The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 April 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Interception of Communications Tribunal

    Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made following the expiry of the terms of appointment of the members of the interception of communications tribunal on 10 April; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Sir David Calcutt QC has been appointed vice-president of the tribunal. He and Mr. Peter Scott QC have been re-appointed to the tribunal for a further period of five years. Two new members, Mr. Robert Seabrook QC and Mr. William Carmichael, have also been appointed for a term of five years.

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he met (a) Li Ka Shing, (b) David Choy, (c) Rong Yien, (d) Stanley Ho, (e) T. T. Tsui and (f) C. H. Tung at events during his visit to Hong Kong.

    The Prime Minister: I met a broad range of business men, politicians and other opinion formers during my recent visit. I understand that Mr. Li Ka Shing attended a dinner at which I was present and Mr. C. H. Tung was present at my meeting with the Executive Council, of which he is a member. I am not aware of any other occasion.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Queen’s 70th Birthday – 17 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Queen’s 70th Birthday, made on Wednesday 17th April 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the Queen’s Reign and how it could be summarised].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think in exactly the way she foresaw it when she first became Queen. As I recall, one of the first things she said, perhaps even the first speech, was to speak about a life of service, and I think that’s what we’ve seen over the last 40 odd years. A supreme example of service and responsibility to a nation. That is what the Queen has been. It has been above and beyond politics and all the stronger for that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he thought would be the future for the Monarchy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Monarchy will continue. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. It will continue on. It has built into the warp and weft of our life. It has been there. It couldn’t be replaced in the fashion in my judgement Those people who occasionally babble of talk of a republic have no idea of the dramatic changes that would mean. I think that is nonsense, it is against the spirit of the British instinct and I think the Monarchy will continue. Of course it will change. It’s changed during the period the Queen’s reign. It’s become a much more open Monarchy than it was, and I think you’ll see that gentle change continue in the future. Impossible to predict precisely how, but there will be changes, but I think they will be consistent with the movement of British life.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for any personal comments he had regarding the Queen’s birthday].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think there are several things really. I would hope for the nation as a whole, that they could perhaps appreciate and see a little more, rather more of what actually the Monarchy means, and what actually the Queen does. People see the formal side of the Monarchy. What we don’t often see is the bubbling sense of fun that exists underneath that. I’d like people to see rather more of that. But I suppose there’s perhaps a more formal response to your question. The answer I think probably lies in the National Anthem itself – long to reign over us. I think that’s what I’d wish to see and the country too as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the divorce of the Duke and Duchess of York].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well any divorce of any young couple is of course a very sad affair. Something that starts off with such bright hopes collapses and comes to an end. So I think everyone will be very sad on a personal level about that. But I think it is the right decision to be made. It’s clear both to the Duke and Duchess and I think to everyone else, that that marriage has broken down and I think the right thing to do now is to end it quickly, clearly in the fashion it has been done. I think that’s in the interest of the Duke, in the interest of the Duchess and I think in everyone elses’ interests as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it would damage the Monarchy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think so to be honest. I don’t believe that is so. Clearly it has been a difficult period for the Monarchy over the past few years for one reason or another, and I think everyone acknowledges that. But the strength of the Monarchy is such that it will be able to overcome these difficulties, is overcoming them, and the divorce I think will be seen as an inevitability by most people. But I don’t think it is going to have any lasting impact whatsoever upon the Monarchy or, equally important, upon people’s perception of the Monarchy. That has a particular role, a particular responsibility and that will continue.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Prime Minister Klaus – 17 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Prague with Prime Minister Klaus, given in Prague on Wednesday 17th April 1996.

    MR KLAUS:

    [Not translated].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add to some of the points the Prime Minister has just made. We have a very close relationship between our two countries, no bilateral problems. And so we have been able to spend the majority of our time this afternoon discussing two subjects of great importance to both of us. The first is future developments in the European Union and in particular what is likely to emerge from the intergovernmental conference that has now begun; and what implications that will have for future enlargement of the European Union and in particular the entry of the Czech Republic into the European Union as a full member.

    I expressed the view that the widening of the European Union remains the most important European issue to be discussed. I think there is an historic opportunity, with the widening of the Union to bring the Czech Republic and other countries in fully to the Western family of democratic nations, and I believe it is attractive both for the existing European Union and the applicant members for that to happen as soon as it is economically and politically desirable for it to be done.

    The Prime Minister and I discussed many of the matters that will be at issue in the intergovernmental conference, and then the likely timetable for discussions with the Czech Republic and the European Union about subsequent membership.

    There will be a number of applicants to the European Union. It is our British view that however many we may begin to negotiate with at the same time for future entry, entry itself should be discriminatory in the sense that those countries should enter the European Union when they are economically ready to do so, and no-one should be delayed so that there may be a particularly large entry at a later date. And we discussed those and a number of other detailed matters relating to Europe over the last hour or so.

    We also spent some time discussing the development of Partnership for Peace and the defence relationship between the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. For example, at the moment there are Czech troops serving with British troops in Bosnia as part of the IFOR contingent and they have a very close and very deep working relationship.

    At the moment, as you will know, NATO is considering enlargement and clearly the Czech Republic is one of the prime candidates to join NATO as and when that enlargement proceeds. I am confident it will proceed. I think it will need to proceed at a measured pace. There is much to be decided upon with enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. One has to look both at the obligations that NATO will take on with enlargement, the obligations to the new members, and equally the obligations of the new members to the organisation – NATO – that they are joining. And again we looked at those and what those obligations might be in some detail over the last hour or so.

    We anticipate continuing this discussion over dinner a little later and I have no doubt then we will wish to discuss other foreign policy matters, certainly Russia, and other matters of that sort. I think the delights of those discussions lie a little ahead over dinner in a few moments.

    I think the Prime Minister is content for us to take any questions on our discussions – it is questions on our discussions – if there are any.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Newsweek Magazine):

    Mr Klaus, recent polls show that Mr Major is one of the least successful leaders in post-war history. I wonder how can his presence possibly boost the chances of your party in next month’s elections?

    MR KLAUS:

    It is a very strange question. First, I don’t agree with your analysis of the position and of the success of Prime Minister Major, I definitely don’t agree with that. And I know that the situation in the United Kingdom, is not yet over and I am looking forward to seeing an improving position of John Major’s government. So that is quite clear. And secondly, we are quite happy that John Major is here. Definitely I suppose he is not coming here to boost anyone in the elections, so it is absolutely unnecessary to put it in such a simplified form and way.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is possible perhaps that the questioner did not hear what we have been talking about, two matters of some importance I think to the Czech Republic insofar as NATO is concerned and the European Union is concerned, but perhaps you missed that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you mind me asking a follow-up to that question? Does that kind of question and that kind of analysis annoy you at this stage?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is just silly. I can’t be responsible for silly questions from journalists, that is a matter for the journalists, and the editors and the readers of their journals. But what I am here to discuss with the Prime Minister are matters that we have been discussing in Europe for some time, and we have been discussing with the Czech Republic for some time. The most critically important issue in European politics at the moment is enlargement of the European Union. That is an historic opportunity, as I said a few moments ago, that never occurred in the past and may not readily occur in the future if we don’t take the opportunity. One of the elements of taking that opportunity is the discussions and the decisions that will be made in the intergovernmental conference. And that will be so for this reason: the intergovernmental conference will look at institutional matters related to the future of Europe, once those institutional matters are decided in the conference they will be a matter of fact and that will be the nature of the European Union that the Czech Republic and others will then be negotiating to join. So it is crucially important to the Czech Republic and very important to the interests of the United Kingdom that those decisions are right in the intergovernmental conference so we can take this opportunity to enlarge. And that of course is what we have been discussing on a number of occasions over recent years and in our discussions this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] to EU membership, is there any advice within your gift to Czech people?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, there is, but I would give it privately and have done so.

  • Mr Major’s Arrival Statement in Prague – 17 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s arrival statement made in Prague on Wednesday 17th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps I can firstly thank the Prime Minister for the invitation to return to Prague. I am always delighted to be here. Four years is a long time and I am very pleased to be back.

    We have a number of things I believe that we will want to discuss this evening and tomorrow morning. Firstly of course the developing relationship between the Czech Republic and the European Union, and the prospects which we warmly welcome in the United Kingdom of the Czechs joining the European Union as full members. I hope we can see that happen as soon as possible. I am sure also we will discuss the questions relating to NATO, bilateral matters, and of course economic matters in the Czechland and their relationship with the United Kingdom.

    So I think we have, although only a limited amount of time, quite a heavy agenda of matters to discuss and I very much look forward to doing so, and I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for inviting me and it is good to see him again. Thank you very much.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 April 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    TEU Legislation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 March, Official Report, column 535, if he will list each regulation and the Department which takes responsibility for it in the past three years.

    The Prime Minister: Information about individual Council and Commission regulations adopted in the last three years can be obtained from the Commission’s CELEX database of Community legislation. Information on which Department leads on each individual measure could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

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

     

    No. 10 Downing Street

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the functions, and the dates on which they took place, which were held at No. 10 Downing Street where the costs have been met by political parties and organisations for the purpose of providing financial support to political parties since November 1990.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 April 1996]: There have been no such functions.

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister what charges are levied on (a) charities, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) non-official or party function organisers permitted to use the invitations secretary as the responding address for invitations to functions at No. 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 April 1996]: When charitable or other non-official events are held at No. 10 Downing Street, the organisers are responsible for all catering and staff costs, as well as other miscellaneous direct costs. As under previous Administrations, invitations are normally handled by the invitations secretary. This is necessary to ensure that the appropriate security procedures are followed. No charge is levied for this.

  • PMQT – 16 April 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. O’Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

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

    Mr. O’Hara: Has the Prime Minister yet had time to read the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), the mastermind of the Conservative campaign for the South-East Staffordshire by-election? Writing for the Rutland and Stamford Mercury just a few hours before polling, the hon. Gentleman observed that many people imagined that Labour would win the seat with ease, and he made the immortal comment that nothing could be further from the truth. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that that same hon. Member will be put in charge of all future by-elections and the general election?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would perhaps be wiser not to be quite so smug as he was a moment ago. I advise him to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), who will explain that by-election losses become general election gains.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) is perfectly free to pay more tax if she wishes to do so now? Has she not blown the gaff on what the Labour party would do if it were ever elected to office? It would put up taxes–income tax and everything else–as it always has.

    The Prime Minister: I welcome the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) to the Chamber and I am delighted that she has been untied and ungagged and has been permitted to attend this afternoon. It was extremely unfair to pillory her. Just as the deputy leader of the Labour party tells us that he has joined the middle classes the hon. Lady decides to increase their taxes.

    Mr. Blair: The last person in this country to lecture us about honesty in tax is the Prime Minister–people remember the pledge not to raise VAT before the last election. What reasons would the Prime Minister give for the Conservative party’s humiliating defeat in that by-election?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about taxes–[Hon. Members: “No.”] He raised it. Perhaps he would care to refer to the unattributable briefing that he gave on the plane, and subsequently denied, in which he made it clear that taxes would go up at £40,000 and higher. Subsequently, when challenged it was claimed that the conversation never took place. [Hon. Members: “Answer.”]

    Mr. Blair: It is interesting that they always want me to answer the questions: in a few months’ time they will get their wish.

    Is not one reason for the Conservative defeat perhaps the fact that people do not want their railway system broken into 100 different companies and sold on the cheap; they do not want the sale laced with sweeteners paid for from taxpayers’ money; and they do not want hundreds of millions of pounds spent on the sale? In fact, the vast majority of people want that money to be spent on improving the system as a public service.

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that paying a dividend to shareholders is a sweetener, it shows how little he actually understands about the private sector system. It is clear, for all his weasel words, that he simply does not understand how the private sector works. The sooner that he learns, the sooner people might take seriously the ludicrous suggestion that the Labour party understands the modern economy.

    Mr. Blair: What we do understand is that the public do not want their railway system broken up and sold. Is not an underlying reason for the Conservative party defeat the fact that people simply do not trust the Conservatives any more? They do not trust them on railways, on tax or on the health service. The sooner they get the chance to say so loud and clear, the better for Britain.

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that it is best to reprise the old favourites while one has the chance. When talking about the Labour party and the railway service, the right hon. Gentleman should recall that the Labour Government closed more than 600 stations; we have opened more than 220. Under Labour, fares rose by 20 per cent.; we have frozen them in line with the retail prices index and they will drop. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the costs of privatisation, he should bear in mind the fact that there will be £10 billion of new private sector investment to improve the services for rail users. That could not have happened in the public sector; it did not happen in the public sector–

    Mr. Prescott: We did it.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may say, “We did it”, but I can tell him what the Labour Government did–they closed station after station after station. We have opened them and I will not let the right hon. Gentleman forget that.

    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the good news of the week–that retail beef sales in Britain are back to 85 per cent. of what they were before the beef scare?

    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the beef market is recovering. Even the Commission President and the Agriculture Commissioner now admit that British beef is safe. It is abundantly clear that, as we have always maintained, the export ban on British beef imposed by the Community was motivated more by the interests of other countries’ beef markets than by public health. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Agriculture Minister will announce shortly, we have decided to take legal action against the totally unjustified ban on British beef.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that the problem with the railways is not more competition but the way in which the Government have sought to go about it? Is he aware that that has resulted in 70 per cent. of passenger services in London and the south-east getting worse since privatisation started; in £69 million of taxpayers’ money being spent to make Railtrack shares saleable; and in a £900 million increase in the salaries of Railtrack directors? Is not it perfectly clear that if the Government get their way with our railways, passenger trains will take second place to gravy trains?–[Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) suggests from a sedentary position that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has the same scriptwriter as the Leader of the Opposition. That is true.

    The right hon. Member for Yeovil is wrong. Taking Railtrack back into public ownership would cripple the economy, as the Liberal Democrats said in their transport document. The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand that the £69 million is a dividend payment.

    As for the service that the industry offers, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider the extra 600 trains a week that South West Trains will be running. Would those trains be running if the industry was still nationalised? What happened to the special offers for senior citizens, including £1 travel days, when the industry was in the public sector? What about the programme of improvements to stations, passenger facilities, lighting, security and waiting rooms? Those improvements are being made when the industry is in the private sector. They were not made when it was in the public sector, when the attitude of those in the public sector disgracefully let down the travelling public. We intend to improve that attitude.

    Mr. Dover: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, under his leadership, Conservative Members will faithfully serve and look after the interests of the working class, in marked contrast to some Opposition Members?

    The Prime Minister: The deputy leader of the Labour party is blushing. It is such an agreeable and unusual sight that I shall not add to his embarrassment.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

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

    Mr. Michie: Does the Prime Minister understand the outrage that is felt when almost £1 million of profit from the publicly owned Railtrack is to go towards huge bonuses to just six directors of a privatised rail company? Is not that an example of taking from the many and giving to the few?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about taking from the many and giving to the few–[Hon. Members: “Answer.”] I will come directly to the hon. Gentleman’s question in my own way–he might, first, have a look at his own local authority, which might collect the £558 million of debt that it is owed.

    Mr. Michie: Rubbish.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says “rubbish”. Yes; in collecting its debts, Sheffield is rubbish. It does not collect its debts or make its interest payments, and it has massive council tax arrears. That is what Labour is like in power, in the phrase of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

    On the bonus payment, Railtrack is proposing precisely the type of long-term performance bonus that has been recommended by Greenbury and urged on us by Opposition Front Benchers.

     

    Q3. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a fair tax system is a low-tax system? Did he see the article in the Sunday Express, in which the leader of the Labour party told journalists that the top rate of tax would be raised for those on £30,000 or more? That figure was subsequently quickly amended to £40,000 and subsequently denied altogether by the Labour party’s spin doctors. Does he agree that the unscripted remarks by the Labour transport spokesman are a very useful contribution to the debate on the Labour party’s tax policy?

    Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions should be related to the Government’s responsibilities. We will now take the next question.

     

    Q4. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April.

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

    Mr. Illsley: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as of 1 April, thousands of disabled people will lose up to £30 a week as a result of his Government’s decision to withdraw reduced earnings allowance and to replace it with retirement allowance? Will the Prime Minister reconsider that decision in view of the extreme hardship that that decision will cause to less-well-off members of our society?

    The Prime Minister: We have taken a number of measures to improve the particular circumstances of people who are disabled. That is clear across a range of disability benefits and in the Disability Discrimination Act that the House passed just last year. If the hon. Gentleman is advocating more expenditure, I hope that–

    Mr. Illsley indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is not advocating more expenditure than at present, I fail to understand what his question is about. If he is, I would like to know precisely how he is going to fund it and how much the tax increase will be for that and the many other areas where Labour wishes to spend more.

    Mr. Brooke: As the cricket season starts, does my right hon. Friend take encouragement from the fact that this summer at the Oval we shall see the 50th anniversary of the longest and largest stand for the last wicket in the history of English cricket? Does he recognise that nothing in cricket exasperates the Opposition or cheers up the batting side as much?

    The Prime Minister: As it happens, I was aware of that particular anniversary. I look forward at the Oval to seeing many performances like that by Surrey, and perhaps by England. I have absolutely no doubt that, politically, we shall see their equivalent.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comment on By-Election Result – 11 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep comments, made on 11th April 1996, on the by-election result the previous night.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have been in politics long enough not to over react to any one by-election result. I remember many people consigned the Government to oblivion after the Ribble Valley by-election where the swing was the same. We went on to win the General Election a year later with the largest popular vote ever.

    I was disappointed by last night’s result, But politics isn’t an easy ride. I’m here to do what’s right and stick with it.

    The statistics that really matter are not those of by-elections but low inflation, falling mortgage rates, more jobs and lower taxes. Those are the ones that really count.

    I believe the results of our hard work are coming through, but we’ve still got a lot of work to do to get our message across. And that’s what we are going to do.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at Grafham Water Sailing Club – 11 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview at the Grafham Water Sailing Club, made on Thursday 11th April 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Asked about Tony Blair’s tax plans]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know what his tax plans are. He’s made no speech and I would be very surprised if he gives any details. What we are seeing is a typical Tony Blair operation. His spin doctors outline what he thinks, what he might do. We never hear directly from him. We’ve have no signals from him. Every experience we’ve had from a Labour government is that they put taxes up. Labour and high taxes go together like strawberries and cream. The Labour party always wants to spend more money. If Tony Blair is in favour of lower taxes, why hasn’t he supported out tax cutting agenda. I don’t think he is in favour of tax cuts and his party can’t deliver them.

    QUESTION:

    [Asked if Tony Blair is stealing Conservative Party policies]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He realises the Conservative party stands for the people of this country. The people believe in lower taxes so does the Tory party. If we increase them, it’s only when we have to, but our gut instinct is to cut taxes. Labour is the tax and spend party, that is the fundamental difference. Tony Blair said recently, you can only tell what a party’s like when it’s in power. Where Labour is in power on local councils, there have been tax increases right across the country.

    QUESTION:

    [Asked about Tony Blair’s comments on people who earn up to 40,000 pounds a year paying tax]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well Gordon Brown has categorically refused to rule out higher taxes. It’s clear that labour would have to put up taxes.

    QUESTION:

    [Asked about a message for the Tamworth by-election]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    People will have seen the candidates and made up their own minds by now. Now we must wait and see.

    QUESTION:

    [Asked if he was worried]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m not worried.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 April 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EDS Ltd.

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister what savings to date have been made by the Cabinet Office as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 2 April, Official Report, column 85.

     

    Danish Tour Guide (Manslaughter)

    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister what letters of condolence have been sent by the British Government to the family of the Danish tour guide for whose manslaughter three British service personnel have been convicted; when they were sent; and which Government Minister sent them.

    The Prime Minister: I understand that the then commanding officer, British Forces Cyprus, sent a letter of condolence to the family.

     

    Conduct of Government Business

    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister what advice has been furnished to Government Departments on the conduct of Government business during the period prior to local and European elections.

    The Prime Minister: The Cabinet Office is circulating to Departments today the normal guidance to civil servants on the principles which they should observe in relation to the conduct of Government business during the period prior to local and European elections. It is as follows:

    Local and European elections

    1. Local and European Election campaigns differ from general elections in that there is no prospect of a change of government consequent upon the elections, and the business of government continues as usual. However, there is an increasing tendency by all political parties to approach local and European elections from a national point of view, with nationally produced material. Officials of all departments should therefore take especial care during the period of local or European election campaigns not to undertake any activity which could call into question their political impartiality, or could give rise to the criticism that public resources are being used for party political purposes. Particular care should be exercised in relation to the announcement of sensitive decisions with a local or European dimension, and in relation to paid publicity campaigns.
    2. The following general principles should be observed:

    (a) there should be even-handedness in meeting information requests from candidates from different political parties. Such requests and responses should be channelled through the appropriate Minister’s private office and handled in accordance with the principles laid down in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information;

    (b) special advisers should if necessary be reminded of the rules against circulating material on party paper within departments;

    (c) particular care should be taken over official action and the use of public resources, including publicity, surrounding and supporting Ministerial announcements which have a bearing on local or European matters;

    (d) similar care should be taken over announcements of decisions made at official level. In some cases it may be better to defer an announcement until after the election but this would need to be balanced carefully against any implication that deferral could itself influence the political outcome; each case should be considered on its merits; and

    (e) special care should be taken in respect of paid publicity campaigns, particularly new campaigns, which should not be open to the criticism that they are being undertaken for party political purposes.

    1. The period of sensitivity preceding local or European elections is not fixed in relation to any particular date, but for the purposes of this guidance, the general convention is that particular care should be taken in the three weeks prior to polling day.

     

    European Court of Justice

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next European Council the operation of the European Court of Justice.

    The Prime Minister: The Turin Council of 29 March agreed an agenda for the intergovernmental conference including the operation of the European Court of Justice.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 April 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Intergovernmental Conference

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals Her Majesty’s Government plan to introduce to the intergovernmental conference on openness; what response has been made to the Swedish Government’s proposals for right of access to official documents; and if he will place in the Library a copy of all proposals submitted by EU member state Governments and received by him to the IGC on openness.

    The Prime Minister: We are committed to greater openness in the European Union and have already supported a number of proposals to achieve this. We are considering our policy on openness in the intergovernmental conference, including how to respond to the Swedish ideas for a treaty right of access to official documents. We have already placed in the Library material from other Governments setting out their policy at the intergovernmental conference, including on openness.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

    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.

     

    No. 10 Downing Street (Receptions)

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates on which the receptions were held for (a) the 45th winter ball and (b) the 46th winter ball.

    The Prime Minister: A reception was held at No. 10 Downing Street for the 45th winter ball on 7 November 1994.

    The reception for the 46th winter ball was not held at No. 10 Downing Street.

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the functions and the dates on which they took place which were held at No. 10 Downing Street since November 1990 where the costs have been met by (a) the winter ball, (b) the City and Industrial Liaison Council and (c) any of the regional industrialists councils which raise funds on behalf of the Conservative party.

    The Prime Minister: Two functions have taken place where the costs were met by the winter ball. These were on 8 December 1993 and 7 November 1994. There have been no functions where the costs have been met by the City and Industrial Liaison Council or any of the regional industrialists councils which raise funds on behalf of the Conservative party.

     

    Intelligence and Security (Committee Report)

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what action he proposes to take on concerns prompted by the Ames case and tainted intelligence referred to in paragraph 32 of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, Cm 3198;

    (2) pursuant to paragraph 35, what action he proposes to take on significant lapses in the procedures for the briefing of Ministers as referred to in paragraph 32 of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, Cm 3198.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to my letter of reply to the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee at the front of the report in which I said:

    “In the light of what your report said about the Ames case, and as you suggested at our meeting, I have myself reviewed the evidence given to you. I feel satisfied that Ministers were adequately briefed on this case and that, on the evidence so far available, damage to United Kingdom interests was not great. But these are serious issues and I look forward to seeing your conclusions following your further investigations into these matters.”