The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1994

  • 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.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 October 1994

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Industrial Tribunals

    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total cost, including staff time and legal fees, of representing each Government Department in cases at industrial tribunals in each of the past five years.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Official Visits

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library (a) a list of official visits he has made since 21 July, (b) copies of speeches he made on each visit, (c) a list of interviews given to the media over the same period and (d) a copy of his speech to the Conservative and Unionist conference in Bournemouth on 14 October.

    The Prime Minister: (a) I have made a number of official visits throughout the country since 21 July this year, delivering several speeches on a wide range of subjects. Since that date I have also made three overseas visits as follows:

    Date |Destination

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

    1-2 August |Poland and Lithuania

    7-8 September |The Hague and Berlin

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

    (b) Copies of the speeches made on each occasion have been placed in the Library, along with

    (c) a list of interviews given to the media since 21 July.

    (d) A copy of my speech to the Conservative and Unionist conference in Bournemouth on 14 October is available in the Library of the House.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a current list of special advisers attached to Ministers stating the Minister they work for, the date of their appointment, the name of their previous employer before their initial appointment as a special adviser attached to a Minister, and the organisation from which they are seconded.

    The Prime Minister: Currently there are 32 special advisers attached to Ministers. None is on secondment from an outside organisation. The names of the advisers, the Ministers they work for, the dates of their current appointments and the names of their previous employers before their initial appointments and the names of their previous employers before their initial appointments as special advisers are as follows:

    Name |Minister (s) served |Date of Appointment |Previous Employer ———————————————————————————————————————–

    K Adams |Secretary of State for the Environment |28 May 1993 |Rt. Hon. John Gummer

    P Barnes |Secretary of State for Social Security |28 May 1993 |Boston Consulting Group

    C Blunt |Secretary of State for Defence |15 February 1993 |PI Political Consultants

    Miss. A Broom |Secretary of State for Employment |21 July 1994

    T Burke* |Secretary of State for Environment |28 May 1993 |Green Alliance

    J Caine |Secretary of State for Northern Ireland |17 June 1992 |Conservative Central Office

    Dr. E Cottrell |Secretary of State for Education |21 July 1994 |Conservative Central Office

    Dr. W Eltis* |President of the Board of Trade |1 January 1993 |National Economic Development Office

    M Fraser |Minister for Overseas Development |10 April 1992 |Conservative Central Office

    J Gray |Jointly to the Ministers for Local Government|28 May 1993 |GNI Ltd | and Inner Cities; Environment and Countryside; and Housing and Planning

    D Green |Prime Minister |1 June 1992 |Business Television

    Mrs. S Hogg |Prime Minister |10 April 1992 |Daily and Sunday Telegraph

    Ms. S Hole |Chief Whip |13 April 1992 |Lord Rothschild

    A Kemp* |President of the Board of Trade |28 May 1992 |CDP Nexus Ltd

    Mrs. T Keswick |Chancellor of the Exchequer |28 May 1993 |Cluff Investments and Trading

    G MacKay |Secretary of State for Scotland |8 May 1992 |Pieda plc

    M MacLay |Secretary of State for Foreign and |19 July 1993 |The European | Commonwealth Affairs

    R Marsh |Secretary of State for Health |21 April 1992 |Conservative Central Office

    Ms. S McEwen |Lord Privy Seal |21 July 1994 |Namara Cowan Ltd

    M McManus |Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster |21 July 1994 |Conservative Central Office

    P Moman |Lord President |15 December 1993 |Self employed consultant and writer

    L O’Connor* |Secretary of State for the Environment |14 March 1994 |Self employed Architect

    Mrs. K Ramsay |Prime Minister |2 June 1992 |Conservative Central Office

    P Rock |Home Secretary |28 May 1993 |Conservative Central Office

    D Ruffley |Chief Secretary |21 July 1994 |Clifford Chance

    D Rutley |Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food |21 July 1994 |Pepsi Cola International

    Lady Strathnaver |President of the Board of Trade |21 April 1992 |Haymarket Publishing Services Ltd

    N True |Prime Minister |10 April 1992 |Public Policy Unit

    Miss. A Warburton |Prime Minister |12 January 1994 |Career break

    Miss. R Whetstone |Home Secretary |5 September 1994 |Conservative Central Office

    H Williams |Secretary of State for Wales |18 October 1993 |Governing Body of Rugby School, | also Freelance Journalist and Writer

    A Young |Secretary of State for Scotland |8 May 1992 |Drummond & Co

    * Special advisers fall into two categories, political and those with specialised expertise relevant to their appropriate Secretary of State. The latter are indicated by an Asterisk.

     

    Ministerial Appointments

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will update the tables given in his answers of 6 December, Official Report, column 28 , following the changes in ministerial appointments that have occurred this year.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested is as follows:

    |Paybill (1)|1994-95 (2)

    As at |£ million |£ million

    —————————————————

    July 1994 |1.16 |1.16

    June 1993 |1.37 |1.40

    September 1992 |1.30 |1.36

    September 1991 |1.10 |1.20

    July 1990 |0.95 |1.09

    June 1989 |0.93 |1.19

    September 1988 |0.74 |1.00

    (1) Not including earnings-related national insurance contribution and other personnel overheads.

    (2) Calculated using the GDP deflator.

    Salary Band |<1>Number of Special |Advisers

    —————————————————————

    £

    0-10,000 |-

    10-20,000 |1

    20-30,000 |8

    30-40,000 |5

    40-50,000 |8

    50-60,000 |7

    60-70,000 |1

    70-80,000 |-

    80-90,000 |-

    90-100,000 |1

    <1> As at 31 July 1994.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Her Majesty’s Government have had with Lord Justice Scott about his proposal, and the timescale of that proposal, to allow witnesses before his inquiry, whom he may criticise in his report, an opportunity to comment before the report is finalised.

    The Prime Minister: There has been no discussion between the Government and Sir Richard Scott concerning the principles underlying his proposal to give witnesses whom he may criticise an opportunity to comment before his report is finalised. However, Government officials have discussions with the inquiry team from time to time on a range of issues including the administrative aspects of Sir Richard Scott’s proposal outlined above, but the timing of these matters is entirely a matter for him.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Statement at the International Motor Show – 19 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement at the International Motor Show in Birmingham NEC, given on Wednesday 19th October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    “I spoke to Mr Rabin early this morning as soon as the news came through whom I met also yesterday and I expressed to him my sorrow at what happened there. It’s clearly a despicable act, a very cowardly act and was clearly intended to damage the peace process and to drive it away from the forward movement we have seen over the last year or so. I very much welcome what has been achieved in the Middle East.

    This mustn’t be permitted to stop it. I am convinced Prime Minister Rabin and others will wish to continue with the peace process and they will receive our full support in doing so.”

    [When asked whether this would damage the peace process he said:]

    “I hope not and I believe not, clearly the purpose behind this bomb was to put an end to the peace process. That was what the evil people who set this bomb off intended to do. I believe it’s very important that they don’t achieve that and that’s why my support for the peace process in the Middle East is total and I believe that will be the overwhelming view around the world.”

    [The Prime Minister was asked about the Royal family and he said he had nothing to say.]

    [He was also asked about Tam Dalyell’s allegations that Mark Thatcher has been administering a Tory slush fund he said:]

    “He know’s that’s not the case and why he keeps talking this nonsense is something you’ll have to ask him.”

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the International Motor Show – 19 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening speech at the International Motor Show at NEC Birmingham on Wednesday 19th October 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted to be here today. The British International Motor Show has become an enduring institution and an important day in the calendar. For thousands of families and individuals who will visit the Show it is more than just a day out. It is a chance to see the latest in that marvel of science, engineering, design and art – that we call – the motor car.

    For the industry, it is a prestige opportunity for the world’s car manufacturers to show their paces, their latest and their best. I am delighted that among such company, Britain’s car manufacturing industry should now be so prominent and so successful.

    I share your enthusiasm and optimism for the future of car manufacturing. Who could not, in a week which started with Rover announcing another 1450 new jobs at its UK factories? Jobs that reflect the company’s ever increasing success in European and world markets.

    The new manufacturers who have invested here in recent years are also setting the pace. Family cars, built in Sunderland, selling in Tokyo. Honda who have doubled their export earnings from their British operations, bringing in over £300 million last year. Toyota exporting three out of every four cars made at Burnaston. These are the outward and visible symbols of the renaissance of Britain’s car industry. A renaissance that has become the model of some of the best management, production and workforces anywhere in the world.

    And it is not just the car manufacturers. Look under the bonnet of many “foreign” cars and the components will be British. Bought worldwide because they are the best in the world.

    Mr President, you have entitled this Show “For the Family For the Future”. The car has long since ceased to be the preserve of the wealthy elite. It has become truly the people’s technology, giving choice and freedom to all. But a freedom which you are balancing with responsibility, with continual improvements in safety and concern for the environment. For all these reasons, I am very confident about the industry’s future.

    So today, it is with pleasure and keen expectation that I have come to see the latest ideas and products from what has become, again, one of the great manufacturing industries in the UK.

    We all want to see what’s on display and so, now, I have great pleasure in declaring the 70th British International Motor Show open.