The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1994

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 November 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 November.

    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.

     

    Investors in People

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister what steps his office is taking to achieve investor in people status; when it started the process; when it expects to achieve investor in people status; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose, my Office is part of the Cabinet Office. In February 1993, the Cabinet Office registered commitment to achieve investor in people status. The formal commitment relates only to the Office of Public Service part of the Cabinet Office and the establishment officer’s group. However, the whole Department is participating in the process of change and will share in the benefits. An action plan for the Department was produced following consultation with staff and was formally accepted by the Central London training and enterprise council in July 1995. Work is in hand to take forward the action required to bring the Department to the necessary standard. The Department is seeking to achieve accreditation by the end of 1996.

     

    Crown Act 1707

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to bring forward legislation to amend the Succession to the Crown Act 1707.

    The Prime Minister: No.

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I share that view entirely.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (BELFAST TELEGRAPH):

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

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

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

    QUESTION:

    Are you in trouble?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

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

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

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

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

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

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 December 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Advisers

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

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

     

    Parliamentary Private Secretaries

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

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

     

    Managerial Systems

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

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

     

    Honours

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

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

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

     

    Prime Ministerial Meetings

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 December 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Oleg Gordievsky

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

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Ministerial Train Journeys

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

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

     

    NHS Expenditure

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

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

     

    Ministerial Travel

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

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

     

    Council of Europe

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

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

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

    Representatives from the Government Benches will be:

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

    My hon. Friends the Members for:

    Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith)

    Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson)

    Ashford (Sir K. Speed)

    Medway (Dame P. Fenner)

    Lewes (Mr. T. Rathbone)

    Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)

    Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt)

    Reading, West (Sir A. Durant)

    My noble Friend Lord Newall

    Representatives from the Labour Party will be:

    The hon. Members for:

    Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)

    Tooting (Mr. Cox)

    Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson)

    Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)

    Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)

    Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland)

    The Noble Lord Kirkhill

    The representative from the minority parties will be:

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

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

    From the Government benches:

    My hon. Friends, the hon. Members for:

    Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick)

    Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell)

    Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden)

    Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry)

    Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill)

    Bridlington (Mr. Townsend)

    Newark (Mr. Alexander)

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

    From the Labour Party

    The hon. Members for:

    Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie)

    Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray)

    Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)

    Easington (Mr. Cummings)

    Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe)

    Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall)

    Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. T. Davis)

    The noble Baroness Gould of Potternewton

    From the minority parties:

    The Noble Lord Mackie of Benshie.

     

    Civil Service

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

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 December 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministers

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

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

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

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

     

    Parliamentary Private Functions

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

    The Prime Minister: I have done so.

     

    Economic Community

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

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

     

    Ministerial Travel (Spouses)

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

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

    Date |Visit

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

    13-15 February 1994 |Russian Federation

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

     

    Lockerbie Bombing

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

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

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

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

     

    Security Vetting

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

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

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

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

    Statement of HM Government’s vetting policy

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

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

    –espionage,

    –terrorism,

    –sabotage,

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

    is, or has recently been:

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

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

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

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

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

    An SC clearance will normally consist of:

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

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

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

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

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

    an interview with the person being vetted; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Maltese Double Cross

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 15 December 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

    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.

    Mrs. Roche: Given today’s news that British Gas retail staff, who earn an average of £13,000 a year, will be asked to take a pay cut while the chief executive will receive a pay rise of 75 per cent., does the Prime Minister share the opinion of the deputy chairman of the Conservative party that, under the present Government, the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest?

    The Prime Minister: I am a little surprised that the hon. Lady should mention that matter, in the light of what her hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor had to say on the radio a couple of hours ago.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

    Mr. Hawkins: In the light of this week’s welcome further fall in unemployment, has my right hon. Friend met a single business man who supports the Labour party’s demand for a minimum wage, which would destroy so many jobs in constituencies such as mine in Blackpool?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot be sure that there is none who would, but certainly the overwhelming opinion is to the contrary. Even the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has in the past used the expression that there would be some jobs “shakeout”, or words to that effect. That means, of course, that people will lose their jobs. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has said that a minimum wage would have a potential jobs impact. He can hardly believe that it would be a favourable jobs impact. I think, therefore, that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench tend to agree that jobs would be lost by that policy.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, by next year, the chief executive of British Gas will earn in one week what his employees, who are now confronted with job cuts and pay cuts, earn in one year? Is it not time that he took a grip on those privatised utilities and put a stop to excesses that are offensive to the British sense of justice?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have to decide whether he wishes to have a private sector with rigid Government controls over every aspect of it, in which case it is not a private sector, or to renationalise industries such as gas, in which case he should make his position entirely clear. He might also clear his lines with his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) because my answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) applies also to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Blair: Since these industries are regulated, why could they not be regulated to put a stop to those excesses? Is not the point one of efficiency as well as justice because, if we want a modern motivated work force, we can have it only on the basis of investment, partnership and fairness, not on the old Tory notion of greed at the top and insecurity for the rest?

    The Prime Minister: A couple of hours ago the shadow Chancellor was asked:

    “Surely there is nothing you could do, could you, about wage rates within an industry? You are surely not going to start interfering with that again, are you?”

    To that, the hon. Gentleman said:

    “No, these are matters for negotiation between the unions and the employers.”

    They should sort their lines out themselves before they criticise us.

    Mr. Blair: The issue is not the market conditions of British Gas but the contrast between the treatment of the chief executive and those ordinary staff who are facing pay cuts. I understand that the Cabinet has its own committee looking into these matters. If the Prime Minister has such a committee, why will he not accept the suggestion put forward from the Opposition Benches that where there are excessive pay increases at the top the regulator should act to stop them?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the regulator. He is being wholly inconsistent. One day he complains about the British Gas monopoly, the next day he complains when British Gas faces competition and cuts its cloth accordingly. In one sense he opposes monopoly, in another sense he opposes competition. The reality is that he just opposes the private sector. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is what he and his colleagues have done so often–find a grievance, whatever it is, and use that grievance for partisan interest in the interests of the Labour party.

     

    Q3. Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

    Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that today is the anniversary of the Downing street declaration. I congratulate him on the progress that is being made in Northern Ireland towards a lasting peace and the announced inward investment and on the atmosphere that has improved so much in Northern Ireland, which he found in Portadown yesterday. Conservative Members believe that unless we get rid of the explosives and the firearms of the IRA, the UVF and the UFF, we will not be able to make the progress that we should.

    The Prime Minister: I share that view. Firearms, explosives and detonators, whether held by the IRA or by the loyalist paramilitaries, need to be decommissioned. As I said yesterday, I am not concerned whether they are surrendered; I am concerned that they are decommissioned and destroyed so that they can no longer be used to disrupt the democratic life of Northern Ireland. That is the important matter. That does have to be discussed and it does have to be acted upon during the preliminary discussions that are taking place at the moment. If progress is not made on that, not only, in my judgment, would the other democratic parties in Northern Ireland politics not sit down with those who retain those weapons, but nor should any British Government.

    Mr. Ashdown: Given the damage that has been done by indecision and division over Bosnia in the past, will the Prime Minister tell us what his response will be to the French proposal to be put to NATO on Monday to secure Sarajevo airport and to open a route to the sea in order to reinforce the UN’s humanitarian operations and to make more secure the position of our troops there in the future?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, we consider carefully anything that would secure the position of our troops and the right hon. Gentleman should know better than to suggest that we would do otherwise. I wish that he would not repeatedly undersell and undermine what is done there by British troops, United Nations troops and the Government. He has done nothing but grandstand on this issue from the commencement of the matter. If he really understood a little more about it, he might say a little less about it.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that employees should be encouraged to take stakes in the companies that they work for? Does not he think it odd that the Labour party attacks share options, particularly bearing in mind the extent to which its leader and various of his “luvvie” friends seem to have benefited from them?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly think that it is right to extend share ownership as widely as possible. In the past 15 years, there has been a dramatic extension of share ownership. That has entrenched the private sector and private enterprise. It has done a great deal for the individual security of people owning shares. We shall certainly continue those policies. It would be welcome to have a cross-party consensus on it.

     

    Q4. Mr. McGrady: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. Will he join me in congratulating the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, and may I thank him personally for the great contribution and excellent launch of the Investment Forum drive in Belfast this week? He and, I hope, all hon. Members will pray that it bears immediate and urgent fruit. Having launched the Investment Forum, and having begun demilitarisation talks with the republican and loyalist paramilitaries, does he agree that the most urgent and pressing need in Northern Ireland is the recommencement of political dialogue, which must perforce await completion of the framework document? Will he assure the House today that, with the creation of the new Government in the Republic of Ireland under the new Taoiseach, John Bruton, the Government will act urgently to complete the framework document so that the two Governments and the political parties can negotiate a lasting political settlement in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the IDB, officials in the Northern Ireland Office and the investment conference held yesterday. No one who attended the conference has any doubt that it was a tremendous success not only in the new investments that were announced yesterday, but in the number of new investments that may arise as a result of the conference. The atmosphere was quite astonishing, as everyone who attended will know.

    On the second half of the hon. Gentleman’s question, clearly it is desirable to recontinue the political dialogue as soon as possible. I have written already to the new Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, to say that I look forward to meeting him as soon as possible. I am confident that the new Irish Government will wish to sustain together the work that we have done over Northern Ireland. We wish to recommence discussions on the framework document and, I hope, conclude it as speedily as possible. But I would rather take a little longer over the document and get it right than deal with it too speedily and perhaps not have it right.

    Mr. Dunn: What advice will the Prime Minister offer to the people of Islington who are entitled to say that, if local education is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition, it is not good enough for them?

    The Prime Minister: I suspect that it is not only the Leader of the Opposition who has not found the education system satisfactory in Islington, although the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head so perhaps he does find it satisfactory after all. We need the highest quality of education in Islington not just for the right hon. Gentleman, of course, but for every Islington resident whose children attend schools there.

     

    Maltese Double Cross

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what is the outcome of the investigation, referred to in his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 29 November, of the scrutiny of the film “Maltese Double Cross” by those involved in the investigation; and who were those involved to whom he referred.

    The Prime Minister: The Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway police are still considering the contents of the film.

    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a matter of record that on 19 September 1989 the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Parkinson–in good faith, quite certainly–offered the British relatives of the victims of Lockerbie a public inquiry on the condition that it was agreed by his colleagues? Which colleague vetoed that, and why did she do it?

    The Prime Minister: My understanding of what I believe the hon. Gentleman has in mind is a little different from that implied by him. I am advised that in 1990 Lord Parkinson undertook to consider with colleagues the case for a confidential inquiry. When, subsequently, a decision was taken to hold the fatal accident inquiry, the case for a second inquiry fell away. I am advised that that was explained and accepted at the time by the relatives.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

    Mrs. Michie: Is the Prime Minister aware that the London to Crianlarich and Fort William and other sleeper trains are to be axed? That is no scare story. It signals the death knell of many vital rural services in Scotland and is due entirely to the Prime Minister’s chaotic and damaging privatisation scheme.

    The Prime Minister: Unless the hon. Lady is talking about a different service, I understand that sleeper services from London to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness will be safeguarded for the first time. If she has other detailed questions about other services, I suggest that she addresses them to the Secretaries of State for Transport or for Scotland.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 December 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Intelligence Services Act 1994

    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to appoint an intelligence and security committee, commissioner and tribunal, under the terms of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

    The Prime Minister: Following consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, and in accordance with section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act, I have appointed the intelligence and security committee as follows:

    The right hon. Tom King CH MP (Chairman)

    The right hon. Alan Beith MP

    The right hon. Dr John Gilbert MP

    The right hon. Sir Archie Hamilton MP

    The right hon. Lord Howe of Aberavon QC

    Mr Barry Jones MP

    Mr Michael Mates MP

    Mr Allan Rogers MP

    Sir Giles Shaw MP

    In accordance with section 8 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, I have appointed Lord Justice Stuart-Smith as the Intelligence Services Commissioner for a period of three years. Sir Simon Dennis Brown has been appointed president of the intelligence services tribunal, John Colin McInnes vice-president of the tribunal and Sir Richard Kennedy Harvey Gaskell a member of the tribunal, by royal warrant, each for a period of five years. All appointments take effect from 15 December 1994.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Belfast (III) – 14 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held outside the Europa Hotel, in Belfast, on 14th December 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he hoped the business community would invest so that Northern Ireland would have to move forwards].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I profoundly hope so, yes. If you look at where so many of the hatreds and the concerns that have arisen they have arisen from people who don’t see a natural future for themselves, who are not fully occupied, who find themselves attracted one way or another to one or other side of the divide. Now I think we want to extinguish that and I think the growth of investment, the greater prosperity is perhaps the most single important item in doing that. Once people can see that they have a natural interest in the peace process than I believe that the peace process will become entrenched and will become irreversible and an important part of that is the sort of investment we are seeing today. It was for that reason that I convened this particular conference. There is more than one plank of course we have to reach a political agreement and that we’re seeking to do. But we also have to offer economic hope as well and that is what this conference is about.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the business community would set the pace that the politicians might then follow].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted to see the business community set the pace. They have been doing so for some time. Investment has been coming in even prior to the ceasefire. It is accelerating now. I was able to announce five important investments this morning. I hope as a result of the conference we have had that there will be many more. They may not appear over the next day or so, people will need to consider, examine, consult and then decide whether to invest. But I am confident that it will lead to more investment and providing that is the case than I think it will make a material contribution to entrenching the opportunities which exist here at the moment.