The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1995

  • PMQT – 24 October 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th October 1995. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the commemorations for the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in New York.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yet another fall in the unemployment figures, which are now below even those of Germany for the first time in recent years? Is this not a resounding vindication of the Government’s policies and is it not about time that the Labour party explained how a minimum wage would help young people to get jobs?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The latest unemployment figures are quite excellent. He raises an important point in directing the House towards the minimum wage. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, said:

    “Some Party Colleagues have advocated such a wage without having the courage of their convictions to state an amount that would make the commitment meaningful.”

    Will the deputy leader of the Labour party now break the habit of his party and answer the question? What is the figure that would give meaning to the policy?

    Mr. Prescott: This is an historic moment. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his first Prime Minister’s questions. It has been a long time, but he has finally made it.

    Given the Prime Minister’s belated but welcome concern with waste and mismanagement abroad, can we now expect him to show the same concern for waste and mismanagement at home? Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much money was wasted on the poll tax? How much money was wasted on the new bureaucracy in the health service? While he is at it, can he tell us how much it cost to set up and run his own new empire?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box today in this position. Of course, I reciprocate in welcoming him to the position he holds. But I cannot help but notice that, while my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has trusted me to come alone, the right hon. Gentleman has had a minder appointed to look after him. The curious point about the minder is that he has not even had the courage to turn up to help with the minding process. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well– [Interruption.] Do I gather that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has crossed the Floor and is now sitting on this side of the House, or is he scouring away in the basement somewhere relaying what is going on in the House to the leader of the Labour party, who, of course, will never be able to get a first-hand account from the deputy leader because they do not talk? It really is ridiculous– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is very time-consuming. I want brief questions and brief answers now.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that we shall get a brief answer, Madam Speaker, because the hon. Member for Hartlepool has now turned up.

    Mr. Prescott: As the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us a proper answer, may I help him? According to the Government’s own figures, £14 billion was wasted on the poll tax and £1 billion on the new bureaucracy in the health service. Is not the real truth that the Government’s press and publicity machine costs the taxpayer £1 million every working day? Is that not the real cost to the country of the right hon. Gentleman’s new title? Is it not clear that something so expensive to sell must be a pretty shabby product?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, when a Government have as many good policies as we have, it is our duty to draw them to the attention of the people who will benefit from them. Our first obligation is to point out that, for every £1 spent on the health service in 1978-79, we spent £5 last year.

     

    Q2. Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

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

    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister–

    Mr. Skinner rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will resume his seat.

    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the BBC and Channel 4 on transmitting live the whole of last week’s debate on the Prison Service? Does he agree that that provided viewers with the opportunity to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary demolish the Opposition’s unworthy and unsuccessful attempt to smear his reputation?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. It was excellent that the House and a wider public had the chance to see the vacuum that lies behind Labour’s allegations. They also had the chance to hear the excellent speech by my right hon. and learned Friend. If the BBC continues to show the Opposition in that light, it will not be Alastair Campbell who rings up to complain but the League Against Cruel Sports.

     

    Q3. Ms Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Lynne: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, because of financial constraints, Rochdale health authority proposes that elderly, critically ill patients should not be allowed into nursing homes funded by the national health service unless they will die within four weeks? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that that is ultimately the responsibility of the Government?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is the ultimate responsibility of the Government to provide the excellent health service that we do. I would not be prepared to discuss at the Dispatch Box the sort of case that the hon. Lady put to me without a chance to examine it in more detail. However, the health service is attracting increasing funds and the results are increasingly attractive to the public. Public assessment of the quality of the health service is rising consistently.

    Mr. Brooke: After the warm-up bout last week, will my right hon. Friend arrange, after the manner of the Ryder and Walker cups, a series of singles matches between members of the Cabinet and their opposite numbers, not least so that we can see whether the captain of the other side, in a manner unusual in international golf, continues to intervene to help his hon. Friends out of bunkers?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is a past master at coming to the heart of a matter. I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition will not want to reveal his shadow Cabinet too conspicuously because it is self-evident that the parliamentary Labour party has elected a shadow Cabinet diametrically opposite to the direction in which the Leader of the Opposition wants to go.

     

    Q4. Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Purchase: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that investment in manufacturing is lower than it was six years ago, despite a recent and welcome improvement? Does he accept that the lack of investment–widely acknowledged as a British problem–is directly responsible for the loss of 520 jobs in my constituency at the British Steel plant which is the only supplier of specialist seamless tubes in the United Kingdom? Will he undertake to intervene–preferably before breakfast–and ask for a rethink on the closure? Does he recognise that, if the plant closes, we shall have an even bigger balance of trade problem than we have at present?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would help his constituency if he got up earlier in the morning, as he would discover that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 30 per cent. in the past two and a half years.

    Sir Michael Marshall: On United Nations day, will my right hon. Friend reflect that the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference at the General Assembly in New York a month ago agreed unanimously that the problems of the UN are our problems and that, if we did not have the organisation, we would have to invent it?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a valuable contribution to the subject, and particularly to the work of the IPU, and the House is indebted to him for that. Our support of the UN is second to none, but that is no justification for the organisation wasting money and not collecting its proper dues.

     

    Q5. Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Hodge: We seem to have some difficulty in eliciting direct answers from the Deputy Prime Minister. Following what my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition said, an article in The Independent yesterday asserted that the Deputy Prime Minister had spent £80,000 of public money on a desk diary. Did the Deputy Prime Minister receive permission from the Prime Minister to spend that money in such an extravagant manner?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will find that, if she relies on the national press for the basis of her research, she will be consistently wrong-footed. I spent no money on a desk. The hon. Lady would be better employed praising the Government, who have presided over a 22 per cent. reduction in unemployment in her constituency.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I want to hear the answers to the questions, whether the House does or not. [Interruption.] Order. Do be quiet.

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

    Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no less a luminary than the director of the Fabian Society has come out in support of grant- maintained schools, much to the relief of the Leader of the Opposition, whose party is opposing him on the matter? With almost cross-party support for the measure, can we count on the Government to proceed with all speed to make all our schools grant maintained, thus bringing a choice of school to every parent?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to this critical matter. The fact is that, in putting forward the proposal, the Fabian Society is once again looking to the Conservatives for the ideas which are taking us forward into the next century. For all the rhetoric of the left, what the Opposition are about is abolishing grant-maintained schools, abolishing grammar schools, abolishing city technology colleges and abolishing simple performance tables and simple tests–everything is for dogma and rhetoric, and nothing is for quality in education.

    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise that all this knockabout opposite will be taken very badly by starving millions in the third world who are already fearful of the proposed cuts– [Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing, as usual. Now we have the Prime Minister at the United Nations talking about abolishing UNESCO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. That will go down extremely badly because everyone knows that, like the cuts in overseas aid, the proposals are to fund the pre-election tax cut bribes of the Tory Government.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman refer to knockabout Opposition when he first intervened? It cannot be explained in any other language. This country has the fifth largest aid programme in the world. How can the Labour party decry that? When one adds to that our inward investment in other people’s countries and the remarkable contribution that we make to peacekeeping, one has just one further example of the way in which, whatever this country does, the Labour party seeks to decry and destroy it.

     

    Q7. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bruce: Did my right hon. Friend welcome the protestations that we have heard, particularly from the Opposition parties, that all of us in the House are in favour of increasing investment in our railways? Does he believe that those protestations are consistent with, first, the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that the railways will be renationalised and, secondly, the statement by the new shadow spokesman on transport that she would not pay for it?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House is interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, but it is also interested in what the deputy leader of the Labour party has to say to the union that sponsors him. Is he in favour of it taking strike action and imposing hardship on very large numbers of Londoners trying to get to work, or is he not in support of that?

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 October 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mr. David Hart

    Dr. David Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he was informed by the Secretary of State for Defence that he was appointing Mr. David Hart as his independent adviser.

    The Prime Minister: Yes.

    Dr. Clark: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the British defence industry concerning the advice of Mr. David Hart within the Ministry of Defence on procurement contracts.

    The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, none.

     

    Independent Advisers

    Mr. David Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if his agreement is required for the appointment of independent advisers to the Secretary of State for Defence.

    The Prime Minister: My agreement is not required for the appointment of unpaid independent advisers to Ministers.

     

    National Crime Squad

    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister whether the national police squad announced in his speech in Blackpool on 13 October will operate in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is consulting the police and others on the establishment of a national crime squad. An announcement will be made in due course.

     

    Seal Pup Slaughter

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty’s Government last authorised the British embassy in Moscow to raise the issue of seal pup slaughter.

    The Prime Minister: The embassy in Moscow was instructed to raise the question of seal culling on receipt of the 1995 seal cull figures. These arrived on 3 October and the embassy is now seeking a meeting with the relevant authorities to reiterate the British public’s opposition to seal culling and to ask the Russians to reconsider their position.

     

    Intergovernmental Conference

    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards the IGC; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to my speech on Europe on 1 March, Official Report, columns 1060-74. We will continue to seek a European Union that is open, flexible, free-trading, efficient and responsive to people’s concerns.

     

    Information Technology

    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent or allowed for the hire of consultants in each Government Department during the process of assessing bids for IT-related contracts; and if he will list the consultants used and the amounts spent in each case.

    The Prime Minister: The information is not held centrally.

    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister what safeguards exist to prevent individual firms from establishing monopoly positions during the award of contracts for services that are carried out in all or most Government Departments, with particular reference to those for information technology.

    The Prime Minister: All contracts are awarded on the basis of best value for money after a fair and open competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Departments will have regard to market conditions when considering bids. The procedure is no different in the case of information technology contracts.

     

    Market Testing

    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been put in place in each Government Department to avoid corruption or conflict of interest during the market testing process.

    The Prime Minister: The principles to be followed are laid out clearly in “The Government’s Guide to Market Testing” and the “Civil Service Management Code”. The recent White Paper on procurement, “Setting New Standards”, re-emphasised the Government’s commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards in procurement. All these documents are available in the Library of the House.

    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister what mechanisms exist in each Government Department during the market testing process to test bids for risk assessment and value for money and, following the award of contracts, to monitor the performance of those contracts.

    The Prime Minister: The principles to be followed are laid out clearly in “The Government’s Guide to Market Testing”, which is available in the Library of the House.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on His Meeting with President of Argentina – 23 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on his planned meeting with the President of Argentina, made on the 23rd October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wouldn’t expect great dramas out of this meeting, this is part of a steady series of confidence building missions, but there’s no question about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to United Nations General Assembly – 23 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly upon the 50th anniversary of its founding. The speech was held in New York on Monday 23rd October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Mr Secretary-General, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    The United Kingdom was present at the birth of the United Nations. Throughout its 50 years we have stood by the organisation and by our responsibilities in the Security Council. The United Kingdom today as we meet here is the largest contributor of troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations. British forces are serving in blue berets from Angola to Georgia with over 8,000 British troops in Bosnia alone, so I speak to you this morning as a strong supporter of the United Nations but also as a candid friend. I want the United Nations to be more successful in the future, it will be needed in tomorrow’s world and so change is necessary.

    The General Assembly first met amid the rubble and gloom of war-damaged London, but since then the world has been transformed. The United Nations has grappled with aggression, it has helped either to make or to keep the peace; it has worked for arms control and only days ago the United Kingdom, France and the United States agreed to sign the protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga. An end to nuclear testing is now in sight as we move towards a comprehensive test ban treaty in 1996.

    Throughout the last 50 years the principles of the Charter have stood the test of time, but now I believe we need to look ahead. The world is changing and I believe it is time for the United Nations to change with it. We need to confront challenges to peace and deal more effectively with the roots of crises. We need to encourage democratic and accountable government and protect the rights of the individual. We need to reduce poverty and protect the environment and we need to tackle the evils of international crime, drug trafficking and terrorism.

    Mr. President, that is a demanding agenda. To achieve it, we need a properly financed and efficient United Nations. I want change because I want the United Nations to succeed. Let me emphasise that point – I want change so that the United Nations can succeed.

    Some reforms have begun, many are needed. What is clear is that inaction is no longer an option. The threat to the future of the United Nations will not come from change, it will come from inertia.

    There are questions that we must address:

    Is the United Nations spread too wide? I believe it is.

    Is there too much waste and duplication between different bodies? I believe there may be.

    Are the priorities right for the 1990s? I am not yet convinced that they are.

    As we form new bodies for new problems, do we close down those no longer needed? Not enough, I think; there are some bodies we could usefully scrap.

    Can we improve the planning, managing and financing of peacekeeping? I believe that we can.

    And is our machinery for pre-empting conflicts and disasters as good as it should be? I believe not.

    There are other questions as well:

    Should the Security Council be enlarged? I believe that it should. The subject has been on the agenda for too long, it raises difficult questions but the issues are clear and the decisions are needed.

    Is the United Nations being efficiently managed? I am sure more could yet be done to apply the best modern practices with funding allocated to the most efficient programmes.

    Is perhaps too much time and energy being spent on ritual verbal battles brilliantly interpreted into six languages and then printed on the world’s highest paper mountain? Of course it is, we know that is the case.

    And last but most urgent of all, financial reform. The UN is in a financial crisis. It is not sustainable for member states to enjoy representation without taxation. Contributions should be paid promptly and in full and arrears should be cleared, but this must be accompanied by a new focus on efficiency and by modernising assessment to reflect the changing capacity of members to pay their dues.

    I agree very strongly with the Secretary-General that we should have a special session of the General Assembly next year to address these issues.

    Mr. President, I ask these questions because they need answers. I dare say some of them are controversial but we need frank and honest answers now because the world needs the United Nations as much today as at any time in the past, but a United Nations that works, a United Nations using today’s methods to address tomorrow’s needs, a United Nations that shows its worth to the taxpayer in all our countries for it is they who pay the subscriptions to the United Nations. In that way, I believe we can capture and can justify popular support for our organisation.

    Today, Mr. President, we face difficulties that we must overcome. At this commemoration, my hope is that we will find the will to do so. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in New York – 23 October 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in New York on Monday 23rd October 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could I ask you first of all about this question of waste in the UK, how serious do you think this problem is?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a problem that has needed addressing for some time and I propose to say so this morning. I should say at the outset that I am a very strong supporter of the United Nations and because I want the United Nations to succeed I believe it should address some of the problems and issues that everyone knows are there. One of them is duplication of functions, another one is waste, another one is to have a proper method of reform, and of course the fourth is at last the need to deal with the membership of the Security Council. All these matters need dealing with and need dealing with speedily.

    QUESTION:

    What about your meeting with President Menem this afternoon? He is making it quite clear that he sees that as a step towards the Falklands becoming the property of Argentina.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we certainly don’t, and I think he knows that we don’t. The question of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is not going to be discussed, it is a matter that is quite clear as far as we are concerned. It is British sovereignty, nothing in that is going to change. But over the last few years we have begun to develop a much better trading relationship with Argentina. We have agreed an oil agreement that will enable the Falklands to exploit oil around their seas. At some stage in the future we will need to develop a Fisheries Agreement and there is a quite significantly growing commercial relationship. So there is a great deal to discuss with President Menem and I look forward to discussing it.

    QUESTION:

    How significant would say the meeting is?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There have been a number of meetings at Ministerial level over recent years and a great increase in trade flow. But it is the first time that the British Head of Government and the Argentinian Head of Government have met since 1982, so it is significant to that extent. But I would not expect great drama out of this meeting. This is part of a steady series of confidence building measures. But there is no question of any discussion about the sovereignty of the Falklands.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 October 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Breast Cancer Campaign

    Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister how many postcards he has received from the National Postcard Campaign for Breast Cancer since 7 June.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 16 October 1995, Official Report, column 23.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 October 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Government Policy

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he has had with the First Secretary of State since July to discuss the co-ordination of Government policy.

    The Prime Minister: I have had regular meetings with ministerial colleagues since July.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 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.

     

    Ex-service Affairs Unit

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister what further representations he has had from the Royal British Legion in relation to its campaign for an ex-service affairs unit in Whitehall; what replies he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, none.

     

    General Pinochet

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister which members of Her Majesty’s Government met General Pinochet during his recent visit to London; and what effort was made to condemn the regime he presided over in Chile from 1973 to 1990.

    The Prime Minister: No members of Her Majesty’s Government met General Pinochet during his recent visit. Our views on the military regime of 1973 to 1990 are well known.

     

    Conservative Party Leadership

    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants, including special advisers, were involved in the recent campaign in official time or in their own time for the election of the leader of the Conservative party and for which candidate; and what are the normal working hours of these civil servants.

    The Prime Minister: Special advisers taking part in political activities, such as the election for the leader of the Conservative party, are required to do so during leave or in their own time in addition to fulfilling their normal duties. In these circumstances, it is not appropriate to give details of those involved. Special advisers normally work a five-day week of 41 hours including meal breaks, which is standard for civil servants in the London area.

  • PMQT – 19 October 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lichfield (Anniversaries)

    Q1. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to visit the celebrations of the 800th anniversary of the completion of the present cathedral and the 500th anniversary of the King Edward VI school being held this year in the city of Lichfield.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I warmly congratulate the citizens of Lichfield on these anniversaries. Unfortunately, I shall not on this occasion be able to visit during them.

    Mr. Fabricant: If my right hon. Friend is able to visit next year, not only could he join in the celebrations of the 801st anniversary of the cathedral but he could see our brand new anti-crime closed circuit television system in the centre of Lichfield and use the opportunity to speak to the people of the city of Lichfield, who will tell him that what we need is not do-gooders but more people like our Home Secretary, who are tough on crime and robust on punishment.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary richly deserves and gets my full support in his fight against crime. It is a fight in which he has engaged with great success without a great deal of support from Opposition Members. Closed circuit television has had a dramatic effect in catching criminals and deterring crime, and over the next three years we anticipate installing a further 10,000 new cameras up and down the country.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Clapham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 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.

    Mr. Clapham: Despite the Government’s obsession with privatisation over the past 16 years, will the Prime Minister share the view of Dame Vera Lynn, the people of Dover and the Labour party and ensure that Dover and its white cliffs remain British for ever?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case and, as we look at plans ahead, I shall certainly bear it in mind.

    Mr. French: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the official solicitor is reported to have done a deal whereby the so-called memoirs of my late constituent, Mr. Fred West, are to be sold for £1 million? Does my right hon. Friend not find such a deal extremely distasteful? But, if it is to go ahead, does he agree that that sum should go not to members of the West family but to the families of the alleged victims?

    The Prime Minister: When I saw some of the earlier reports on this matter in the media, there was an implication that the Government were involved in the sale of the rights to Mr. West’s papers. That is, of course, emphatically not the case. The official solicitor who has made the sale is a lawyer independent of Government and he has made that decision on his judgment of what is right for the estate. Personally, I share my hon. Friend’s feelings about this matter.

    Mr. Blair: Can we have clear answers now to the two points of fact at the heart of the dispute between the Home Secretary and Mr. Lewis? At the meeting of 10 January, first, did the Home Secretary say that the governor of Parkhurst prison should be suspended–a disciplinary matter–rather than merely transferred to other duties, and, secondly, was it the Home Secretary, not Mr. Lewis, who demanded that any action taken be taken that day immediately so that he could announce it to the House of Commons?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend will deal with these matters in detail this afternoon. But let me say further to the right hon. Gentleman that the leading questions that he put to me on Tuesday in an attempt to discredit my right hon. and learned Friend were wrong. I have now had the documentary evidence examined which shows conclusively that the decision to move the governor of Parkhurst prison was the director general’s. My right hon. and learned Friend will be releasing that evidence later today. I hope, therefore, that before the Leader of the Opposition repeats unjust allegations, before he states new unjust allegations, he will withdraw the old unjust allegations and apologise for them. [Interruption.]

    Dr. Spink: The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his false questions.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Dr. Spink will come to order.

    Mr. Blair: We certainly do not withdraw those allegations and we shall make them good during the debate. What is more, I note that the Prime Minister did not answer either of the two points that I put to him. Let me make this clear to Conservative Members. This is not just Mr. Lewis’s word against that of the Home Secretary, although let me point out that he was the senior civil servant. The Government appointed Mr. Lewis and renewed his contract. May I tell the Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time and we are to have a debate on the matter in a short time.

    Mr. Blair: May I remind the Prime Minister that those now lined up against the Home Secretary on this issue are the chairman of the board of visitors of Parkhurst, the chairman of the Association of Members of Boards of Visitors, the chief inspector of prisons– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time and I insist that questions are put to the Prime Minister for reply.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister now release Philippa Drew, John Marriott and other civil servants connected with this matter from their obligations of confidentiality on this limited issue so that they can give their version of events and we can see who is telling the truth?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is very reckless with his facts and very fancy-free with his allegations. He was wrong on Tuesday and the House will notice that he did not apologise for his error. My right hon. and learned Friend will deal with all these matters this afternoon and I have every confidence that he will reveal Labour’s smears for what they are. I have one further point for the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is keen to lecture people on moral responsibility. Perhaps he should reflect that a high moral tone is inconsistent with peddling allegations that he knows are untrue.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister says that they are untrue, will he allow those civil servants who know the truth directly to give evidence as to their version of events? Now, yes or no to that question?

    The Prime Minister: I made the point in my first answer that my right hon. and learned Friend will be releasing the evidence this afternoon about the decision on Parkhurst prison. As to the other matters, my right hon. and learned Friend will make the matter crystal clear this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to retain any credibility in the country, he should acknowledge that he is wrong and apologise for unjust allegations.

    Mr. Waterson: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity during his busy week to consider the findings of the European Court, which has said that positive discrimination in employment is unlawful? Will he confirm that the full facilities of the Equal Opportunities Commission will be made available for the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an extremely intriguing point, and also touches on elections elsewhere that have been of interest to the House in the past day or so. I have no doubt that the departure of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the arrival of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) constitute a case of constructive dismissal and destructive appointment.

    Mr. Ashdown: With the Home Secretary now facing his eighth appearance before the courts, how does the Prime Minister justify a policy of “two strikes and you’re out” for a criminal? The Home Secretary has had seven strikes against him, and he is still in.

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to understand that there is strong support in the country for the law and order policies of my right hon. and learned Friend. Time after time, my right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessors have set out strong anti-criminal measures; time after time, the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition have voted for the soft option. They voted against raising the maximum sentences for serious crimes: they are against that. They were against giving the Attorney-General the right of appeal against lenient sentences: they want lenient sentences. They were against strengthening police powers to stop and search criminals, against giving the police more powers to deal with disorder on the streets and against making parents more responsible for their children. They do not like it, but that is their record on crime. The only message that the Liberal and Labour parties send to criminals is that they would be soft on them.

    Mr. Wilshire: Turning to Northern Ireland, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that it remains the Government’s policy to exclude from all-party talks all those who retain guns and explosives?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that there has been absolutely no change in the Government’s position. That will be clear to anyone who studies the full text of the remarks made the other day by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October.

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

    Mr. Mullin: Does the Prime Minister recall the occasion on which a man was found in the Queen’s bedroom? Does he also recall–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We have a very full day today. Come on, get on with it.

    Mr. Mullin: Does the Prime Minister also recall that the then Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw–who I think we can all agree was a gentleman of the old school–immediately offered his resignation? Was Lord Whitelaw wrong? Should he have said that it was an operational matter, and none of his business?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman were familiar with the framework document under which Mr. Lewis was working, he would see the clear distinction between policy and operational matters.

     

    Q4. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October.

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

    Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grant-maintained schools are proving more and more popular with parents–so much so that a school in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition is now balloting for grant-maintained status?

    The Prime Minister: I did not know that, but I congratulate the parents of Sedgefield on considering it, and I very much hope that they will vote in favour. I hope that, if they do, the Labour leader will have the chance to tell his constituents about the benefits of grant-maintained schools, which he so obviously values. When he does so, perhaps he can explain why Labour’s education policy is to enjoy those advantages–quite rightly–for its own children, but to deprive other people’s children of the same opportunity.

     

    Q5. Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October.

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

    Miss Hoey: Does the Prime Minister share my concern at the failure of training and enterprise councils across the country to meet their targets for special needs? Does he realise that, in the meantime, projects such as Roots and Shoots in Kennington in my constituency are facing closure from underfunding, despite having a wonderful success rate in terms of employment? What action will he take on that?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of the detailed question that she proposed to ask. I understand that she had a useful meeting this morning with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). I understand that Roots and Shoots has signed a contract with the Central London TEC. My hon. Friend has made it clear that the TEC is willing to discuss the terms of the contract and the costs involved by Roots and Shoots in an effort to ensure that provision is continued. As I am sure the hon. Lady is also aware, my hon. Friend has written to every TEC to urge it to pass on the substantial premium that the Government pay to special needs training. My hon. Friend will of course pursue that vigorously.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 October 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Priorities

    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister what are his priorities for the remaining period of his premiership.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech that I made on 13 October, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

     

    Outsourcing Contracts

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to (a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 October 1995]: For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 16 October 1995.

  • PMQT – 17 October 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 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. Coombs: Even in the light of the recent record fall in reported crime, is my right hon. Friend aware of the great welcome that there will be throughout the country for the additional 5,000 police officers approved last week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of what the Lord Chief Justice might say, long prison sentences which become short as a result of automatic remission undermine people’s sense of justice and do not act as a sufficient deterrent to the criminal?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I entirely support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary’s strategy to fight crime. The threat of a long prison sentence deters criminals from committing crime. That is not just my view and that of the Home Secretary. That is the view of the police as well. I welcome the fall in crime over the past two and a half years, but we wish to see it fall a good deal further. That is what lay behind our announcements last week.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister will know that the Home Secretary has denied any involvement in the operational matters of the Prison Service, including the Parkhurst breakout. Can he therefore confirm the following facts: that, so far from this being true, the Home Secretary personally told Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst prison should be suspended immediately; that when Mr. Lewis objected as it was an operational matter, the Home Secretary threatened to instruct him to do it; that when Mr. Lewis further objected, the Home Secretary told the operational director of the Prison Service by fax that he would announce it in the House of Commons that day and duly did announce it in his statement to the House? Is that true or is it false?

    The Prime Minister: The Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament for the actions of the Home Office and for the actions of the governor. He appointed Mr. Lewis to run the Prison Service. The criticisms over the past few days by the Learmont report have been directed at the director of prisons and not at my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I believe that the Home Secretary has acted entirely properly throughout this affair.

    Mr. Blair: I am afraid that the Prime Minister has not answered the factual question. The Home Secretary is sitting a couple of places along. The Prime Minister can ask him whether it is true now. I put certain specific facts in relation to the pressure on Mr. Lewis in respect of the removal of the governor of Parkhurst. Are those facts true or are they false?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it entirely clear to the right hon. Gentleman that I have no doubt that whatever action my right hon. and learned Friend took was entirely proper and within his remit as Home Secretary answerable to this House.

    Mr. Blair: If the facts are true, it was not within his remit as it was an operational matter. That is precisely the issue. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that Mr. Lewis has also said this morning that the Home Secretary personally interfered in prison visits, in searches and in disciplinary awards and that there has been greater political interference than at any point in time in the service history? Is it not the case that we do not have a Government governing the country? We have a group of Ministers who will play games with these issues, who take credit when things are going right and refuse to take credit when things are going wrong. That is not a responsible Government for Britain.

    The Prime Minister: We noticed the careful lead-up to the pre- prepared soundbite, as we do each Tuesday and Thursday. My right hon. and learned Friend discharges properly his responsibilities to this House and this country. Were he not to do so, the Leader of the Opposition would say, “Why does the Home Secretary not take an interest in matters that are relevant to the good conduct of the prison service?” But he is not responsible for the day-to-day management of the Prison Service. He is responsible to this House and answerable to this House, and he must take actions in the interests of the Prison Service. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend has done, and he has my full support in having done it.

    Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the proposal that British Telecom should be able to wire up schools to the super-highway in return for carrying television signals? Is he aware that that would run contrary to the well-settled framework for those matters, and would be to the considerable advantage of British Telecom and the considerable disadvantage of the cable companies which have invested a great deal in the procedure so far?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am aware of that. Many schools are already being cabled up for precisely those advantages. If the Opposition, who occasionally like to claim credit for the information super-highway, were to examine what was happening–if they took their heads out of the sand and put them in the holes in the road–they would see that it was already being built.

     

    Q2. Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

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

    Mr. Campbell: Which has done more damage to the Government: the irresponsibility of the Defence Secretary last week or the Home Secretary’s unwillingness to accept responsibility this week?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was expressing the fears of many people, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe, about the more ambitious federalist plans for the future of the European Union. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that his party’s policy is that the British armed forces should be commanded by qualified majority vote elsewhere, let him say so.

    Mr. Dunn: Conservatives welcome the decision to expand the assisted places scheme. Will my right hon. Friend compare our policies of maximising parental choice with those of the Opposition, which would destroy the city technology colleges, grammar schools, the assisted places scheme and grant- maintained schools in the interests of equality, justice and social engineering?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We seek excellence in education and choice for all parents in the interests of their children. I very much regret that the Opposition–except perhaps the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)–oppose the assisted places scheme.

     

    Q3. Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

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

    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Prime Minister share the fear that has been expressed that the privatisation of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office later this afternoon will lead to commercial motives overriding the public interest in making official information more freely available to the general public, as it is in other countries? Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is clearly in a privatised HMSO’s interest to resist free electronic access to Government publications protected by Government copyright? How does that square with the Government’s commitment to a freedom of information policy and to extending the information technology revolution to the rest of the country?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is answering a question later on this afternoon. I do not wish comment in detail on the substance of his question but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will ensure that the needs of Parliament and other customers are satisfied for openness, for improved access to information technology, for value for money, for flexibility and for security of supply. The record of privatisation over recent years is that it has improved, not damaged, service.

    Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend will have heard this morning of another terrorist bombing in Paris. Will he use this opportunity today to reaffirm his Government’s policy on border controls and to make sure that they are never loosened so that terrorists may not get easy access to this country?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm the Government’s policy on border controls. We need those border controls. We intend to keep them, and they are not negotiable.

     

    Q4. Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

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

    Mr. Michael: Can we now hear it straight from the Prime Minister: just how bad do things have to get at the Home Office to require a ministerial resignation?

    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Learmont report, and after he has done so he will be better informed and he will know that the criticisms were directed not at my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary but at the Prison Service. My right hon. and learned Friend acted properly in those circumstances.

    Mr. Marlow: Given that a report has been issued today by the Labour party–the blueprint for the dismemberment of the United Kingdom–could my right hon. Friend tell the House how it could be possible if there were a Parliament in Scotland, that a party with a majority in the United Kingdom but not in the majority in England could govern England?

    The Prime Minister: I have not yet had the opportunity to consider the document that has been published today but I am certainly aware that one was scheduled to be published today and I am aware of the policies of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party on the subject of devolution in Scotland. There is no doubt whatsoever that those policies, if carried out as at present intended, would have a very damaging effect on the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Although the leader of the Labour party shouts something at me across the Dispatch Box, it was he who referred to the tartan tax–an extra £6 a week, which he seems to think is an accountancy detail.

     

    Q5. Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

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

    Ms Quin: Given the widespread public concern expressed over the summer, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity, particularly before the Commonwealth conference next month, of condemning the French nuclear tests in the south Pacific?

    The Prime Minister: No, I will not.

    Mr. Michael Brown: The Prime Minister spoke with the Home Secretary last week in the Winter Gardens at Blackpool where the subject of closed circuit televisions to deal with law and order was raised. Is he aware that in Cleethorpes we have a Winter Gardens, but we do not yet have closed circuit television. The Minister of State was unable to accede to my request earlier this year. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and the people of Cleethorpes that this time round Cleethorpes will be considered for closed circuit television in the high street and on the sea front where we have a problem with the youths and yobs who cause such distress to our retired people in Cleethorpes?

    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be provision for a further 10,000 such closed circuit television cameras over the next three years and I have no doubt, as we consider where those should be, that my hon. Friend may from time to time mention the particular concerns of Cleethorpes.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

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

    Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that there have been angry reactions throughout the country to reports that overseas aid is to be cut by 12 per cent. over two years? Does he not care that such cuts would have a catastrophic effect on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world? Is he aware that 79 per cent. of the British people find such cuts repugnant when they will be used for tax cuts in the run-up to the general election?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, at something more than £2.2 billion, we have the fifth largest overseas aid programme in the world. It is not only one of the largest aid programmes in the world but, as the hon. Lady herself has acknowledged in the past, one of the best. I assure the hon. Lady that, after my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor’s Budget, we shall continue to have a highly effective aid programme.

    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concept of fundholding is right at the core of the success of our reforms in the health service? Has he noticed that doctors who are fundholders have, in the past two days, roundly attacked Labour’s proposals for the sham that they are and have said that they will destroy the very success that we have created? Will my right hon. Friend now take this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to fundholding status and to point out the disastrous concept of Labour policy?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The report by the GPs sets out what we have said consistently about fundholding–that our reforms are benefiting patients and delivering to them the service that they deserve. If the Labour party seriously intended to turn the clock back and to abolish fundholding, it would create chaos and confusion, and would damage the service for patients. The fact of the matter is that Labour is more concerned about political gestures than about care for the patient, and that has always been the case.