The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1995

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Jerusalem – 12 March 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech which was made in Jerusalem on Sunday 12th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, Mrs Rabin, Mr Mayor of Jerusalem, Distinguished Guests. Over the years I have attended many formal occasions. I must tell you in the confidence of this private meeting that they don’t always seem to me to be like a family occasion. But I think tonight is different. Looking around this room I see a very large number of familiar faces, so many old friends that I feel very much at home here in Jerusalem, and for Norma and I it is a real pleasure to be with you here this evening.

    To come to Israel, to come to Jerusalem at any time is a very special event. Norma and I do so together for the first, but I hope and pray not for the last, time. It is a very rare moment for us and one that we will always treasure.

    I have often thought of Jerusalem, thought of it perhaps like millions of other people in the words of the song “Jerusalem the Golden”, a holy city, a place of pilgrimage, a place of devotion. It means many different things, some expressible, some perhaps to individuals inexpressible, to people who come from many different parts of the world. But whatever their background, for everyone they can agree that Jerusalem is unique. I share that feeling again this evening.

    In my country one of our great poets, William Blake, wanted to see the sanctity and the beauty of Jerusalem in our own green and pleasant land in England. His poem “Jerusalem”, familiar I think to everyone in this room, is sung each year at the end of the Promenade concerts in London, and many of you will know it as an enthusiastic and an inspirational event.

    But Jerusalem of course is a great deal more than that, it exerts a very powerful sense of history, a history stretching back through many thousands of years, a proud history but in many ways a tragic history, but above all a history of hope and this year above all years we look back particularly to the terrible period 50 years ago of the Second World War. We have recently commemorated the liberation of Auschwitz. In April we will commemorate the liberation of Belsen by British troops, British troops who were deeply affected by what they found when they arrived there. Many of the survivors of Belsen live in Israel today, many of them no doubt in Jerusalem, others live in Britain. The horrors of the past make for a shared understanding and remembrance for the future.

    In May we shall give thanks for the end of the war in Europe and four months later we shall commemorate the cessation of hostilities in the Far East. There are many people here in Israel, some of them beyond doubt here this evening, who participated in those battles. We remember the contribution of your pilots, one of whom is now your President. We remember the heroic contribution of your parachutists dropped behind enemy lines. And some of you of course fought in the British Army under the Star of David flag, marching together as Churchill memorably expressed it in that high comradeship for freedom and for the deliverance of mankind.

    Tomorrow I shall go to Yad Vashem, a place of special pilgrimage for all mankind, to remember six million Jews murdered in the holocaust. The struggle of the survivors to rebuild their lives, so many of them here in Israel, attest movingly to the capacity for hope, ultimately for hope to triumph against the most appalling despair. Very probably, in all history, there is no greater testament for hope than the fact that so many people from that terrible background, from those terrible memories, were able to look forward and build a new life for themselves, so many of them here in Israel where they felt perhaps for the first time in their lives at home and I hope safe.

    We owe it, I believe, to those who died or suffered to find ways to carry forward that hope, to promote mutual respect, toleration, peace and reconciliation. But as we plan for the future, unless we are prepared to remember what happened in the past and take action against it, we may find ourselves condemned to re-live that past again. So we are constantly tested. The scourge of terrorism, as you said Prime Minister, has afflicted both our countries. I believe there can be no place for violence in any democratic society. I know that you share this view. We agree that terrorism is the common enemy and whatever the cost it must be implacably opposed. We must persevere in the search for lasting solutions to long-standing divisions.

    I remember with affection our last meeting sometime ago in Downing Street. And yet only hours after that meeting on a particularly dark and dank October afternoon last year, another terrorist atrocity in the heart of Tel Aviv shocked the world. That tragedy was followed by others. Our hearts in the United Kingdom have gone out to the people of Israel. The bombers’ intention by their actions must be perfectly clear to anyone who thinks about it for about a second, it is to derail the peace process, to damage the people who seek peace, to end the prospect of trying to produce a future that is without violence and with hope. They seek to use terror for their own purposes.

    It is to your credit, Prime Minister, and that of your government and of the people of Israel that they have not succeeded in that aim. And in the future they must not be allowed to succeed, they cannot be allowed to succeed, and I have no doubt that that is a view that you and I share very deeply indeed.

    I stand today in Israel among a people for whom the yearning for peace is fundamental to their very instinct, it is symbolised in the olive branches that form part of your national emblem. In my country the people of Northern Ireland have the sane yearning. But we also know, both of us Prime Minister, that you cannot have peace without security, that you cannot make peace without patience, without tenacity, without courage and. without the will to seek it, to take it and to hold it. We know that and I believe that will is here in Israel and that it will prevail in the future.

    Relations between the United Kingdom and Israel go back of course, as you said, to the very foundation of the State of Israel and to the Balfour Declaration. You, Prime Minister, reminded me some time ago that your own father joined the British Army’s Jewish Legion as a result of that declaration, that he came here as a British soldier in 1918, which is why you yourself were born here.

    Let me speak for a moment about British/Israeli relations, the seven strands of our shared interests: in politics, defence, culture, education, science, trade and investment. Our countries have had their disagreements in the past, at times with painful and with tragic consequences. But Britain and Israel, despite those disagreements, whatever they may have been, however hard the hurt might have been at the time, Britain and Israel have always been bound together by a huge network of family ties and close personal friendships, and that is reflected in the large party of businessmen, parliamentarians, educationalists and academics who have come with me to Israel from the United Kingdom today.

    Those historic differences I believe are behind us and we are bound now by friendship, respect, cooperation and understanding. Our political relationship, as both of us have made clear again today, has never been as warm as it is tonight, we have never had so much content and so much common ground, and it is my wish, Prime Minister, and yours, that we keep that valued effect and build on it in the future.

    Since you took office, Prime Minister, there has been a marked and very welcome increase in high-level political contacts in both directions and I am delighted that you personally, Foreign Minister Perez and many of your Cabinet colleagues have been frequent and welcome visitors to London. Most recently, my friend and colleague, Malcolm Rifkind, made the first visit to Israel by a British Defence Secretary and in that context I remember with gratitude your cooperation with the Allies during the Gulf War and the resolution of your people under missile attacks.

    The fears and the uncertainties of that time, the gathering of every family in its sealed room, that made a very strong impression upon us in Britain. I vividly remember personally long nights in the Cabinet Room at Downing Street as reports arrived of further Iraqi Scud missile attacks on Israel. We waited anxiously as your people donned face masks in case the Scuds were chemically-tipped as we feared they well might be. We felt deeply for the innocent Israeli victims of violence. We rejoiced in the success of the Patriot batteries and I also authorised certain measures from London to cut off those attacks.

    In what developed into their largest and most significant operation since 1945, the United Kingdom Special Forces were charged specifically with countering the threat posed by the Iraqi Scud missiles. Those Special Forces achieved very remarkable success; significantly fewer Scuds took to the air as a direct result of their efforts. In carrying out their tasks, the Special Forces and the air crews supporting them showed a determination and a courage of the highest order. In little more than one month, Prime Minister, some forty gallantry awards were won by those involved in those operations on land and in the air and in this country of all countries in the world that so well understands the meaning of courage, the value of that contribution needs no further underlining.

    Since the Gulf war, the United Nations Special Commission has made great progress in detecting and destroying Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and this has been achieved by the firm and sustained pressure of the sanctions regime. Mr. Prime Minister, sanctions must continue until their objectives are met and met in full. Last year’s threat to Kuwait, to which the United Kingdom responded very firmly, was a timely reminder. Saddam Hussein continues policies of harsh repression to Iraq’s people, he continues to threaten the stability and the security of the whole region and there are still very serious questions to be answered about Iraq’s biological weapons capability. United Nations sanctions come up this week for renewal. The international community must not be gulled by Saddam’s tactics of evasion and deception. I can assure you that the United Kingdom will not be deceived. We shall continue with good reason to approach sanctions rigorously in the interests of Iraq’s people and of the Middle East as a whole. We are determined to ensure that the whole of Iraq’s biological capability is detected and once detected is then destroyed before there can be any question of adjustments to the sanctions regime.

    At the other end of the spectrum, Prime Minister, is our common cultural heritage. I was pleased to hear that the Royal National Theatre showed you their skills last year. Next year, the Royal Ballet will be with you and meanwhile the British Council will be bringing to Israel a host of other actors, actresses, dancers, writers, musicians and painters. There are also intense and longstanding links between us on the academic field, many of them assisted by remarkably generous private philanthropists and many of you have studied in Britain and I want similar opportunities to be available for future generations.

    With that in mind, we are providing ever more scholarships and study grants, we are training your teachers of English, we are encouraging university links. We shall be working with and helping your Ministry of Education in running English-language summer camps in Northern Israel this summer and tomorrow I shall be announcing a scheme of British awards for excellence in English.

    This evening, I can tell you that we are going to double the science and technology fund established last year for joint work on subjects where we are both pre-eminent. We are also establishing with you a new, special arts training programme which will build upon the Israeli love for British drama and British music.

    These links, Prime Minister, are underpinned by a fast-growing trading relationship that now amounts to over £1.5 billion a year. Israel is Britain’s third-largest market in the Middle East and among our top twenty five worldwide.

    I have brought with me on this occasion a team of businessmen and industrialists that I believe is beyond doubt the highest-powered business delegation ever to travel abroad with a British Prime Minister. Tomorrow, they sit down with their Israeli counterparts to discuss how the rapid development of our economies can best be tapped to our mutual advantage.

    Trade and investment go hand-in-hand. The United Kingdom now has one of the highest growth rates in Europe, rising employment and low inflation and that is recognised in every part of the world with possibly the single exception of the United Kingdom itself! [Laughter] But I live in hope!

    We are unencumbered by many of the high, non-wage labour costs that burden business in the rest of Europe. We have privatised and we have deregulated. The benefits, I believe, are self-evident. Britain welcomes investment from abroad and Britain likes to invest abroad. We have more external investment per head of population than any other nation anywhere in the world. I believe the chance to boost mutual interests is very great. Investment in the British economy of course is not only profitable in itself, it gives access to the largest single trading market in the world and I believe investment in Israel is a prudent investment for the future.

    Prime Minister, no British Prime Minister can come to Israel without being acutely conscious of the wider political changes that face you. The United Kingdom is not a party to the peace negotiations but we are determined supporters of those negotiations. The role of a friend is to support, to offer private advice and public help. We all recognise that in the longer term Israel and her neighbours must reach an accommodation and Israel must take her rightful place in the region. We welcome and we firmly support the peace process and we applaud the courage which Israel has shown in pursuing it. You have made great strides: first, in 1980, peace with Egypt; now, a peace treaty with Jordan. Difficult negotiations lie ahead with Syria and Lebanon but the goal of a lasting peace is unanswerable, it is surely right to keep on trying however difficult, however frustrating, however hard the road may be and however many setbacks you may encounter upon that road. Meanwhile, negotiations with the Palestinians will remain essential to Israel’s future and those negotiations are bound to be complex, they are bound to be difficult, they could scarcely be anything other, While you continue with that process of seeking peace, the terrorists will go on trying to destroy that process of seeking peace; that is the nature of terrorism but that violence and that extremism serve nobody’s end.

    I would say, if I may, as an external observer of what has happened, surely it can be in neither side’s long-term interest to turn back from the progress that has been made. Substantial progress has now been reached; Palestinian self-rule now includes control of their own agriculture, education, tourism and taxation and to all those like the United Kingdom who wish the peace process well, there is a great deal to be welcomed in what has already been achieved and I believe it is starting to bear a wider fruit. Israel’s contacts in the region are widening, the Arab boycott is visibly decaying, the international community widely supports your search for peace. Of course, difficulties will arise, setbacks will be inevitable and steady nerves will be needed as you carry the process forward. I have no doubt, Prime Minister, that you have the steady nerves that are necessary and the United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder with those who continue that search for peace.

    Very soon, you will be celebrating the Festival of Purim. It is a happy time, a time of giving gifts, a time for charity, a time for joy, a time for revelry, a time to celebrate historically the defeat of evil, a time to remember that evil can be defeated, a time to recall that across the centuries people have arisen to destroy the Jewish people but they have failed to destroy the Jewish people. The celebration reminds us of your survival and your strength as a nation.

    If I have a wish as a visitor to your country, as a friend, I hope, of your country, it is that the spirit of happiness and rejoicing that is characteristic of that celebration will always be here in Israel, that the spirit of peace will flourish in the region, that the drive for peace – so hard to achieve but so hard-pushed for so long – will succeed. That, I think, is a prayer that all the friends of Israel and all friends of the Middle East can willingly subscribe to.

    Thank you for inviting Norma and I to join you at this dinner this evening. Thank you for inviting us to Israel for what is already turning, out to be a memorable visit. We looked forward to it before we came and I believe the reality is matching up to our expectations.

    May I, as your guest, ask you to rise for the toast that I would wish to propose: a toast to the Prime Minister of Israel, to the United Kingdom-Israeli relationship and to the future success of the peace process for all the people of Israel. [Applause]

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Israeli Prime Minister – 12 March 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Yitzhak Rabin, held in Jerusalem on Sunday 12th March 1995.

    MR ARAFAT:

    Prime Minister of Britain, I would like to welcome you here in your official visit as the Prime Minister of Britain to Israel and to the Middle East. You have come in a very crucial period, in the peace process I believe that we have made tremendous moves in which we brought the beginning of a solution between Israel and the Palestinians, we signed a peace treaty with Jordan, and we are committed, Israel is committed, to implement its DOP with the Palestinians, of course hoping that the PLO will overcome the terror. The peace treaty with Jordan needs cultivation and assistance and we hope that negotiations with Syria and Lebanon will be resumed.

    These issues were discussed today with Prime Minister John Major, in which we put the way that we see what are the hopes, what are the dangers. We discussed bilateral relations between our two countries, stating on my side that we believe that today we have improved tremendously the bilateral relations between the two governments, between the two peoples, and will try to do even more in every aspect in which we can find common bases and common interests.

    We discussed also the relations with the European Union, that Britain is one part of it, an influencing part in the policy of the European Union, and other issues related to these three categories: the peace process, the bilateral relations and the relations between Israel and Europe. It was only the beginning of the talks, only the beginning of the visit. On Tuesday we will have a meeting again in which we will try to conclude what has been discussed, what will be discussed, and in what ways we can get assistance from Britain to the peace process and to develop the bilateral relations between our two countries.

    Welcome, Prime Minister, and thank you very much for coming.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, thank you very much indeed. I can echo all you have had to say in the last few moments. Let me just make a few points to drive the substance of what you had to say home perhaps a little further. I do not have any doubt whatsoever that the present bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Israel is better than it has been at any stage in the past. A great number of things have contributed to that and our discussions this afternoon have been looking towards areas where we can build on that for the future.

    I enjoyed our discussions over the present situation and future prospects for the peace process. A great deal has been done, a great deal still remains to be done, and I have no doubt that you will move down that path with the same courage in the future that you have shown in the past. We will have the opportunity of resuming discussion on that a little later during my visit.

    We also spent some time on bilateral matters, on how to accelerate trade, on how to accelerate investment both in Israel and in the wider Middle East in order to improve the levels of prosperity and cut off much of the grievance that tends sometimes to express itself in the sort of programmes that terrorism seek to put forward. Terrorism can be cut off by increasing prosperity, and as you have indicated Prime Minister, greater trade, greater investment, greater well-being, can do as much to undermine terrorism as political activity itself.

    I welcome those discussions and I am delighted we were able to look at a series of detailed matters. We discussed both bilaterally and as far as the European Union is concerned a number of matters that will have the effect, I hope, of increasing the trade and business relationship between our two countries. There are areas that need still to be ironed out. We discussed those, we have taken those on board, we will look at those in some detail. We discussed also some of the agreements that indicate very clearly the improved relationship between our two countries, and we have just had the opportunity of signing a couple of them.

    In the next couple of days we have some more very intensive discussions and I will have the opportunity of seeing a great deal locally myself and I very much look forward to that.

    I also have no doubt at the beginning of this visit that at the end of this visit we will have cemented even further the improved relationship we have seen in recent years. I have looked forward to this visit for a very long time and if the discussions we have just had have been any guide to what lies ahead in the next day or so then I have no doubt that it will prove a very successful meeting of minds across a whole range of subjects.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC):

    Mr Major, could I ask you about your meeting with Yasser Arafat on Tuesday? Some people are suggesting that if you are happy to meet Mr Arafat, who was regarded as a terrorist, you should welcome the possibility of President Clinton meeting Gerry Adams later this week. Can you discuss that comparison and say why you reject that comparison?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am here in fact to discuss matters related to Anglo-Israeli relations, rather than that. But let me just say a word or two about that. Terrorism has now been renounced by Chairman Arafat; I have not seen it comprehensively denounced by Mr Adams. Chairman Arafat is now actively opposing terrorism; I am afraid that Sinn Fein are still directly associated with a fully formed terrorist organisation. Chairman Arafat has signed the Declaration of Principles; Sinn Fein of course have not yet committed themselves to the Downing Street declaration and they are not yet party to any agreement in Northern Ireland.

    Now there are a range of other difficulties, if I may make the point. The government entered the diplomatic contacts with Chairman Arafat after he had explicitly renounced terrorism and committed himself unambiguously to peace. It was only after Chairman Arafat had signed the Declaration of Principles that I met him last year at Downing Street. So I think the comparison that some people may be seeking to make is a mischievous comparison.

    QUESTION:

    [Not translated].

    MR RABIN:

    [Not translated].

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Israel Trip – 10 March 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on his trip to Israel, made in an interview on Friday 10th March 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he hoped to achieve during his Israel trip].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a visit that is overdue. It is the first visit by a British Prime Minister to Israel since about 1986, so I am looking forward to seeing the Prime Minister, I shall certainly see the President – I am looking forward to meeting the President again – and also the Foreign Minister.
    I think there are three or four different things we want to discuss. Of course, we shall want to discuss the peace process; of course, we will want to discuss the wider Middle East question; but I will also want to discuss bilateral relations and the tremendous opportunities that I think have opened up for improved trade and investment between our two countries and it is wholly with that in mind that I have such a distinguished collection of British businessmen going.

    There are three points about the businessmen really; firstly, they are going. Secondly, the quality and size of the companies and the range of areas they cover; and thirdly, the fact that it is the very top businessmen who are coming, in many cases the chairmen, and I think that speaks very highly of the changed atmosphere and the changed opportunities for the future so I am very optimistic it will be successful.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what would Britain offer to the peace process?].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I look forward to discussing it at length both with the Prime Minister and with Chairman Arafat in Gaza. I don’t want to anticipate those discussions. I had the opportunity of discussing it with the Prime Minister just a few months ago most recently and Chairman Arafat I think at the end of December 1993. There are several things I will wish to discuss: of course, the political aspects, but I think there are several components.

    It is a very difficult process, this peace process. They have travelled further down the road than most people imagined was possible. From time to time, they have road-blocks, they have managed to overcome them and proceed. They seem to have made a little more movement towards elections when Mr Perez and Chairman Arafat met just yesterday. I will want to discuss whether there are any diplomatic ways in which we can assist that process. I think the biggest help diplomatically is for people to know that members of the G7, members of the Security Council stand behind this process, wish this process well, will give it a fair wind and will help diplomatically where they can. Beyond that, there is more practical assistance, of course, and that is the pragmatic, practical assistance that can come both bilaterally from those countries and also from the European Union and I shall also wish to discuss that.

  • Mr Major’s Interview in the Middle East – 10 March 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s interview on Friday 10th March 1995.

    QUESTION:

    We are very proud to have you here with us and we hope that this is the beginning of a permanent relationship between our newsroom and 10 Downing Street. I’m sure it will be a much closer relationship and I’m delighted to be here.

    Prime Minister, let me first of all start by asking you about the Middle East Peace talks. It seems like in the last few months it has reached an impasse and we believe that probably you will be visiting this area soon. We’d like to know if you are taking with you any new items or suggestions of initiatives to break this deadlock?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m looking forward in the next few days to very extensive discussions both with Chairman Arafat in Gaza and also with Prime Minister Rabin. I think at the end of the day the agreement is going to have to be reached between them, between the Palestinians and between the Israelis. But I think there is a great deal the rest of the world can do to help. One of the problems that has occurred of course, has been much of the difficulty in obtaining investment and obtaining good living standards. We’ve very real practical problems to discuss and I will be taking with me a large number of the most important and senior businessmen in the United Kingdom and we will be looking at what can be done in practice to improve trade, improve investment and lay the groundwork for a much higher quality of life for people in those areas.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you may be aware of the fact that any peace initiatives or any peace talks may not succeed if they can’t get the full sincere, political commitment as well as financial support. The European Union as well as Britain have promised the Palestinians a certain amount of money to implement the Oslo Agreement. So far that commitment hasn’t been met. Are you going to take this with you when you go to Chairman Arafat?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European Union meets its commitments and it will meet its commitments on this front. There’s a certain amount of bilateral assistance that we’ve been able to give. That apart from our contribution via the European Union is a significant bilateral contribution that the United Kingdom has been able to make and we may be able to help a little more as well. I shall discuss that with Chairman Arafat.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I have been noticing the British foreign policy in the last few months, events seem to concentrate on what is going on with your neighbours, I mean the European Union. Are you worried a little bit that it might lead to Britain being isolated from its traditional allies like the Gulf States, the United States and Japan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I’m determined that isn’t going to happen. About half our trade as a whole operates within the European Union, but the other half operates beyond it and the other half is expanding quite dramatically. The world is opening up in a remarkable way. The growth of our trade in recent years with the Middle East, with the Far East, with Latin America, all tremendous scope for improvement and although the European Union is very important to us, we have no intention of devoting so much intention to our concentration within the European Union that we neglect the rest of the world. We have longstanding and very traditional friends in many parts of the world, least up and down the Gulf and the Middle East and we have no intention of moving away from that.

    QUESTION:

    So Arab/British relations will improve as far as you are concerned in the light of foreign policy in the next few years?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m determined they will. I’ve had a very large number of visits to Arab leaders whom we’ve traditionally known for many years. Ever since I became Prime Minister and they’ve going to continue. Indeed in my visit next week, not only will I be meeting Chairman Arafat in Gaza but the day after I will be going to see King Hussein in Jordan. So those relationships are traditional, they’re valued relationships. They’re relationships we’ve had for very many years and there’s no question that they’re going to continue and I believe improve.

    QUESTION:

    From the foreign policy to the domestic policy. Opinion polls suggest that the Conservatives are not as popular as they should be and in the light of the new leadership of the Labour Party, Tony Blair. Will you still after two years be in 10 Downing Street?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I think we will. As far as Tony Blair is concerned, we get on perfectly amiably. We’re leaders of different parties. We have our disagreements, but they are political.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, thank you very much for talking to us and we wish you a very successful trip to the Middle East.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s my pleasure and I’m looking forward to it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

     

    Economic Policy

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is the Government’s policy in respect of promoting political, social and economic expansion;

    (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which his goals relating to the promotion of social and economic expansion have been achieved.

    The Prime Minister: The objective of the Government’s economic policy is to promote sustained economic growth in order to raise living standards and create jobs. The Government are pursuing prudent fiscal and monetary policies together with supply-side measures which will continue to improve the working of the economy. This is the only way to ensure that economic recovery is sustained with low inflation.

     

    Toxic Waste

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister who will represent Her Majesty’s Government at the special meeting of the members of the Basel convention in Dakar called to clear up the confusion on how to define toxic waste; and what will be their remit.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 3 March 1995]: Her Majesty’s Government will send an observer.

  • PMQT – 9 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Will the Prime Minister join me, and I am sure the whole House, in sending our deepest condolences to the family of Mr. Malcolm Murray, who died in Leeds general infirmary yesterday? Does he share the anger that we feel at the fact that he was in Leeds general infirmary because he had to be flown by helicopter some 200 miles after a fruitless search for an intensive care bed in London? Does not that demonstrate conclusively that the bed closure programme that the Government are pursuing in London has gone too far? Is he aware that he can do something immediately by instructing his Secretary of State for Health to accept the recommendation of the South-East London health authority that Guy’s hospital must not close?

    The Prime Minister: This is certainly a tragic incident and I share the view that the hon. Gentleman expressed about that. I believe that the whole House will join me in extending my deepest sympathy to Mr. Murray’s family upon his death. This is a serious case and the South Thames region has set up an urgent investigation, the outcome of which we must await. The full facts of the case are not yet in front of me, but I understand that Mr. Murray required a highly specialised form of treatment with which Leeds was particularly able to help– [Interruption.] –a highly specialised form of treatment, and that was the medical decision that was taken. Beyond that, we will have to wait for the result of the inquiry.

    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend seen that interest rates in France have had to be raised by 1.5 per cent. this week, notwithstanding the fact that inflation is virtually non-existent and that unemployment stands at 12.5 per cent.? That has been necessary in order to confirm France’s status as an economic vassal state of Germany. Is it not therefore a cause for congratulation for our Government that we were not obliged to take the same course of action this week? Should we not make more of the fact that both the Opposition parties are committed to such a ruinous policy?

    The Prime Minister: There is, indeed, a great deal of exchange rate turbulence, which has reflected itself in the interest rate increase in France, to which my hon. Friend refers. As I have told the House before, there has been a pretty massive flight into deutschmarks as a result of an unsettled international situation. That is the principal underlying reason that has led to such difficulties for the franc. As I told the House some time ago, I see no prospect of the United Kingdom returning to the exchange rate mechanism for some time. I have made that point perfectly clear. The fundamentals of the British economy are such that I am delighted that we are not suffering precisely the difficulty that France has.

    Mr. Blair: Is it true that, when Ministers proceeded with the sale of electricity shares on Monday, they already knew that the electricity regulator was actively considering announcing a cut in prices?

    The Prime Minister: There have been some distorted versions of what has happened, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set out precisely what the circumstances are.

    The fact is that Professor Littlechild did not decide to undertake his review until Monday afternoon, after trading had begun in shares in PowerGen and National Power. But, although the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry were aware that he was considering the possibility, he had not notified them even on Monday morning–when stock exchange trading began–that he had made any decision to go ahead.

    I should also tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury took independent financial and legal advice at the end of last week on whether, in the light of the possible uncertainty, the share sale prospectus was still accurate. The legal and financial advice that it received was that, even if the issue of price controls for the regional electricity companies was reopened, that was not material to the share sale of the generating companies. [Hon. Members:– “Rubbish.”] That is the legal advice that hon. Members say is rubbish. As for the generating companies, they are subject to a wholly different basis of regulation. It was in the light of that legal and financial advice that the Treasury decided to proceed.

    Mr. Blair: That may have been the legal advice, but may I ask the Prime Minister about the duty of his Government? Will he confirm that the Government knew that the regulator was actively considering making such an announcement? That is the first point. Secondly, if they did know, does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose the information to prospective investors?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say just now, that was precisely the point of seeking the legal advice: to determine whether the prospectus was right. The right hon. Gentleman himself is a distinguished lawyer– [Interruption.] I suspect that, if the Government had sought legal advice on an issue of this sort and then not taken the legal advice that they had been given, the right hon. Gentleman would have been at the Dispatch Box asking why we had not taken the legal advice that we had legitimately sought and received.

    Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for his compliment about my being a lawyer, but surely the point– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I expect better behaviour from Ministers.

    Mr. Blair: I cannot say that we do, Madam Speaker.

    The question relates not to the legal advice, but to the responsibility of the Government. Does the Prime Minister not think that it would have been better to disclose that information? Never mind whether the Government were legally entitled to it; does he not think that it would have been better to disclose it? Or is the short truth that a privatisation programme already damaged by boardroom excess and customer complaints is now tarnished by at best incompetence and at worst double dealing by Government?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has now asked the same question three times. I answered his third question with my first answer, and I made the position clear in my second answer. Other than to get in his ritual soundbite, I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman has asked his question a third time. The fact is, as I have said, that the Government were aware that the regulator was considering the possibility at some stage in the future. He had not notified the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, even on Monday morning, of whether he had determined to proceed, and whether he had determined what his statement would be. That is the purpose of ensuring that the prospectus is right; that is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took legal advice. On the basis that it was right to proceed–that the prospectus was accurate –my right hon. and learned Friend proceeded. If he had not, the right hon. Gentleman would have been standing there asking why the sale did not proceed and why the Government did not take the legal advice that they had sought in order to do so.

    Mr. Michael Spicer: On the question of exchange rate turbulence, does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent rise in the deutschmark against the pound is good for British exporters to Germany and bad for German exporters to Britain? Would it not be a bad thing if we were ever again to shadow the deutschmark?

    The Prime Minister: We are not shadowing the deutschmark and I do not anticipate that we will. At the moment the performance of British exports makes it clear that both British industry and the British currency are performing well.

    Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister not cut the legal waffle? The real question is not what is legally possible: it is what is right. Is the Prime Minister proud that his Government had to hoodwink the public to get them to buy their electricity shares?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not a distinguished lawyer. If he lets fly like that I hope that he is never sitting down where he has to take a cool, calm decision of what is in the national interest. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to read the three answers that I gave to the right hon. Member for Sedgefied (Mr. Blair). Perhaps upon several readings of them he will know the answer to his question.

    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that devolving power to schools and hospitals has led to improved educational standards and more patients being treated? Would the imposition of an unnecessary layer of regional government harm that success?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that it most certainly would. There are forms of devolution that I favour, most notably devolution down to the family and to the local community so that they can make their own decisions. We are certainly not committed to regional assemblies. There seems to be some confusion among the Opposition as to whether they are. On Sunday the right hon. Member for Sedgefield ( Mr. Blair) said:

    “We are not committed to regional assemblies.”

    The deputy leader of the Labour party said:

    “No, I don’t say that is the position.”

    There seems to be some confusion about that on the Opposition Benches.

     

    Q2. Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Burden: When the number of full-time employees in the civil service has fallen by 29,000 in the past five years and the number on temporary contracts has grown by 82 per cent. in the same period, why are managers in the Employment Service being encouraged to sack temporary workers rather than let them have employment rights? Does the Prime Minister not realise that constant job insecurity is one of the biggest factors preventing any kind of feel good factor?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman took a wider view rather than being concerned with the point that he mentions, he would also have mentioned the dramatic fall in unemployment in every region of the United Kingdom. Self-evidently, work loads in Departments fluctuate, and by limiting periods of casual employment Departments are obliged to fill permanent vacancies with permanent staff, as they should. That is what is happening in the Department of Employment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider those seven schools in west Norfolk that have become grant- maintained? If he visits those schools he will find high morale and excellent motivation and commitment. Is it any wonder that more and more Members on the Labour Front Bench want to send their children to grant- maintained schools, and is it any wonder that the public find that grossly hypocritical?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that there are seven grant-maintained schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I hope that there will be more in every constituency in the future. Education is an important ladder that helps people to raise themselves to a higher standard of living. Grant-maintained schools offer a wide choice, which I commend to everyone and congratulate everybody on taking. I trust that everybody will ensure that it is open to all who wish to have it.

    Mr. Enright: In spite of the headlong rush into vegetarianism, does the Prime Minister agree with Bob Reid, the former chairman of British Rail, that he would rather put money into a butcher’s shop than into rail privatisation?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman should have heard what else Sir Bob said. He also said:

    “I do believe that privatisation is right.”

    The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that.

     

    Q4. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Lidington: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend’s efforts to secure peace in Northern Ireland, does he agree that, until terrorism has been eradicated, it is right that we should continue to support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to secure the protection of our fellow citizens in every part of the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: I do agree with that. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday, we shall retain the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 as long as the powers are needed for the protection of the public in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. I should add that we have accepted independent advice that all of the powers in the Act continue to be necessary and justified. My right hon. and learned Friend made that clear to the House yesterday.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    National Service

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of people who have performed national service (a) in each of the armed services, (b) in the Merchant Navy and (c) comparable service for the National Coal Board.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested is not available.

     

    Internet

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards encouraging party political debate on the Internet.

    The Prime Minister: Her Majesty’s Government are all in favour of a full and frank political debate on the Internet or in any other forum.

     

    Sir Paul Beresford

    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford); and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Labour Statistics

    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement regarding manufacturing employment.

    The Prime Minister: In the quarter to December 1994, employment in manufacturing industry rose by 37,000 the largest rise since quarterly records began.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March 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.

     

    Innovation and Technology Transfer

    Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made with the review announced in the White Paper, “Scotland in Union”, of the scope for transferring from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Scottish and Welsh Offices responsibility for measures which encourage industrial innovation and technology transfer in Scotland and Wales.

    The Prime Minister: The review has been completed. It concluded that responsibility for the Smart and Spur schemes, which provide grants for the development of new products and processes and for design services in Scotland and Wales, should be transferred. In addition, it has now been agreed that responsibility for new measures to support innovation locally will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland as soon as the administrative arrangements have been completed.

     

    Civil Servants

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the Civil Service Commissioners to advertise for open competition at the previous rate of remuneration the post of any permanent secretary who wishes to take advantage of the recent pay award.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Nuclear Non-proliferation Conference

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will be attending the conference on the future of the non-proliferation treaty to be held in New York in April and May.

    The Prime Minister: No. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to attend on 18 April.

  • PMQT – 7 March 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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. Ottaway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Government’s policies have done much to help the leisure industry in this country? So much so– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Hoyle: Sit down.

    Madam Speaker: Who are you telling to sit down? Be careful.

    Mr. Hoyle: I am telling the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to sit down; I am trying to be helpful.

    Mr. Ottaway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Government have done much to help the leisure industry in this country–so much so, that Ladbroke leisure group has been able to award 1.2 million share options to its directors? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a member of the remuneration committee who approved that share option scheme is also Chairman of the Employment Select Committee?

    The Prime Minister: As I said to the House last week, the Greenbury committee is examining executives’ remuneration. A number of important issues must be addressed, especially the disclosure of remuneration to directors and ensuring that bonuses and share options reflect the performance of a company. I am sure that practical, first-hand advice of that sort will be useful to every hon. Member. Mr. Blair rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. I must say to hon. Members that I have taken a Minister to task for less than that; I will not allow Back Benchers to hold up newspaper headlines.

    Mr. Blair: Now that the electricity regulator has finally bowed to months of pressure and has cut prices because of excess profits, will the Prime Minister agree that there should be a thorough overhaul of the regulatory regime of all utilities so that we can be sure that the same thing is not happening in gas, water and in the other privatised monopolies?

    The Prime Minister: As I understand the position, the regulator has decided to have a look at the prices charged by regional electricity companies to consumers. That shows that the regulatory system that the House approved is working and that the regulator is using his powers to act in the light of the information available. I think that the action of the Director General of Electric Supply does exactly that. It shows that he can take into account the latest information. Information has become available since his last review. He is now looking at it again. That shows that the system is flexible and is working.

    Mr. Blair: Surely it shows precisely the opposite. Is not the point that the electricity regulator acted only after the Trafalgar House bid for Northern Electric exposed the full scale of the excess profits and because of public pressure, not his own internal investigations? Does that not strengthen the case for a review of the system to make sure that the same abuses are not happening in gas and water?

    The Prime Minister: No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the point fully on board. He cannot claim at one moment that the regulator has too few powers and a few moments later complain that he is using his powers to deal with the situation that has arisen. New circumstances have arisen in the regulator’s mind, and the regulator has used his independent powers to look again at the question of pricing. Those are precisely the powers the House required him to have and he is now using them.

    Mr. Blair: The information became available not because of the regulatory system but because of the external requirements after the bid. Does the Prime Minister not understand that unless he acts firmly to stop the abuses in the privatised utilities–whether they are the pay deals, the overcharging or the excess profits–they will stand as a visible symbol of everything that is rotten in a Conservative Government?

    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has now managed to unleash his soundbite, but what he is actually proposing would not enlarge but would narrow the authority and options of the regulator. The fact that this arose out of something that the regulator did not determine shows how wide his powers are. That is the point. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that the regulator should have acted only if he himself had discovered precisely what was likely to happen.

    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend make it his first priority to travel the country and start a national debate on the importance of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange? Is it not extraordinary that a major political party should spend so much time on clause IV and does it not prove–

    Madam Speaker: Order. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that matter. He is, no doubt, coming to a question for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend consider travelling the country to establish whether there should be common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange?

    The Prime Minister: I think the evidence of the past two or three decades will spare me the necessity of travelling the country on that point because very few people who have sensibly looked at the matter do not believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is right to seek the abolition of a dinosaur that most sensible people realise has been dead for the past 20 or 30 years. The only surprise is that a substantial number in the right hon. Gentleman’s party still do not understand that.

    Mr. Ashdown: How does the Prime Minister justify the fact that, contrary to the specific recommendations of his own personal efficiency unit, the amount of public money that the Government spend on private consultants has now increased by £130 million to £865 million– sufficient to provide every child in the country with a year of pre-school education? How can the Prime Minister expect parents, teachers and governors to cut, cut, cut, when the Government’s record is spend, spend, spend?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman did not address the savings and improvements brought about by the activities of consultants. All that concerns him is making a spurious point that would have been better made about his own Liberal Democrat-controlled county council in Somerset. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the record on consultancies, he will find that one costing £50,000 yielded savings of tens of millions of pounds for the taxpayer.

    Mr. Rowe: Did my right hon. Friend note that in the recent debate on utilities many Opposition Members were keen to see utilities restored to the public sector? Is not it an extraordinary definition of monopoly to imagine that in a world in which foreign companies compete globally with our former public utilities, we should not stimulate competitiveness across the world?

    The Prime Minister: Opposition Members may still relish the day when it cost the taxpayer £50 million a week to subsidise utilities so that Ministers could run them inefficiently. These days, those utilities are yielding about the same amount of money each day for the taxpayer. Many utilities are selling their services and expertise abroad to great effect, generating from overseas activities huge sums of money for this country.

     

    Q3. Mr. Rooney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Rooney: It is three and a half years since Operation 2000 was launched. Is the Prime Minister aware that today fewer than 4 per cent. of directors and fewer than 3 per cent. of senior managers are women? Does he consider Operation 2000 a success?

    The Prime Minister: When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster speaks in this afternoon’s debate, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the improved opportunities for women across a range of circumstances–not least in public appointments for which the Government are directly responsible, where there has been a dramatic improvement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is some way to go, but a significant improvement has been made in recent years, and I look forward to that continuing.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the document published by the Department of National Heritage last week, “Tourism: Competing with the Best”? It states that tourism could be the largest single issue by the year 2000. Tourism currently employs 1.5 million people, but the report makes it clear that we could do better. Does my right hon. Friend agree that tourism should have higher priority and that a single body should be responsible for encouraging inward tourism?

    The Prime Minister: I should like to reflect with greater care on my hon. Friend’s last point because of regional disparities in tourism in Scotland, Wales, the west country and elsewhere. My hon. Friend is right about tourism’s importance and the number of people that it employs. In some parts of the United Kingdom–not least, most recently, Northern Ireland–increased tourism is making a material improvement to the local economy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Burden: Does the Prime Minister recall specifically ruling out three months ago Government action on executive salaries on the ground that it would constitute–I believe that I quote the right hon. Gentleman correctly–“a pay policy for a small number of key executives”? In the light of the right hon. Gentleman’s statement to the House last week, does he think that is a policy or is not a policy–or, as usual, does he not know?

    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether you, Madam Speaker, would like to let the hon. Gentleman try again, so that he may get his question right. Only one side of the House wants a pay policy for top executives. Labour wants a pay policy for people at the top–a maximum wage at the top, and a maximum wage at the bottom because then it would have the justification for a pay policy right the way down British industry. I am seeking to cope with abuses where they occur. If the hon. Gentleman had read what I said last week, he would understand that.

     

    Q5. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that education provides an escalator of opportunity for all children? Does he believe that choice and standards would benefit from the abolition of grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, all of which are popular? Would not the abolition of grant-maintained schools be particularly harsh on parents who prefer them to schools run by local education authorities, especially in Islington?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that education is one of the areas that gives the greatest opportunity to people. The reforms that we have introduced in recent years extend choice, create a diverse education system and aim to give the best possible education to every child. It is for that reason that we have made reforms right the way through the education system–reforms that have been welcomed by parents and schoolteachers and, increasingly, are welcomed and used by hon. Members in every part of the House.

     

    Q6. Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Lloyd: During this, the 50th anniversary of the ending of the war, will the Prime Minister today give some consideration to that generation who were prepared to fight and, in many cases, made considerable personal sacrifices in forced labour camps, for example, in Europe and elsewhere? Is the Prime Minister of the view that it is a fitting reward for that generation that they now spend their lives in poverty as pensioners under the Government?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the respect that everyone in Britain has for the generation who fought in the war. He will also know what has been done, not just in the past few years but during the past couple of generations, to ensure that their living standards are as high as can possibly be the case.

    An hon. Member: Not successful.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says, “Not successful.” Perhaps he would like to reflect on the number of improvements that we made in 1979 that had not been introduced by the previous Labour Government.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Northern Region

    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s achievements in the northern region since 1979.

    The Prime Minister: The Government have had many achievements in the northern region since 1979 as our policies have created a favourable economic climate for growth. During this period the region has undergone the biggest transformation since the 19th century with the emergence of a new and diverse industrial base. Pharmaceutical, food processing, clothing, light engineering, electronics and car manufacture have replaced traditional industries. In the area covered by the Government office for the north-east this change has come about through a range of measures:

    the attraction of £3 billion overseas investment since 1985, the most notable successes of which were Nissan and Samsung and a further £1.3 billion private sector investment into the areas covered by the Tyne and Wear and Teesside Development Corporations since 1987, creating and safeguarding over 30,000 jobs;

    over 5,500 hectares of derelict land reclaimed, including over 700 by the Urban Development Corporations in Tyne and Wear and on Teesside;

    in partnership with other organisations, the region’s Training and Enterprise Councils have successfully developed innovative solutions to the training and enterprise needs of their areas including the establishment of a business Innovation Centre in Sunderland and a management training and higher education facility in Northumberland. TEC’s in the region have also piloted a number of new initiatives: Open Learning Credits, Youth Credits, Adult Credits, the Out of School Childcare Grant, Workstart and Skillchoice.;

    assisting over 26,000 unemployed people to start their own businesses since 1987 through the Businesses Start Up Scheme run by Training and Enterprise Councils;

    820,000 people placed in jobs by the Employment Service since 1986;

    unemployment has fallen by 16,100 or nearly 10 per cent. since the national peak in December 1992;

    a substantial number of homes built and improved;

    over 4,000 jobs created, 5,000 jobs preserved and 550 new businesses assisted by the South Tyneside and Stockton and Thornaby Task Force; and,

    an increase in the numbers of young people staying in full-time education after reaching school leaving age. 12.4 per cent of those leaving schools in the region in 1992 93 intended to pursue a Degree course.

    The region also piloted the development of job clubs, now a successful national programme and expects to become the first to have contracted out careers services and to have facilitated a comprehensive network of Business Links.

     

    Internet

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Internet e-mail numbers of all Government Ministers.

    The Prime Minister: It is a matter for individual Ministers to decide whether to make public their Internet electronic mail addresses. The two Ministers with responsibility for use of the Internet are the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whose e-mail addresses are publicly available.

     

    Government Policy

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister what role the Cabinet plays in the formulation of (a) economic policy, (b) monetary policy and (c) policy on a single European currency.

    The Prime Minister: The Cabinet is the ultimate arbitrator of all aspects of Government policy.

     

    Social Development Summit

    Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 27 February, Official Report, column 412, if the Minister for Overseas Development, in representing him at the Heads of State world summit for social development in Copenhagen, is responsible for negotiating those aspects of the draft declaration and action programme covering national action within the United Kingdom to reduce inequality and poverty and promote full employment and social integration.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will represent me at the high level segment of the summit on 11-12 March. My right hon. and noble Friend will make a statement setting out the United Kingdom perspective on the issues covered by the summit.

    Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 27 February, Official Report, column 412, if he will publish briefs which have been prepared by his Government for discussion at the world summit for social development about social development and anti-poverty measures taken and proposed to be taken in the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister: There are no plans to do so. It is not usual to publish briefing provided by officials to Ministers. The speeches of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development will be published, and copies will be placed in the Library.

     

    Lockerbie

    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has which would allow Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of the United States of America to resolve the Lockerbie affair other than by way of instituting criminal proceeding in Scotland or the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The Lockerbie bombing was a crime committed against a United States aircraft over Scotland. It has been investigated from Scotland with the co-operation of the United States authorities. The trial of those accused of this terrible crime must take place in Scotland or the United States. This has been confirmed by the UN Security Council.

    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the role in Beirut in 1988 of Ron Carviene, Bill Leyene and Dan O’Connor, under the command of Matthew Gannon and Charles McKee.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had when he last met President Clinton on the subject of the setting up of an international court to try those persons alleged to have perpetrated the murders of the passengers and crew members of Pan Am flight 103 and residents of Lockerbie in December 1988; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: None.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum for No. 10 Downing Street in 1989 adducing the reasons why Her Majesty’s Government would not allow the public inquiry into the Lockerbie crime; and at what level the decision on the public inquiry was taken.

    The Prime Minister: It is not usual practice to place internal Government correspondence in the Library. I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 10 January, Official Report, column 20.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his letter of 30 August 1994 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow what examination has taken place of the Toshiba and Helsinki warnings in relation to Lockerbie since the fatal accident inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: The fatal accident inquiry, which took place 22 months after the disaster, examined both warnings in some detail. In his determination, the Sheriff Principal concluded that the so-called Toshiba warning was not relevant to the circumstances of the deaths and that the so-called Helsinki warning lacked credibility. It has therefore not been considered necessary to conduct further examinations into these.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty’s Government have had from the German Government about their interrogation of Edwin Bolliers’s Statsi control and the sale of timing devices to the Statsi.

    The Prime Minister: None.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss the implications with President Clinton of the FBI briefing paper regarding Iranian links and baggage being unloaded on Air Malta 180 destination Frankfurt airport.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if British authorities have interviewed Marwin Khreesat, a bomb maker, briefly detained and then released in Neuss, Germany;

    (2) if he will put the transcript of the interview with Mr. Ghandanfar and Mr. Dalkamouni in the Library.

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it would be wrong to reveal details of the evidence in a criminal case while proceedings are pending.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will ask Chancellor Kohl the reasons why in October 1988 the Verfassungschutz released certain Palestinians and their bomb-making equipment.

    The Prime Minister: The release of detainees from German prisons is a matter entirely for the German authorities.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the prima facie evidence that a German-based terrorist organisation used its knowledge of a covert United States drugs operation to switch an unaccompanied bag containing drugs with an identical bag containing a bomb which destroyed Pan Am Flight 103.

    The Prime Minister: The allegation has been examined. No evidence has been found to support it.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Lockerbie victims’ families regarding information conveyed to them by members of the United States commission about the extent of the information available to United States and United Kingdom Governments and the probability of its publication; what elements of the United States commission’s findings support the families’ version; and if he will place in the Library the United Kingdom responses to these findings.

    The Prime Minister: I have recently received a letter from the family of a Lockerbie victim which referred to the United States President’s commission on aviation security and terrorism. A copy of the commission’s report, dated May 1990 will be placed in the Library.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty’s Government has made of the role of Khaled Jaafar, a Lebanese victim of the Lockerbie bombing.

    The Prime Minister: The fatal accident inquiry in 1990-91 considered allegations of involvement of Khaled Jaafar in the bombing. In his determination, the sheriff principal concluded that there was no connection between Mr. Jaafar and the suitcase which contained the bomb.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister on what evidence British officials publicly dismissed a document of the United States Air Force, air intelligence unit, asserting that Ali Akbar Mostashemi, former Iranian Interior Minister, paid $10 million to terrorist gangs to carry out the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988, as based on dud intelligence.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 26 January, Official Report , columns 299-300.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of American reports about the destruction of Pan Am 103, based on reports from defecting Iranian pilots.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 26 January, Official Report, columns 299-300

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 25 January, what strategy, other than demanding a trial of Libyan suspects, Her Majesty’s Government have for obtaining justice for all the victims of the crime of Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister: The Lockerbie investigation has been the most exhaustive ever undertaken in this country. It remains open but has to date uncovered evidence to support charges against the two Libyans accused. Our demands, endorsed by the United Nations Security Council have been for the surrender of the accused for trial in the United States or Scotland, the satisfaction of French justice over the bombing of UTA 772, the payment of appropriate compensation and concrete proof from Libya that it has renounced terrorism. I can see no other means of meeting the legitimate demands for justice than by trial of the persons alleged to be responsible before a criminal court properly exercising jurisdiction in respect of these matters.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government were informed on or about 19 December 1988 of the travel plans of Major Charles McKee by the US Drug Enforcement Agency in Cyprus.

    The Prime Minister: No. I understand Major McKee was not an employee of the DEA.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his answer on 14 February, Official Report, column 571, he will identify the partners to whom he referred in relation to discussions about Lockerbie and UTH 772.

    The Prime Minister: The United States, France, other EU states and other friendly countries. We work most closely with the United States and France, the other states most seriously affected by the Lockerbie and UTA bombings. The Lockerbie issue is raised in bilateral contacts with a wide range of countries.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what information came to Her Majesty’s Government about approaches by members of the Juafar family offering precise testimony about Hezbollah and Achmed Tibril and their role in using a member of the Juafar family to get a bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103.

    The Prime Minister: No such approaches have been received.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what reports the United Kingdom and the United States authorities in Cyprus received from Mr. David Lovejoy, an employee of the United States Government directly or through other sources on the movements of the United States hostage rescue team, including Matthew Gannon and Major Charles McKee subsequently killed at Lockerbie, before the destruction of Pan Am 103; and if he will discuss with President Clinton the reasons why these reports were sought.

    The Prime Minister: The British authorities in Cyprus neither sought nor received any such reports.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his Private Secretary, Mr. Edward Oakden’s letter of 18 January to the relatives of the Lockerbie victims, if he will bring forward proposals whereby fatal accident inquiry presiding judges can have access to intelligence information.

    The Prime Minister: Section 4(3) of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths (Scotland) Act 1976 requires that, subject to an exception relating to the reporting of matters affecting persons under the age of 17, any fatal accident inquiry shall be open to the public. There are no proposals to amend that provision.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 15 February on Lockerbie, if he will list the witnesses interviewed by the German authorities at the request of, or in consultation with, the Scottish authorities and on what dates; and on what occasions Scottish officers were present, assisting at interviews.

    The Prime Minister: Disclosure of the fact the Messrs Ghadanfar and Dalkamouni were interviewed was an exceptional step taken only because of the unwarranted criticisms which had been, and were continuing to be, made of the German authorities and the Scottish police. It would not be appropriate to go beyond this by discussing details of confidential communications between the Scottish police and prosecuting authorities and their counterparts in Germany, or indeed in any other country.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 26 January, Official Report, column 300, in what month of what year allegations were first made to the effect that Ali Akbar Mostashemi had paid $10 million to have the Lockerbie bombing carried out; who were the competent authorities to whom the Prime Minister refers; and how much of the alleged contradicting material came from Abdul Meged Jiacha.

    The Prime Minister: This allegation first appeared in the British press in September 1989. I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 26 January, Official Report, column 299-300.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the statement of Mr. Vincent Cannistraro, head of the CIA counter-terrorism operations until 1990, that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general command was implicated in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 and had been planning other operations against United States and Israeli targets when some of its members’ squad were arrested in Frankfurt and that the operation had been bankrolled by Iranians.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the posting of warnings about Pan Am flight 103 on United States embassy bulletin boards, and the subsequent United States directive requiring imprisonment of officials, should they discuss warnings with family, friends, and colleagues in the absence of a public warning.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

     

    European Courts

    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the leaders of the other member states of the European Union, on the modification of structure, membership and functions of (a) the European Court of Auditors, (b) the European court of first instance, and (c) the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: We did not discuss these issues at the last European Council meeting in Essen, but, as I said in my December statement to the House, we did emphasise that, in the interests of combating fraud and waste, the Council must ensure that the Court of Auditors’ reports are rigorously scrutinised and followed up.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Bermingham: To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to assist the speedy conclusion of the Scott inquiry and to ensure that the report is published before 1 May.

    The Prime Minister: As I said when I announced the terms of reference for the inquiry on 16 November 1992, Official Report, columns 74- 75, Lord Justice Scott will be entirely free to decide on the publication of his report. The inquiry will report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The Government continue to give Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry the fullest possible co-operation.

     

    Disabled People

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister what is the percentage of disabled people directly employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I therefore refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary Office of Public Service and Science gave the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 1 February, Official Report, column 712.

     

    Public Inquiries

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, in what circumstances a public inquiry may take evidence on intelligence matters in camera.

    The Prime Minister: Whether and to what extent a public inquiry may take evidence in camera depends on the powers given to the inquiry when it is established.

     

    Libya

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if the United Kingdom has an extradition treaty with Libya.

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Command Papers

    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list White Papers, Green Papers and pamphlets issued by his Department, or agencies for which it is responsible, in 1994 giving, in each case, the total cost to the Exchequer of their publication and distribution; and what was the total equivalent cost in 1980.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 2 March 1995]: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office aims to recover all production and distribution costs from the sales revenue of all White Papers and Green Papers which it publishes. The cost to my Office of the 1994 pay review body reports was approximately £8,000. Figures for 1980 are not available.