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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th October 1995.
PRIME MINISTER:
Self-governing Schools
Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to his press statement of 24 August concerning his hopes for education, what procedures, flexibilities and diversity will potentially be available to future pupils, or parents, not already available at schools currently under local management arrangements, if they become directly funded under conditions laid down by Her Majesty’s Government; and by what means in those circumstances Ministers will ensure that the options now preferred, or currently available, will be maintained under such arrangements.
(2) pursuant to his press statement of 24 August concerning education, which freedoms, flexibility, and additional diversity will potentially be available to future parents and pupils in schools now under local management arrangements in England and Wales if they became directly funded under conditions laid down by Her Majesty’s Government; and by what means Ministers will ensure that options currently available will be maintained.
The Prime Minister: Self-government is a significant and logical step beyond local management. A self-governing school controls its total budget, not just the proportion delegated by an LEA. It is also free to preserve its existing character or to propose changes without reference to the local authority.
This gives self-governing schools greater flexibility to innovate, and to respond quickly and efficiently to the needs and aspirations of the communities they serve.
I believe that the benefits of grant-maintained status should be extended to all schools. This option is currently being examined.
Sports Facilities
Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will require all relevant Government Departments to maintain a register listing sporting facilities in receipt of public funds (a) closed after 1 September 1995 and (b) proposed for closure; and if he will then instruct his Minister for Sport to investigate and report to him on relevant reasons for closure.
The Prime Minister: The sports policy statements issued during the summer recognised the important role which sports facilities, including those provided by public funds, play in the development of sport. The documents detail the measures that have taken and will be taking to safeguard and improve the current level of facilities provision. We will also shortly be consulting on a proposal that the Sports Councils should be given statutory consultee status on planning proposals affecting all playing fields. Additionally, the Government will retain statutory area standards to protect school playing fields. The Government do not see a need for a register of publicly funded sports facilities of the kind that the hon. Member suggests.
Breast Cancer Campaign
Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister how many postcards he has received expressing support for the national postcard campaign for breast cancer; and how many of these have been answered.
Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister how many postcards he has received in response to the recent campaign on breast cancer.
The Prime Minister: I have received a substantial number of representations regarding this campaign.
Lockerbie
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 two junior operatives, Her Majesty’s Government now have for obtaining justice for all the victims of the crime of Lockerbie.
The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 79.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will now place in the Library a copy of the memorandum from No. 10 Downing Street in 1989 adducing the reasons why Her Majesty’s Government would not allow a public inquiry into the Lockerbie crime; and at what level the decision on the public inquiry was taken.
The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 78.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what reports the United Kingdom and United States authorities in Cyprus have now received from Dr. David Lovejoy, an employee of the United States Government, directly or through other sources, on the movement 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: I have nothing further to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 80.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government were informed by the US authorities on or around 19 December 1988 of the travel plans of Major Charles McKee.
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 79.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 30 August 1994 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what examination has recently taken place of the Toshiba and Helsinki warnings in relation to Lockerbie, since the fatal accident inquiry.
The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 78.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 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 contradictory material came from Abdul Meged Jiacha.
The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, columns 80-81.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have now made of the role of Khaled Jaafar, a Lebanese victim of the Lockerbie bombing.
The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 79.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will now discuss with President Clinton the implications regarding Iranian links and baggage being onloaded on Air Malta 180, destination Frankfurt airport.
The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 78.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will now discuss with Chancellor Kohl the prima facie evidence that a German-based terrorist organisation used their knowledge of a covert US 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: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 78.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what information has come recently to Her Majesty’s Government about approaches by members of the Jaafar family offering precise testimony about Hezbollah and Achmed Tibril and their role in using a member of the Jaafar family to get a bomb on board Pan Am flight 103.
The Prime Minister: So far as I am aware, no such approaches have been received.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the reasons why the Justice Department of the German Government have challenged Anglo-US explanations of the Lockerbie crime.
The Prime Minister: The German Federal Ministry of Justice has not challenged the basis on which charges have been brought against the two individuals accused of having carried out the Lockerbie bombing.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February, Official Report, column 571, if he will identify the partners to whom he referred in relation to discussions about Lockerbie and UTA 772.
The Prime Minister: No.
Intergovernmental Panel on the Oceans
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 9 March to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what recent consideration Her Majesty’s Government have given to the recommendation of the Government’s panel on sustainable development on the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on the oceans.
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is organising an international workshop from 30 November to 2 December to consider the machinery by which global decisions on the oceans take place. The Government will be putting the conclusions of this workshop, with their own views, to the next meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.
East German Security Service
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty’s Government have had recently, since 15 July, from the German Government about their interrogation of Edward Bollier’s Stasi control, and the sale of timing devices to the Stasi.
The Prime Minister: So far as I am aware, none.
Trafficking in Fissile Materials
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 2 May to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what progress has been made on the plan of action agreed by the European summit at Essen in December 1994 to improve co-operation between member states of the Union on how to develop programmes of assistance to third countries in relation to illegal trafficking in fissile materials; and if he will make a statement.
The Prime Minister: The Essen report on Illicit Traffic in Radioactive Substances and Nuclear Materials recommended a plan of action to improve co-operation with countries which were potential sources of illicit nuclear material. Since then, EURATOM has promoted a number of projects, the primary aim of which has been to provide assistance on improving nuclear materials accountancy and control. Three projects involving co-operation with Russia are currently under way and five are planned for 1996. The United Kingdom has been pursuing bilateral projects in Russia and Kazakhstan to assist those countries in a range of safeguards-related areas.
Libya (Extradition)
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if the United Kingdom now has an extradition treaty with Libya.
The Prime Minister: No.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons Tribute to Lord Home, on 16th October 1995.
PRIME MINISTER:
The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): A week ago Alec Douglas-Home, Lord Home, died at his home, The Hirsel. Alec Home was one of those people who light up politics with their integrity. I believe that the whole House will wish to join me today in sending our deepest sympathies to his family.
I was not privileged to know Alec Douglas-Home when he was Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary; I only had the pleasure of meeting him many years later. But even in those days, as someone who watched politics from far beyond this House, I felt from a distance that here was a man of many qualities and few pretensions. He believed that people with privileges had, with those privileges, to accept obligations. He could have chosen the leisured life of a Scottish laird, but he chose to accept obligation and a duty to public service. When fate called him to serve in the highest office, he disclaimed his historic titles, a step that no one in his position could possibly have taken lightly.
Alec Douglas-Home was a modest and a likeable man–a man of dignity, charming, witty and gentle. It is not surprising that he inspired affection among those with whom he worked and among millions who never met him. He never let public life take over. He was happiest with his family, fishing the River Tweed, studying the racing form book or on the cricket field. During one election, he abandoned the election campaign for a day playing cricket, which I think is a perfectly proper sense of priorities for an Englishman–and a very enlightened sense of priorities for a Scottish man. He was a good cricketer too, the only Prime Minister ever to play for MCC. Alec Home was a family man. His wife Elizabeth, the love of his life, was both his inspiration and his most resolute champion. She shared not only his triumphs and difficulties but his sense of humour. Both of them were devoted Christians, but perhaps only Elizabeth Home could have described the parliamentary Christian wives as the “holy hens” and escaped without rebuke.
Alec Home first stood for election in Coatbridge, as Alec Dunglass, in 1929. He was shocked by the poverty and hardship that he found there. Two years later, elected for the neighbouring constituency of South Lanark, itself no stranger to poverty, he had already formed his strong belief in one nation policies. By the end of 1935, he was parliamentary private secretary at the Ministry of Labour. A few months later, Neville Chamberlain, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, invited him to become his parliamentary private secretary. Suddenly, with Neville Chamberlain’s elevation to Prime Minister, Alec Home found himself at the very centre of government. Although he did not accompany Chamberlain on all his foreign travels, he was with him at that crucial meeting in Munich with Hitler. Alec Home was not, of course, personally responsible for the agreements reached, but, with a loyalty that was characteristic of the man, he would never subsequently criticise Chamberlain’s actions.
At the outbreak of war, Alec Home was keen to serve. To his bitter disappointment, he was declared unfit. When tuberculosis of the spine was diagnosed, year upon year of painful treatment followed. With his spine rebuilt, his parting words to his doctors were typical of the man’s gentle, self-mocking humour. He said, “You have achieved the impossible; you have put backbone into a politician.” Time and time again during his subsequent political career he demonstrated that backbone. He dared to criticise Churchill for the Yalta agreement and the way in which it treated Poland. But three months later, in a typical Churchillian move, Alec Home was appointed to the Foreign Office for a spell lasting only a few weeks before the 1945 election. It was, however, an important step in his political development.
Five years later, Alec Home returned to the House. Only 12 months beyond that he inherited the titles that took him to the other place. He heard the news in the Chamber. He immediately rushed away, only to discover outside the Chamber that he had forgotten his spectacles. In keeping with the tradition of the House, his return was barred now that he was a part of the other place.
With the return of a Conservative Government, Alec Home was appointed to a new post as Minister of State, Scottish Office. He cared deeply about Scotland and about the Union. He once said, “I have always taken the view that we have successfully borrowed the canniness of the highlander to make a living out of the Englishman.” In 1955, Anthony Eden promoted Alec Home to Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. It was a time of unsettling change for the Commonwealth, which was struggling to adjust to the end of Empire. Alec Home was central to the Commonwealth’s evolution, taking particular responsibility for developing economic co-operation. During that period, he held also the offices of Lord Privy Seal and Lord President of the Council.
Harold Macmillan increasingly relied on Alec Home’s wise and honest advice. In 1960, Macmillan made him Foreign Secretary. Alec Home quickly established authority across the world during an especially sensitive period in international relations. He displayed firmness in challenging the Soviet Union and he resolved a serious international crisis in Asia. He performed his role as Foreign Secretary as he did every role, without pretension.
The sight of a British Foreign Secretary climbing from an aeroplane in a rumpled tweed suit amused many foreign dignitaries. As Macmillan later said, “The Foreign Secretary has been accused of many things but never of being the best dressed man in the Cabinet.” I do not know why I look around to see whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is with us this afternoon, but I am sure that there must be a reason.
When Macmillan resigned, Alec Home did not at first see himself as a candidate; but when it was clear that he was best placed to unite the Conservative party, he became one. As Prime Minister, he did unite the party. I believe that he restored confidence in political life. Just as he promised, people knew that they could rely on his plain, straight talking. He introduced the controversial retail food prices index legislation, which brought competition to the retail industry and lower prices for the consumer. He interrupted his Christmas holiday to take decisive action to prevent a bloodbath in Cyprus. Time after time he ensured that Britain came to the assistance of her Commonwealth partners in Africa.
The tribute to the mark that Alec Home made as Prime Minister was not that he lost the 1964 election but that he came so close to winning it. After his resignation as party leader, he served loyally under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), in opposition, and later once more as Foreign Secretary. His stature as an ex-Prime Minister enhanced his role across the world. After he returned to the Lords, he continued to be a source of wise counsel, and he was able to enjoy his retirement back home in the house that he loved so dearly for all his life. He was once again able to pursue the life of the Scottish gentleman that he had remained for all of his days.
Alec Home’s politics are best summed up in his own words. He once said:
“I want to get away from this `us and them’; Britain is one nation–it belongs to us all, and we belong to it”.
Some have said that Alec Home was a politician of another age. The greatest tribute that I can pay him today is simply this: I profoundly hope not.