The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Voluntary Services Overseas Annual Meeting – 26 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Voluntary Services Overseas Annual Meeting, held at the Annual Meeting at the Institute of Education in London on Wednesday 26th October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted to be with VSO and its supporters today. You can look back with satisfaction on another year of outstanding VSO achievement, with some 1700 volunteers serving overseas. But the last year has also brought the sad news of the death of the VSO’s founder, Alec Dickson. We have seen in the tribute made to him today that it is because of his vision and determination in promoting the idea of voluntary service overseas that we are meeting here today. Of course VSO has moved on from the organisation he founded in the 1950s – but its fundamental ethos is as strong as ever.

    Over recent years we’ve heard a great deal about the bad behaviour of that tiny minority of British people abroad – the louts and the hooligans. But in many parts of the world, this is a face of Britain people simply don’t recognise. The British people they meet are some of the many thousands of volunteers – many of them young – who go abroad to work for the good of others with VSO and other voluntary organisations. I would rather Britain was recognised by the qualities of basic decency, compassion and concern for the welfare of others that volunteers for VSO demonstrate. I wish that were given more recognition.

    The heart of VSO’s work is humanitarian: to help other people help themselves through increasing their chances of making better lives and better prospects for themselves and their families.

    Commitment to help others is an instinct for millions: a quality which we should all encourage. And Voluntary Service Overseas can be the entry ticket to a lifetime of service for others – a lifetime of commitment to voluntary work at home or abroad. It is not just the people in other countries who benefit – our own society benefits too.

    The Government shares the aims and values of VSO. That is why we have increased the support we give to VSO. This year we are supporting your core programme with a grant of over £17m – more than double what we contributed five years ago.

    It is an example of our similar aims that, more and more, VSO is working in partnership with Government Agencies – such as the ODA and the British Council – in areas as diverse as Nepal, Uganda, South Africa and Russia. On my recent visit to Russia I was particularly pleased that I was able to announce support through the Know How fund for VSO’s new programme under the East European Partnership to place volunteers in small business development, health service management and other areas. We hope there will be 35 volunteers in place there in the next 18 months.

    THE BRITISH AID PROGRAMME

    But our commitment to VSO is only part of a much wider programme. Britain has a quality programme to help poor countries. We are the sixth largest aid donor worldwide but this is by no means the only point. Our agencies are dedicated, practical and effective. The quality of what we do is recognised worldwide. We are in the lead in working for more imaginative debt relief programmes for developing countries.

    There have been three significant international initiatives to relieve debt over the last six years. All of them British initiatives.

    First, the Toronto terms in 1988 produced a reduction of about one third in the cost of servicing debts to some of the most poor and most indebted countries.

    Next, I proposed terms in Trinidad four years ago which resulted in an immediate reduction in debt of up to two thirds for the countries involved. It has been remarkably successful. So far twenty two countries have benefited and nearly 3 billion dollars have been written off. But more still needs to be done.

    That’s why, most recently, Ken Clarke has proposed – with considerable support from Commonwealth Finance Ministers – that the IMF should do even more to help these poorest countries by carefully phased and limited use of its gold reserves.

    Actually, Overseas Development is something the British are rather good at.

    Most people, when they think of our aid effort think of our response to emergencies and disasters – floods in Bangladesh, famine in Ethiopia, fighting in Bosnia – or more recently the devastating consequences of tribal conflict in Rwanda. We are there with quick and effective help. And we make a huge difference. When Lynda Chalker reported back to me after her first visit to Goma in July, I do not believe I had ever heard a more harrowing account of human suffering and sheer horror. Since then – I’m glad to say – we’ve done a great deal to alleviate that suffering and improve conditions – an effort which continues.

    But, emergency aid is only part of the picture. Most of our efforts, like yours, go into longer-term developments – helping poor countries find long term solutions to problems of poverty – imparting skills and techniques to enable them to make a living. Giving them the wherewithal and training to help them to earn their own self-respect. As a result – in part – of our help many countries, once heavily dependent on help from outside are now able to earn their own way in the world. But with over a billion people living in absolute poverty, there is still an enormous challenge.

    Over the last year and half I have seen a variety of projects which illustrate the achievements of our aid programme. These achievements are as diverse as the countries with which we work.

    – In India last year I saw one of our slum improvement projects; it is transforming the lives of some 80,000 of the poorest families: improving health with water supplies and sanitation and expanding opportunities for people to earn income and support themselves.

    – In Russia earlier this year I saw how we are helping to promote the transition to democracy and a market economy. I visited a Privatisation Centre supported by our Know How Fund. In Nizhny Novgorod I met farmers who were learning how to buy and sell shares in land and new businessmen who were keen to learn more about marketing their products. The Privatisation Centre is playing a key role in the transformation of old-fashioned state-owned enterprises in the region.

    In South Africa last month I saw some of the positive results of our aid – and not just cricket pitches. With President Mandela, I signed an agreement on the £60 million of aid we have pledged to support areas which are vital to the country’s future: education, health, good government and encouraging small enterprises. The tremendous optimism and energy of the people I met in the townships of Johannesburg brought home to me how much our help is valued – and needed.

    THE ROLE OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES

    Government programmes of this kind can achieve a great deal. But, as you know better than most, aid is not just the business of governments. We cannot and should not nationalise compassion. That would destroy the very foundation of what we want to achieve – the compassion of ordinary people and their desire to do something personally to help.

    Contributions from private individuals and from businesses show the extent to which the British people remain committed to promoting development.

    Volunteers who serve overseas play an important part in helping to give us in Britain a wider perspective on the world. They can help us to understand the needs and priorities of poorer nations. In international relations, volunteers can give us a unique insight into all the problems – social, economic, environmental which these nations face.

    The experience of volunteering also develops the individual who volunteers. It draws out skills which might otherwise be under-used. It strengthens those values of self-reliance, responsibility, and respect for others – values which strengthen our society.

    YOUNG PEOPLE AS VOLUNTEERS

    When I was Foreign Secretary – a few brief glittering hours, rather less than Peter Carrington – I was concerned that the challenge of volunteering should be more widely available to younger people. When VSO was first founded in 1958, most of the volunteers were school leavers. The average age of a volunteer is now about 33. I would like to see younger people also having access to this kind of opportunity and experience as they did in the first years of VSO.

    Often, when young people volunteer to work overseas it is from a sense of adventure – a desire to be independent – yet what begins as adventure can become a way of life and a way of building a sense of responsibility and the ability to put problems into perspective. We ought to widen opportunities for young people to contribute as volunteers. I am delighted therefore to hear of the establishment of your Overseas Training Programme sending students on assignments in developing countries. I was particularly interested to hear at first hand the experiences of two of the trainees a moment ago.

    SUPPORT FROM OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT

    The health and vitality of VSO depends strongly on its broad base of public support in the country. To maintain and develop this support, you have recognised the need to involve the public more actively in funding and providing practical help.

    I welcome your plans to increase funding from the British public and from the private sector. Individuals and international companies and trusts should be encouraged to offer you financial support. Often, it is in their interests too, to do so.

    It is also important to help the right people to serve overseas and so we welcome your ambition to involve employers in encouraging their staff to think about voluntary work.

    Companies have much to gain from encouraging their staff to volunteer either in the UK or abroad. Increasingly, companies are working in partnership with voluntary agencies in the UK, sharing skills and experience.

    Though there are practical issues which need to be considered, I believe more employers could derive substantial advantages by developing partnership with overseas voluntary agencies too – particularly companies with trading interests overseas. They need staff with initiative and experience abroad. Voluntary work can give those staff, especially younger staff, that experience much earlier in their careers than is often possible in the company itself. I know that VSO hopes to discuss all this with employers’ organisations and professional bodies. I should like to take this opportunity to express the Government’s support. But most of all I hope that those of you in the audience today from the private sector will be able to help and advise on the way forward.

    The world we live in is changing faster than ever before. And, for all its turbulence, one of the irreversible features of modern life is the tapestry of links that we are constantly weaving across national and continental boundaries -links through trade, links through the electronic media, through travel, and through education and learning.

    When I was a young child the outside world was far away; mass travel by jet airliner was a thing of the future. When the MCC toured Australia they spent weeks crossing the ocean by sea, not hours by air.

    The young people of today see the world in an entirely different light. For them, experience of other nations is a commonplace. For them, it is the most natural thing in the world to reach out across the sea and work with the rising generation in other lands.

    Young people have a curiosity and a breadth of vision many older people do not. They have modern skills many older people may never acquire. They are aware that, outside the highly developed countries, the huge rate of population growth makes this more than ever a young person’s world. Look at the townships of South Africa or the cities of Latin America and you will see the truth of that.

    We must see this as an opportunity. We must make use of those young people’s enthusiasm for life. Understanding grows and cooperation follows when people meet and work and talk and build together.

    People over 60 remember war right here in Western Europe. People under 30 find it inconceivable. And why? Largely because of the millions of invisible links between nations that they themselves have helped to develop in the course of their lives.

    I have a hope – indeed, I have faith and confidence – that as we work for a new world order, it is the new world vision of so many younger people that will be one of the anchors of lasting peace.

    A few weeks ago I called for an anti-yob culture. Well that culture is certainly alive and well in the. VSO. I am proud of your past achievements.

    But even more, I am proud of what VSO and all its supporters will do in the years ahead and I wish you every success.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 26 October 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    United States (National Performance Review Team)

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister what contact his Government have had with Vice-President Gore’s national performance review team; and will he make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, met Vice-President Gore and members of his national performance review team. The citizens charter unit has also had discussions with the national performance review team, and continues to keep in touch with it.

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how may people attend.

    The Prime Minister: No such receptions have been held.

     

    Departmental Documents

    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of all documents, letters, or accounts he has signed which are written in a language he does not understand.

    The Prime Minister: It is my policy to allow photographic reproductions of my signature to appear on official documents translated into languages other than English. However it is not my normal practice to place such documents in the Library.

     

    Prevention of Terrorism Acts

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), Official Report, 24 October, column 492.

     

    Mark Thatcher

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions Ministers in Her Majesty’s Government have been informed of payments made to Mr. Mark Thatcher or to companies associated with him in relation to defence contracts.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 21 October 1994]: As far as I am aware, no credible information of this kind has been submitted to Ministers.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Standards of Conduct in Public Life – 25 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on standards of conduct in public life, made on 25th October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the conduct of public life, and put some proposals before the House. Before I do so, I shall refer to the report that I asked the Cabinet Secretary to undertake on allegations of impropriety against named individuals that had been made by Mr. Mohamed Al Fayed. I have now received Sir Robin Butler’s report, and am publishing it in full in a written answer this afternoon. Before turning to wider matters, I should like to draw on that report.

    Perhaps it would be best if I quoted paragraph 2 of Sir Robin’s report to me. It reads as follows:

    “In reporting those allegations the informant said that Mr. Al Fayed wanted a meeting with the Prime Minister, principally because of Mr. Al Fayed’s wish to have the DTI Inspectors’ Report on the takeover of the House of Fraser revised or withdrawn.”

    It continues:

    “He had made a number of allegations against Government Ministers and was contemplating passing them to others.”

    Sir Robin then sets out my reply. He records that I replied that it would be impossible for me to see Mr. Al Fayed in these circumstances. If Ministers had been guilty of wrongdoing, as Mr. Al Fayed alleged, I was not going to make any sort of deal, regardless of the cost to the Government’s reputation. I said that I would consider how to proceed, and suggested that in the meantime my informant should make no response to Mr. Al Fayed.

    I said that because I was not prepared to enter into discussions with Mr. Al Fayed on any of these issues. However, it was clear to me that I would need to establish whether there was any substance in the allegations. If there was, it was unlikely that they would remain private; nor was it right that they should remain private. Upon the substance of the allegations, the House now knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has resigned from the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has rigorously rejected–both orally and in writing–the allegations of impropriety made against him, and is taking legal action. Sir Robin’s report makes it clear that he has found no evidence that controverts my hon. Friend’s assurances on these matters.

    I must tell the House, however, that, since Sir Robin completed his report, other unconnected allegations which were not the subject of his investigations have been made against my hon. Friend. I must consider whether the combined impact of these allegations disables my hon. Friend from carrying out his responsibilities as Minister for Corporate Affairs. I believe that they do, and my hon. Friend agrees and has resigned from the Government.

    On the other allegations put to me, Sir Robin found that they are either demonstrably false or, so far as he has been able to establish after careful inquiry, entirely unsubstantiated, as well as being denied by the Ministers concerned.

    I now turn to wider issues. It is important that the public have confidence in our system of public administration, our methods of making public appointments, the conduct of people in authority and the financial and commercial activities of public figures. It has always been the wish of this House that British Government, Parliament and administration should be entirely free of malpractice and I am determined to ensure that that is so.

    In the present atmosphere, there is public disquiet about standards of public life and I have concluded that action is imperative. I have listened carefully and have reflected upon the points raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House in framing my recommendations.

    I have decided to establish a body with the following terms of reference:

    “To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities, and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life.”

    For these purposes, public life should include Ministers, civil servants and advisers, Members of Parliament and United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament, members and senior officers of all non-departmental public bodies and of national health service bodies, non-ministerial office holders, members and other senior officers of other bodies discharging publicly funded functions and elected members and senior officers of local authorities. That is a wide-ranging list, and it is intended to be so.

    I have considered the nature of the body to be established. A royal commission tends to be cumbersome, and would probably take too long; a committee composed solely of Privy Councillors might be seen as being too narrowly drawn; a Speaker’s Conference traditionally deals only with electoral law; and a formal board of inquiry or judicial inquiry tends to carry out specific investigations rather than considering broader issues and making recommendations to the Government. Arguments can be made for any of those bodies, but I believe that a better way ahead exists.

    The body needs to be able to respond quickly and to be sufficiently flexible to deal with the wide range of issues I have outlined. I have, therefore, decided to establish standing machinery to examine the conduct of public life and to make recommendations on how best to ensure that standards of propriety are upheld. It will contain prominent individuals who have practical experience of Parliament and public life, but also others with expertise and knowledge of our principal institutions. Lord Nolan, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, has accepted my invitation to chair this committee.

    I have invited the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats each to nominate a member of the committee, and I shall announce the full membership shortly. I hope that the committee will be able to produce at least a first report covering the main areas of current concern within six months, and then stay in being as a standing body to advise the Government of the day.

    It will be open to the committee to take evidence in public, although it could also invite evidence in writing or in private and would probably wish to deliberate in private, but the committee must determine this. Naturally, I would expect Ministers and Members of Parliament to give evidence to the committee if requested to do so, but I should make it clear that the purpose of the body is not to replace the House’s own machinery, which is the proper way to consider issues affecting individual Members of the House.

    The new body will advise on general procedures, including procedures governing public appointments rather than investigate individual cases. When the committee has reported, I will publish its report, I hope in full, lay it before the House and take the proper action upon it. Recommendations affecting the Members and procedures of this House will, of course, be for the House to decide. I hope that I have made it clear that I am determined to ensure that this is a wide- ranging review of the safeguards of standards of public office. It is vital that the system is seen and recognised to be beyond criticism. I shall naturally make available to the committee “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” and any other documentation concerning the proprieties in Government that the committee may seek.

    This country has an international reputation for the integrity and honour of its public institutions. That reputation must be maintained and be seen to be maintained. I hope that the standing committee I have announced today will enjoy the support of the House and reassure the people of this country about our determination to maintain high standards of conduct in public life.

    Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield): I welcome the new body to look at conduct in public life. It is plainly sensible and necessary. I accept that some of the allegations made by Mr. Al Fayed may well be unsubstantiated and, indeed, badly motivated, but will the Prime Minister accept that public anger over these issues goes far wider than merely the matters raised by Mr. Al Fayed?

    On the inquiry, will the Prime Minister confirm that it will cover not simply the consultancies of Members of Parliament and outside financial payments, but whether Ministers who privatise companies should then sit on their boards; the role of lobbyists, the use of patronage generally, not just for Members of Parliament but for others; and appointments to quangos, especially given the news today–I should be obliged if he would confirm it –that there are some 66 national health service trusts whose chairmen are either prominent members of the Conservative party or gave a donation to it? Does the Prime Minister agree that the inquiry must be comprehensive, covering past malpractice, present practice and future rules? In that regard, may I point out what I think is a weakness in his statement? Will he confirm that the one area of investigation that appears forbidden to this body will be the specific allegations made against Ministers or Members of Parliament that have given rise to the public anxiety? If the new body is not to examine those cases, is there not an overwhelming case for the Committee of Privileges, which is the only other body that can examine them, to sit in public so that those matters can be investigated?

    If that is ruled out, might I suggest alternatively that it is imperative that the new body, headed as it is by a Law Lord and with the power to take evidence, investigates the specific cases before moving to the general conclusions? If the Prime Minister rules out either the Committee on Privileges sitting in public or the new body investigating those matters, there will be justifiable public concern that the general inquiry is being used to sweep the particular allegations from public view when it is those allegations that have given rise to the public concern.

    It would not be unfair to describe today’s statement as decision-making on the run. Indeed, the resignation of the Minister with responsibilities for trade, just announced, suggests something of the same. I should be obliged if the Prime Minister would tell hon. Members what the nature of those other allegations against the Minister are. I repeat, however, that the inquiry is right. I do not underestimate the difficulties that beset the Prime Minister or the delicacy of the judgment that he must make, but the warning signs over these issues have been ignored for too long.

    There should be no more statements made one day only to be superseded by different ones made the next. The action that the Prime Minister takes today should be expanded to encompass the comprehensive solution that I have put forward. If he does that in the way that I described, we will ensure that his Government once again start to control events rather than be driven by them.

    The Prime Minister: Let me deal with the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. I welcome the fact that he supports the establishment of this new body. It will restore confidence where confidence may have been lacking, and that is to be welcomed in every part of the House. I welcome also what he had to say about the allegations that have been produced by Mr. Al Fayed.

    On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions about the inquiry, I made clear in my statement the answer to a number of the questions that he asked, but I shall confirm specifically for him that, yes, it is possible to look at the membership of boards, the relationship with lobbyists, patronage and quangos. That is all well within the terms of reference, as I said to the House a few moments ago. On membership of quangos, no record is kept of the political affiliation– [Interruption.] No record is kept of the political affiliations– [Interruption]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear. The House must come to order so that at least I can hear what the Prime Minister is saying.

    The Prime Minister: I repeat the point that I made a moment ago. People of all political persuasions serve on non-departmental public bodies. Many of them who are sufficiently well known for us to know their political affiliations without central record are well-known members and supporters of the Labour party.

    There is no precedent for the Committee on Privileges to sit in public. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well the good reasons why that is so. It is necessary to have an investigation in depth without unsubstantiated allegations subsequently being made. That is a matter of natural justice, and has always been seen to be so by Members of the House, until some Opposition Members seemed to wish to play partisan party politics.

    As for the new body, as I made entirely clear in my statement, it will set up the procedure to ensure that everyone has confidence in the way in which public affairs are conducted. It has been set up for that reason, and it is unbecoming of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that it was set up for any other reason.

    As for the nature of the allegations about my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), they are allegations and they are unsubstantiated. Whatever inquiries the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) may have, I am not going to retail unsubstantiated allegations. They will be investigated–they should be investigated–but every hon. Member should know that the purpose of the House is not to retail unsubstantiated allegations, but to make sure that they are investigated and, if true, acted upon.

    Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North): May I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in particular the wide scope that is proposed for the inquiry, and the method by which it is thought that it should conduct its business?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I felt that it was necessary to give the committee the widest possible scope, so that it may deal with the whole range of concerns that have arisen not just in the events of the past couple of days, but I suppose, in some respects, rather earlier. It is therefore right to deal comprehensively with this matter; to have the committee independently chaired by a senior Lord in Ordinary, whose independence can be undoubted; to have representation on it from each of the three largest political parties in the House and to have other representation on it, which will spread across the band of public life, of people from politics and beyond it.

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement, not least because it seems to follow almost identically the proposals put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) a week ago. I am tempted to ask the Prime Minister why it has taken him so long to get there. Will he understand, however, that a welcome for the principle of a general inquiry into the ethics of public office should not be taken as satisfaction with the way in which the Prime Minister has handled individual concerns about individual Ministers in his Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his indecision in this matter stands in stark contrast with the clear undertakings that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) little more than a week ago? If there are substantive matters to be investigated, does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that they should be investigated not by the Cabinet in the Cabinet, but by the Privileges Committee in public?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s originality is such that he repeats precisely the points made some moments ago to which I have already replied. As for decision-making, an inquiry was established immediately. That inquiry has reported, and action has been taken on it. As for the wider issue, I would hardly regard as he does the decision to establish the widest-ranging committee to deal with the conduct of public life that has been established in this country at any time since the second world war.

    Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the action that he has taken? Is it not the case that only an independent inquiry of this kind will satisfy the public? Is it not much better to have such an independent inquiry than to allow the agenda to be set by political muck-raking?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend entirely about that. It is necessary to have a proper body so that people know that actions are taken within a proper framework and can then deal with suitable contempt with those who make unsubstantiated allegations.

    Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): The Prime Minister emphasised the wide-ranging nature of the inquiry that he has just announced, and, like others, I welcome that. But will the terms of reference also include a matter that bears upon standards of conduct in public life–the financing of political parties in the UK?

    The Prime Minister: This inquiry will deal with Government matters, Government appointments and Government behaviour. It has nothing to do with the financing of political parties, which has been dealt with by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

    Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): While greatly welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, may I ask him whether the Director of Public Prosecutions will examine whether Mr. Al Fayed should be prosecuted for attempted blackmail and whether all those who either succeed in bribing or attempt to bribe Members of Parliament should be prosecuted for corruption or summoned before this House for contempt of Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: The latter point is predominantly a matter for the House. On the former point, the note of my meeting has been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

    Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth): Is the Prime Minister telling the House that the inquiry will have no right and no capacity to inquire into those cases where substantial sums have been paid to the Conservative party in order to buy favourable decisions or privilege?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would be wise to reflect on what he has just said and on his evidence for saying it. I set out clearly the remit of this committee. It is perfectly clear, and I have nothing to add to it.

    Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new body will have the power to look into the substantial sums of money that are paid to a number of right hon. and hon. Members for things that they do for the news media, based on information received while Members of this House?

    The Prime Minister: I should think that the chairman of the committee may well consider that the remit would cover an examination of such payments.

    Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): As the Prime Minister purported at Question Time to read out a selected list of Labour members of quangos, he must have taken some trouble to ascertain such political affiliations. Will he now compile and publish a full list of the political affiliations of chairmen and chairwomen of quangos, so that the public know how the Government fill those vacancies? Will he also publish a full list of the chief executives of the next steps agencies with their salaries– something which he has totally refused to do so far–together with the salaries of the civil servants who did the comparable jobs before the agencies were set up?

    The Prime Minister: That is a classic illustration of the sort of smear by association that we have seen so often during the past few years. It is not very difficult for most people in politics to know the political affiliations of prominent socialists like Baroness Jay, Helene Hayman, Lord Scanlon, Mr. Jack Jones and other people I mentioned earlier. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman lives, but most of us on this side of the House can recognise a socialist, whatever activity they may be performing, if they have been as prominent as those.

    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden): As chairman of the Select Committee on Members’ Interests, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today, especially his reassurance that matters affecting Members of this House will continue to be considered by Members of this House.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, and I certainly concur with the points that he made. My hon. Friend speaks with great experience of those matters.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is the Prime Minister aware that the matter of taking money from big business can never be properly cleared up until the Government face the 64-dollar question and say that Members of Parliament should have one job and one job only? Members of Parliament hold 550 directorships, consultancies and adviserships, which are mainly held by Tory Members of Parliament. It is high time that people understood that they should be able to live on the payments made to a Member of Parliament, and that there should be no conflict of interest between serving constituents and serving other masters outside. Clean up the stables now.

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman entirely carried his hon. Friends with him in those remarks–some of them also would have interests. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman also addressed himself to the question of trade union sponsorship and membership of that type. I do not think that that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman. He may be the latest living example of the old levellers, but many other people on both sides of the House believe that the concept of the wholly professional politician will only isolate politicians more and more from the people who send us here.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): I refer my right hon. Friend to the second paragraph that he quoted from the Cabinet Secretary’s report. I ask him to confirm that, in the past six days of hectic media reporting, not a single member of the media managed to discover the way in which they were being manipulated by the Al Fayeds. Although legitimate issues were raised in public, the media should be encouraged to try to ask how they are being manipulated by others. I also ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that it is right that the new standing group should not examine every part of internal party funding, and that we cannot expect it to consider the way in which the Leader of the Opposition got his £70,000 and why the Labour party has appointed Tom Sawyer, the man who said, “No pay, no say”, as its general secretary.

    Ms Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood): Because he is the best man for the job.

    The Prime Minister: “Because he is the best man for the job,” the hon. Lady says. I do not doubt that. He may well be the best man for the job; I would not have any criticism about that in the case of Mr. Sawyer. The people whom we appoint are also the best people for the job; that is why they are appointed. I hope that Opposition Members will make the same type of judgment as the hon. Lady did to defend her position, that we would make to the people that we have appointed.

    Now we know the truth, do we not? It is the right person if it is someone on the Opposition side; it is sleaze if it is someone on our side.

    Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw): Is the Prime Minister aware that it is no use writing a new highway code unless there are sanctions at the end of it, such as fines or taking away the licence, to implement it? Is he aware that the last time that the House received recommendations to expel two Members–in that case, Reggie Maudling and Albert Roberts–the Tories divided the House on party political lines and threw out that recommendation? Will the recommendations of the new body have to come back before the House for endorsement and be subject to political sanctions, or will the new body have the power to fine or suspend, or recommend expulsion on the verification of the Speaker?

    The Prime Minister: I made the point earlier to the whole House, quite clearly, that the report would have to be laid before the House for the House to consider. If I had not done so on matters relating to the House, a large number of the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends would have said to me, “This is a matter for the House of Commons, and it has to come back to the House of Commons.” Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. As for dividing on party lines and walking out on that basis, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the Privileges Committee about that.

    Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon): Welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, may I ask him whether he agrees that the same requirements should be made, as far as may be reasonable, of quangos as of local government, in respect of access to information and documents and meetings, as well as publication of membership and registration and declaration of interests?

    The Prime Minister: Those are all points that can be covered in the report, and I suspect will be.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Is the Prime Minister aware that, whatever the merits of a wider inquiry may be and whatever embarrassment to individuals or parties may have arisen from recent events, the matter of real concern is that, when people vote for a Member of Parliament, they should know that that Member works for them and is not using his position in Parliament to earn money on political matters that benefit the Member, not the constituent? Were that idea to spread, people would lose faith in the House of Commons, which would destroy centuries of work to establish the democratic principle.

    That being the case, is the Prime Minister aware that the only way to deal with it is total openness, which is why I and other Members of the Committee of Privileges felt unable to hear the evidence in private and believed that it should be in public?

    Is there not a clear answer to the problem? The Prime Minister and other Ministers, like everyone who has been a Minister, are governed by the strictest guidance of procedure for Ministers on private interests. If that were applied to all Members of Parliament, and if the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 were used to disqualify, by law, those who did not fulfil those criteria, the matters could be dealt with and public confidence restored.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s latter point is certainly the sort of matter that the committee may wish to recommend, and may wish to send back to the House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be free to give evidence to the Committee on such issues if he wishes to do so.

    On the subject of open government, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have probably made more moves towards open government in the past three years than we have seen at any stage in the previous 30 years. Those include the membership and terms of ministerial Cabinet Committees, the publication of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”, the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the White Paper on open government, the code of practice on Government information, the statutory access rights, the openness of public records, the code of practice that includes a range of other matters, more than 11,000 records released under open government initiatives–I could extend the list. Those are the moves towards open government that I have made in the past three years, and I think that it is time that some Opposition Members realised some of the movements that have been made.

    On the earlier part of what the right hon. Gentleman said, many of his strictures are equally applicable to sponsorship by trade unions. The purpose of the Register of Members’ Interests is to ensure that people are aware of what outside interests Members of Parliament may have.

    Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North): Every weekend, the majority of Members of the House go back to their constituencies and hold advice surgeries to try to offer help to constituents from all walks of life. It is vital that those people are able to come to us–men and women on both sides of the House–and expect to receive sound, helpful and honest advice. It is for that reason more than any other that I welcome the inquiry that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced. My right hon. Friend has–

    Madam Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman resume his seat for a moment? He is making a statement. He has been on his feet for some time, and I have not yet heard a question.

    Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend said that there would be an inquiry into the affairs of Ministers of the House, Members of the House and civil servants, which is absolutely right. It is not up to the House to question–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. A number of hon. Members wish to be called, and I now want brisk questions to the Prime Minister, not long-winded statements.

    Mr. Gale: There is a section of the community that has not been named in my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will my right hon. Friend ask the chairman of the Press Gallery to conduct a similar inquiry into the political affiliations, financial interests and shareholdings of members of the Gallery, their editors and proprietors, and to publish them?

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend may have achieved a rare moment of cross-party consensus.

    Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Does the Prime Minister appreciate that, when he appears before this House with a straight face and tells us that there is no current connection between political affiliation and quango appointments, he makes himself and his Government look shabby, foolish and quite incredible?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, even if, as usual, he is wrong.

    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I regret the resignation of our hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). Perhaps my right hon. Friend could also take a look at one of the biggest quangos of all–the European Commission. Would it be in order to suggest that British nationals serving in the Commission as Commissioners, or working for it, or who are now likely to serve on the Committee of the Regions, should also be included in the remit of the new body?

    The Prime Minister: I have certainly included the United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament, but I am not sure whether the conditions of service of others who work in the Commission and elsewhere would legitimately fall within that remit.

    Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North): Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in this country are appalled by the prospect of Members of Parliament holding consultancies that pay them large, although undisclosed, sums of money? If he wants to give real credibility to the new body that he has announced, why does he not include both Members’ consultancies and trade union sponsorships?

    The Prime Minister: I am interested to hear that suggestion. I made it clear earlier that it was perfectly possible for consultancies to be examined by the Committee, which can make recommendations about them. The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt about that.

    Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston): Has my right hon. Friend noted the number of times during these exchanges when Opposition Members have referred to the proceedings of the Privileges Committee as “secret”? Does he not feel that, in the interests of accuracy, it should be clearly stated that every line of every question and answer will be published and then debated in this House? There is no secrecy in that.

    The Prime Minister: That is entirely true; I could have made the point in answer to a previous question. The report of the Privileges Committee, although its proceedings will be held in private, will be published, brought to the House and then debated by the House. That is hardly a secret investigation, and it is open to every member of the Committee to come and speak in the debate.

    The reason why the Privileges Committee has always met in private has been well understood for many years: it is in the interests of natural justice that it should. I very much regret that on this occasion, for whatever reasons they may have–I shall leave others to judge them–Labour Members alone have decided that they will not sit and conduct the investigation into the behaviour of Members of Parliament in the traditional manner. I believe that people outside will see that as a partisan move for partisan reasons.

    If the report were not to be published, debated and then acted on, Opposition Members might have a point. As it is, they have none–except that they want to create the maximum amount of difficulty, irrespective of how the House traditionally deals justly with its Members.

    Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I generally support the Prime Minister’s announcement today, although we share the view that some appointments to quangos are made for political reasons. In Northern Ireland, that is not usually because the persons concerned are Tories, as they are an endangered species there. Usually, it is people who have been defeated at elections who have been appointed to quangos. Is there not a danger of hysteria getting to us in this House? Already I have heard people crying, “Why didn’t he resign?” when earlier they were crying, “Why doesn’t he resign?” It is a fact that standards in this House are still respected throughout the world as an example for all.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There has been an hysterical reaction in some quarters. There seem to be a large number of candidates for the role of witchfinder-general on the Opposition Benches–people who seem unconcerned about the way in which they are behaving. That truly is as poor as any of the behaviour that they themselves criticise.

    Literally millions of people in this country would claim to be Conservatives, socialists, Liberals or members of some other political party. The argument that those people are somehow different and should therefore be excluded from public service is totally and utterly ludicrous.

    I want people of quality whatever their political persuasions to serve, and the sooner the Labour party removes its dogmatic opposition to bodies that run things locally, such as national health service self-governing hospitals, the sooner many of its supporters will wish to come forward and work for their local communities and make a success of those bodies. It is the Opposition’s doctrinaire stupidity that stops that happening.

    Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North): I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement of the inquiry. I should like to return to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). While all our officials in the Commission are meant to be honourable men, should we not set an example by regulating them in the same way as we regulate public officials in this country–or is my right hon. Friend saying that employees in the European Commission, those who are UK nationals, are beyond UK law and jurisdiction? Should we not do something about that, bearing in mind that the Commission is responsible for £5 billion of fraud in the European Union?

    The Prime Minister: People working for the European Commission who may previously have been British civil servants are in exactly that same position as people who have been working for the United Nations and other bodies for the past 20 or 30 years. The fact that people work for the European Union ought not to mean that they are treated in any way differently. They are employed for a period by people other than ourselves, and do not fall within our natural responsibility and jurisdiction. People may regret that, but it is a fact. Those people who properly fall under the control of the House for these purposes are elected Members of the European Parliament, and I have included them in the inquiry.

    Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North): Can the Prime Minister say whether Mr. Al Fayed was interviewed by the Cabinet Secretary? Will he say who the other Ministers were and whether they were interviewed? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his inquiry is unprecedented, and does he not know that his Law Officers accept that the Committee on Privileges could meet in public or in private: that that is up to the members of the Committee?

    In the context of being partisan, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that the public might draw the conclusion that the partisanship lay with the Government supporters, and that the issue was decided only by the casting vote of the Lord President? The public will also ask, “What have this Government got to hide that they have to meet in private?”

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is sometimes mind-bogglingly silly. On the points in the first part of his question, I suggest that he refers to Sir Robin Butler’s report. On his latter points, he should refer to the answer that I have several times given to his hon. Friends and which he has not yet taken in.

    Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton): For the avoidance of doubt, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the standing committee will examine and explore the substantial sums that pass from trade unions to Labour Members year in and year out, and no doubt the substantial favours that are required in return?

    The Prime Minister: That is not specifically included in the remit, and I am not sure without a careful examination of the remit whether it would fall within it. But, of course, if people wish to volunteer that, it is a matter for them.

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton): The Prime Minister has suggested that no records are kept of the political affiliations of quango appointees. Is he aware of the existence of the Public Appointments Unit, which has nine full-time and two part-time staff investigating the backgrounds of appointees? Is he also aware that the Public Appointments Unit registers 10 different categories of information with the Data Protection Board? In the course of the inquiry, will he ensure that the criteria used for those 10 different categories of information about prospective appointees to public office are placed in the public domain?

    The Prime Minister: Let me take, for example, the question of health service appointments, as I think, from memory, that that was the one I referred to earlier. No central record is kept there of the political affiliations of the people who are appointed. On the hon. Gentleman’s logic, many of the people who are invited have high-profile positions. But hundreds more do not–they just have a commitment to public service. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect. Is he really suggesting that one should engage in a series of questions to all the people there as to what their political affiliations might be? What is the question to be, “Are you, or have you ever been, a Conservative?”–is that the sort of society that the hon. Gentleman wants?

    Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West): In welcoming the Prime Minister’s statement today, will he ask the Lord in Ordinary when he comes to looking at patronage and the abuse of it to examine carefully the record of the last Labour Government, and in particular the resignation honours list of one Prime Minister and the appointment of a son-in-law to the ambassador to Washington by another Labour Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that, when the last Labour Government were in power–admittedly, a long time ago–there was a great fuss about the number of Labour appointees to bodies of one sort or another, particularly those that became known as quangos. There is no doubt at all that that was certainly the case at the time. Anybody who has served on a local school governing body with a Labour-controlled education authority will know very well precisely what Labour authorities have done so frequently to Conservative Governments–

    Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): And Conservatives.

    The Prime Minister: “And Conservatives,” says the hon. Gentleman, so he concedes that that is what Labour authorities do. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman makes my point for me.

    Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South): Can the Prime Minister repeat his assurance that the inquiry will report within six months? Some of us can remember that, in October 1989, the Home Secretary and the Attorney- General came to the House and announced an inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich cases. That inquiry was dragged out, and every conceivable excuse was used to drag it out, for the next five years, until most people had forgotten the origins of the inquiry in the first place. We do not want to see that happen in this case.

    The Prime Minister: The timetable for the inquiry will not be in my hands. I have said that I hope the inquiry will be able to report, at least on the substantive part of its work, within six months, but that is a matter for Lord Nolan, the chairman, and the members of the inquiry, one of whom–a senior member–will be appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and another by the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal party.

    The timetable will not be in the hands of the Government in any sense. I have expressed the hope that it can be done within six months, and I believe that the chairman and the committee will seek to meet that target, but I can offer the hon. Gentleman no guarantees, for it is not within my control.

    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that one of the background elements in the whole matter is the speed with which the role of Members of Parliament and the expectations of them of their constituents are changing, and the way in which the relationship between this place, the Government the European Union and, indeed, the public service in our country is changing. Will he at least give us the assurance that he will think very carefully about also setting up an inquiry into the best way of equipping this great House of Commons to take the country into the 21st century, in light of the way in which so much is changing so quickly?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the changing demands on Members of Parliament. Members who have served in the House for more than a few years will acknowledge that difficulty from their own practical experience. There is no doubt that the much greater availability of Members of Parliament and their much greater visibility through a much higher level of media interest than ever before has added to their work load, so I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has to say. However, that is predominantly a matter for the House itself rather than specifically a matter for me, although I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend’s underlying proposition.

    Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North): Will Prime Minister confirm that the two Ministers who have resigned did so apparently on the narrow point they had not declared items in the Register of Members’ Interests? Will he accept that the issue is much more serious than that? Will he therefore reject the notion that, just because something is in the Register of Members’ Interests, it is all right to do it?

    Will the Prime Minister also make it clear that the whole purpose of the inquiry is to look way beyond whether we have a Register of Members’ Interests or whether people declare what is in it, to the real prospects of trying to find out how to bring back to the country the honour that the House has so long deserved?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman’s first proposition was wrong, of course. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) certainly resigned because he did not declare something in the Register of Members’ Interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has resigned not on those grounds, but on the grounds that more allegations, as yet unsubstantiated and unexamined, have been made, and on that basis it is clearly difficult for him to continue with his present responsibilities as Ministers for Corporate Affairs. For that reason, he has left the Government. Nothing as yet has been proved against my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. Of course there are wider concerns. It is precisely to allay them that I have set up a mechanism which I hope will, when it has reported and is operating, show beyond doubt that many of the wilder allegations and tittle-tattle that have appeared recently have no basis and are, indeed, nonsense. Once the procedures are in place, much of the feeding frenzy that we have seen from time to time over recent years and weeks will be seen to be the utter nonsense that so much of it is.

    Several hon. Members rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on to the next business.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 October 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Al Yamamah Arms Deal

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) of 18 October, Official Report, column 138, to what (a) Government Department and (b) other authorities any evidence on impropriety in the Al Yamamah arms deal should be forwarded.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister who are the appropriate authorities (a) for the receipt and (b) the investigation of complaints made in the case of Mr. Mark Thatcher relating to British defence contracts.

    The Prime Minister: Matters within the responsibility of Her Majesty’s Government in relation to defence contracts should be addressed, in the first instance, to the Ministry of Defence.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister to which authority the complaint from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to the Prime Minister’s Office concerning the role of Mr. Mark Thatcher in relation to defence contracts was referred; and what action was taken.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 21 October 1994]: The complaint was referred to the Cabinet Office, which in turn consulted the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the security service.

    The conclusion reached was that the document that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had sent contained a number of clear errors, which cast doubt on its reliability. No evidence was found to support the allegations made.

     

    Tigris and Euphrates Valleys

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Her Majesty’s Government have had with the United States Government, the United Nations, other EC countries and the Arab League about the shortage of medicine, water pumps and water filters in the valleys of the Tigris and the Euphrates; and which statistics are available to Her Majesty’s Government on the incidence of marasmus, kwashiorkor, and other water-related diseases in the Baghdad area over the summer.

    The Prime Minister: Except for the Arab League, we meet representatives of these countries and organisations at routine meetings of the United Nations department of humanitarian affairs. Reports indicate that diseases such as cholera, typhoid and malaria are increasing and that there are cases of marasmus and kwashiorkor. We have no information specific to Baghdad.

    We condemn the Iraqi regime for continuing to refuse United Nations offers to allow limited oil sales to pay for humanitarian supplies. Iraq’s attempts to make political capital out of avoidable suffering are cynical.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

    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.

     

    Ministerial Conduct

    Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the rules governing the availability of financial support from Government for Ministers in respect of libel actions arising from events which took place before they took office; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Public resources may be used to deal only with matters which arise as a direct result of the official duties of Ministers.

     

    Cabinet Secretary’s Report

    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the Cabinet Secretary’s report into the allegations made by Mr. Al Fayed.

    The Prime Minister: The text of the report is as follows. “On 30 September you asked me to investigate certain allegations of impropriety against members of the Government, which had been brought to you in confidence on the previous evening and which, you were told, derived from Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed.

    In reporting these allegations the informant said that Mr. Al Fayed wanted a meeting with the Prime Minister, principally because of Mr. Al Fayed’s wish to have the DTI Inspectors Report on the takeover of the House of Fraser revised or withdrawn. He had made a number of allegations against Government Ministers and was contemplating passing them to others.

    You replied that it would be impossible for you to see Mr. Al Fayed in these circumstances. You added that, if Ministers had been guilty of wrong doing, you were not going to make any sort of deal, regardless of the cost to the Government’s reputation. You said that you would consider how to proceed and suggested that in the meantime your informant should make no response to Mr. Al Fayed.

    The following morning you asked me to investigate. I carried out some immediate enquiries and on the evening of 30 September your Private Secretary reported to you that some of the allegations were familiar because they had surfaced before, had been previously investigated and had been strongly denied. However, some allegations were new. You then asked me on 3 October to follow up all the allegations, whether old or new, with the Ministers concerned.

    I had conversations with the Ministers named in the allegations in the week before the Conservative Party Conference, and I reported to you the outcome of these conversations, together with the results of other inquiries I had made, on Monday 17 October on your return from Bournemouth. In the light of that report, you asked the Chief Whip and me to clarify some points so that, in the interests of natural justice, there should be no risk of your acting unfairly. On 18 October, you concluded that Mr. Smith’s offer of resignation form the Government should be accepted later in the week when the Chief Whip’s and my action was complete.

    I should make clear that, in view of the circumstances in which the information reached you, I have not felt able to approach or interview Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed himself. I was reinforced in that view by information subsequently received that Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed has made available to others the information which was provided to you. It can therefore be assumed that if there is any further material which Mr. Al Fayed may have to substantiate his allegations it will come to light.

    While the Chief Whip and I were taking the further steps agreed at your meeting on 17 October, two of the allegations passed on to you were made public in The Guardian of Thursday 20 October. These were that Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Tim Smith were paid to raise questions on Mr. Al Fayed’s behalf in the House of Commons.

    I had previously enquired into both these matters and had asked Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Smith about them. Both sets of allegations may be the subject of other enquiries and, in the case of Mr. Hamilton, are the subject of legal proceedings against The Guardian newspaper. In these circumstances I should not deal with them in detail in this report, which I know that you envisage publishing.

    Suffice it therefore to say here that Mr. Smith volunteered to me that, as he has subsequently confirmed publicly, he received payments from Mr. Al Fayed between 1987 and 1989, when he ended his activities on behalf of Mr. Al Fayed. He did not declare the necessary information in the Register of Members’ Interests until just before the end of this period, and he acknowledged that he should have done so earlier. He offered his resignation from the Government.

    Mr. Hamilton has emphatically denied throughout my inquiries, both in writing and subsequently in a public statement, that he received any payments deriving from Mr. Al Fayed. I have found no evidence which controverts Mr. Hamilton’s assurances on these matters. He acknowledged that he had received hospitality from Mr. Al Fayed, as a private guest (as he believed), at a time well before he entered the Government. He had not thought it necessary to declare this in the Register of Members’ Interests, for reasons which he explained in a letter to the Editor of the Guardian of more than a year ago, a copy of which he gave me. He also gave me an exchange of correspondence dated nearly a year ago in which he had amplified to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members’ Interests what he had said to the Guardian .

    When Mr. Hamilton became a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, he declared his previous interest in matters concerning Mr. Al Fayed and has stood aside from involvement as a Minister in issues involving the House of Fraser.

    There were other allegations passed on to you by your informant. I have looked into all these, so far as I am able, and the Chief Whip and I have put the allegations in detail to the Ministers concerned. In some of them there are patent inaccuracies, and all have been denied explicitly, unequivocally and in writing.

    I have found nothing which would cause me to throw any doubt on the validity of those denials. Moreover, the fact that there is reason to think that these allegations too have now been made available to others who have so far chosen not to publish them suggests that they too may have found that there is a lack of evidence to establish their validity.

    In those circumstances, while confirming that I am confident that the allegations either are demonstrably false, or, so far as I have been able to establish, are entirely unsubstantiated as well as being denied by the Ministers concerned, I do not think it appropriate to give them further currency by listing them in this Report.

     

    South West Water

    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if the statement made by the hon. member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) during his recent visit to the south-west, on the possibility of making Exchequer funding available to reduce water and sewerage charges in the South West Water company area represents the policy of Her Majesty’s Government; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The Director-General of Water Services has recently completed the first periodic review of water company price limits. The new price limits that he announced for South West Water have been referred, at the company’s request, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In the meantime, we must await the outcome of the commission’s review.

  • PMQT – 25 October 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

    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.

    Mr. Berry: Does the Minister for business probity still command the full support of the Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: I shall be making a statement immediately after Question Time and the hon. Gentleman should contain himself.

     

    Q2. Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

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

    Dr. Clark: During the course of his busy day, does my right hon. Friend ever pause to reflect on how easily little bits of bad news can push major items of good news out of the headlines? In congratulating my right hon. Friend on his continuing achievements in Northern Ireland, may I ask whether he agrees with me that the end of 1994 will be remembered not for the media’s obsession at the present time, but for the achievements in Northern Ireland, which have brought stability, hope and peace beyond our wildest expectations?

    The Prime Minister: It is attractive from time to time to maintain a proper perspective on political matters and I do believe that we have now entered a fresh phase of the peace process in Northern Ireland, as I set out in my speech in Belfast last week. As I saw for myself across the community in Belfast last week, there is enthusiastic support in Northern Ireland for the progress that has been made and appreciation and understanding of what still needs to be done. But there is greater hope that peace may now be permanently achievable than we have seen at any time in the last quarter of a century.

    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Prime Minister investigate the affair of Healthcare International at Clydebank and tell us why more than £30 million of public money has been put into creating a private hospital and what will now happen to rescue that hospital? Will he guarantee that any such rescue effort will not be at the expense of NHS hospitals in Glasgow and the west of Scotland?

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will examine carefully what the hon. Lady has said. As the hon. Lady will know, year on year, the resources available to the health service in each part of the United Kingdom have increased, as have the number of patients treated and the quality of service offered by the NHS, and we intend that that will continue.

     

    Q4. Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

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

    Sir Thomas Arnold: I invite my right hon. Friend to use the time between now and the start of the intergovernmental conference in 1996 to persuade our partners in the European Community to adopt a moderate rather than ambitious agenda. Does he agree that a stately minuet would be preferable to the rain dance that he described in his celebrated article in The Economist one year ago?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend sets out my view with great clarity. It will be necessary in 1996 to look carefully at changes that have occurred. I do not personally believe that there is a great appetite across the European Union for dramatic changes. We will have to wait to see what is placed on the agenda, but my judgment is that changes deserve to be modest and should be no more.

    Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is not sleaze but his party’s basic values that have been exposed? Is it not the case that, now that public service is set at naught and the marketplace rules, Conservative Back Benchers are operating in that marketplace?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman examined improvements across the range of public services over the past 15 years, he would realise that his remarks are utterly and totally misguided. Service to the public is what matters. Where that can best be provided in the private sector, it should be. Where it remains in the public sector, we have done more to improve service than any previous Government.

     

    Q5. Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

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

    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that choice and diversity are essential if we are to continue improving the nation’s schools? Will he reconfirm yet again his support for grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, the assisted places scheme and city technology colleges? Can he tell the House how many children are being educated in those schools?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend’s point follows on rather well from the previous question. Education is a service to the public and now offers more choice at a higher standard than previously. It does so as a direct result of the policies that we have followed. Giving parents more choice and more information on which to base their choice is a fundamental part of our policy will remain so. That means that we need more grant-maintained schools and CTCs. I cannot immediately tell my hon. Friend how many pupils are attending those schools but I will do so in writing. Something like 1 million parents have benefited from those schemes, and many more will do so in future.

    Mr. Barron: When I was first elected to the House, I believed that I was elected to perform a public service. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a comprehensive statement at 3.30pm, to ensure that other Conservative Members believe that we are here to give public service and not for self-service?

    The Prime Minister: Clearly the hon. Gentleman was not listening a few moments ago. I set out clearly our determination to improve all services that must remain in the public sector, as many must. I commend to the hon. Gentleman my speech at the chartermark awards a few days ago, which he would find of some interest.

     

    Q6. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

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

    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who have something to contribute to public life should be encouraged to serve on public bodies? Has not the obsession with sleaze reached absurd heights when the Labour party accuses General Sir Peter de la Billiere and the Duke of Kent of being Tory placemen on public bodies?

    The Prime Minister: I believe– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) is entirely right in pointing to the fatuous nonsense that appeared in a Labour pamphlet published last week. There is a serious debate to be held about public service and non-departmental bodies but it cannot be held by claiming that General Sir Peter de la Billiere and the Duke of Kent were placed on quangos because of donations that they made to the Conservative party. Where there are issues, let us look at them.

    Let us look also at the large number of Labour party members who serve on quangos. I have here a long list of members of quangos, all good Tory placemen: Mr. Bill Morris, Mr. Jack Jones, Mr. Harry Irwin, Lord Plant, Eric Hammond, Hugh Scanlon, Reg Bottini, Lord Cocks, Baroness Blackstone, Lord Barnett. I shall spare the House the rest of the list.

    Hon. Members: More.

    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House does not want more of me. Quieten down now.

     

    Q7. Ms Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

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

    Ms Lynne: Given the Prime Minister’s avowed intention to maintain the highest standards in public life, will he reassure the House that the disgraceful tactics used by the Government to crush the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will not be used again when disabled persons’ legislation comes before the House in future?

    The Prime Minister: I indicated earlier in the year that we would send out a consultation document on the question of anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people. We have done so. We have received more than 1,000 responses to that document. We are examining those carefully and, as soon as we have finished that, we will make an appropriate announcement.

    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of 1,000 additional jobs by Rover at the Longbridge plant on the edge of my constituency is a demonstration of good Government policy and superb local management, and will he support it?

    The Prime Minister: All extra jobs are worth while and we have had a lot recently. Unemployment has fallen by more than 400,000, partly as a result of growth in the economy, partly because of the increased competitiveness and partly because of the sort of investment in this country that would not take place if the policies of the Opposition parties had been followed. We now have output rising at 3.5 per cent., inflation at a 27-year low, unemployment down by 400,000 and business confidence at a high level. I look forward to more jobs being created in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere.

     

    Q8. Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.

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

    Mr. Tyler: When, this time last week, the Prime Minister answered my question about making his Administration a sleaze-free zone, why did he not admit to the House that he had had an inquiry for three weeks into the behaviour of members of his party? Why did he not come clean with the House at that stage, instead of waiting for newspaper revelations to force that information out of him?

    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman reads the Cabinet Secretary’s report, which I will be publishing this afternoon, he will see that his question is wrong and he will owe me an apology.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is not the point about public appointments that, if we had not had denationalisation, the Government would still be left appointing their own placemen to run half of British industry? Has not one of the great gains of having a Conservative Government for the past 15 years been that we have got rid of most of those appointments and that we do not need to have trade unionists on every board in the country?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. It is also entirely to right to say that we need people who are public spirited to serve on non-departmental public bodies. That is the case and it has been for a long time. [Interruption.] Perhaps I may remind hon. Members who shouted out, “They are all Tories” of a Labour party national executive committee advice note published recently? It reads as follows:

    “Labour Party members may take up places on non-elected authorities and use them as a platform for our campaigning”. It goes on:

    “Members accepting appointments of this kind should inform Walworth Road so that the … Shadow spokespeople and Head Office policy officers can maintain a network of contacts, informing appointees of Labour policy and collecting useful information in return.”

    That is the sleazy way in which the Labour party deals with non-departmental bodies.

    Mr. Bill Michie: Why are the Prime Minister and his Government spending so much time chasing would-be or wishful job seekers, instead of concentrating on his right hon. and hon. Friends who have too many paid jobs?

    The Prime Minister: We are seeking to put as many people as we possibly can who are at present without jobs and unemployed–whom the hon. Gentleman claims that he cares about–back into work. The job seeker’s allowance seeks to play its own part in doing that. It is a necessary innovation; I welcome it, and I believe that it will be very successful.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Albert Reynolds – 24 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Albert Reynolds, held at Chequers on Monday 24th October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I would like firstly to say how pleased I am to have had the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste with us today. We have had a very useful opportunity and some very useful discussions.

    As I said when I spoke in Belfast on Friday, I think we have now entered a new phase in the peace process, a phase that should lead to exploratory talks with Sinn Fein before the end of the year.

    We are going to have to work extremely hard to make up for all the opportunities that have been lost in the last twenty-five years but what we have now is a real opportunity to move forward and say that I look forward to taking and it is that opportunity in the future that the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste, Paddy Mayhew and I have been discussing in our talks over the last few hours.

    The Joint Declaration that we signed last December opened the way for a ceasefire. We have now had nearly two months without any acts of terrorism by the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries have called off their violence and I thought to myself in very vivid fashion indeed last week in Belfast, in Dungannon, in Nurian, in Lisburn that there is a truly remarkable change in the atmosphere of normal life for people in Northern Ireland. There is a new buoyancy, there is a wave of support from both Unionists and Nationalists for the peace process and we are determined to build upon it.

    This morning, the Taoiseach and I have taken stock of the developments and have looked at the way ahead for the joint framework documents and the talks process that will follow. We are both clear that stability is vital for Northern Ireland’s future development and it must be based on an accommodation agreed by the political parties and that of course is the purpose of the joint framework document; it is to offer our joint understanding of what is most likely to secure widespread acceptance by the parties; it is not a blueprint to be imposed but they are ideas to be discussed by the parties and by all the people of Northern Ireland.

    We are making steady progress with the document and we have had another extremely useful discussions about it this morning. It addresses very important issues and for each side there are still some very important issues that remains to be resolved. We can’t yet set a final date for completion of the document by let me say that we are both determined to conclude this exercise successfully and at the earliest possible time. No-one is dragging their feet and we are both confident of being able to reach agreement.

    Let me say a word about security and weapons.

    Close cooperation – unprecedented cooperation to be frank – between the two governments has been a very big contribution to cross-border security in recent years. Both the Taoiseach and I want to deal effectively with the serious problem of weapons and explosives. Peace won’t finally be assured in Northern Ireland until the paramilitaries on both sides of the divide have put their weapons away; that will permit a democratic debate between law-abiding parties.

    We also, in addition to that, want to put an end to the racketeering, the drug-dealing and the other crimes which so frequently are a by-product of terrorism and so frequently used to fund the activities of terrorism so we have an entirely common interest in this area and I think the action taken by the Garda over the weekend illustrates that far more clearly than anything either the Taoiseach and I could say this afternoon. We have discussed this morning ways of coordinating our approach to deal with this particular problem. We spent some time on it and we have given a remit to our officials to develop this approach and report back to us as speedily as they can and their report will clearly be an important document for us to consider – I hope we will be able to consider it before very long.

    Let me just say finally a brief word about the economy:

    We need to move quickly to show the people in Northern Ireland, especially those in the worst-affected communities and particularly those who have been without jobs for a long time, the benefits for them of a peaceful way of life and that is the reason I launched two initiatives on Friday, firstly to hold an investment conference in Belfast in December and secondly to gather ideas right across the spectrum in Northern Ireland on the new projects which we and the European Union will back financially and I look forward to that conference moving ahead.

    I would like now to ask the Taoiseach to say a few words, but before he does let me say in conclusion that we will continue to keep in very close touch as we have done throughout the period immediately behind us, so will Paddy Mayhew and Dick Spring and so will the officials of the two governments. I myself do not believe we could have reached the present hopeful stage in Northern Ireland without absolutely unprecedented cooperation between our two governments; that cooperation is precisely what we have had over the last two years, it has become an ingrained habit and I think it will assist us as we move forward from now on.

    PRIME MINISTER REYNOLDS:

    Thank you, Prime Minister. Your statement indeed has outlined the matters that we discussed today at our meeting. First of all, we spent up to almost three hours in discussion, reviewing the peace process, where it is at in the light of two ceasefires now in place which indeed nobody believed was possible a few short months ago. After the Prime Minister’s statement in the north of Ireland at the weekend, it is quite clear that a very significant impetus has been given to the peace process and it is now moving along and today we reviewed where we had come from and how we are going to proceed in the future and of course we are going to proceed together, we always did up to now and we are going to continue that excellent relationship and keep in close touch as we move along step by step.

    It also gave us the opportunity to review progress on the framework document and allowed us the opportunity to give political direction to our officials as they restart their work on it. The Liaison Committee meets tomorrow to start work in the light of the directions given to them today.

    We have made further progress at this meeting today both at the meeting and over lunch and I have no doubt that we are all very well satisfied with how well the peace process is progressing and we aim to conclude successfully the framework document as soon as possible because we recognise that the momentum behind the peace process in Northern Ireland is so strong and so palpable on the ground that we are not going to delay or in any way hinder the development of that process which indeed will bring normality back to every family in Northern Ireland in both communities; they have suffered long enough, they have suffered for twenty-five years and the great sense of relief that has now permeated all the families in Northern Ireland has to indeed be built on by us and we are not going to be found wanting in that regard.

    As I say, it has been very sold progress today, I am absolutely satisfied that we have made good progress and that we will continue to make good progress from hereon in and that the two governments will continue that excellent cooperation between us and that great understanding between us. There is no question that this was a do-or-die effort here today, it was never envisaged to be that and it was a good solid working meeting albeit an informal meeting and indeed sometimes at those meetings more progress is made than at formal meetings.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Statement in Lisburn – 22 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement at Bow Street Hall in Lisburn on Saturday 22nd October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would firstly like to say how very encouraging it’s been to see the enormous warmth of the reception from both communities in Northern Ireland about the way in which matters have progressed over the last few months. It doesn’t leave me with a shred of doubt about the absolute determination amongst the people of Northern Ireland to carry this process forward. I think that in the last 48 hours we have carried it forward. I think we have made a quantum leap forward and think there is now a momentum that will carry it a good deal further.

    The next thing that will happen will be my meeting with the Taoiseach on Monday. It’s a stocktaking meeting. We’re progressing on the Framework Document; we have been pressing to move forward with the Framework Document. A great deal of it has now been concluded; there’s still more to be done. I hope we may make some more progress on Monday. We may need more meetings. As soon as it’s concluded I hope we will be able to publish it.

    QUESTION:

    There’s a growing feeling in Dublin in Government circles that your meeting with the Taoiseach on Monday could be a crunch meeting in so far as the final conclusion of the Framework Document goes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no. I think someone’s being over-enthusiastic as they’re saying that. There will be a series of meetings. The important thing is to get this right. We have been pressing for a very long time to move forward on the Framework Document. We’re in a position to move forward, but I think both the Taoiseach and I will be absolutely determined to make sure we get this right. I’m sure we’ll make some progress on Monday, but I think we may need more meetings beyond that and I think he does too.

    QUESTION:

    But Mr Major, do you think that the Government of Ireland Act, the sections of that Act and Articles 2 and 3 are being explicitly linked in terms of a resolution of the problems of Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no intention whatever of dealing with the details of the Framework Document until we have finished the negotiations. I don’t think that would help the negotiations and don’t think it would help anybody else. What has happened so far is that the Taoiseach and I and our officials have carried this forward. A huge amount of progress has been made. We’re going to carry that forward on Monday. When we have concluded it we will publish the Document and then we’ll deal with questions like that.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Institute of Directors in Belfast – 21 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, made to the Institute of Directors in Belfast on Friday 21st October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is very kind of you to let me address your institute for the second time this year. This hotel, the Europa hotel, has suffered in the bad times, but it has now put on a shining new face for the future. So I do not believe I could be in a more appropriate place for the announcements that I will have to make in a few moments.

    Nor do I think could I be with a more supportive audience. The business community as a whole in Northern Ireland has kept faith and has kept going through some difficult years, and it knows as well as anyone the benefits of peace. So let me on this occasion join the warm tributes to your Executive Director in Northern Ireland, John Gorman, to whom you are saying farewell at this particular lunch.

    From the moment I stepped into Downing Street I believed that the overwhelmingly majority of the people in Northern Ireland wanted peace. Over the years they have demonstrated this in countless ways – the remarkable peace movements of the 1970s, the many groups and individuals who have worked so hard to heal community divisions that have existed for so long.

    It was that conviction that gave birth to the Downing Street declaration. An opportunity for peace did exist and the Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, and I both wished to take advantage of it. The Downing Street declaration recognised the rights of both main traditions in Northern Ireland, but it threatened the interests of neither, it showed that violence had no justification and it offered a route into legitimate politics for those who abandoned violence.

    When I spoke to you in March, many people had lost hope that the Downing Street declaration could lead to peace. I mention that only to remind everyone that we should not accept set-backs, there may be more, and if there are we should persist and overcome them. I expressed hope against the prevailing wind. Today there is a chance, a chance, not a certainty, that hope will become reality.

    Seven months after I last spoke to you, seven weeks after the IRA ceasefire, seven days after the Loyalist Paramilitary ceasefire, Northern Ireland is at peace. There is a different atmosphere. Fear has been lifted from daily life, people have begun to take the bars from their windows, trade in the high street has gone up by 6 percent in just a single month, and even sceptical commentators, commentators with years of history to support and justify their scepticism, are beginning to wonder whether perhaps a corner may truly have been turned. As for that, we shall see. But there has been a very encouraging beginning.

    But now we have to move on towards a full return to democratic life, towards a time when violence will be no more than a bad memory, towards a just and lasting peace.

    We have practical obstacles to overcome, some of them will be difficult. We also have history to overcome and that may be even harder. Old enmities, old suspicions, old fears still swirl around and obscure opportunities that lie ahead.

    We are right to be cautious, but there is no entirely risk-free approach. With care and with calculations we must judge the art of the possible and then deliver it. I cannot guarantee success but I do believe that the chances of success are better than for generations.

    Let me set out therefore the next stage that I propose to take. Our task is to make sure the violence is over for good. We must aim to make a return to violence unthinkable.

    Throughout these seven weeks Sinn Fein and the IRA have sought to convey the impression that the ceasefire is permanent, but they have not stated this unambiguously. Because they left scope for doubt, I resisted pressure to set an early date for exploratory talks. Instead we have reviewed their actions and these have been more compelling than their words. And as a result I am now prepared to make a working assumption that the ceasefire is intended to be permanent. This means we can move carefully towards the beginning of dialogue between Sinn Fein and the government.

    The basis for this dialogue is unchanged. There must be a genuine commitment by Sinn Fein to use and support only peaceful methods in a democratic political arena. We shall expect to see continuing practical evidence of this commitment. We shall not be able to proceed if it is called into question. But if we can continue reasonably to assume that Sinn Fein is establishing a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods, if the IRA continues to show that it has ended its terrorism, then we shall be ready to convene exploratory talks before this year is out.

    This preliminary dialogue between representatives of the government and of Sinn Fein will be crucial, it will explore how Sinn Fein can make a transition to normal political life, how it would be able to play the same part as the existing constitutional parties, how it could enter the political talks process itself.

    And we shall discuss the practical consequences of ending violence, most obviously how illegal weapons and explosives are going to be removed from everyday life in Northern Ireland. Peace cannot be assured finally until the paramilitaries on both sides hand in their weapons. This is a difficult issue but it cannot be ducked. We must consider therefore how guns and explosives can best be deposited and de-commissioned. These weapons are both north and south of the border so we shall be consulting the Irish government on a coordinated approach.

    It is through the political talks process that we wish to secure a lasting settlement, and I repeat today the promise that I have given before – when these talks between the constitutional parties and the two governments are concluded we shall seek the approval of the people of Northern Ireland for the outcome as a whole in a referendum. Their consent is essential.

    As you know, the British and Irish governments are working on a joint framework document. I shall be discussing it with the Taoiseach again on Monday at Chequers. I know in Northern Ireland that there is concern about the documents. Let me repeat, it will not be a blueprint, it is intended to help further discussion and negotiation and it will represent our joint understanding of what is most likely to secure widespread acceptance.

    When the document is finished we shall publish it for all to see. It will not be kept a secret with the danger that it will cause suspicions. As with the Downing Street declaration, everyone will be able to get a copy to see exactly what it says and exactly what it does not say. This way it should neither be misunderstood nor mis-interpreted.

    I am determined the people of Northern Ireland will have the chance to give their views, I want them to see that that document is faithful to the Downing Street declaration and to our unshakeable constitutional guarantee that their future is in their hands.

    The joint framework document concentrates on relations between the two governments and between Northern Ireland and the Republic. But as part of an overall settlement, the British government is also concerned with new arrangements for government within Northern Ireland itself. And this is a matter for discussion between the British government and the Northern Ireland parties. We therefore intend to publish simultaneously our own proposals on a possible way forward within Northern Ireland. These too, like the joint framework document, will be a guide for discussions and negotiations aimed at widespread acceptance. In this way the people of Northern Ireland will be able to see the full shape of a possible settlement, it is the overall shape of the whole package that must secure the consent of the people of Northern Ireland if it is to succeed.

    We want to restore local accountability. We shall therefore include proposals for an Assembly, drawing without attribution on the work done in the 1992 talks and the lessons of Michael Ancram’s continuing exchanges with the parties. And again we shall be seeking the basis for broad agreement, neither a purely internal solution, nor a return to domination of one side by the other would achieve this. Local democracy requires support right across the community.

    The loyalist ceasefire is very welcome. There are no circumstances whatsoever that would justify a resumption of their violence. The route to democratic politics is open to all who renounce violence and we of course want Loyalists to be able to express their views democratically.

    Therefore let me make clear today, once they have sufficiently demonstrated their commitment to exclusively peaceful methods, they can take part in public life. At the appropriate time the government will enter into contact with them. We will be looking for ways of taking their views into account in the talks process, we want to hear the concerns, not least the social concerns, of the communities from which they come.

    In matters of security we shall not take risks, we shall not make concessions to those who defy the law, we shall not lower our guard prematurely. But of course we wish to see Northern Ireland return to a more relaxed and more normal way of life.

    The ceasefire has already allowed the security forces to respond to a diminished threat. Today, on their advice, the Secretary of State has rescinded all the remaining closure orders on border crossings. This will allow freer movement, although the security forces will continue to patrol the border for the time being.

    Exclusion orders have been another constraint required to counter terrorism. We hope that the day is approaching when they will no longer be needed. The numbers are already lower than they were when Parliament renewed the Prevention of Terrorism Act last March. Now that we are moving towards preliminary dialogue, I can announce that the Home Secretary has today lifted the orders which excluded Mr Gerry Adams and Mr Martin McGuinness from Great Britain. They are free to travel anywhere within the United Kingdom, provided they remain committed to the democratic process. Other exclusion orders will remain in place for the time being. But the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will keep the need for them under review.

    Let me turn now to the policing of the streets and of the countryside. We had to deploy additional troops in Northern Ireland from 1969 in support of the police because of the level of violence. And in the years since then, the army has truly done an outstanding job for the people of Northern Ireland.

    While Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom there will always be a peace-time role for some members of the armed forces, just as there is in every other part of the United Kingdom. We shall keep as many policemen and troops as we need for as long as we need to protect the people of Northern Ireland. But the need for soldiers to patrol the streets will continue to be reviewed in relation to the threat, and it is our firm objective to return to exclusively civilian policing.

    Terrorism has prevented the Royal Ulster Constabulary from operating in the same way as police forces in the rest of the United Kingdom. Its officers over the years, time and time again, have shown extraordinary courage and tenacity. They have made many sacrifices, they have every reason to look forward to lasting peace and to the prospect of leading more normal lives themselves. They know that an end to the threat of violence will bring new challenges for them. They know they need to police by consent and that they will have our full support in seeking to achieve that.

    But let me make it clear here and now, no groups can or will be allowed to take the law into their own hands. All sections of the community must have confidence in the police and must enjoy equal protection from crime. In Northern Ireland the role and duty of enforcing the law must rest with the police and with the police alone.

    Peace of itself will give massive boost to Northern Ireland’s economy. Equally the chance of more prosperity, more jobs, better security for families must be the most powerful incentive for peace.

    I know that the business community is already preparing for new opportunities, so is the government in partnership with you. I can announce now that we will be convening a large investment conference here in Belfast in December. I hope that many of you will take part. We shall be asking the Institute of Directors and the CBI at national level to encourage all their members to look at investment opportunities here in Northern Ireland, we shall invite senior figures from the City of London and we shall also invite potential investors and business leaders from overseas, from Europe, from the United States and from the Far East.

    We are of course already in close touch with the European Commission. The President of the Commission has established a task force, a task force to look at new European Community programmes for Northern Ireland. This initiative aims to fund new projects to regenerate the city centres, it will focus on action to cut long term unemployment, attract inward investment and stimulate tourism to Northern Ireland. The details of the European Commission’s initiatives are still being worked out, in consultation with us and with others. From my latest contacts with Jacques Delors I am confident that this initiative will result in a substantial package of new measures and of new money for Northern Ireland. I say new money. The European Union’s programmes will be in addition to the British government’s own expenditure plans for Northern Ireland. These, as you know, have long been supported by the European Union’s structural funds. The Union has also increased its contribution to the international fund for Ireland.

    Let me make two further points on economic and social support. First, we have long recognised the particular needs of Northern Ireland, we have set public spending at a level well above the UK average and provided a subvention of over 3 billion pounds last year to finance this. The people of Northern Ireland will get our continued support in the future. We understand that they face exceptional economic and social difficulties, some will result indeed from the transition to peace, such as the consequences for employment of an end to terrorism. So let me to assure you that the government will take full account of Northern Ireland’s special needs in setting future levels of public spending for the Province. We want to help the Province enjoy higher levels of economic growth and much greater prosperity throughout the community in the years that lie ahead.

    Second, we need your ideas, the ideas of people throughout Northern Ireland on the projects we and the European Union should back and the support that we can most usefully give. So the government will now start consultations with business and financial interests in the Province.

    We shall also consult the leaders and Chief Executives of the local councils in Northern Ireland, they are in day to day touch with the people of Northern Ireland. So I intend shortly to issue invitations to them to come to meet me in Downing Street, I believe they can play a significant role in carrying forward our plans for a better future for all the people in Northern Ireland.

    From this moment on we are in a new phase of the peace process, a transitional phase which will lead to exploratory talks. For 25 years of violence has been the enemy of the progress in Northern Ireland. Think what opportunities have been lost, think what could have been done to advance all areas of life here were it not for the burden of terrorism that the Province has carried. Local democracy has been held back, a generation of politicians has been denied full responsibility. In the community walls have been going up where we should have spent the last 25 years breaking them down. In the economy, for every million pounds of investment that you have attracted there should have been many millions of pounds of investment. For every tourist there should have been 30. For every hotel, factory or shop repaired after a bomb, we could have built a new hotel or factory had there been no bomb.

    We cannot make up 25 lost years overnight, we shall have to make Herculean efforts, and that is the purpose of the initiatives that I have announced today, to begin to improve the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland as speedily and as comprehensively as we can.

    Above all, we must make the price of breaking the peace so high that there would be not a shred of sympathy, not a glimmer of support for anyone who ever again contemplated the use of violence. Every day without violence shows more clearly the benefits of peace.

    The future of Northern Ireland lies in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland, not just of the leaders, the leaders of the political parties, of the churches, of the business communities, who have always stood by peaceful methods, but it lies in the hands of all the people of Northern Ireland. I know that they want peace and they know that peace has not been brought through any secret deals or secret promises. They know of our commitment to the balanced and even handed principles of the Downing Street declaration, including consent and the search for agreement among all the people living in Northern Ireland. They will be invited to comment on the joint framework document and on our proposals for local accountability. They will be asked to vote on the outcome of the three stranded talks. They must establish a just basis for living together in the future, giving parity of esteem and equity of treatment to both main traditions, and enabling all law abiding citizens to live free for good from the threat of violence.

    Let me speak directly to each and every person in Northern Ireland. If you want peace, say so now, loudly. Do not sit back, join the crusade for the future. Go to your friends, go to your neighbours, go to anyone you know who may ever, if only for a minute, have supported violence. You have not had such a chance in years and you cannot afford to miss it. Let your voices be heard. Ultimately you, and you alone, the people of Northern Ireland, can ensure that Northern Ireland never goes backwards and yours will be the gain if that enterprise is successful.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 October 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Official Hospitality

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by (a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

    The Prime Minister: Expenditure on official entertaining by my office for each year since 1990 was as follows:

    Year |£

    ———————-

    1990-91 |23,830

    1991-92 |40,976

    1992-93 |30,023

    1993-94 |21,793

    I have asked my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to provide information about expenditure on official entertaining by the Cabinet Office and agencies.

     

    Macclesfield

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to Macclesfield.

    The Prime Minister: As I have said before to my hon. Friend, I very much hope to be able to come to his constituency when my diary permits.

     

    Ministerial Responsibilities

    Dr. Marek: To ask the Prime Minister when the list of ministerial responsibilities after last summer’s changes was delivered to the Vote Office.

    The Prime Minister: The first batch of copies of the September 1994 edition of the “List of Ministerial Responsibilities” was delivered to the Vote Office on 4 October.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

    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.

     

    Intelligence Unit

    Mr. Meacher: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons are attached to the intelligence unit in the Chief Whip’s offices at 12 Downing street and in the House of Commons; what is the purpose of the unit; and to whom it is accountable.

    The Prime Minister: There is no such unit.

  • PMQT – 20 October 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clapham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

    Mr. Clapham: When did the Prime Minister first become aware of the allegations against the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith)? What has he done about it, especially in relation to the Minister who has not resigned? Can he give the House an assurance that no other members of his Government are involved in corruption?

    The Prime Minister: With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I shall reply in detail to each of those points, for I think that the House would wish me to do so.

    The allegations were brought to me privately some three weeks ago. It was clear that the allegations reported to me originated, although they did not come to me directly, from Mr. Al Fayed. I made it absolutely clear at that time that I was not prepared to come to any arrangements with Mr. Al Fayed. I was not prepared–

    Mr. Skinner: How much did he offer?

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Skinner rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

    The Prime Minister: I immediately made it perfectly clear that those matters would be fully investigated and asked the Cabinet Secretary to undertake an independent and full investigation. He has been doing so and he is continuing to do so.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) wrote to me following that investigation and discussions with the Cabinet Secretary to say that he had a business relationship with Mr. Al Fayed and that he was paid fees. He did not, however, declare the necessary detail in the Register of Members’ Interests during the consultancy. He has tendered his resignation and I have accepted it. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) wrote to me explicitly refuting the allegations that he was paid any money to ask questions or to undertake any activity whatsoever on behalf of Mr. Al Fayed. My hon. Friend has announced that he will be instituting legal proceedings to seek damages for libel.

    I have made it clear that I am determined to see the highest possible standards in public life and to see that they are maintained. It is right that such allegations should be investigated. They should be investigated–as they have been–by the Cabinet Secretary. Equally, if any further occasions arise, they will be investigated thoroughly and appropriate action taken.

    Mr. Wilshire: Following on from that, will my right hon. Friend now arrange for the Audit Commission to conduct investigations into allegations made in the newspapers of corruption by Labour-controlled Birmingham city council–the allegations being that it corruptly used millions of pounds to buy votes in marginal wards?

    The Prime Minister: There have been allegations of that sort against local authorities before and I believe that, as with hon. Members of this House, such allegations deserve to be properly investigated by the proper authorities.

    Mr. Blair: While we note the resignation of one Minister and we await the outcome of the inquiry into the other, does the Prime Minister understand that today’s allegations can no longer be seen as isolated incidents, but that his Government are becoming tainted? If he is serious about standards in British public life, will he now respond specifically to three proposals, which I shall put to him? First, that no Minister who has privatised a company should subsequently end up on its board; secondly, that he publish a list of all members of quangos, their payments, perks and any position with any political party; and thirdly, that the cash for questions inquiry now be broadened, made deeper, held in public and made fully independent so that the confidence of the British people in their Government can begin to be restored.

    The Prime Minister: As I have said in the House on previous occasions and repeat now, I am determined to ensure high standards of probity right across government, and I will not tolerate anything less than the highest standards of behaviour. Special standards are required of those in public life and special sacrifices must be made by people when those standards in public life are not kept. I am not prepared to take action against people on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and against the background of concrete assurances from the person concerned that the charges laid against him are without foundation. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would share my view about those points.

    On the right hon. Gentleman’s substantive questions, I shall deal first with quangos. Last May I established an independent working body across government to look at the system of appointments of such bodies, and I expect to receive the report of that body very shortly. In addition, the Treasury and the Office of Public Service and Science are preparing revised guidance on making appointments to issue to Departments. Last summer, I also asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to look right across the board at appointments to all public bodies and to make recommendations to me if he thought it necessary to change the system in any way. The purpose of that is to ensure that the system itself is seen, and is recognised, to be beyond criticism. When that work has been concluded, we shall announce our conclusions to the House. The right hon. Gentleman and I share the same objectives upon that point also.

    As for the cash for questions issue, all traditions suggest that that should be dealt with by the Committee of Privileges, and there is no precedent for the Committee of Privileges not sitting in private. The reason for that is self-evidently understood by every Member of the House so that the matter may be fully dealt with. When the Committee has completed its report, the recommendations of that Committee of the House of Commons will be published and will then be debated here on the Floor of the House of Commons, where they should be.

    On the first of the right hon. Gentleman’s three questions, I am aware of no occasion where the question of the abuse of previous ministerial interests arises. If he wishes to give me details, I shall naturally look at what he has to say.

    Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in pursuit of his clear commitment to deal with the issue, there is an extremely important role for the House of Commons Privileges Committee as set up by a motion agreed in the House? Will he confirm that it is not a matter of innuendo or allegation but one of thorough investigation, which the Privileges Committee can do, and that not only the Committee’s report but the evidence, in full, which the Privileges Committee obtains, will be published? Is not that an objective to be proceeded with, rather than distorted by walk-outs by Opposition right hon. and hon. Members?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. For a long time we have had our own method of dealing with such issues–the Privileges Committee. When it has taken evidence and reported, it is right for the House then to take decisions. I regret very much indeed that Opposition Members have decided not to continue with their work on that Committee, because I believe that if such Committees do not operate properly, with cross-party support, that will do great damage to the House of Commons as an institution.

    My hon. Friend is entirely right in all else that he says. I reiterate the absolute necessity for high standards in public life. Let me make it clear once again that where any evidence of wrongdoing is brought to me, it will be investigated, and it will be punished if that is found to be justifiable. I must make a further point upon which I believe the House would wish to reflect: any investigation must be seen to be fair. It is a fundamental part of the way in which we conduct things in the House and in the country that people are innocent until they are shown to have been guilty. I regret that, occasionally, some in the House tend to forget that fundamental part of our constitution.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise just how disappointed many people will be by the inadequate answers that he gave to the three specific questions put to him by the leader of the Labour party? Does not he realise that neither the House nor the people will be satisfied with the results of inquiries held in secret? Does not he understand that the interests of the country, his Government and the House would now be served by an independent and impartial re-examination of the standards that are required of those who hold public office in a modern democracy like ours?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seems to fail to understand how the Committees of the House operate. I would have thought that he, as a Privy Councillor, would have understood that rather better. We have had a long tradition of cross-party Committees, like the Privileges Committee, dealing with such matters. The decision of some hon. Members not to serve on that Committee is unprecedented. They should serve on it. That Committee will take evidence. It will publish its report–there will be nothing secret about it–and it will be debated here, in the House. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said earlier about that. I hope that he now has heard and that he now understands. I hope that he will now continue the traditions that the House has long followed.

    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be widespread support throughout the country for a mandatory identity card scheme?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said that he proposes to consult about the possibility of an identity card scheme, either a voluntary or mandatory one. We shall wish to listen carefully to what people say in response to that consultation. There is a substantial case to be made for one, although practical difficulties must be overcome. If we have one on a smart card basis, it will allow Opposition Members to record their conservative principles on it.

     

    Q2. Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

    Mr. McAllion: Let me return the Prime Minister to the question of sleaze at the heart of government. Has he seen the astonishing report in today’s press that his predecessor, Lady Thatcher, ordered GCHQ to pay foreign intelligence to spy on two members of her own Cabinet whom she suspected of disloyalty to her? [Interruption.] If only for the sake of her fellow travellers who are still members of the right hon. Gentleman’s own Cabinet, will he give the House the assurance that he, at least, has discontinued that dishonourable practice? More importantly, will he give the House the assurance that he will order a full and independent investigation of that latest allegation so that those responsible for that perversion of the democratic ideal are brought to book before the British people?

    The Prime Minister: The fact that, in the middle of his question, the hon. Gentleman could not even keep a straight face shows just how seriously everybody in the House regards the absolute absurdity of that allegation. Does not it show that the present frenzy of ludicrous rumours sweeping around deserve to be investigated and then cast aside because they are total nonsense? I am glad that the hon. Gentleman illustrated the sheer absurdity of many of the things that are currently being said and apparently being taken seriously by Opposition Members. I shall give him one answer to his question on that particular allegation: it is claptrap.

     

    Q3. Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

    Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend knows, I have always gone softly, softly in Prime Minister’s questions, unlike the lot opposite. Is my right hon. Friend sponsored by the TGWU? If not, perhaps he would like to tell me who is? Will he also confirm that clause 4 is not on our agenda and that, therefore, Babycham will not be nationalised and we shall not have to watch Bambi on the television every night?

    The Prime Minister: The answer is, no I am not, but if anybody wishes to make any allegations, I am happy for the Committee of Privileges to investigate them. I trust that everyone will attend the Committee.