The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • 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.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 December 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Oleg Gordievsky

    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish extracts from the notes of the Security Service debriefing of the Soviet defector Oleg Gordievsky to the extent that such extracts (a) do not threaten current national security, (b) add to public knowledge of the ways in which the Soviet state sought to obtain information from British people about the United Kingdom with a view to breaking its security and (c) reveal the main United Kingdom providers of such information.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Ministerial Train Journeys

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister how many train journeys for one hour’s duration or more he has made in Britain in 1994 in the course of his official duties.

    The Prime Minister: I have made one such journey in the past 12 months.

     

    NHS Expenditure

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of whether the answers given to the hon. member for Workington on the cost per head of NHS spending in respect of Scotland, 7 December, Official Report, columns 278 79, Northern Ireland, 5 December, Official Report, column 47, and England and Wales, 1 December, Official Report, column 830, are comparable calculations based on comparable data.

    The Prime Minister: The answers given to the hon. Member reflect the different structure of the national health service in each of the countries concerned, and the latest year for which figures on expenditure are available.

     

    Ministerial Travel

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister what criteria he uses in deciding whether it is appropriate for a spouse to accompany a Minister on Government duties abroad.

    The Prime Minister: Public interest, as stated in paragraph 74 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

     

    Council of Europe

    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United kingdom delegation for the 1995 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

    The Prime Minister: The 1995 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be opened in Strasbourg on 30 January 1995. The delegation from the United Kingdom for the session will consist of 19 members of the Conservative party, 15 members of the Labour party and two members from the minority parties. The appointments of representatives and substitutes have been made on the basis of nominations by the parties concerned, in accordance with the resolution of this House on 22 May 1992, Official Report, column 682, and of the House of Lords on 18 June 1992, Official Report columns 290 92.

    The same delegation will be representing the United Kingdom Parliament at the Assembly of the Western European Union, which next meets in Paris in June 1995.

    Representatives from the Government Benches will be:

    My Noble Friend, the Lord Finsberg – who will continue to act as leader of both delegations.

    My hon. Friends the Members for:

    Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith)

    Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson)

    Ashford (Sir K. Speed)

    Medway (Dame P. Fenner)

    Lewes (Mr. T. Rathbone)

    Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)

    Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt)

    Reading, West (Sir A. Durant)

    My noble Friend Lord Newall

    Representatives from the Labour Party will be:

    The hon. Members for:

    Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)

    Tooting (Mr. Cox)

    Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson)

    Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)

    Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)

    Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland)

    The Noble Lord Kirkhill

    The representative from the minority parties will be:

    The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)

    The following substitutes have been appointed to act as necessary on behalf of the delegates.

    From the Government benches:

    My hon. Friends, the hon. Members for:

    Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick)

    Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell)

    Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden)

    Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry)

    Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill)

    Bridlington (Mr. Townsend)

    Newark (Mr. Alexander)

    and my noble Friends the Baroness Hooper and the Earl of Dundee

    From the Labour Party

    The hon. Members for:

    Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie)

    Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray)

    Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)

    Easington (Mr. Cummings)

    Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe)

    Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall)

    Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. T. Davis)

    The noble Baroness Gould of Potternewton

    From the minority parties:

    The Noble Lord Mackie of Benshie.

     

    Civil Service

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the management of the home civil service.

    The Prime Minister: The Government plan, in the light of the review of the Treasury’s activities, that those central civil service management functions that remain after delegation to Departments should be transferred to the Minister with responsibility for the civil service with effect from 1 April 1995. The functions which it proposes to transfer include responsibility for senior civil service pay; policy on civil service recruitment, retirement and redundancy and the central management of the principal civil service pension scheme; and residual central responsibilities for civil service personnel management, industrial relations, conditions of service and allowances, and the collection of civil service manpower statistics. It is envisaged that the Treasury will undertake a last round of national pay negotiations in 1995 and carry through the remaining delegations to Departments up to 1 April 1996. The Treasury’s pension benefit calculation work at Basingstoke will be taken over by the Paymaster agency.

    These changes, and the delegation of most civil service management functions to Departments, will not affect the Treasury’s role in relation to public expenditure, including that on public sector pay. The Government propose to lay before Parliament the necessary transfer of functions order under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 December 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministers

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of members of the House are now in ministerial office or employed as parliamentary private secretaries; and what was the figure in 1978.

    The Prime Minister: Nineteen per cent. of Members of this House are parliamentary private secretaries or hold ministerial office, which is broadly similar to 1978. The information is a matter of public record.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the number of Ministers in the Government by rank currently and in 1978; and if he will explain the reasons for the differences; (2) how many Ministers there are currently in the Cabinet; how many there were in 1978; and what are the reasons for the difference.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested is a matter of public record. The reasons for any differences will depend on the reasons for allocations of ministerial portfolios in 1978 by the then Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan of Cardiff.

     

    Parliamentary Private Functions

    Mr. Kaufman: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to provide a full reply to the question from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton concerning parliamentary private functions.

    The Prime Minister: I have done so.

     

    Economic Community

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty’s Government consider themselves bound by the undertakings given at the time of the 1975 referendum on EEC membership.

    The Prime Minister: It is not clear which undertakings the hon. Member has in mind.

     

    Ministerial Travel (Spouses)

    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in the past year his spouse has travelled abroad to accompany him at public expense on public duties; what has been the total cost of this to public funds; on how many occasions such travel has been undertaken at own cost; and what was the destination and the duration of these foreign trips.

    The Prime Minister: During the past year, my wife has accompanied me on overseas visits on two occasions, as follows:

    Date |Visit

    —————————————————————————————————————————————————

    13-15 February 1994 |Russian Federation

    18-22 September 1994 |Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, South Africa

    On both occasions, costs attributed to my wife were minimal because she travelled on charter aircraft and stayed as “Guest of Government” or at residences.

    There have been no occasions when such travel was undertaken at own cost.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

    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 this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

     

    Lockerbie Bombing

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek discussions with the Prime Ministers of Malta and Sweden about the implications of clothing found in the wreckage of Pan Am 103.

    The Prime Minister: The investigation of clothing found in the wreckage of Pan Am flight 103 is the responsibility of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, acting where necessary in co-operation with the authorities of other countries concerned, which have included Malta and Sweden.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what documentary evidence is in the possession of Her Majesty’s Government in respect of baggage loaded on to Pan Am 103 at Frankfurt in December 1988.

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member is aware, it would not be appropriate to reveal details of the evidence against the two persons accused of the Lockerbie bombing while criminal charges are pending.

     

    Security Vetting

    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the procedures for security vetting within government.

    The Prime Minister: As I announced to the House on 23 March, Official Report, columns 259 60, to ensure that security measures and procedures reflect current threats, the Government have recently completed a fundamental review of their arrangements for the management of protective security in Departments and agencies. In the area of personnel security, the review concluded that the vetting process served a worthwhile purpose, not only in disclosing circumstances which might lead to breaches of security but as a deterrent to those who might otherwise seek to undermine that security. The review recommended, however, that there should be a streamlining of the procedures that made up the vetting process. That work has now been completed.

    The new framework should ensure that personnel security objectives are properly defined and that responsibility for achieving them is clearly established. There will be a greater emphasis on ensuring that personnel security resources are targeted on, and proportionate to, the threat and add necessarily and cost-effectively to the protection of government assets. Between 1 January and 31 March 1995, the existing arrangements will be replaced by a new personnel security regime which will consist of two levels of vetting, a security check and developed vetting. A security check will be similar to the current PV(S)–positive vetting (secret)– clearance, but will in addition include a check on the financial status of the individual. Developed vetting will replace the present PV(TS)–positive vetting (top secret)–and EPV–extended positive vetting– levels of vetting. The current system of counter terrorist checks will remain unchanged, but will be subject to review.

    As at present, all candidates for security vetting will be asked to complete a security questionnaire which will explain the purpose of the procedure and invite them to provide the personal details required for the necessary checks to be carried out. Vetting will then be carried out on the basis of the statement of policy set out below.

    Statement of HM Government’s vetting policy

    In the interests of national security, safeguarding Parliamentary democracy and maintaining the proper security of the Government’s essential activities, it is the policy of HMG that no one should be employed in connection with work the nature of which is vital to the interests of the state who:

    is, or has been involved in, or associated with any of the following activities:

    –espionage,

    –terrorism,

    –sabotage,

    –actions intended to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means; or

    is, or has recently been:

    –a member of any organisation which has advocated such activities; or

    –associated with any organisation, or any of its members in such a way as to raise reasonable doubts about his or reliability; or is susceptible to pressure or improper influence, for example because of current or past conduct; or

    –has shown dishonesty or lack of integrity which throws doubt upon their reliability; or

    –has demonstrated behaviour, or is subject to circumstances which may otherwise indicate unreliability.

    In accordance with the above policy, Government departments and agencies will carry out a Security Check (SC) on all individuals who require long term, frequent and uncontrolled access to SECRET information or assets. A Security Check may also be applied to staff who are in a position directly or indirectly to bring about the same degree of damage as such individuals or who need access to protectively marked material originating from other countries or international organisations. In some circumstances, where it would not be possible for an individual to make reasonable progress in their career without clearance to SECRET level, it may be applied to candidates for employment whose duties do not, initially, involve such regular access.

    An SC clearance will normally consist of:

    a check against the National Collection of Criminal Records and relevant departmental and police records;

    in accordance with the Security Service Act 1989, where it is necessary to protect national security, or to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom from threats posed by persons outside the British Islands, a check against Security Service records; and

    credit reference checks and where appropriate, a review of personal finances.

    In some circumstances further enquiries, including an interview with the subject, may be carried out.

    Individuals employed on government work who have long term, frequent and uncontrolled access to TOP SECRET information or assets, will be submitted to the level of vetting clearance known as Developed Vetting (DV). This level of clearance may also be applied to people who are in a position directly or indirectly to cause the same degree of damage as such individuals and in order to satisfy the requirements for access to protectively marked material originating from other countries and international organisations. In addition to a Security Check, a DV will involve:

    an interview with the person being vetted; and

    references from people who are familiar with the person’s character in both the home and work environment. These may be followed up by interviews. Enquiries will not necessarily be confined to to past and present employers and nominated character referees.

    It is also the Government’s policy that departments and agencies will carry out Counter Terrorist Checks (CTC) in the interest of national security before anyone can be:

    authorised to take up posts which involve proximity to public figures at particular risk of attack by terrorist organisations, or which give access to information or material assessed to be of value to terrorists:

    granted unescorted access to certain military, civil and industrial establishments assessed to be at particular risk of attack by a terrorist organisation.

    The purpose of such checks is to prevent those who may have connections with terrorist organisations, or who may be vulnerable to pressure from such organisations, from gaining access to certain posts, and in some circumstances, premises, where there is a risk that they could exploit that position to further the aims of a terrorist organisation. A CTC will include a check against Security Service records. Criminal record information may also be taken into account.

    Departments and agencies generally assure themselves, through the verification of identity, and written references from previous employers, that potential recruits are reliable and trustworthy. Such Basic Checks (BC) are already standard procedure for many departments and agencies. Where access needs to be granted to Government information or assets at CONFIDENTIAL level, departments, agencies and contractors engaged on government work are required to complete such checks. In some cases, at the CONFIDENTIAL level, where relevant, the Basic Check may be augmented with some of the checks normally carried out for security clearances.

     

    Maltese Double Cross

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from President Clinton about the showing of the film “Maltese Double Cross” in the White House, Washington, on the morning of Sunday 4 December; and whether he has offered to the White house all evidence pertaining to the Pan Am 103 destruction over Lockerbie in the possession of Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 14 December 1994]: I have received no such representations. The investigation into the Lockerbie bombing has been carried out in conjunction with the United States authorities, with whom all evidence has been shared.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of Alan Fancovitch’s film, “Maltese Double Cross”, in relation to sanctions against Libya and loss of United Kingdom-Libya trade.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 14 December 1994]: The content of the film is being considered by the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway constabulary.