Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 26 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th June 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Downing Street Gates

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what consideration has been given to strengthening the ornamental gates to Downing Street;

    (2) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of retaining the gates in Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister: Security at Downing Street is kept under constant review.

     

    Island Games, Gibraltar

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 June, if the Government raised any objection to the Princess Royal attending the Island games in Gibraltar in July.

    The Prime Minister: No.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 June, what is the Government’s policy on other members of the royal family attending the Island games in Gibraltar in July 1995.

    The Prime Minister: No member of the royal family other than the Princess Royal has received an official invitation to attend the Island games in Gibraltar.

     

    Ministerial Speeches

    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister on what recent occasions Ministers’ speeches have been published by their Departments at public expense; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1995]: It is usual practice for ministerial speeches made on official occasions to be published and distributed to the press by their departmental press office. This does not apply to speeches made in a party political context which are distributed through the party machinery.

     

    Crown Immunity

    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all areas within (a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department’s control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this, and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The reference to the Crown immunity in the question is taken to refer to legislation which does not bind the Crown. Certain legislation is expressly applied to the Crown. In most legislation, however, particularly older legislation, there is no such express provision. In those circumstances whether legislation applies to the Crown will depend upon the implications to be drawn from the drafting and context of the legislation.

     

    French Nuclear Tests

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister what backing Her Majesty’s Government are giving to the Government of Australia, New Zealand and others in the Asia/Pacific region in their protests against the French Government’s intention to resume nuclear testing in the Mururoa atoll; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1995]: In our view the international community’s main priority is the early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. While we recognise the concern of some countries, particularly those in the south Pacific, over the French decision to suspend their moratorium on nuclear testing, we do not believe that a strictly limited programme of tests should affect the prospects for this.

    Dr. David Clark: To ask the Prime Minister on what date his French counterpart informed him that the French Government would recommence the testing of nuclear weapons.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1995]: We have very close contacts with the French Government on a wide range of defence questions, including defence procurement, issues of mutual interest and nuclear matters, including testing. I discussed both subjects when I saw President Chirac on 10 June. The details of these discussions remain confidential.

     

    Home Truths Campaign

    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on the home truths campaign by young people; and how he is replying.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1995]: My office has no record of this campaign. However, any representations will receive replies as appropriate.

     

    Attack Helicopters

    Dr. David Clark: To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with his French counterpart concerning the purchase of attack helicopters by the Ministry of Defence.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1995]: We have very close contacts with the French Government on a wide range of defence questions, including defence procurement, issues of mutual interest and nuclear matters, including testing. I discussed both subjects when I saw President Chirac on 10 June. The details of these discussions remain confidential.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on John Redwood Possibly Standing in the Leadership Election – 25 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on rumours that John Redwood was to stand in the Conservative leadership election. The comments were made in 10, Downing Street, London on 25th June 1995.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for his reaction to the news that John Redwood might be standing]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I must say I’m very surprised at what I hear over the last day or so, John and I were talking in mid week, John had some ideas about how we might develop, so I’m very surprised.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Resignation of Douglas Hurd – 23 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the resignation of the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, made in Huntingdon on 23rd June 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Douglas has been a member of the Government now for a very long time, he’s been a member of the Cabinet for six years. He’s made a remarkable contribution, both to the Cabinet and to the country, and I have not a shred of doubt, that whether one agrees with everything he does and even those who don’t, no-one can deny he has been one of the greatest Foreign Secretaries we’ve had this century.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Leadership Election – 23 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Conservative Party leadership election, made in Huntingdon on 23rd June 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The programme that I have in this constituency this morning illustrates one of the main reasons why I think it is right to hold a leadership election now and to sort out these fevered mutterings that we’ve had that have so excited so many people over the last two or three years.
    What has happened in the last three years is that the real political agenda, on education, on health, on the economy, on jobs, has just been absolutely extinguished by the chatter we’ve had about the leadership of the Conservative Party. Well, I’ve had enough of that to be frank.

  • Mr Major’s Resignation Speech – 22 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement in the garden at 10 Downing Street on 22 June 1995 announcing his resignation as leader of the Conservative Party. He stood, and won, the subsequent leadership election.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just make a brief statement to you. I’ve been deeply involved in politics since I was sixteen. I see public service as a duty and if you can serve, I believe you have an obligation to do so.

    I’ve now been Prime Minister for nearly five years. In that time we’ve achieved a great deal, but for the last three years I’ve been opposed by a small minority in our party. During those three years there have been repeated threats of a leadership election. In each year, they have turned out to be phoney threats. Now the same thing again is happening in 1995.

    I believe this is in no one’s interest that this continues right though until November. It undermines the Government and it damages the Conservative Party. I am not prepared to see this party I care for laid out on the rack like this any longer.

    To remove this uncertainty I have this afternoon tendered my resignation as leader of the Conservative Party to Sir Marcus Fox, the chairman of the 1922 Committee, and requested him to set the machinery in motion for an election of a successor.

    I have confirmed to Sir Marcus that I shall be a candidate in that election. If I win, I shall continue as Prime Minister and lead the party into and through the next election.

    Should I be defeated, which I do not expect, I shall resign as Prime Minister and offer my successor my full support.

    The Conservative Party must makes its choice. Every leader is leader only with the support of his party. That is true of me as well.

    That is why I am no longer prepared to tolerate the present situation. In short, it is time to put up or shut up. I have nothing more to say this afternoon. Thank you very much.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd June 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

    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.

     

    Singapore

    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since 1984 the Government have made representations to the Government of Singapore about the activities of a company called Charter Industries of Singapore.

    The Prime Minister: Chartered Industries of Singapore are part of the Government-owned Singapore technologies group. The British high commission, in the course of its export promotion activities, has regular discussions with the Singapore Ministry of Defence, which may include reference to Chartered Industries of Singapore.

  • PMQT – 22 June 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd June 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

    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.

    Ms Anderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that Labour’s proposals for tough and effective action against criminal and anti-social neighbours have been widely welcomed as a sensible attempt to tackle a problem which causes misery to thousands of people? Given the failure of the Government’s policies on law and order, will the Prime Minister now adopt our policies?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady right touches on a problem which concerns many people. As she will know, we have taken action on that problem. Nothing in the proposals from the Labour party adds to that action; they are merely window dressing on Labour’s part.

    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend today consider Gerry Adams’s prediction of the increase in terrorism and Shell Oil’s capitulation to terrorism?

    The Prime Minister: I think that in whatever form it manifests itself terrorism is unpleasant and should be resisted.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that there are those within the Conservative party who are destabilising the Government and damaging the country?

    The Prime Minister: When we were discussing Question Time I made a prediction–and I am usually right–that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman would not pick this subject. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is an honourable friend in every sense of the word. His letter shows that few men are blessed with better personal friends than he is to me. I am immensely grateful for his continued support. His letter also shows that he is deeply concerned for the Northern Ireland peace process, to which he has contributed a very great deal.

    Mr. Blair: If the questions are occasionally predictable, it is because the targets are also so predictable. It surely comes to something, does it not, when a Cabinet Minister is driven to writing to The Times about divisions in the Government without even telling the Prime Minister? If even Cabinet Ministers decide that the bitter in-fighting is damaging the national interest, will not the people of Britain conclude that the Conservative party is no longer fit to govern the country?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to have noticed today that the former deputy leader of the Labour party had a little bit of bitter in-fighting of his own about the right hon. Gentleman’s education policy. I also seem to recall that there was rather more in-fighting. Labour’s education spokesman wrote to his colleagues at the end of last year:

    “We are opposed to schools opting out . . . nor is there any intention that GM status should continue.”

    There seems to be some confusion–perhaps a touch of bitter in-fighting.

    Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend remember the massive battles that we had in the House some 15 years ago when we first removed the subsidies from British Steel? Does he also remember the massive opposition from Labour Members when we privatised British Steel? Is it not as a result of privatisation that we are today in a position in which British Steel can turn in £500 million of profits and export a product throughout the world against the toughest competition in the world? Should not Labour Members hang their heads in shame for opposing one of the most important policies for British industry?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall some very rich opposition–not least, as I recall, from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)–to the proposal to privatise British Steel. The general proposition put forward by the Opposition was that it was totally irrelevant to the future of British Steel, that it was produced entirely for ideological reasons and that it would do no good. From an industry which was collapsing, it is now one of the most successful industries in this country and in Europe. That has happened because of privatisation and our determination to ensure that industry is in private hands and efficient.

     

    Q2. Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Sir David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that next month is supposed to see the end of six years house arrest for the democratically elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi? Is he further aware that last week her British husband was refused a visa to go there and join in her 50th birthday celebrations? Will the Prime Minister make it unmistakably clear to the military rulers of Burma that trade with this country cannot flourish so long as there is such a basic denial of human and democratic rights?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Most people will have their own very crisp views of the present regime in Burma. It is unacceptable, and so is its behaviour. I warmly commend the right hon. Gentleman’s efforts and support for the former Burmese Prime Minister, which is richly merited. Six years’ detention is indefensible by any yardstick whatever and an offence against her human rights. We have made that crystal clear to the Burmese and will continue to do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Elletson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under a Conservative Government parents have been given the right to choose where to educate their children? Will he therefore congratulate all those parents in the Labour party who have been courageous enough to choose grant-maintained or selective schools even though Labour’s bogus education policy would destroy them?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I support the right of every parent in the country to choose the appropriate school for their child. I just wish that some of those who exercise the choice themselves would ensure that it remains equally free for every other parent in the land. The proposals that the Labour party produced today are very badly named–“Hypocrisy and Mediocrity” should have been the title of its plans.

    Dr. Godman: On the subject of Brent Spar, there is a good deal of speculation in Scotland concerning its eventual destination and it has been suggested that it is likely to end up on the lower Clyde. If that is so, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that all safety regulations will be adhered to during its dismantling?

    The Prime Minister: First, let me say that I deeply regret Shell’s decision to cave in to misguided pressure from environmental groups and some foreign Governments. The plan for deep-sea disposal was ratified and agreed according to all the international obligations agreed with other Governments, and not a single Government objected to the plan until they succumbed to pressure from Greenpeace. I shall make it clear to my colleagues across Europe that there will almost undoubtedly be a price to pay for their weakness in this respect.

    As for the subsequent disposal of Brent Spar, I have no means of knowing at present how that will eventually work out. If Shell seeks approval for onshore disposal, we shall naturally consider that request, but we are certainly not under an obligation to grant approval for a new abandonment plan. Shell will need to satisfy us on those issues which led us previously to the conclusion that deep-sea disposal was the best practicable environmental option. I think that, for the moment, that is where we should leave it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Mr. Hughes: In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to send a message of congratulation to all who, despite threats and intimidation, battled to expose the systematic abuse of power in Labour Monklands? Does he agree that now is the time for all those who have further information about what went on there–for instance, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)–to present that information, or are they worried about what we shall see of the tip of this very nasty Labour iceberg?

    The Prime Minister: Certainly, on the basis of the Black report, a remarkable number of relatives of Monklands councillors seem to have been employed by the council. Its personnel department was more like a family planning department.

     

    Q5. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Mr. MacShane: Does the Prime Minister welcome the new right-wing Government in France and the decision of his new friend President Chirac to raise the minimum wage substantially?

    The Prime Minister: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second is that it is of course a mistake there, as it would be anywhere else.

     

    Q6. Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend as the finest interpreters at Government communications headquarters to try to make sense of the contradictory gobbledegook contained in the document misleadingly entitled,

    “Diversity and Excellence: a new partnership for schools”? Is it not likely that beneath the honeyed words they will find the usual socialist disdain for schools which have managed to free themselves from the bureaucracy and interference of local education authorities?

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly a very unusual document in many ways. The Labour leadership has opposed each and every education reform in recent years. It was against tests, performance tables and grant-maintained schools–not just in the distant past, but recently. Only last week, Labour’s spokesman on Wales declared his opposition to grant-maintained schools. Last week it was Labour councillors penalising parents whose children are at grammar schools; today it is Lib-Lab Lincoln attacking children who win scholarships. No matter where we look, the reality is that Labour is opposed to choice, except in what it says; in what it does, there is to be no choice for anyone–except, of course, Labour Members themselves.

    Mr. Salmond: Instead of the foot-stamping petulance with which, we read, the Prime Minister has greeted his humiliation over Brent Spar, will he open his mind to a constructive suggestion? As both the Government and the oil companies have a huge financial interest in deep-water disposal as opposed to onshore decommissioning, and as no one trusts either the Government or the oil companies, would it not be better to have an independent authority overseeing decommissioning of oil and gas installations? I know that the Prime Minister is somewhat embarrassed by independent inquiries, but would that not be a constructive way forward?

    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure whether the people of Scotland will draw the conclusion that I draw–that the Scottish National party would really like the Brent Spar to be disposed of on land in Scotland at the expense of British and Scottish taxpayers. If that is the message, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it to every household that he has deceived at recent elections.

     

    Q7. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hendon school in my constituency was the first grant-maintained school in London and that since then it has become oversubscribed? Does he welcome the fact that the slow learners on the Opposition Benches have suddenly realised that grant- maintained schools are successful and popular with parents?

    The Prime Minister: That is certainly true, but I am afraid that time after time Labour’s leaders have voted against grant-maintained schools, Labour activists have voted campaigns against grant-maintained schools, and I doubt whether anyone will be gullible enough to believe that they can be trusted. I clearly recall the Labour education spokesman writing to his colleagues at the end of last year saying:

    “We are opposed to schools opting out”.

    Frankly, they could have saved a lot of paper and a lot of hot air if they had just said that in their recent document.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st June 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Privatisation

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose, my Department is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 20 June, Official Report, column 220.

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid.

    Mr. Horam: Those parts of the work of the Cabinet Office–OPSS–its agencies, HMSO and COI which have been contracted-out without an in-house bid are as follows:

    Central OPSS

    Consortium Reports

    Publishing and print Procurement Service

    CCTA

    GTN (Long-Distance)

    Chessington

    UNISON (Phase 1)

    CS College

    Prospectus Distribution

    RAS

    Catering Services

    Cleaning Services

    IT Hardware Maintenance

    IT Software Support Services

    HMSO

    Print Order Processing System

    Software Development: Business Supplies

    Software Development: Finance

    COI

    Videotext Unit

    The Cabinet Office, its agencies, HMSO and COI have contracted-out activities without inviting in-house bids where it has been judged that the private sector is clearly better equipped to deliver a specific service, has a better understanding of market needs, or the capacity to invest in new technology. Other decisions to contract-out services without inviting in-house bids have been taken where an activity is relatively small and peripheral to the Department’s functions.

    There are no current plans to contract-out any activities within the Cabinet Office, its agencies, HMSO and COI without inviting an in-house bid.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), 12 June, Official Report, column 373, if he will set out the reason for declining to give details of the dates of letters sent from his office to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: The Government do not propose to disclose details of confidential exchanges with the Scott inquiry.

     

    Former Prisoners of War

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to approach the Japanese Government to secure new compensation for British prisoners of war held by the Japanese.

    The Prime Minister: We are precluded on legal grounds from raising the question of compensation formally with the Japanese Government. I have drawn their attention to the strong feelings which the situation of the former prisoners arouses in the UK. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently discussed the matter with his Japanese counterpart at the G7 summit in Halifax on 16 June.

     

    Ministerial Speeches

    Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the total annual cost to public funds of publishing every Minister’s speeches.

    The Prime Minister: It is usual practice for ministerial speeches made on official occasions to be published and distributed to the press by the relevant departmental press office. The cost is not separately identified in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Friends of Israel – 20 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Friends of Israel, given on 20th June 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Introduction

    To go to Israel and Jerusalem at any time is special. As a committed friend of Israel, I was especially glad to have the opportunity to make the visit. Jerusalem, in particular, is unique, whatever one’s background. John Ward and John Marshall, who came with me, the latter in his capacity as Chairman of the British/Israel Parliamentary Group, will I am sure attest to that.

    Thank you for inviting me this afternoon. I recognise many faces here from the very enjoyable occasion six months or so ago, when I spoke to the Joint Israel Appeal – and indeed from where I spoke to the Board of Deputies in March the year before. So I don’t want to go over the same ground.

    However, it is now some three months since my visit. So I thought you might appreciate some reflections on it, and to hear about some of the practical ways in which it is being followed up.

    The Visit

    The reasons for my going, and the importance of Britain’s relationship with Israel, need no underlining to this audience. The ties between our peoples go back much further than the founding of the State of Israel. The Jewish community here in the United Kingdom has contributed enormously to British life. Looking round me, I know that that will continue.

    There have been difficult times in the past. But it was particularly poignant to visit Israel in the year that we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of VE-Day.

    I was glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the sacrifices of Jewish parachutists, dropped behind enemy lines at appalling risk and often terrible costs – just as I was glad to be able to present President Weizman with a model of the famous Spitfire which he flew with the RAF.

    Yad Vashem, which I visited early during my stay, bears heart-rending witness to why we fought side by side against common enemies. I know that Britain will continue to stand by Israel as it builds its nation, and secures its peace.

    So I went to Israel to reaffirm the importance of our relationship – and to give it added practical substance. To that end, I took with me one of the most powerful delegations of senior British businessmen ever I think to have left these shores. You will not be surprised to hear that we worked them hard. But the results that I shall mention shortly speak, I think, for themselves.

    UK/Israel

    During my visit, I spoke about the “menorah” of relationships that tie together our two countries:

    – in politics, where the deep disagreements of the past have given way to a much warmer relationship, demonstrated by the recent flow of high level political contacts. We share, for instance, an implacable hostility to terrorism, and a deep commitment that violence can have no place in a democratic state. In my two meetings with Prime Minister Rabin in Jerusalem, I could not help thinking back to a dark October afternoon last year, when Mr Rabin had come to see me in Downing Street only hours before another terrorist atrocity in the heart of Tel Aviv shocked the world;

    – in defence, where Malcolm Rifkind recently made the first visit to Israel by a British Defence Secretary. Britain and Israel of course also co-operated closely during the Gulf War, where we admired the Israeli people’s resolution under missile attack, and at the same time mounted the UK Special Forces’ largest operation since 1945 to counter this missile threat – with remarkable success which resulted in some 40 gallantry awards;

    – in culture, where the National Theatre visited last year, and the Royal Ballet this year. There are also intense and long-standing academic links and I should mention too the important role of private British philanthropy, which continues to contribute vitally to so many social and charitable activities in both Israel and this country;

    – in education and science. During my visit, I announced a scheme for “British Awards for Excellence in English” during a meeting with an English resource centre in Northern Galilee, which itself has been made possible by private British philanthropy. I also announced a doubling of the funds available to the UK/Israel Science and Technology Fund;

    – just as important, trade and investment. Our trading relationship now amounts to over £1.5 billion a year. Israel is Britain’s second largest market in the Middle East. And amongst our top 25 world-wide.

    Peace Process

    I also went to Israel, of course, to try and give a boost to the peace process. No-one can visit Israel without being acutely conscious of the wider political challenges facing the country.

    We all recognise that, in the longer term, Israel must reach an accommodation with her neighbours and take her rightful place in the region.

    Here in Britain, we will continue firmly to support the peace process. I know that you in the CFI take the same view. Negotiations with the Palestinians will remain essential to Israel’s future. The negotiations are bound to be complex and difficult, and the terrorists will go on trying to destroy the process. But it can be in neither side’s long-term interest to turn back now, and I spent a fair part of my time in the region discussing with both Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat how best to encourage progress.

    Here, I might say a word about my visit to Mr Arafat in Gaza. Our talk produced, I think, some useful movement.

    You may remember that I announced during my visit Palestinian agreement that the EU should co-ordinate election observers in the Occupied Territories. I am glad to say that this is going ahead. The Commission have reached agreement with the Palestinians and Israelis, and have started to make preparations. Britain will contribute observers.

    During my visit I announced further aid for the Palestinians. We have since announced a further £2 million as a contribution to recurrent costs. This brings our total aid package to over £83 million over three years.

    Meanwhile, progress is being made on the Palestinian track. It is excellent news that the two sides expect to reach agreement on elections and redeployment, even if they do not quite meet the target date of 1 July.

    There is also some encouraging news on the Syrian track. Negotiations on security arrangements are due to start in Washington on 27 June. There is still a wide gap on substance. But I am glad to see that movement has resumed.

    Business Follow-Up

    I thought you might be interested to hear too of some of the ways in which our two countries’ business communities have been following-up their own visit, with, if I may say so, great energy and considerable success.

    We shall for instance be following-up the business Round Table in Jerusalem, whose opening I attended, with the first meeting of the Israeli-Britain Business Council in the autumn, hopefully during the planned visit to London of Israel’s Minister of Trade, Mr Harish. Sir Richard Greenbury will chair for the UK.

    The Council will establish working groups on infrastructure, health and education, financial services and hi-tech issues. Some of these will begin work in the next couple of months.

    Following my visit, BT have agreed a partnership with Israeli companies in the telecoms sector. Cable and Wireless have purchased 7% of Bezeq.

    I have been glad to see, too, the start of triangular collaboration, involving UK, Israeli and Palestinian firms. An English company, Agrifarm, have obtained an EU contract for a feasibility study on the establishment of a marketing company for Palestinian agricultural and horticultural produce.

    The DTI is holding its first Levant-wide promotional event covering the Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian and Syrian markets in the City on 13 September.

    We will be looking at proposals for Business Parks along the borders of Israel and the Occupied Territories, and hope to see British involvement.

    We will be inviting Israel’s Chief Scientist to visit Britain to discuss joint research and development activities.

    The first disbursements from the UK/Israel Science and Technology Research Fund, which we doubled in March, should be made this summer.

    Racial Harassment in the UK

    One other subject to mention before I close, not directly connected with my visit, but to which I attach the greatest importance. It was one of the major subjects raised when the Board of Deputies came to see me a few months ago, so I know the Jewish Community gives it a similar priority.

    Namely the subject of racial harassment and the threat of extremism. There is a problem of extremism, right and left, running right the way across Europe. Its scale in Britain is still small. But that is no consolation. I am absolutely determined that London will not become a centre for extremists, British, Islamic or otherwise. The publications and activities of organisations like the so-called Combat 17 and Hizb-ut-Tahrir are obnoxious and repulsive. They have no place in our society.

    I do not need to spell out to this audience the Government’s implacable opposition to such activity. We have already taken steps to deal with it. Last year’s changes to the Criminal Justice Act, for instance, give the police the power of arrest in relation to the publication or the distribution of material likely to incite racial hatred. They are using it. Earlier this year, as perhaps you know, the Metropolitan Police caught two Combat 18 members distributing literature, and subsequently seized material.

    The prosecuting authorities are aware of the Government’s views. The police and Crown Prosecuting authorities will pursue vigorously the possibility of prosecutions whenever the evidence so justifies. You need be in no doubt that I firmly support this approach.

    Conclusion

    So in all the ways I have mentioned, we are actively taking forward and deepening the relationship. And when I say “we”, I mean just that. Not just Government, but businessmen, politicians, teachers, musicians, scientists and so on.

    Most attention is rightly focused on the peace process; and there will be some critical months ahead in that respect.

    But it is important, too, to remember the many other levels on which the British/Israel relationship exists. We are determined to go on taking forward that relationship, both as a Government and as Conservatives.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June 1995.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.

    The Prime Minister: 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.

     

    President Clinton

    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister what contact he has had with President Clinton on plans for a visit to the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister: I would welcome a further visit to the United Kingdom by President Clinton. We are discussing possible dates.

     

    Nuclear Tests

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to persuade the French Government not to resume nuclear testing and to oppose any proposals taken by them to do so.

    The Prime Minister: We are in regular contact with the French Government, who are aware of our views.

     

    BMARC

    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister if the intelligence sources referred to in the oral statement on BMARC by the President of the Board of Trade of 13 June, Official Report , columns 595-606, and dated at July and September 1988 used material from within the Astra group of companies.

    The Prime Minister: It is not the Government’s policy to comment on the sources of information contained in intelligence material.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 June to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, (Mr. Fatchett) Official Report, column 373, if he will list the external lawyers who have been used to provide advice for witnesses to the Scott inquiry; and if external lawyers have been used at the request of witnesses of Departments or of the Treasury solicitors.

    The Prime Minister: The Government will have no objection to publishing the names of external lawyers who have been used to provide advice for witnesses to the Scott inquiry at public expense after Sir Richard Scott’s final report has been published and provision of such advice has been concluded. External advice is provided at public expense either where the witness concerned requests it and the departmental legal adviser considers this reasonable or where, after consultation with his departmental legal adviser of the Treasury Solicitor, it is agreed that such advice should be sought.

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 February, to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, (Mr. Cousins) Official Report, column 353, if further evidence has been taken in private by Lord Justice Scott.

    The Prime Minister: Sir Richard Scott continues to obtain evidence, both oral and written, as the need arises. I am advised by the inquiry that the last evidence taken at a private hearing was on 4 May 1995.

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if the Cabinet Office has received any information on allegations that British companies had circumvented export control regulations or guidelines covering Iraq or Iran, which have not yet been passed on to Lord Justice Scott.

    The Prime Minister: All information received by the Cabinet Office and identified as required by Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry has been passed to the inquiry.

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he has instituted any change in the system of distribution of intelligence reports to Ministers and their appropriate officials as a result of the problems outlined by Baroness Thatcher in her evidence to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: A number of improvements have been made, of which details have been given to the Scott inquiry.

    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 June given to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), Official Report , column 373 , how many requests for legal assistance for witnesses to the Scott inquiry have been turned down as unreasonable; and if he will break down the costs to public funds between the costs in respect of (a) external lawyers and (b) the Treasury solicitors.

    The Prime Minister: Witnesses to the Scott inquiry who wish to seek legal assistance at public expense must first seek the approval of their departmental legal adviser or the Treasury Solicitor’s Department. Where necessary, the nature, scope, source and terms of such legal advice are discussed with the individual concerned. I am not aware of any case in which there was a disagreement over the provision of legal advice following such discussions. The information on legal costs is given in my answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) today.

    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), Official Report, column 374, on leaks from the provisional draft report of Lord Justice Scott, who conducted the inquiry; what were the responses of those who were interviewed; and if he will publish the conclusions for the inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 12 June, Official Report, column 374.

     

    Security Vetting

    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 April, Official Report, column 344, if contractors who carry out basic checks are now obliged to require their employees and potential employees to disclose to them any information concerning any criminal record, including those which are spent and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Contractors are obliged only to carry out basic checks on employees or potential employees who will have access to Government assets. As part of a basic check, employees and potential employees are not required to disclose spent convictions. Contractors have a duty to request from their employees and potential employees, a completed criminal record declaration form. However, employees and potential employees do not have to return the form to their employer; if they prefer, they can pass it directly to the contracting Department or agency.

    In my answer of 24 April, I also referred to exceptional cases where, in the interests of national security, and with the agreement of the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and Science, extra inquiries are necessary in addition to those carried out for a basic check. Where these include a check against the national collection of criminal records, individuals are required to declare spent convictions, as permitted under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, and the rehabilitation of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (Exceptions) Order 1979. This information is available only to the contracting Department or agency and is not accessible by the contractor.

     

    Intergovernmental Conference

    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 June, Official Report, column 374, which treaty gives authority to the common fisheries policy, and which is subject to amendment at the 1996 inter-governmental conference; and if he will make it his policy to seek withdrawal from the common fisheries policy.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 June]: Fisheries are part of the common agricultural policy governed by articles 38-47 of the EC treaty which will be reviewed as part of the 1996 intergovernmental conference. The detailed rules of the common fisheries policy are set out in the Council regulation 3760/92 which comes up for formal review in 2002. We have no plans for UK withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, but we are continuing to work for improvements in the appropriate fora.

     

    Overseas Visits (Royal Family)

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister when the royal household sought the advice of Her Majesty’s Government on the appropriateness of a member of the royal family attending the Island games, Gibraltar, to be held in July.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 June]: Official visits overseas by members of the royal family are made on the advice of the Government. The Princess Royal had hoped to attend the Island games in Gibraltar in July but, in the event, she was unable to do so.