary of State for Education has taken a programme of distribution of what I think are called in the jargon “education packs” to every school in the country so that they will have an opportunity to study a little more carefully the implications of what happened fifty years ago and the results of those events.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I know you have already touched on this but can you tell us to what lengths you went to try to ensure that after last year’s discussions about the D-Day celebrations no-one was offended this time, even in this country plus heads of state abroad?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nobody is seeking to offend anybody. The purpose of this is reconciliation as we indicated. Reconciliation and commemoration are the two themes.

    This isn’t a Government occasion, this is an occasion for all the people in this country and the Commonwealth so it isn’t for the Government to direct what has to be done and to say: “We think this is the way it should be done!” so we went to a great deal of trouble by consulting the people who would be most directly involved. That was the purpose of involving so fully the veterans organisations, it was the purpose of drawing together the rather distinguished group that Robert Cranborne chairs to make the arrangement for May and for August.

    That work has gone on for a long time. We learned a lot from the preparations for D-Day. It is an enormous task. I think it is very easy to underestimate the sheer scale of planning that is necessary to ensure that these two events are satisfactory so the direct answer to your question is: a very great deal and the way in which we did it was by consulting as widely as possible. The other point I would make is that that consultation isn’t yet over. That consultation will continue right up to finalising the plans and right up the execution of those plans on the days concerned. We will continue to consult.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, will you be attending events outside this country because for example there are major events outside the United Kingdom in conjunction with VE-Day, for example the commemoration of fifty years of liberation of concentration camps in Germany?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is certainly probable that I will be attending events outside the United Kingdom. It is not yet determined which events I will be attending but I certainly will be attending events beyond the United Kingdom as well.

    BRIAN HAMILTON (BRITISH FORCES BROADCASTING SERVICE):

    Could I ask how much money the Government is likely to be putting on one side to fulfil all of the plans and joined with that, how much of that money is likely to be put on one side to help veterans, especially those from Scotland perhaps and the farthest-flung places, come to the capital to attend those functions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We can’t be precisely clear what the total costs will be because the final arrangements are not made. It will be a few millions, quite how many millions I don’t think is clear but that cost will be met by the Government out of Departmental budgets. All this was considered of course at the time of the last Public Expenditure Round so the money has been put to one side and will be available.

    As far as the events are concerned, all the events of course will carry no charges at all. There will be events in different parts of the country, it isn’t the case that everybody has to come to London. The Government will not of course be meeting travelling expenses but it will not be charging for any of the events and the full cost of the events has been set aside in Government budgets.

    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE:

    We are very keen, as the Prime Minister said, that all these events should be national events, that the whole nation should be given an opportunity and encouraged to pay its tribute. However, it is equally important that all parts of the United Kingdom should be seen to be fully represented in the central events in London. This does present difficulties over travel and of course we have to be careful about public expenditure, otherwise if we spent too lavish a sum of money you would quite rightly criticise us.

    It is therefore very nice to be able to record that we are in the process of securing sponsorship from different parts of the United Kingdom but particularly for Scotland to help veterans who would not otherwise be able to come down to London. That sponsorship is not fully secured but it is well on the way.

    RAYMOND LLOYD (FREEDOM HOUSE REVIEW):

    On the theme of reconciliation and given that these are not among the 194 events listed, what plans are there for Britain to be represented in Dresden on 14 February, the fiftieth anniversary of the loss of 30,000 civilian lives, and in Hiroshima in August where among the civilians there fifty years ago were 20,000 Korean forced labourers?

    Similarly, given that the fiftieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Russian forces is to be commemorated on 27 January, what plans are there to commemorate the opening of concentration camps by British forces such as [inaudible] and Belsen in April 1995?

    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE:

    As far as we know, the Japanese have as yet no plans for commemorations at Hiroshima, at least we haven’t been advised of them so we are not in a position to be able to answer that particular part of your question.

    As far as Dresden is concerned, as you know the Germans are mounting what sounds like a very splendid series of commemorations in that city and although this doesn’t form a part of our own official programme which is of course purely a British affair, they have been kind enough to ask His Royal Highness The Duke of Kent whom I understand will be travelling to those particular commemorations and we welcome that.

    QUESTION (ASSOCIATED PRESS):

    You have mentioned the theme reconciliation so many times but I think that the question still remains to be answered clearly about why this theme was not extended to VJ-Day including invitations to all of the countries involved there.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Lord Slim may wish to say something about this.

    LORD SLIM:

    May I start by saying that the media as a whole, through no fault of its own, sometimes gets the wrong idea about the Japanese warrior. I think if you look in the history books you will not find a time when we have had to fight such a courageous, tenacious and tough foe. I think that there is no-one who fought anywhere in Asia who doesn’t have the greatest respect for the Japanese soldier.

    There were other bits that went on in nations that were crushed, nations that were defeated, where perhaps the behaviour was not in accordance with the way that we believe a prisoner of war or a civilian internee was looked after.

    We veterans now are all charities, we look after our people and we remember those who are still buried all over Asia and we remember the people of those countries who were maltreated in the most beastly way so when we remember those who did not come back, we remember our mates and we remember the people who were trodden so hard upon in the countries that were defeated.

    So our reconciliation is a little different. We admire the capabilities of the Japanese warrior, we are perfectly happy to meet Japanese in different circumstances when we travel and go abroad but we do not necessarily wish to meet them all the time; I tell you that because the media doesn’t always get it right. There is no question in this case that VJ-Day is the Veterans’ Day, End-of-War Day, Commonwealth Day and I think the Japanese who we speak to perfectly understand that it is a Commonwealth Day; we are interested in meeting those of the Commonwealth like the great Indian Army who fought beside us and I think that is it.

    When you talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Field Marshal and I were in both those places within about six or seven months of the bomb being dropped. There were casualties, it was horrific but as the Field Marshal said, we were also planning to have to attack and take Japan and you don’t have to be a military genius when you know that your enemy fights to the death and never surrenders to know that the casualties inflicted on this country by doing so if we had had to would have been far in excess of the numbers of killed, maimed and wounded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    That is our view, a very friendly view but basically our enemies at that time – friends now – particularly the Japanese, were not in the Commonwealth of British Nations.

    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE:

    I would if I may, just as a matter of record, confirm that we have been in close touch with our Japanese friends and consulted them over how they saw the question of commemorations which for reasons Lord Slim has made clear were bound to be delicate in view of the events we are commemorating and indeed the survivors. They have confirmed to us that they would not feel it appropriate for them to be represented at what is a Commonwealth occasion and they are very happy to be represented at VE-Day where one of the themes is reconciliation. I hope and believe that our Japanese allies are wholly content with our approach and as long as that remains the case I am perfectly content as well. As I say, these are matters which stir high emotions on both sides.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, we have given the Prime Minister quite a long ride; he has certainly been patient with me. I wonder whether we might draw this part of the proceedings to a close. The Prime Minister has another appointment.

    Anybody who wishes to bombard me or any of my colleagues with questions, we are here; we also have a representative selection of veterans who I am extremely grateful to for turning up. I see a number of familiar faces from the D-Day events here and it is very nice to see them again. Perhaps, if I may, I would particularly like to mention the representatives of SAAFA and the British Legion and Admiral Wilson, Mr. Jobson and General Charles Grey who have put so much work into their contributions to this campaign. I am sure that if any of you would like to ask any of us questions and reactions we would be delighted to try and answer them as best we can.

    Thank you very much for coming and thank you for entering into the spirit of this. I look forward to constructive suggestions over the next few months.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 January 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

     

    Intelligence and Security Committee

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is the annual expenditure earmarked for the Intelligence and Security Committee;

    (2) if he expects to give oral evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee;

    (3) if senior staff below the level of director general in the security services are to be allowed to give evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee if the committee requests this;

    (4) at what time of the year he expects to receive the first report from the Intelligence and Security Committee;

    (5) if officers of the House are involved in staffing the Intelligence and Security Committee.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 21 November 1994, Official Report, column 25 .

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlay the decision to hold meetings of the Intelligence and Security Committee in the Cabinet Office; what consideration was given to holding them in the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The House has always recognised that intelligence issues cannot be dealt with in the same way as normal departmental affairs. Special arrangements have been made therefore for the committee to meet in suitable secure accommodation in the Cabinet Office, reflecting the necessary secrecy of the committee’s proceedings.

     

    European Parliament

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy not to agree to any proposal which would extend or increase the powers of the European Parliament.

    The Prime Minister: The treaty on European Union accorded the European Parliament new powers. We do not believe that the case has been made for an extension of these powers. The primary democratic focus in the European Union rests with national Parliaments, not the European Parliament.

     

    Hunting Engineering

    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide a breakdown of all ongoing Government contracts with Hunting Engineering and those completed in the last two years, summarising the amounts relating to each purpose within the contracts and the total of them overall.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Voter Satisfaction Surveys

    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister what surveys Her Majesty’s Government carried out in 1994 to assess voter satisfaction with Her Majesty’s Government’s policy; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Employment Statistics

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will propose action to increase the numbers of people aged 16 to 20 years employed in each Department and associated agencies;

    (2) if he will give an estimate of the numbers of people available for work aged (a) 16, (b) 17, (c) 18, (d) 19 and (e) 20 years; and if he will compare their ratio to all employees with the ratio of young people employed across the public services and agencies.

    The Prime Minister: Government Departments and agencies recruit staff on merit through fair and open competition. The details of recruitment procedures are determined by each Department or agency in the light of its own needs and circumstances.

    The Employment Department aims to integrate young people into the labour market by providing a wide range of employment and training measures and services for them. Government Departments and agencies participate fully in programmes such as youth training.

    The employment of young people in different occupations or sectors of activity is affected by recent recruitment levels and by the qualities and experience appropriate to the work.

    In particular, young people tend to group towards particular occupations, some of which may not be associated with the public sector.

    The available estimates from the labour force survey for Great Britain in summer–June to August–1994 show that there were 1,597,000 16 to 20-year- old employees in total, representing 7 per cent. of all employees. Of these 119,000 were in the public sector, representing 2 per cent. of all public sector employees. A further 507,000 16 to 20-year-olds were classified as International Labour Organisation unemployed of which 157,000 were in full- time education but actively seeking a part-time or vacation job.

     

    Political Resolutions

    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister what are his political resolutions for 1995.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Queen’s Speech, Official Report, 16 November 1994 columns 4 6.

     

    European Councils

    Dr. Marek: To ask the Prime Minister what changes he proposes to make in reporting to Parliament proceedings and debates within European Council meetings and committees; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Ministers give Parliament an account of each meeting of the Council of Ministers. Press releases, which include details of voting, are deposited in the Library of the House. I see no reason to change these arrangements.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library his correspondence with Mr. Martin Cadman, of the Lockerbie victims’ relatives association, and in particular his response to Mr. Cadman’s letter of 18 December 1994, concerning Lord Parkinson’s meetings on 19 September 1989 and 5 December 1989 with the relatives, and his answer of 15 December, Official Report, column 1068.

    The Prime Minister: No, it is not my normal practice to do so.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his response to Lockerbie victim relative Rev. John Mosey’s letter to him of 28 December 1994.

    The Prime Minister: No, it is not my normal practice to do so.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if, following communications from Mr. Martin Cadman, Pamela Dix, Rev. John Mosey and Dr. Jim Swire, relatives of Lockerbie victims, he has anything to add to his oral answer to the hon. Member of Linlithgow of 15 December, Official Report, column 1068.

    The Prime Minister: I understand that the meeting between Lord Parkinson and a group of British relatives of the Lockerbie victims to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 15 December took place in December 1989, not in 1990. At that meeting, Lord Parkinson explained the Government’s decision not to hold a confidential inquiry into the disaster, but said that the Lord Advocate was likely to hold a public fatal accident inquiry. I have received representations from several relatives of Lockerbie victims calling for a further inquiry. However, in view of all the investigations that have already been carried out, and the need to avoid the danger of prejudicing a criminal trial of the two accused, I do not believe such an inquiry is warranted.

     

    Ghazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position in the case of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali, detained in Mirpur prison in Azad Kashmir.

    The Prime Minister: We continue to raise our concerns over the delays in the hearings of the charges facing Ghazanfer Ali. There has been no progress since my previous answer. The hearings continue to be adjourned.

     

    Scottish Devolution

    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to conduct an analysis of the effects on the rest of the United Kingdom of devolution for Scotland as proposed in the Scotland Act 1978; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The proposals for a Scottish assembly contained within the Scotland Act 1978 were the subject of a referendum in 1979 and failed to gain the support of the electorate. The proposals of the Scotland Act 1978 no longer enjoy the support of any political party, but the inconsistencies inherent in those proposals, which were clearly highlighted over 15 years ago, remain today unanswered by the proponents of devolution.

  • PMQT – 10 January 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Ms Corston: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable for the Government or for any individual Minister to hide behind Britain’s laudable ban of the veal crate system while turning a blind eye to the annual export of hundreds of thousands of calves, knowing full well that they will spend their short lives in wooden boxes in the dark?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done more than most people in this country to try to change the laws right across Europe to deal with veal. Both he and I would like to see less trade in live animals and more in carcase form. But, as the hon. Lady will know, there is a long tradition of Agriculture Ministers having farming interests, which they rightly stand back from when they are Agriculture Ministers. What the hon. Lady did not mention was that my right hon. Friend’s farm is managed on a day-to-day basis by a farm management company headed by a Labour Front-Bench spokesman in the House of Lords.

     

    Q2. Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members want to wish him and his family a very happy and prosperous new year? Is it the Conservative party that wants to put VAT on school fees, split up the United Kingdom with devolution plans, or nationalise utilities under clause IV, or is it the lot opposite, led by Bambi, with his 60 quid-a-week haircut, who sends his son to a grant-maintained school when his party want to abolish them? Is there anything more dishonourable than that? I do not think so. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I can tell, Madam Speaker, that this is going to be an uncontroversial Session of Parliament. My hon. Friend leads us in that direction. Clearly, the policy-making activities of the principal opposition party are running into some difficulties at the moment. I do not think that many people are quite sure who these days is forming Labour policy on education, health, energy and other subjects. The closer one examines Labour policy, the more it falls apart. My hon. Friend should not object to that; he should lie back and enjoy it.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that any attempt by the rail regulator under privatisation to cut through-ticketing, with the result that people may have to travel 50 miles to get a train ticket, would be utterly unacceptable, and will he, if necessary, intervene to stop such an attempt?

    The Prime Minister: As the Secretary of State for Transport said the other day, and as I am happy to reaffirm, we have repeatedly made clear our commitment to maintaining through-ticketing.

    Through-ticketing should continue to be available from a wide range of outlets, to meet passengers’ needs. The regulator, like other regulators, is by law independent, but the Secretary of State has powers to give him guidance under the Railways Act 1993. The regulator is bound to take account of such guidance, but at this stage, prior to the issue of a consultation document, the question of guidance is entirely premature.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister has no power to prevent the regulator from introducing such an arrangement–what he has described is merely guidance–will he undertake that if the regulator makes such proposals he will direct the franchising director not to offer a franchise to any of the 25 companies unless it offers a complete through-ticket service?

    The Prime Minister: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman, I am at least as committed to through-ticketing as he is. He is trying yet again to have it both ways. The Labour party complains routinely that the Government should have more powers over the regulator, but if we had such direct powers it would complain about Government interference, as it did during the rail strike.

    Mr. Blair: I shall tell the Government what we complain of–the railway system being sold off instead of being used as a proper public service. If the Prime Minister cannot guarantee through-ticketing, and if he is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a privatisation that people do not want, when the public rightly fear that it will be used to produce the same pay excesses as exist in other privatised utilities, why does he not accept, as this country does, that our party’s campaign to halt the privatisation is right, and that the railways should be retained as a proper integrated public service?

    The Prime Minister: If privatisation is as bad as the right hon. Gentleman says, why will he not commit himself to renationalisation of British Rail? After 50 years of nationalisation, is he really satisfied with the present rail service? Can he name any time at which the service was satisfactory? If not, why does he oppose changes that will make it satisfactory? The Labour party has opposed every privatisation. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what Labour said about other privatisations. It said that British Airways would be

    “the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all”.

    British Airways is the most efficient airline in the world. I have a stack of similar quotations for the right hon. Gentleman, about every privatisation. Privatisation works; we are privatising rail and there will be a better service.

    Mr. Dover: What hope can the Prime Minister give to the oppressed people of Chechnya, in view of the determination of President Dudayev and of the Chechnen people?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone doubts that a tragedy has been taking place in Chechnya in recent weeks. Chechnya is indisputably part of the Russian Federation, and the long-standing revolt that has taken place there under local leadership has posed serious problems. I share my hon. Friend’s implicit concern about the way in which the problem has been handled in recent weeks and about the bombardment that has led to so many civilian casualties. As with other allies, we have expressed our concerns directly to the Russian Government. Most recently, the Foreign Secretary saw the Russian ambassador this morning.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Beith: Under this Government, can any Cabinet Minister claim that he is responsible only for the policy of his Department and not for its operational failings, however many there are and however many have been preceded by warnings from those in a position to know that things are going wrong? Is not good government about running things properly? What will happen to Ministers who have proved not to have done that?

    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State concerned is responsible for the policy of a Department, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear in the illustration to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Operational matters fall into a different category, as has been the case for many years. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to recent gaol escapes, and he will know that during the past 20 or 30 years there have been a large number of incidents under Governments of both major parties, and also a Government involving the Liberal party. Such incidents have occurred without making necessary the resignation of the appropriate Secretary of State.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Townsend: Recalling that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself voted for the Second Reading of the War Crimes Act 1991, and noting that the funding for the special war crimes unit at New Scotland Yard is to be wound up at the end of March, will my right hon. Friend consider drawing stumps on the whole grisly business? It must be perfectly obvious that not a single person will ever be successfully prosecuted under that expensive Act.

    The Prime Minister: It was recognised from the outset that the police investigations into serious crimes which were committed a long time ago would be difficult. I understand that the police investigations will be completed by the end of March this year. The decision therefore on whether or not to prosecute will be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who will be advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I prefer to await that advice before saying more.

    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the matter of war crimes, we are talking about personal involvement in mass murder? As the House has repeatedly approved the principle in the War Crimes Act, will he confirm that if–but only if–there is sufficient evidence against individuals of complicity in that murder, they will be prosecuted no matter how long they have managed to evade justice?

    The Prime Minister: I think that that was implicit in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) a moment ago, when I made clear that a decision on whether or not to prosecute will not be a political decision. The decision will be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General upon the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

     

    Q5. Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a full range of educational opportunity is of the utmost importance to the citizens of this country? Is not it clear from the utterances of the past few days that the old, nasty Labour party is waiting to leap out, given half a chance?

    The Prime Minister: I am not altogether sure that it has not already leapt out during the past few days. We have seen the quickest U-turn in history about a tax on school fees, the education spokesman unfortunately not being told what the education policies really are; and Opposition spokesmen in open disagreement about a graduate tax and a range of other totally and utterly vindictive education policies. Those policies will show everyone where the Labour party stands on equality of choice, opportunity and freedom.

     

    Q6. Mr. William O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. O’Brien: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern that has been expressed by many fire service authorities about reductions in their expenditure, which may bring about a danger to property and to life? May I warn him of the situation in West Yorkshire? There has been a £3.2 million cut in expenditure, which could mean a reduction of 116 firefighters in West Yorkshire. Will the Prime Minister take action to ensure that we have continuity of service which will help in the protection of property and life in West Yorkshire in particular, and across the country in general?

    The Prime Minister: Of course the fire service is immensely important. Of course we will make a judgement that we believe will ensure that it can be adequately available to all people who are likely to need it. I am not immediately familiar with the particular circumstances of West Yorkshire. It would be surprising were I to be so. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend to look particularly at that in the light of what the hon. Gentleman says.

    Mr. Kynoch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal for a Scottish Parliament put forward by the Labour party must inevitably lead to higher taxes and costs for businesses, particularly in Scotland? Does he further agree that if that is so, it will inevitably be the first stage on the slippery slope towards the break-up of the United Kingdom–something which the Labour party seems to be intent on achieving?

    The Prime Minister: I fully understand the many people in Scotland and, indeed, in Wales, who believe that a tax-raising assembly may be of assistance to them. I passionately believe, in their interests, that that is a mistaken judgement. I do not believe that the degree of investment that has gone into Scotland and Wales would continue if those investing there had the unique advantage of being more highly taxed than people in other parts of the United Kingdom. I see a great danger of businesses uprooting themselves and moving away from Scotland.

    I have seen no answers yet to the West Lothian question, which the Leader of the Opposition apparently failed to understand when he was asked about it at a press conference yesterday. I have no doubt that the sort of devolution proposed by the Labour party would do immense damage, first to the people of Scotland, secondly to the people of Wales–although they would apparently have a lesser form of devolution–and above all to everyone throughout the United Kingdom.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Single Currency – 8 January 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the single currency, made in an interview on 8th January 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was keeping open the option of the single currency at a later date].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course, I mean there are many people who still fear that we may get a single currency in 1996 to 1997. We won’t, we will not get a single currency in 1996 to 1997. Before that could happen we would have needed almost certainly to have been in the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years, we aren’t in it, no immediate prospect of us going back into it. Secondly the Bank of England would need to be independent, we have no proposals to bring forward legislation for the independence of the Bank of England. And thirdly, there would need to be a proper convergence of economies coming together in performance right across Europe, no question of that happening by 1996 to 1997. Now sometimes people raise the fear that a single currency will go ahead in 1996-1997. Firstly, it can’t in logic. But secondly, let me make the point even clearer, if despite logic, despite the commitments that need to be met before it should go ahead from the Maastricht Treaty, if despite all that other people decided to go ahead in 1996 to 1997 with a single currency, I would not advise the British Parliament to follow them, I don’t believe it would be remotely appropriate for it at that stage.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there should be a vote in the House of Commons on early membership].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t, I don’t believe the economies are right and I don’t believe anybody is going to be remotely ready for it. So I don’t think anyone will go ahead but I know some people harbour these fears, they ought to remove them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be a referendum before the IGC].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t favour a referendum before the IGC. I mean a referendum on what before the IGC? Nothing can stop the British Government at any stage in all the IGC raising any subject it wishes, that is equally true of all the other 14 Governments that are going to be there. So a referendum prior to the IGC would be a very curious beast indeed and I certainly don’t favour that.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Single Currency – 8 January 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the single currency, made in an interview on 8th January 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was keeping open the option of the single currency at a later date].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course, I mean there are many people who still fear that we may get a single currency in 1996 to 1997. We won’t, we will not get a single currency in 1996 to 1997. Before that could happen we would have needed almost certainly to have been in the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years, we aren’t in it, no immediate prospect of us going back into it. Secondly the Bank of England would need to be independent, we have no proposals to bring forward legislation for the independence of the Bank of England. And thirdly, there would need to be a proper convergence of economies coming together in performance right across Europe, no question of that happening by 1996 to 1997. Now sometimes people raise the fear that a single currency will go ahead in 1996-1997. Firstly, it can’t in logic. But secondly, let me make the point even clearer, if despite logic, despite the commitments that need to be met before it should go ahead from the Maastricht Treaty, if despite all that other people decided to go ahead in 1996 to 1997 with a single currency, I would not advise the British Parliament to follow them, I don’t believe it would be remotely appropriate for it at that stage.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there should be a vote in the House of Commons on early membership].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t, I don’t believe the economies are right and I don’t believe anybody is going to be remotely ready for it. So I don’t think anyone will go ahead but I know some people harbour these fears, they ought to remove them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be a referendum before the IGC].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t favour a referendum before the IGC. I mean a referendum on what before the IGC? Nothing can stop the British Government at any stage in all the IGC raising any subject it wishes, that is equally true of all the other 14 Governments that are going to be there. So a referendum prior to the IGC would be a very curious beast indeed and I certainly don’t favour that.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 29 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made during an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, made in London on Thursday 29th December 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether an elected body was achievable and what would be achieved in the next 12 months].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is impossible to say how far we will have gone. Most people looking back twelve months ago would not have imagined the progress that has been made in the last year. It will remain in the centre of the agenda, I think that is entirely clear. I hope very soon we will be able to agree a framework document with the Irish Government; we will then publish that so that everyone in Northern Ireland can see what is in it. I hope we will be able to get through the preliminary talks with Sinn Fein and the Loyalist paramilitaries and engage then in the mainstream talks amongst the political parties. I certainly hope to make that progress but quite how rapid that will be I can’t say.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether Sinn Fein sought a genuine settlement].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope so. I can’t see any advantage to Sinn Fein in not seeking a settlement if a satisfactory agreement can be reached, so I very much hope they are talking in good faith.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he believed that Martin McGuinness was willing to do a deal]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Only time will tell. I have never promised this will be easy and I have never promised that a satisfactory outcome was certain, for it isn’t, but I do believe we have a better chance than we have known at any stage in the last quarter of a century of reaching a settlement. A huge amount of progress has been made. Time and time again, people have said to me: “But you can’t overcome the next hurdle!” and we have overcome the next hurdle. There are many difficulties that lie immediately ahead, not least the question of the decommissioning of arms, but steadily they have been brushed to one side.

    What I think gives cause for the greatest optimism is the sheer effort of will amongst the people of Northern Ireland that they themselves wish to see a final agreement and the end of violence for good. Nobody should under-estimate the importance of that; that has its impact upon opinion, its impact upon opinion within Sinn Fein as well; provided that option remains rock solid – and I believe it will – then there is a very powerful impetus towards the move towards a settlement.

  • Mr Major’s 1994 Christmas Message to the Falkland Islands – 24 December 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s 1994 Christmas Message to the Falkland Islands issued on 24 December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The last year has been important for the Falkland Islands. The decision to pass legislation to pave the way for oil exploration could be vitally important. No-one yet knows if there is any oil under the seabed. But if there is, and we believe you are right to find out, the effect on the Islands will be profound.

    Significant oil finds will underpin your economic future. We will help by passing on the lessons we learnt in exploiting the resources of the North Sea. Between us we should look for a way of carrying forward this oil exploration without creating avoidable difficulties with Argentina. We will continue to do all we can to help and I hope that your efforts bring rewards for you and for future generations of Falkland Islanders.

    For the moment, fish remains the mainstay of your economy. You have an excellently managed fishery. The results of the first year of fishing in the Outer Conservation Zone are encouraging. The move to greater economic involvement by Islanders in the fishery represents real progress. But co-operation with your neighbours remains important where there are shared stocks. We shall continue to talk to Argentina about how best to cooperate on acceptable terms. It is important that the Falklands continue to benefit from this invaluable fishery resource.

    Last Christmas I said that the British economy was showing signs of recovery. Those signs have now become reality. Continued low levels of inflation bear witness to the success of sensible management of the economy. Our hard work at restructuring public expenditure and encouraging investment is now paying dividends. We are now seeing sustainable growth and, what is more, sustainable growth at a pace which is outstripping many of our partners and competitors.

    I was recently in Belfast. The most recent of many visits over the last couple of years. I am delighted to mention the great strides we have made towards bringing lasting peace to Northern Ireland. We hope that by working with the government of the Republic of Ireland, we can persuade all sides of the sectarian divide to end violence for good and to join the democratic process.

    Your interests in the Falkland Islands remain very important to us.

    Douglas Hurd brought back two things from his visit in April. The first was a fondness for the Islands and their people. The second was a confirmation that our policy of defending your rights was both just and essential. We will not be diverted from that course. You have the right to be governed under the flag of your own choice and we will continue to uphold that right. The recent opinion poll conducted in the Islands made clear the very strong feelings that you have on this subject. Let me assure you tonight our feelings are no less firm.
    I wish you all a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 20 December 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview in London, with Irish Prime Minister John Bruton, held on Tuesday 20th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted this evening to have had the opportunity of welcoming the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste to London where we have had the chance for the last hour and a half of running over the present situation in the peace process in Northern Ireland and looking at some of the problems that lie ahead.

    If I could say at the outset I am delighted that we have been able to agree to have this meeting so speedily; I think it is the clearest possible evidence of the absolute priority that both the British Government and the Irish Government give to making further progress to entrench the ceasefire into a permanent peace process in Northern Ireland and I am delighted with the exchange of views that we have been able to have today. We have really been looking across the whole field of what has been agreed thus far and the steps that we need to take in the future.

    We have been able to agree over the last hour and a half that we will endeavour to complete the framework document as speedily as we can; we have deliberately not put an end-date on that; we would rather get it right than get it soon but certainly we wish to make progress as speedily as possible. With that in mind, we have agreed that our officials will meet in early January to take matters further and a few days after the officials meeting, there will be a meeting at Foreign Minister level to see what further progress can be made. The Taoiseach and I of course will remain in close touch by telephone or face-to-face as necessary throughout this period with the intention of carrying this process forward.

    We looked at the progress that has been made; I have discussed also the range of areas that we need to cover; we have discussed the preliminary talks that the British Government are engaged in both with Sinn Fein and with the Loyalist paramilitaries. There are many important issues to be determined in those talks, many in relationship to Sinn Fein, many in relationship to the Loyalist paramilitaries as well. We share the view that substantial progress needs to be made on the decommissioning of arms not just with Sinn Fein but also of course with the Loyalist paramilitaries as well and there are a range of other important issues that need to be discussed.

    I found this first meeting with the Taoiseach very refreshing; I am very encouraged about the determination that the Irish Government retains to continue to make progress in this matter. I am delighted we were able to meet so speedily and I shall very much look forward to our next meeting.

    I will invite the Taoiseach to say a few words about our meeting and then we will endeavour to take a few questions.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    The important thing I would like to stress is that we have met so quickly after the new government came to power in the Republic. It is extremely important that both governments have shown by the prompt arrangements of this meeting how determined they both are to move forward on the peace process and also towards bringing the communities closer together on the island of Ireland. It is extremely important that the governments work together to achieve that objective. There are many difficult issues that remain to be settled both between us and between the parties involved. I think what this meeting shows is a resolution on the part of both governments to tackle these issues without any avoidable delay.

    There are of course many others whose views must be taken into account and we will on both our parts be listening and talking to all the other interests involved. The governments cannot act purely alone on this matter, they must bring public opinion with them, but I think this meeting so soon after the formation of the new government is an indication of our determination to do just that.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I share that view entirely.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (BELFAST TELEGRAPH):

    Has the Taoiseach confirmed or denied to you the assessment made by Albert Reynolds about the state of negotiations over the joint framework document that already agreement has been reached on the issues that he claimed were reached to that stage?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I am not going to comment on what Albert had to say last week. The Taoiseach and I certainly looked at the extent of agreement that exists in the joint framework document but rather more importantly, we were looking at the areas that remain to be agreed in the framework document and looked at how we might seek a way through those areas to find a final agreement; that is why we have agreed that we will have officials meet to carry on our discussion in early January and then Foreign Ministers thereafter.

    QUESTION:

    Are you in trouble?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    No. Our negotiations on the framework document are not in trouble. I think you would have been very surprised and everyone else would have been very surprised if we had been able to sit down in five minutes and agree a framework document.

    The Joint Declaration took many months to agree. We have made a lot of progress on the framework document but there are still areas to be decided. I think both the Taoiseach and I are optimistic about the prospects of reaching agreement on these other matters but they do have to be discussed. The Taoiseach will wish to add some words but I think he would share that view.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I would just like to add that I have had the opportunity of reviewing the framework document myself for the first time in the last few days and I would have to say that a great deal of progress has been made by the outgoing government and the British Government on that matter. There are a number of issues remaining to be resolved but I think that this meeting shows the determination on both our parts to resolve those issues quickly. We reviewed them in some depth at our meeting and while we didn’t resolve any of those issues I think we created a climate in which they can be resolved.

    QUESTION:

    Are you any clearer now on the way in which decommissioning of arms and explosives is going to take place and what are both your assessments of yesterday’s bomb in Enniskillen?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    My view is that the decommissioning of arms is a very important issue; it is important that substantial progress be made on that issue in the present phase of preliminary discussions but it is one of a number of issues which have to be addressed; it is important to build confidence in the peace process as well.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I agree with that. The mechanism of decommissioning is of course one of the matters that is going to need to be addressed in the preliminary talks.

    We have no confirmation yet of who was finally responsible for the Enniskillen incident.

    QUESTION:

    Taoiseach, can I ask you what are the outstanding disagreements, if you like, in your approach with Mr. Major on the question of the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    There isn’t an area of disagreement here. We both accept that this issue must be dealt with because as long as weapons remain in commission they remain a threat to the peace of everybody living on these islands. There is obviously an importance in dealing with this issue but it is important also to deal with other issues and to show that there is a peace dividend.

    QUESTION:

    What priority do you put on the question of the decommissioning of arms?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    We would put a high priority on it in conjunction with a number of other issues.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, both Gerry Adams and John Hume have said today that they would like to see all-inclusive talks much sooner than seems to be the case. How soon do you think there might be all-inclusive talks?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I would like to see all-inclusive talks as speedily as possible but we can’t get all-inclusive talks unless we can clear some of the difficulties that stand in the way of them in the preliminary talks. The speedier we can do that, the speedier we can have inclusive talks. I very much welcome that. The sooner we can sit down with the political representatives of all shades of opinion in Northern Ireland, the happier I will be but there is no point in proceeding to that if we haven’t cleared the ground properly and some of the main participants then decline to come to the table and that of course is what the preliminary talks are about so I share a view entirely that has been expressed by Mr. Hume and indeed by Mr. Adams if he has expressed that view, that the sooner we can get to inclusive talks the better but inclusive talks with a lot of empty chairs are not inclusive talks.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you both agree on the point that Sinn Fein cannot be involved in those all-inclusive talks, that they can’t be involved with Ministers, until the issue of the arms has been from your point of view satisfactorily resolved and the weapons are destroyed?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    We are looking for substantial progress. We have made that clear from the start. You addressed the question as far as Sinn Fein is concerned and that is true but the same point applies also of course to the Loyalist paramilitaries. We do need to see some substantial progress made on this issue and I very much hope that we will get it.

    QUESTION:

    Does “substantial progress” still mean that the weapons have to be destroyed and that has to be verified?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    We do need to make sure that substantial progress has been made and that means that weapons that otherwise would have been available for use against peaceable people in Northern Ireland are not able to be used and are not in commission.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    It is important to point out that the preliminary discussions with Sinn Fein are at a comparatively early point at this stage; there have been I believe as far as the British Government is concerned only two such meetings and obviously there is a very large agenda to be dealt with of which the decommissioning of arms is a very important element but not the only one.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    Let me just add that we have a meeting with the Loyalist paramilitaries in the next few days and we have the next meeting with Sinn Fein agreed at their request in the middle of January.

    QUESTION:

    Is the change of the Irish Government going to slow down or speed up this process do you feel?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    All I can say is I am delighted at the speed with which the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste accepted my invitation to come to London. I think that shows that they share the same determination as their predecessor government to make speedy progress, effectively progress and lasting progress towards peace. I have no doubt about their wish to do that and I believe after our meeting today they have no doubt about our determination to achieve that either.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I would like to say emphatically that it is the intention of the Tanaiste and I that our discussions will speed up the process.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 December 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement regarding his Department’s expenditure on special advisers for each of the last three financial years, and for the financial year 1979-80.

    The Prime Minister: I refer to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member today.

     

    Parliamentary Private Secretaries

    Mr. Kaufman: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 December, Official Report, column 447, if he will specify where in the public record are to found the numbers of parliamentary private secretaries in November 1989, November 1984 and May 1979.

    The Prime Minister: The information can be obtained from the Library of the House.

     

    Managerial Systems

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister which Departments have MINIS– managerial information systems–or an equivalent system; and if he will list the names of the systems and whether hon. Members can access them indicating those Departments which do not have a similar system; and what is his policy towards introducing such systems or a Government-wide system.

    The Prime Minister: A number of Departments have developed management information systems similar to MINIS since the launch of the financial management initiative in 1982. The main responsibility for developing such systems rests with Departments, and up-to-date information on such systems is not available centrally. A multi departmental efficiency scrutiny is currently examining management information and planning systems and is expected to report in the spring.

     

    Honours

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister how many (a) peerages and (b) knighthoods have been awarded since November 1979 to (i) Conservative hon. Members, (ii) Conservative former hon. Members, (iii) Labour hon. Members and (iv) Labour former hon. Members.

    The Prime Minister: Forty-nine peerages have been awarded to ex-Conservative Members and 32 to ex-Labour Members. One hundred and fifteen knighthoods have been awarded to Conservative Members–60 of whom are no longer Members of the House of Commons–and two to Labour Members, one of whom is no longer a Member of the House of Commons.

    Details of knighthoods awarded to ex-Conservative and ex-Labour Members after they have left the House can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Prime Ministerial Meetings

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions and on what dates between 1982 and 1990 his predecessor met (a) the Prime Minister, (b) the President and (c) the Defence Secretary or Foreign Secretary of (i) Turkey, (ii) Indonesia and (iii) Botswana.

    The Prime Minister: Archived material of this nature is not centrally recorded and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.