The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1995

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 January 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th January 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January.

    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January.

    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

     

    Royal Household

    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister how much has been saved in efficiency gains in respect of the grant in aid budget to the royal household since 1991.

    The Prime Minister: Grant in aid for the royal household from 1991-92 to 1994-95 has decreased by 14.2 per cent. In cash terms. Details are set out in the royal household’s annual report for the year to 31 March 1995, a copy of which is available in the Library.

     

    Monetary Union

    Mr. Shore: To ask the Prime Minister further to his oral statement of Monday 18 December, on the Madrid European Council, when and by what means article 3 of the protocol on the convergence criteria referred to in article 109(J) of the treaty on European Union was deleted or amended.

    The Prime Minister: Article 3 of the protocol on the convergence criteria has been neither deleted nor amended. It will be for the Council, meeting as Heads of State or Government in early 1998, to decide pursuant to the provisions of the treaty which member states fulfil the necessary conditions to move to stage 3 of economic and monetary union. It is not possible to say now precisely how the exchange rate criterion will be interpreted, given the changes in the way the exchange rate mechanism has operated since the treaty was agreed.

    Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 December, Official Report, column 1219-35, concerning his intention to initiate a study into the proposals for monetary union within the European Union, by whom the study will be conducted; what the terms of reference of the inquiry will be; if written or oral evidence can be submitted to it; if it will operate in public at any time; and when he expects it to report.

    The Prime Minister: The Madrid European Council requested that the Ecofin Council, together with, in their respective fields of competence, the Commission and the European Monetary Institute, should study the range of issues raised by the fact that some countries might not initially participate in the Euro area. In particular, the study should cover those issues related to monetary stability. The Council noted that the future relationships would have to be defined prior to the move to stage 3 and requested that the Ecofin Council should report on these issues as soon as possible.

    The United Kingdom’s participation in this study in no way prejudges the United Kingdom’s decision whether to notify our intention to move to stage 3 of EMU in accordance with the provisions of protocol 11 annexed to the EC treaty.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister which countries declared their intention to participate in monetary union at the Madrid summit.

    The Prime Minister: All EU member states except for the United Kingdom and Denmark are committed to participation in the third stage of economic and monetary union in accordance with the EC treaty.

    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what system of redistribution and on what scale was proposed at the Madrid summit to compensate (a) nations and (b) regions damaged by monetary union; and if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom role in respect of such compensatory measures.

    The Prime Minister: No system of redistribution was proposed at the European Council at Madrid.

    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those countries which he assessed would be able to meet the Maastricht convergence conditions by January 1998 on current trends projected.

    The Prime Minister: The question of which countries fulfil the necessary conditions for adoption of the single currency will be decided by the Council of Ministers, meeting in the form of Heads of State or Government. The latest Commission forecasts, released on 22 November 1995, provided information on the projected status of each member state in 1997. The forecast are available in the House of Commons Library.

     

    Mobile Telephones

    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Prime Minister how many mobile telephones have been supplied to Departments for which he is immediately responsible in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service). I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

     

    The Euro (Information)

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty’s Government have to provide financial support from public funds to groups and organisations to circulate information on the Euro.

    The Prime Minister: The Community budget provides for the Commission to spend 50 million ecu in the 1996 calendar year promoting specific policies, such as citizen first and the single currency, with a view to preparing the intergovernmental conference. Member states voted to strike this expenditure out of the Community budget but it was reinstated by the European Parliament. The Community budget for 1997 has not yet been agreed. Like other member states, the United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole rather than to the costs of individual spending programmes.

    The Government have no plans for direct Government expenditure on circulating information on the Euro in the United Kingdom. Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to restrict the circulation by the EC of information on the Euro in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister: It is not yet clear what kind of information the Commission plans to circulate.

    Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister how much is to be spent by the European Commission in the next two financial years promoting the Euro; how much of that will be spent in the United Kingdom; and what the British contribution will be to the total expenditure.

    The Prime Minister: The Community budget provides for the Commission to spend 50 m ecu in the 1996 calendar year promoting specific policies, such as citizen first and the single currency, with a view to preparing the intergovernmental conference. Member states voted to strike this expenditure out of the Community budget but it was reinstated by the European Parliament. The Community budget for 1997 has not yet been agreed. Like other member states, the United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole rather than to the costs of individual spending programmes.

    The Government have no plans for direct Government expenditure on circulating information on the Euro in the United Kingdom. Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government in respect of access to United Kingdom (a) media and (b) educational institutions for those promoting the Euro as part of the Commission’s publicity campaign.

    The Prime Minister: It is not yet clear what kind of information the Commission plans to circulate.

    Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if United Kingdom citizens will be allowed to hold Euro accounts in the United Kingdom if Britain does not join monetary union.

    The Prime Minister: United Kingdom citizens are currently able to hold bank accounts denominated in foreign currencies in the United Kingdom. The Government see no reason why that should change in any way if the United Kingdom does not participate in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

    Under protocol No. 11 of the EC treaty, the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if that is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances of the time.

     

    Nuclear Materials (Exports)

    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 December, Official Report, column 473, if he will list all countries to which nuclear materials, equipment or technology have been exported, under the exception clause of the nuclear suppliers group guidelines, in the last five years.

    The Prime Minister: There have been no exports from the United Kingdom of nuclear materials or technology under the exception to the policy, agreed in April 1992.

     

    Princess of Wales

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister on whose initiative the meeting on 20 December with Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales was arranged.

    The Prime Minister: I have meetings with the Princess of Wales at times arranged between us.

     

    Civil Servants

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the exchanges he has authorised between members of Her Majesty’s Opposition and senior civil servants since 1 January.

    The Prime Minister: As I made clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 30 November 1995, Official Report, column 835, I will be content to authorise confidential exchanges between senior civil servants and Opposition spokesmen from January 1996. As yet, I have not been approached by the leader of the Opposition to authorise such exchanges.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will ask the Scott inquiry to investigate the letter written by the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) to Astra Ltd. on 8 March 1985.

    The Prime Minister: It is for Sir Richard Scott to decide for himself what to investigate within his terms of reference.

     

    Fouad Makhzoumi

    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will ban future contact by his Department with Fouad Makhzoumi of FMS in relation to defence sales to Lebanon.

    The Prime Minister: There are no plans to ban contact between officials from any Government Department and Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi.

     

    Exchange Rate Mechanism

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the prospect for an exchange rate mechanism for those EEC members who do not join the single currency;

    (2) what restraints were proposed by the advocates of monetary union at the Madrid summit on the freedom of action of those countries which do not join it.

    The Prime Minister: The European Council agreed at Madrid that the Ecofin Council, together with, in their respective fields of competence, the Commission and the European Monetary Institute, will study the range of issues raised by the fact that some countries might not initially participate in the Euro area. In particular, the study should cover those issues related to monetary stability.

    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister to what extent progress to monetary union requires Britain to rejoin the ERM (a) as a condition for fulfilling the preliminary stages of EMU before giving notice to join or otherwise and (b) as a condition of staying out; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament.

    It will be for the Council, meeting as Heads of State or Government in 1998, to decide pursuant to the provisions of the EC treaty which member states fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of the single currency. It is not possible to say now precisely how the exchange rate criterion will be interpreted, given the changes in the way the ERM has operated since the treaty was agreed.

    The Madrid European Council requested that the Ecofin Council, together with, in their respective fields of competence, the Commission and the European Monetary Institute, will study the range of issues raised by the fact that some countries might not initially participate in the Euro area. In particular, the study should cover those issues related to monetary stability.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Northern Ireland Peace Process – 29 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Northern Ireland peace process, made in an interview in Huntingdon on Friday 29th December 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Northern Ireland peace process was at a stage of both danger and opportunity].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you could probably have said that at any stage since the peace process began. It has always been part of a process where there was always the opportunity that something would go wrong and it would stop. Now clearly what people have their eyes focused on at the moment is the outcome of the Mitchell Commission that we will have some time in January or February. I don’t see any great reason for concern about that, I think there is a clear remit for them. Once we have the report we can decide how best to go forward.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there might be new thinking on the arms decommissioning issue].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That isn’t their remit. Their remit is to determine whether the paramilitaries, not just the IRA by the Loyalist paramilitaries, whether they are prepared to decommission and if so how they are prepared to decommission. That is the remit that the Mitchell Commission have.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was a need for new ideas from the Commission].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter for the government. We will have to decide how to deal with that matter and in due course we will. But there is more than one way of dealing with it. The most obvious way of dealing with it of course is for the IRA to decide that they will begin to decommission their weapons. The standard IRA line upon this is that that is the British simply putting an obstacle in the way, but that is patently absurd for anyone who examines the matter for a moment. For example, if you look at an opinion poll in the Republic of Ireland, 3 out of 4 people in that poll felt that there should be decommissioning before the talks began, so it certainly isn’t just a matter of the British government.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he would consider new ideas from the Commission if they were offered].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are all looking at different ways to deal with the present circumstance. The whole purpose of this exercise from the beginning has been to get all the political parties sitting down together, including Sinn Fein. But the point at issue is this, and it is not a British government point particularly, though we happen to agree with it, the point at issue is that the other political parties, the Unionist parties in particular, will not sit down with Sinn Fein until they are clear in their minds that Sinn Fein are determined upon peace. Well they are not clear in their minds and they make the view, I don’t think the unreasonable view, that you cannot negotiate for peace with an armalite in your hand held at the negotiators’ heads. That is a position that has applied from the beginning.

  • Mr Major’s Christmas Message to the Falkland Islands – 25 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Christmas message to the Falkland Islands, issued on 25th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is the sixth Christmas message I’ve broadcast to the Falkland Islands. It gives me a chance to speak to you about recent events, and to look at the year ahead.

    As you know – two months ago – I held the first meeting with the President of Argentina since the 1982 invasion. Let me tell you why. It is because I want a stable and friendly relationship with Argentina. I am in no doubt that would be in all of our interests.

    So, after 13 years, it is right to resume contact at the highest level. But that does not – and will not – change your right to be governed under the flag of your own choosing. That is beyond question.

    A better relationship with Argentina cannot and will not be at the expense of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. There has been no change and no compromise in the British Government’s position. But a more sensible relationship should produce benefits for all concerned, including the Falkland Islands.

    That has certainly been true over oil exploration. The launching, in October, of your licensing round opened a new vista for your economy.

    Thanks to the agreement reached with Argentina beforehand, the Falkland Islands have been able to invite companies to explore for oil unhindered by the threat of outside interference.

    For similar reasons, I would like to see closer cooperation with Argentina over fisheries. The fishing industry is vital to your economy. So it is very important to improve conservation of the fishery resources you share with Argentina. Fish, alas, do not pay attention to national boundaries.

    I agreed with President Menem to work towards a longer term fisheries agreement, particularly to protect the stocks of squid. I hope that, in the year ahead, we shall be able to achieve this. If so, it would be a most encouraging step forward.

    Closer to home, in a few weeks’ time you will once again be welcoming the Princess Royal. I know she is looking forward immensely to her visit. And I am sure she will return, as so many visitors do, with a deep impression of the values and the spirit which have made the Falkland Islanders the people they are.

    From a wintry Britain to the Falklands in mid-summer, I wish you all a peaceful Christmas and prosperous New Year.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with John Bruton – 21 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with John Bruton, held in Dublin on Thursday 21st December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN BRUTON:

    The Prime Minister and I have had a very useful meeting. We reviewed the progress that has been made since the Downing Street communique. We are very pleased with the speed and application of the international body to its task and also the speed with which the preparatory meetings in the political tract have been put in place. We believe that every participant is showing commitment to making the process work.

    We had the opportunity here tonight to receive and approve a report from our officials on east-west cooperation. This covers cooperation between Britain and Ireland across the Irish Sea in the matter of joint planning of infrastructure, the development of science and technology, cooperation in the areas of health and education and broadcasting, a whole range of matters in which the two countries, both speaking the same language, both sharing much common history, have not cooperated as fully in the past as it would be mutually beneficial for both of us that we should and we are very happy that we have been able to commission this report, which we did at our meeting in Majorca; we have been able to receive it here today in Dublin and we now are looking forward to an intensive series of meetings between our respective members of government to put this into effect over the next year or so.

    In the course of the meeting, we also covered a number of European issues. We discussed the intergovernmental conference, we discussed the question of economic and monetary union, we looked at a number of the foreign policy challenges facing the European Union, the positions in Bosnia and Russia were also touched upon or will be touched upon later on in our further discussions.

    It was a meeting that was very useful from an Anglo-Irish point of view but certainly from my point of view I found it extremely useful in terms of the preparation that is to be done for the Irish Presidency of the European Union commencing in the middle of next year where obviously Britain is a very important player and it is very important for us to understand British thinking on the whole range of issues that are coming before Europe in that period and between now and then.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    There is very little to add. Let me confirm that I found it a very useful and very enjoyable meeting as our meetings have tended to be over the years.

    As far as the substance is concerned, I would like to say a word about the work that has been done about the Anglo-Irish relationship generally by our officials over the last few weeks.

    We have produced a more comprehensive examination of the Anglo-Irish relationship than I think there has possibly been at any stage in the past. We are close neighbours and yet over the years the relationship has not taken a fraction of the opportunities that it could have done. I find that almost inexplicable in logic. I think the reason for that is locked in history. It ought to remain in history and we ought to take advantage of the bilateral opportunities that occur and I think the work that we put in hand will begin that process. Certainly, both the Taoiseach and I expect a significant increase in bilateral exchanges and bilateral examinations of matters interest and I think that can only be good for two nations that have many interests in common; there are areas where we will perhaps even differ from time to time but there are many areas where we won’t and I think the work that has been done will assume greater importance when people begin to examine it over the months and years ahead.

    Let me confirm what the Taoiseach has said about the start that has been made by the international body. They have had a number of meetings already, they have behaved very impressively from the point of view of the participants who have reported to me on their discussions; they will continue with their work; what they have finished, I look forward to reviewing the outcome with the Taoiseach and I very much hope we can take matters forward.

    I spent the morning in Northern Ireland visiting Nationalist communities and Loyalist communities and what strikes me yet again is the universal feeling across the communities that they do not want any of the troubles to reoccur. There is a passionate commitment amongst the people you meet on the streets to ensure that this process can be carried forward. I find that immensely refreshing because in my judgement the biggest single impetus towards peace in the last few years has been the very effective demand for it from the people who suffered so many difficulties for so long so I was glad to see that that feeling was as deeply entrenched this morning as I have found it on every previous occasion I have been to Northern Ireland.

    The Taoiseach has set out the other matters we discussed. I won’t elaborate upon that except to say that I too found them extremely useful. The Irish Presidency of the European Union will come at an important time, a difficult time. It will be a very full time job to manage that as well as Ireland. We had a very useful series of exchanges and I hope we can have more before the Presidency begins.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    [Questions mostly inaudible]

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but relating to potential disagreements over the Washington Three and other plans]

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    We both agreed that this is a matter that can be discussed in the political track and we encourage discussion not only of this idea but of other ideas that may be put forward to ensure that we, on an agreed and understood basis, can get all the relevant people talking to one another.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    It is not the case that it is a bilateral government difference as you expressed it just a moment or so ago. If I might elaborate the point, as far as decommissioning is concerned, the key point is that what we are both seeking is to get all the parties sitting down together. Without that, it is extremely difficult to see how the parties will sit down together and I seem to recall seeing an opinion poll I think here in the Republic saying that the vast majority of people in the Republic – I think 75/76% of the people – felt that some decommissioning should start immediately so I think there is a widespread view that that would be desirable.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but relating to the Taunista’s comments on a seriously flawed idea]

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I read very carefully what the Taunista said and I notice he described some of the details in that fashion. I don’t think he felt that the idea of using that as a forum from which there might be negotiators produced is seriously flawed but at the end of the day, it is going to be a matter that is going to have to be examined by the parties and is being examined by the parties, all of them I hope, and I think people who don’t examine it would perhaps be closing off an option for proceeding that an increasing number of people find attractive.

    Of course, a whole Assembly can’t of itself negotiate and I think that was the point that Mr. Spring was making yesterday but from that, many options may themselves be delivered and I very much hope that would be the case.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but relating to a small body chosen from an elected body, and what is meant by that?]

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    It could be either. It is not for me to determine, it is not for me to impose. If these agreements are going to be reached it has to spring out of the discussions – forgive me no pun intended! It has to come out of the discussions that people are reaching. The point I made about everyone meeting together works both ways and it would also apply to whatever agreements were reached on that front.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    Let us hope we don’t have to.

    QUESTION:

    Yesterday, the parole board in Britain decided not to allow two prisoners who are serving 20 years to apply for parole, one who had been arrested while only 17 years old, Paul Nauny. I am not asking you to comment on this particular case because that would not be sensible but are you satisfied that the British establishment is showing enough sensitivity of the prisoners’ issues?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    It is a sensitive issue here in the Republic, it is a sensitive issue in the United Kingdom as well. There have been discussions between the two governments and I think both of us realise the sensitivity in the other country. I hope we can reach a satisfactory way forward in a number of cases but I am not going to comment on any individual one.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] view expressed earlier today that it would be a fiction to see Sinn Fein and the IRA as separate organisations and whether the recent killings made you think on the British line that there should be some hand-over of guns before talks rather than afterwards?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    It is a fact of history that Sinn Fein’s ability to persuade the IRA to cease violence was a very important factor which has enabled us to have more than a year and a half without violence. It is also a fact that Sinn Fein has stated that they will speak authoritatively to the Commission on the matter of IRA weapons and on other matters concerning weapons but not on every other question but it is also a fact equally that Sinn Fein is a political party whereas the IRA is an illegal organisation.

    As far as the Irish Government is concerned, we deplore the killings that occurred in Belfast in recent times. We are not in a position to make any judgement as to where organisational responsibility for those barbarities rests but we do see these developments as an attempt to enforce control on an unaccountable basis in a particular area of a city where people who are not elected by anybody or accountable to anybody in any way enforce their law through punishment procedures of one kind or another. We believe that that is not consonant with any understood principle of civil rights or of freedom or of any of the democratic principles which we in this country and all political movements in this country hold dear and that is why, apart from the individual tragedy that is represented by these killings, it is for these wider reasons that we condemn then so strongly and both the Prime Minister and I discussed this here today. We joined together in condemning these appalling barbarities and we want them to stop.

    QUESTION:

    Taoiseach, are both governments satisfied with the extent to which the Ulster Unionists have engaged the political track of the twin-track process?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I think at this early stage in the process it is very premature to make any judgements about the contribution of any political party. Obviously, we are talking about long-held views and widely divergent views and we are talking about a very tight time frame within which we are asking these parties to come closer together in their views and after the first round of meetings, it would obviously be very surprising if agreement had been reached but we believe that all of the parties are approaching these discussions in a serious and workmanlike way and for that reason we are very hopeful of the outcome.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    It is only a few weeks ago that people were saying the parties wouldn’t enter into any talks, that this twin-track process wouldn’t start; it is not all that long ago that people said there wouldn’t be a framework document or there wouldn’t be a Joint Declaration.

    What people need to do occasionally I think is to stand back and see where we were and where we are and I think if you do that you see the grounds for hope. Those people who think we are suddenly going to rub our eyes one morning and it will all have gone away and it will all be settled I think are deluding themselves. We are making steady progress, we will continue to make steady progress, it will often require painstaking work but that work is being done and I am very grateful for the cooperation we have had from the Irish Government over many years on that work. It is proceeding and I don’t think people ought to look at a particular incident, a particular setback, a particular problem that may sometimes occur and overlook the wider progress that has been made because it has been quite remarkable.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, you commended the international decommissioning body for the impressive manner – to use your words – in which it is conducting its work. Will you accept its findings?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    Its remit is quite clear. We have said we will examine its findings. It is an advisory body, it is not a body that it going to tell either the Irish Government or the British Government what to do, that is not its remit. Its remit is to produce its report in accordance with its mandate and then to advise us as to what it thinks. We will then examine it and we will discuss with the Irish Government what we think is the right way forward. It is not for them to impose anything upon us, it is for them to advise and for us to determine.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Belfast – 21 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Belfast, held on Thursday 21st December 1995.

    QUESTION:

    What do you hope will be achieved in the next 12 months?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we are going to try and continue to move the process forward. That is the purpose of the twin-track arrangement and that is what we will be seeking to do.

    QUESTION:

    You are aware that you are in an area which has seen some of the worst of the troubles here. Are you impressed with what you have seen this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am impressed. If one looks at these buildings, these provide opportunities for new industries, new employment, new hope to spring up. What we have seen over the last 18 months or so in Northern Ireland is much of the accumulated skills of Northern Ireland increasingly being put to use; unemployment is falling, investment is growing, there has been a tremendous change in the economic atmosphere in Northern Ireland and there is a huge tide of potential external investment that will come into Northern Ireland as soon as people are clear in their minds than the peace is here for good.

    QUESTION:

    How worried are you by the murders of this week?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They were disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful. We don’t yet know quite all the details of the murders but there is no way in which that can be accepted.

    QUESTION:

    There is speculation that the IRA was involved.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have heard that speculation. It may be. I don’t know whether that is true or not. We shall have to try and find out.

    QUESTION:

    There is a feeling within the Nationalist community here that British intransigence is going to hold up the peace process. How would you answer that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have heard people talking about the peace process being held up from the very moment we began it and we have steadily moved forward. What I think has been perfectly clear when you have asked all the people of the north and all the people of the south what they think is that they have expressed a view very clearly about decommissioning. I think I saw a poll in the south as well as the north recently showing three out of four people believing that decommissioning should be started before Sinn Fein were allowed into talks and very nearly half of them felt that decommissioning should not just be started but ought to be finished, concluded, weapons entirely gone, before they entered the talks.

    If the last questioner was right and the killings over the last few days were perpetrated by the IRA, is that not the clearest indication of why is it necessary for weapons to be decommissioned to give confidence to the people of the north that that sort of behaviour is gone for good? And it isn’t just the British Government saying that, it is the people of Northern Ireland saying that and I think that view is shared by the people of Southern Ireland as well so if those talking about peace over the past eighteen months or so are genuine in what they have been saying, then they can prove that very clearly by proving that they really wish to take the gun out of politics by doing it and I hope they will.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Ballymena – 21 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Ballymena, held on Thursday 21st December 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about the Royal divorce issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have nothing whatever further to say to the statement that was issued last night by Buckingham Palace. That crystallises the position, it is a matter that is being dealt with, I have nothing further to add on that.

    QUESTION:

    You must have something to say.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have nothing to say to you this morning about that issue.

    QUESTION:

    John Wheeler said last night that the IRA had been behind the recent killings in Belfast but he did not regard them as a breach of the IRA ceasefire. How can you say that the IRA ceasefire is not being breached if you have acknowledged that they are killing people?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t know precisely who was responsible for that the other night. We have our suspicions but we don’t know. What is perfectly clear is that that was utterly unacceptable behaviour and there are several things that are being said and done at the moment by Sinn Fein and the IRA that are frankly, bluntly, incorrect.

    Firstly, they are suggesting that the only people who want them to disarm and to decommission is the British Government – that is not true, it is the overwhelming feeling of the people of Northern Ireland; secondly, they are saying that this is a condition recently introduced – that is not true; and thirdly, they are trying to maintain a fiction that I think most people in Northern Ireland will find laughable, that Sinn Fein and the IRA are wholly separate organisations. We know that not to be true, the people of Northern Ireland know that not to be true and they could be far better spending their time determining on how they can carry the process forward by deciding themselves that it is no longer acceptable behaviour to indulge in punishment beatings, it is no longer acceptable behaviour to decide themselves that they are the judge, the jury and the determiner of the sentence for people who, if they have committed crimes, should be before the civil courts. It is time that they recognised that the people of Ulster aren’t going to stand for that any more and I don’t believe the people of Ulster are fooled by the soft soap we get from them time and time again and we will make that quite clear.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 December 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Organised Crime

    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Intelligence and Security Committee has to produce a report on the proposed involvement of the Security Service in the work against organised crime.

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that I have recently received an ad-hoc report on “Security Service Work Against Organised Crime” from the Intelligence and Security Committee. After consultation I have concluded that the report does not contain any matter whose publication would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Service or Government Communications Headquarters, and I have presented the report to Parliament today. Copies are also being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

     

    Ukraine

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with President Kuchma of Ukraine on (a) co-operation on nuclear power matters, (b) co-operation on space matters and (c) future joint use of Baikenor expertise.

    The Prime Minister: During my meeting with president Kuchma of Ukraine, I informed him that the United Kingdom looked forward to the signing in the near future of a G7-Ukraine memorandum of understanding regarding the closure, by the year 2000, of the remaining reactors at Chernobyl. The memorandum sets out a comprehensive programme of co-operation to support Ukraine’s decision on closure within the framework of wider energy sector reform and investment. I stressed the Government’s firm support for this programme. I did not discuss with President Kuchma co-operation on space matters or the joint use of the Baikenor launching site in Kazakhstan.

     

    Small and Medium Enterprises

    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister what advice has been given to procurement staff on the implications of purchasing from small and medium enterprises;

    (2) what work his Department has done to develop best practice in the publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium enterprises’ need.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 December 1995]: Guidance is included in the Cabinet Office’s draft procurement manual, which is due to be issued shortly to supplement existing Treasury guidelines. The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency has provided guidance to its staff on the treatment of small and medium enterprises by means of legal and commercial practice notices.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Sport – 19 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on sport, made in an interview on Tuesday 19th December 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if how his Raising the Game strategy was progressing].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is moving forward, it is moving on quite a number of fronts. The core of it of course, the root of it, is to steadily increase the amount of sport that is available to young people both in school and of course at club level. And one of the ways of achieving that is increasing the relationship between clubs and between schools. It is part of a carefully integrated network. Raise the amount of sport in schools, raise the amount of sport in clubs, have a better inter-relationship with them, provide more funding through the lottery in order to provide better facilities, either at school, some of whom have had very successful bids for the lottery, and also in clubs.

    One of the unsung areas of the lottery so far has been the enormous number of rugby clubs, football clubs, athletic clubs, cricket clubs, who have had relatively small awards but awards that meant a proper pitch or proper facilities of some sort to enable them to continue their interest in whichever game they happen to follow and the growth of it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how his aim of two hours a week physical education for each child was progressing].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is on the way to happening and it is going to happen, we are determined that it will happen. I think it is as important a part of a child’s upbringing to have proper leisure and sporting activities and choice as it is to teach them maths and English. And I think over the last 20-25 years we have lost a great deal in our education because sport, to a very large extent, in the state sector was sidelined. I believe that was wrong. I believe it was wrong because it takes away from children an opportunity of learning something they would love for life, and I think also it is extremely good for their physical and mental development to have the opportunity of playing games. So I am determined that increasingly that will come back into schools.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the emphasis on team games].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that team games are an integral part of British history. Some sports are essentially a sport for individual performance – running, jumping, for example. But the majority of traditional games in this country – cricket, rugby, soccer, netball, hockey, whatever it may be – are team games. And I think at school people learn to relate better one with the other if they learn to take part in those team games, they are central to the nature and type of country that we are, and I wish to ensure that younger continue that tradition in the future.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 December 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December 1995.

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

     

    Chauffeur-driven Cars

    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years.

    The Prime Minister: No No. 10 staff, other than the Prime Minister, have a car and driver allocated for their use. The total costs of this allocated car, including security costs, Government car service cars allocated to No. 10 and GCS cars on short-term hire were as follows:

    1992-93: £470,000

    1993-94: £450,000

    1994-95: £380,000.

    These costs exclude VAT.

    The figures for earlier years are available only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Departmental Expenditure

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each of (a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers;

    (2) what is his estimate of the running cost of his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990-91 including an estimate for the current year, broken down into (a) telephone bill, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other.

    The Prime Minister: Expenditure by my Office during 1993-94 and 1994-95 is as follows:

    £000 (26)

    1993-94 1994-95

    Overseas travel and accommodation 1,000 790

    Cars, Domestic travel and accommodation 490 440

    Telephone and stationery costs 130 90

    Total staff costs(27) 3,270 3,200

    Entertainment 40 40

    Office refurbishment 140 70

    Other costs(28) 4,150 3,020

    Total costs 9,220 7,670

    (26) Figures rounded to the nearest £10,000.

    (27) Includes the cost of the Press Office.

    (28) Includes security costs; for 1993-94 includes telecommunications costs.

     

    Small Firms

    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister what meetings his Department has had since May 1995 with organisations representing small firms to review tendering procedures.

    The Prime Minister: Since May 1995, the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency has had meetings with the Federation of Electrical Industries and the Computing Services and Software Association.

     

    Goods and Services

    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister how much his Department paid to the private sector for goods and services in 1994-95.

    The Prime Minister: The information is not held in the form requested.

     

    Council of Europe

    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the 1996 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

    The Prime Minister: The 1996 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be opened in Strasbourg on 22 January 1996. 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 the House on 22 May 1992, Official Report, column 682, and of the House of Lords on 18 June 1992, Official Report, House of Lords, 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 London in February 1996.

    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 Dudley Smith)

    Calder Valley (Sir Donald Thompson)

    Ashford (Sir Keith Speed)

    Medway (Dame Peggy Fenner)

    Lewes (Mr. Tim Rathbone)

    Bournemouth East (Mr. David Atkinson)

    Ravensbourne (Sir John Hunt)

    Reading West (Sir Anthony Durant)

    The Lord Newall

    Representatives from the Labour Party will be:

    The hon. Members for:

    Wentworth (Mr. Peter Hardy)

    Tooting (Mr. Tom Cox)

    Wansbeck (Mr. Jack Thompson)

    Newham North West (Mr. Tony Banks)

    Don Valley (Mr. Martin Redmond)

    Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Terry Davis)

    The Lord Kirkhill

    The representative from the minority parties will be:

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

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

    From the Government benches:

    The hon. Members for:

    Sheffield, Hallam (Sir Irvine Patnick)

    Norfolk North (Sir Ralph Howell)

    Brighton Kemptown (Sir Andrew Bowden)

    Northavon (Sir John Cope)

    Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Terry Dicks)

    Bridlington (Mr. John Townend)

    Newark (Mr. Richard Alexander)

    The Baroness Hooper

    The Earl of Dundee

    From the Labour Party:

    The hon. Members for:

    Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. James Dunnachie)

    Glasgow, Provan (Mr. James Wray)

    Newport East (Mr. Roy Hughes)

    Easington (Mr. John Cummings)

    Leigh (Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe)

    Leicester South (Mr. James Marshall)

    Manchester Central (Mr. Robert Litherland)

    The Baroness Gould of Potternewton

    From the minority parties:

    The Lord Mackie of Benshie.

  • PMQT – 19 December 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

    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. Jones: Will the Government rejoin the future large aircraft project urgently? Does the Prime Minister understand that the French and the Germans are increasingly sceptical of our approach to the project and may move to exclude us? Is he also aware that 2,000 Airbus workers in my constituency have lost their jobs and that the remaining 2,000 are desperate for Britain to rejoin the project? Given Britain’s pathetic economic growth prospects, surely the Prime Minister wants a strong aerospace industry.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me an indication of the subject that he intended to raise and I appreciate his concern to protect jobs in his constituency. On the substantive point, the Government are committed to joining the future large aircraft programme provided that our conditions concerning price, performance and affordability are met. That matter is under discussion with the United Kingdom industries concerned and with our European colleagues.

     

    Q2. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

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

    Mr. Shaw: In the next few days I shall be visiting the hospitals, the homes for the elderly and the retired and the nursing homes in my constituency. I shall visit many businesses and voluntary organisations. [Interruption.] All those people have benefited from additional resources as a result of the recent Budget. Can my right hon. Friend also give me some words to tell our customs officers in Dover, who are thoroughly against the policies that the Labour party would introduce in terms of the legalisation of cannabis and drugs? [Interruption.] Our customs officers have provided a valuable service in keeping Britain free from drugs. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he supports the customs officers in Dover in that action? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman an Adjournment debate next year.

    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has just had one, Madam Speaker. I very much agree with him about the excellent work carried out by customs officers at Dover and elsewhere in tackling drug trafficking. My hon. Friend can tell them categorically that we have no intention of legalising cannabis. We do not believe that it is the right way to proceed. As the chief constable of West Yorkshire said in the past,

    “Legalisation or decriminalisation just isn’t the answer.”

    He continued:

    “I’ve not yet met a heroin, or ecstasy or crack cocaine user that didn’t start on cannabis”.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister tell us what he has repeatedly refused to deny, which is that the costs of rail privatisation–the costs of the sale and of the extra subsidy–are set to amount to $1 billion over the next two years? Would not that £1 billion be better spent on improving a public rail service?

    The Prime Minister: No. Even with the spirit of Christmas, I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. On a like for like basis, overall Government funding for the railways after privatisation is expected to be broadly similar to the levels of recent years. The precise level will depend on the privatisation process and on the outcome of competition for the franchises. Instead of criticising the funding, the Labour leader would be better employed examining the £10 billion worth of investment that Railtrack plans, which would not occur in the public sector. If the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to privatisation, will he tell us how he would replace the £10 billion worth of investment in British Rail? Which taxes would he increase? By how much would fares have to rise? Or will he at last realise that privatisation will produce a better service for customers?

    Mr. Blair: We could start by taking the £1 billion and investing it in the rail service. Let us see whether the Prime Minister can answer one simple question: will he guarantee that the level of service which now obtains will be the same after privatisation in the privatised services–not hope, not wish, but guarantee?

    The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman had no response whatever to the £10 billion worth of investment. He talks about £1 billion, but £10 billion is promised. As for future services, he can see what is already beginning to happen. The passenger service requirements provide a guaranteed level of service. That has never existed in the past. Services to the passenger are already improving–[Hon. Members: “Where?”] I will tell Opposition Members where. The operating companies are offering a range of new services. They are responding to their customers more quickly. There are new information services. To give Opposition Members a practical example, completely new train services are being provided–[Hon. Members: “Where”?]. I will tell Opposition Members where. For example, over 100 trains a day have already been added to SouthWest Trains’ timetables. When will the Leader of the Opposition realise what is happening and realise also the opportunities for improving a service that has been too bad for too long?

    Mr. Blair: We shall realise it when the Prime Minister guarantees that service levels will remain the same–[Interruption.] Yes, when he guarantees it. What is more, have we not just–[Interruption.] We shall listen to the Government when they guarantee that the service will remain the same, but they are not prepared to do that. Is it not right that at the end of the week–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The barracking is intolerable.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister keeps telling us about his plans for British Rail. Is he not the man who planned no increase in value added tax and then increased it? We are not interested in his plans. Have not his rail plans been overturned by the courts, his chief inspector of prisons walked out of his first prison inspection, members of his party are at each other’s throats over Europe and the Government cannot get the national lottery right? Has not the right hon. Gentleman’s year ended as it began–in weakness, chaos and incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: Whenever the right hon. Gentleman loses the argument, he changes it. He has lost the argument on privatisation. He had no response to the £10 billion and no response to the fact that there has never been a guaranteed minimum service until now. Now the service is being improved and he cannot bear the fact that we are winning the argument in terms of improving services right across the public sector. All that he can do is to run down everything that happens in this country on every conceivable occasion for his own partisan political interests.

    Mr. Garnier: As more than 13,000 British troops are deployed to Yugoslavia, will my right hon. Friend send the best wishes of the House to them? Does he agree that, had the Labour party won the last election, we would not have had one tenth of the soldiers to send to that place, given the savage cuts that Labour would have introduced?

    The Prime Minister: And would probably try to introduce were it ever given the chance again. We know the Opposition’s record on defence and we know their capacity to hide their long-term affiliation to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and we know that the armed forces know and the people of this country know that the armed forces would not be safe in their hands.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister understand why the possibility of a lone British veto tomorrow against a European subvention to help to privatise Irish Steel is regarded by the Irish Prime Minister as inexplicable? Will he explain? Will he assure us, in particular, that he fully understands the damage that could be done by that to British-Irish relations at a crucial moment in the Irish peace process?

    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should examine the whole matter; it is a very complex issue involving the interests of Irish Steel–very important to Ireland–and British Steel, and the matter is under discussion. We are seeking–and I hope that it will be possible to reach–an agreement that safeguards the United Kingdom’s interests. That matter is under discussion at the moment. It would not be productive for those discussions for me to pursue the matter now, but there is an interest both in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. We are seeking, and have done for some weeks, to reach an agreement which meets the interests of the steel industry both in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. I hope that we shall be able to reach such an agreement. If we cannot, it will not be for lack of trying on this side of the channel.

    Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the newspaper report that Labour Members of the European Parliament, in supporting the French strikers, blamed their plight on the fact that the French Government were supporting the single currency? Does he not find it surprising that Labour MEPs should be supporting his own sceptical point of view? Is he not even more surprised that their position differs radically from that of Opposition Front-Benchers, who support the European Parliament and all its works?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that the very wide and deep divisions in the Labour party on Europe were clearly apparent in the statement that I delivered to the House yesterday afternoon, when one Labour Back Bencher after another stood up and, in essence, flatly contradicted what the leader of the Labour party has been saying for weeks. As for Labour party policy, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that there was more than one summit in Madrid last week. The summit of socialist leaders, attended by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, must have been very amusing. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to a significant extension of qualified majority voting, support for a European strategy on immigration, the social chapter, and restrictions on how long people can work. What he did not discuss were the details of fishing policy–and he a Member from Hull.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

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

    Mr. Pickthall: As the national lottery regulator was warned by the Ministry not to take free air trips on his visit to the USA, but nevertheless did so, and given that the Secretary of State for National Heritage knew about that but refused to comment on it at Question Time yesterday, does the Prime Minister not think that it is time that both of them were sacked?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is considering the matter and will make an announcement shortly.

    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1979 only 30 per cent. of people in Scotland were home owners? Is he aware that the figure is now 57 per cent., and a Shelter report published today suggests that 77 per cent. of Scots aspire to home ownership? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Conservative party will drive towards that objective?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Surveys show that more than 70 per cent. of Scots aim for owner-occupation, and that is particularly true among younger age groups. Since the right to buy was introduced in 1980, well over 300,000 houses and flats have been sold to their tenants, and owner-occupation has increased from 35 per cent. to 57 per cent. The right to buy has been immensely successful–introduced by a Conservative Government, opposed by gut instinct by the Labour party then, and still, in truth, loathed by it now.