The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1995

  • PMQT – 27 June 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th June 1995. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in Cannes attending the European Council.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House rather anticipated me. I had not called Mr. Keith Hill. However, we shall take his question as read, and I now call Mr. Hill to put his supplementary question.

    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for sorting out the confusion that seems to overwhelm the Conservative party. Does the Leader of the House agree that if anyone other than the Prime Minister wins the current leadership election contest on Tuesday, he will have no democratic legitimacy to govern because he will not have the consent of the people for the policies that he pursues?

    Mr. Newton: Those of us on the Government Benches have the democratic legitimacy of the fact that we achieved more votes in the last election than any party had ever achieved in a British election. In any case, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will win.

     

    Q2. Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the matchless city of Chester, crime continues to fall and detection rates continue to improve? Is he further aware that in Chester, since 1979, the number of policemen has increased by 38 per cent. and that the only time that police numbers in Chester have fallen was under the last Labour Government? Is he also aware that, this year, Cheshire is to get an additional 195 police officers and special constables for policing on the beat? Does my right hon. Friend share Chester’s and Cheshire’s commitment to front-line policing?

    Mr. Newton: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on making those points and, indeed, Cheshire police on their achievements. I understand that recorded crime in the county fell by some 7 per cent. in 1994 and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was able to visit the force recently and to congratulate it personally on its policy of front-line policing. Her Majesty’s Government are supporting the force with a funding increase of £9 million and are making funds available for closed circuit television in Chester.

    Mr. Blair: Has the Leader of the House any awareness not just of the despair, but of the disgust that most people feel about the spectacle that the Conservative party has become? Is not the real choice that the British people want not one between the warring factions of that party, but one between a Conservative party that is disintegrating and a Labour party that is in touch with the people and ready to serve?

    Mr. Newton: Well, it certainly seems to be in touch with the lot of people in Monklands. [Interruption.] I shall not regret it. The people of Monklands may regret it and I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman may regret the thrust of his question because, if and when he gets the chance, he will have to stop fudging and come clean on his spending and taxing policies, on his minimum wage and creating unemployment policies, and on his European policies, not for an opt-out, but for a sell- out. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Miss Emma Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the constituency of Torridge and Devon, West has the highest proportion of older people in the United Kingdom and that, two weeks ago, Mrs. Cleverdon celebrated her 105th birthday? Would he like to consider the wisdom of the Tories in west Devon, especially their Conservative association, which promotes the Prime Minister’s cause and has asked me to vote in his favour, which I shall do?

    Mr. Newton: I think that I should do three things. I should congratulate my hon. Friend’s centenarian constituent, the association, and my hon. Friend on her intention.

    Sir David Steel: Could the Leader of the House explain to innocent bystanders such as myself how it is that a party which is proving by the hour that it is incapable of governing itself can have any lingering claim to govern the country?

    Mr. Newton: Well, what a typical Liberal question. I am not sure about innocence, but the right hon. Gentleman is certainly a bystander.

    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government’s policies of choice and diversity, of testing and reporting to parents, have driven up standards in education? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Dr. Spink: Does he also agree that the Labour party’s recently announced policy would drive down standards in education?

    Mr. Newton: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the policies of the Government have increased parental choice, raised educational standards and given schools greater freedom, and I equally agree with him that the policies of the Labour party would threaten all those objectives.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q3. Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Bradford.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman– [Interruption.] –partly to the reply I gave some moments ago and partly to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no current plans to visit Bradford.

    Mr. Madden: If the Prime Minister cannot visit Bradford, will the Leader of the House urge him to meet a deputation from Bradford as soon as possible so that there can be discussions about how the city can be helped to overcome the poverty and deprivation that we suffer? If the Bradford congress is successful in devising an inquiry form which is acceptable to the local community, will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister to adopt the proposal and fund it from central Government so that the inquiry can be conducted as a matter of urgency, and so that it can be professionally administered?

    Mr. Newton: I will, of course, ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s request is drawn to my right hon. Friend’s attention, but I do not think that I can add very much to what I said to the hon. Gentleman when he last questioned me about this. He will know that the Police Complaints Authority is supervising an investigation into complaints made about the police in the course of the riots and I think that the hon. Gentleman also agreed on a previous occasion that that is an independent inquiry and can be expected to do a thorough job. As I said before, I think that the right course of action is to allow that investigation to proceed and for discussion between the police and members of the Asian community to continue with the aim of restoring trust. I do not, at the moment, see any need for other inquiries.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Garnier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency of Harborough, unemployment is down yet again and that confidence in every sector of the economy is up and continues to grow week on week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is all due to the policies of the Prime Minister?

    Mr. Newton: The experience reported by my hon. and learned Friend of what is happening in his part of the country reflects what has been happening in our economy as a whole. In the past two years, we have experienced the fastest growth of any major European economy, we have the best record of low inflation for some 30 years, we have unemployment that is well below the European average and continuing to fall and we have a recovery that is export and investment led and that is the most soundly based this country has seen for a generation.

    Mr. Hoon: Does the Leader of the House agree with the Foreign Secretary that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has damaged the effectiveness of Britain?

    Mr. Newton: It is absolutely clear from the work that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been able to conduct in Cannes that they are acting effectively and continuing to bat for Britain’s interests.

     

    Q5. Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Heald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that crime levels in north Hertfordshire have also been falling recently? However, does he agree that there is more to be done and that one way of dealing with it is closed circuit television? I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for the £100,000 grant that has been given for closed circuit television for Hitchin town centre. Is it not astonishing that the new Labour administration on North Hertfordshire district council is now reconsidering closed circuit television and talking about big brother? Is that not more like old Labour than new Labour?

    Mr. Newton: I have already made some reference to these matters in response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). As my hon. Friend said, recorded crime fell by 5 per cent. nationally in 1994. Together with a 1 per cent. fall in 1993, those two years show the biggest fall in recorded crime for some 40 years. I believe that that reflects the efforts that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made to get more police on the beat, to strengthen the law through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and, not least, through his very imaginative scheme for CCTV. I am appalled to learn what my hon. Friend said about CCTV being reviewed by his district council.

     

    Q6. Mr. Denham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Denham: In the light of the statement by one of the Prime Minister’s leading supporters, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the programme of the former Secretary of State for Wales is ultra-right wing and likely to keep the Conservatives out of power for 1,000 years, does the Leader of the House believe that the Cabinet is well rid of him?

    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has always made a positive contribution to the development of Government policies. My only puzzlement is why he should not have stayed to continue to make that contribution.

     

    Q7. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 June.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday’s celebration of 50 years of achievement by the United Nations was wholly appropriate? Does he also agree, however, that it is unacceptable that this country is expected to bear a disproportionate burden of United Nations military activities when many countries are not even paying their dues? Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on those countries to remedy an unacceptable situation? [Interruption.]

    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, like me, was present at the excellent ceremony held in Westminster Hall yesterday, which undermined– [Interruption.] –underlined our continuing commitment to the United Nations organisation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded that gathering–it is an important point, to which my hon. Friend has adverted– that we have put forward proposals not only to strengthen UN peacekeeping and preventive diplomacy, but to reform its financial mechanisms. We shall continue to press that case.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on John Redwood Standing in the Leadership Election – 26 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on John Redwood standing in the Conservative leadership election. The comments were made at Cannes on 26th June 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for his reaction to the news that John Redwood was standing]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, John has sat in the Cabinet for the last two or three years, he knows what our policies are, he sat there accepting our policies throughout that time. Just a fortnight ago or so he was part of a policy making Cabinet, he and I have discussed policy on many occasions, he has put policy suggestions into our study groups, all of which are being considered, so it’s rather surprising suddenly he should taken a different position to the rest of the Cabinet.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 26 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Downing Street Gates

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what consideration has been given to strengthening the ornamental gates to Downing Street;

    (2) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of retaining the gates in Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister: Security at Downing Street is kept under constant review.

     

    Island Games, Gibraltar

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 June, if the Government raised any objection to the Princess Royal attending the Island games in Gibraltar in July.

    The Prime Minister: No.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 June, what is the Government’s policy on other members of the royal family attending the Island games in Gibraltar in July 1995.

    The Prime Minister: No member of the royal family other than the Princess Royal has received an official invitation to attend the Island games in Gibraltar.

     

    Ministerial Speeches

    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister on what recent occasions Ministers’ speeches have been published by their Departments at public expense; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1995]: It is usual practice for ministerial speeches made on official occasions to be published and distributed to the press by their departmental press office. This does not apply to speeches made in a party political context which are distributed through the party machinery.

     

    Crown Immunity

    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all areas within (a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department’s control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this, and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The reference to the Crown immunity in the question is taken to refer to legislation which does not bind the Crown. Certain legislation is expressly applied to the Crown. In most legislation, however, particularly older legislation, there is no such express provision. In those circumstances whether legislation applies to the Crown will depend upon the implications to be drawn from the drafting and context of the legislation.

     

    French Nuclear Tests

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister what backing Her Majesty’s Government are giving to the Government of Australia, New Zealand and others in the Asia/Pacific region in their protests against the French Government’s intention to resume nuclear testing in the Mururoa atoll; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1995]: In our view the international community’s main priority is the early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. While we recognise the concern of some countries, particularly those in the south Pacific, over the French decision to suspend their moratorium on nuclear testing, we do not believe that a strictly limited programme of tests should affect the prospects for this.

    Dr. David Clark: To ask the Prime Minister on what date his French counterpart informed him that the French Government would recommence the testing of nuclear weapons.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1995]: We have very close contacts with the French Government on a wide range of defence questions, including defence procurement, issues of mutual interest and nuclear matters, including testing. I discussed both subjects when I saw President Chirac on 10 June. The details of these discussions remain confidential.

     

    Home Truths Campaign

    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on the home truths campaign by young people; and how he is replying.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1995]: My office has no record of this campaign. However, any representations will receive replies as appropriate.

     

    Attack Helicopters

    Dr. David Clark: To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with his French counterpart concerning the purchase of attack helicopters by the Ministry of Defence.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 June 1995]: We have very close contacts with the French Government on a wide range of defence questions, including defence procurement, issues of mutual interest and nuclear matters, including testing. I discussed both subjects when I saw President Chirac on 10 June. The details of these discussions remain confidential.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on John Redwood Possibly Standing in the Leadership Election – 25 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on rumours that John Redwood was to stand in the Conservative leadership election. The comments were made in 10, Downing Street, London on 25th June 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for his reaction to the news that John Redwood might be standing]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I must say I’m very surprised at what I hear over the last day or so, John and I were talking in mid week, John had some ideas about how we might develop, so I’m very surprised.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Resignation of Douglas Hurd – 23 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the resignation of the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, made in Huntingdon on 23rd June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Douglas has been a member of the Government now for a very long time, he’s been a member of the Cabinet for six years. He’s made a remarkable contribution, both to the Cabinet and to the country, and I have not a shred of doubt, that whether one agrees with everything he does and even those who don’t, no-one can deny he has been one of the greatest Foreign Secretaries we’ve had this century.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Leadership Election – 23 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Conservative Party leadership election, made in Huntingdon on 23rd June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The programme that I have in this constituency this morning illustrates one of the main reasons why I think it is right to hold a leadership election now and to sort out these fevered mutterings that we’ve had that have so excited so many people over the last two or three years.
    What has happened in the last three years is that the real political agenda, on education, on health, on the economy, on jobs, has just been absolutely extinguished by the chatter we’ve had about the leadership of the Conservative Party. Well, I’ve had enough of that to be frank.

  • Mr Major’s Resignation Speech – 22 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement in the garden at 10 Downing Street on 22 June 1995 announcing his resignation as leader of the Conservative Party. He stood, and won, the subsequent leadership election.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just make a brief statement to you. I’ve been deeply involved in politics since I was sixteen. I see public service as a duty and if you can serve, I believe you have an obligation to do so.

    I’ve now been Prime Minister for nearly five years. In that time we’ve achieved a great deal, but for the last three years I’ve been opposed by a small minority in our party. During those three years there have been repeated threats of a leadership election. In each year, they have turned out to be phoney threats. Now the same thing again is happening in 1995.

    I believe this is in no one’s interest that this continues right though until November. It undermines the Government and it damages the Conservative Party. I am not prepared to see this party I care for laid out on the rack like this any longer.

    To remove this uncertainty I have this afternoon tendered my resignation as leader of the Conservative Party to Sir Marcus Fox, the chairman of the 1922 Committee, and requested him to set the machinery in motion for an election of a successor.

    I have confirmed to Sir Marcus that I shall be a candidate in that election. If I win, I shall continue as Prime Minister and lead the party into and through the next election.

    Should I be defeated, which I do not expect, I shall resign as Prime Minister and offer my successor my full support.

    The Conservative Party must makes its choice. Every leader is leader only with the support of his party. That is true of me as well.

    That is why I am no longer prepared to tolerate the present situation. In short, it is time to put up or shut up. I have nothing more to say this afternoon. Thank you very much.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

    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.

     

    Singapore

    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since 1984 the Government have made representations to the Government of Singapore about the activities of a company called Charter Industries of Singapore.

    The Prime Minister: Chartered Industries of Singapore are part of the Government-owned Singapore technologies group. The British high commission, in the course of its export promotion activities, has regular discussions with the Singapore Ministry of Defence, which may include reference to Chartered Industries of Singapore.

  • PMQT – 22 June 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

    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.

    Ms Anderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that Labour’s proposals for tough and effective action against criminal and anti-social neighbours have been widely welcomed as a sensible attempt to tackle a problem which causes misery to thousands of people? Given the failure of the Government’s policies on law and order, will the Prime Minister now adopt our policies?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady right touches on a problem which concerns many people. As she will know, we have taken action on that problem. Nothing in the proposals from the Labour party adds to that action; they are merely window dressing on Labour’s part.

    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend today consider Gerry Adams’s prediction of the increase in terrorism and Shell Oil’s capitulation to terrorism?

    The Prime Minister: I think that in whatever form it manifests itself terrorism is unpleasant and should be resisted.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that there are those within the Conservative party who are destabilising the Government and damaging the country?

    The Prime Minister: When we were discussing Question Time I made a prediction–and I am usually right–that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman would not pick this subject. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is an honourable friend in every sense of the word. His letter shows that few men are blessed with better personal friends than he is to me. I am immensely grateful for his continued support. His letter also shows that he is deeply concerned for the Northern Ireland peace process, to which he has contributed a very great deal.

    Mr. Blair: If the questions are occasionally predictable, it is because the targets are also so predictable. It surely comes to something, does it not, when a Cabinet Minister is driven to writing to The Times about divisions in the Government without even telling the Prime Minister? If even Cabinet Ministers decide that the bitter in-fighting is damaging the national interest, will not the people of Britain conclude that the Conservative party is no longer fit to govern the country?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to have noticed today that the former deputy leader of the Labour party had a little bit of bitter in-fighting of his own about the right hon. Gentleman’s education policy. I also seem to recall that there was rather more in-fighting. Labour’s education spokesman wrote to his colleagues at the end of last year:

    “We are opposed to schools opting out . . . nor is there any intention that GM status should continue.”

    There seems to be some confusion–perhaps a touch of bitter in-fighting.

    Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend remember the massive battles that we had in the House some 15 years ago when we first removed the subsidies from British Steel? Does he also remember the massive opposition from Labour Members when we privatised British Steel? Is it not as a result of privatisation that we are today in a position in which British Steel can turn in £500 million of profits and export a product throughout the world against the toughest competition in the world? Should not Labour Members hang their heads in shame for opposing one of the most important policies for British industry?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall some very rich opposition–not least, as I recall, from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)–to the proposal to privatise British Steel. The general proposition put forward by the Opposition was that it was totally irrelevant to the future of British Steel, that it was produced entirely for ideological reasons and that it would do no good. From an industry which was collapsing, it is now one of the most successful industries in this country and in Europe. That has happened because of privatisation and our determination to ensure that industry is in private hands and efficient.

     

    Q2. Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Sir David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that next month is supposed to see the end of six years house arrest for the democratically elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi? Is he further aware that last week her British husband was refused a visa to go there and join in her 50th birthday celebrations? Will the Prime Minister make it unmistakably clear to the military rulers of Burma that trade with this country cannot flourish so long as there is such a basic denial of human and democratic rights?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Most people will have their own very crisp views of the present regime in Burma. It is unacceptable, and so is its behaviour. I warmly commend the right hon. Gentleman’s efforts and support for the former Burmese Prime Minister, which is richly merited. Six years’ detention is indefensible by any yardstick whatever and an offence against her human rights. We have made that crystal clear to the Burmese and will continue to do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Elletson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under a Conservative Government parents have been given the right to choose where to educate their children? Will he therefore congratulate all those parents in the Labour party who have been courageous enough to choose grant-maintained or selective schools even though Labour’s bogus education policy would destroy them?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I support the right of every parent in the country to choose the appropriate school for their child. I just wish that some of those who exercise the choice themselves would ensure that it remains equally free for every other parent in the land. The proposals that the Labour party produced today are very badly named–“Hypocrisy and Mediocrity” should have been the title of its plans.

    Dr. Godman: On the subject of Brent Spar, there is a good deal of speculation in Scotland concerning its eventual destination and it has been suggested that it is likely to end up on the lower Clyde. If that is so, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that all safety regulations will be adhered to during its dismantling?

    The Prime Minister: First, let me say that I deeply regret Shell’s decision to cave in to misguided pressure from environmental groups and some foreign Governments. The plan for deep-sea disposal was ratified and agreed according to all the international obligations agreed with other Governments, and not a single Government objected to the plan until they succumbed to pressure from Greenpeace. I shall make it clear to my colleagues across Europe that there will almost undoubtedly be a price to pay for their weakness in this respect.

    As for the subsequent disposal of Brent Spar, I have no means of knowing at present how that will eventually work out. If Shell seeks approval for onshore disposal, we shall naturally consider that request, but we are certainly not under an obligation to grant approval for a new abandonment plan. Shell will need to satisfy us on those issues which led us previously to the conclusion that deep-sea disposal was the best practicable environmental option. I think that, for the moment, that is where we should leave it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Mr. Hughes: In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to send a message of congratulation to all who, despite threats and intimidation, battled to expose the systematic abuse of power in Labour Monklands? Does he agree that now is the time for all those who have further information about what went on there–for instance, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)–to present that information, or are they worried about what we shall see of the tip of this very nasty Labour iceberg?

    The Prime Minister: Certainly, on the basis of the Black report, a remarkable number of relatives of Monklands councillors seem to have been employed by the council. Its personnel department was more like a family planning department.

     

    Q5. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Mr. MacShane: Does the Prime Minister welcome the new right-wing Government in France and the decision of his new friend President Chirac to raise the minimum wage substantially?

    The Prime Minister: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second is that it is of course a mistake there, as it would be anywhere else.

     

    Q6. Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend as the finest interpreters at Government communications headquarters to try to make sense of the contradictory gobbledegook contained in the document misleadingly entitled,

    “Diversity and Excellence: a new partnership for schools”? Is it not likely that beneath the honeyed words they will find the usual socialist disdain for schools which have managed to free themselves from the bureaucracy and interference of local education authorities?

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly a very unusual document in many ways. The Labour leadership has opposed each and every education reform in recent years. It was against tests, performance tables and grant-maintained schools–not just in the distant past, but recently. Only last week, Labour’s spokesman on Wales declared his opposition to grant-maintained schools. Last week it was Labour councillors penalising parents whose children are at grammar schools; today it is Lib-Lab Lincoln attacking children who win scholarships. No matter where we look, the reality is that Labour is opposed to choice, except in what it says; in what it does, there is to be no choice for anyone–except, of course, Labour Members themselves.

    Mr. Salmond: Instead of the foot-stamping petulance with which, we read, the Prime Minister has greeted his humiliation over Brent Spar, will he open his mind to a constructive suggestion? As both the Government and the oil companies have a huge financial interest in deep-water disposal as opposed to onshore decommissioning, and as no one trusts either the Government or the oil companies, would it not be better to have an independent authority overseeing decommissioning of oil and gas installations? I know that the Prime Minister is somewhat embarrassed by independent inquiries, but would that not be a constructive way forward?

    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure whether the people of Scotland will draw the conclusion that I draw–that the Scottish National party would really like the Brent Spar to be disposed of on land in Scotland at the expense of British and Scottish taxpayers. If that is the message, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it to every household that he has deceived at recent elections.

     

    Q7. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hendon school in my constituency was the first grant-maintained school in London and that since then it has become oversubscribed? Does he welcome the fact that the slow learners on the Opposition Benches have suddenly realised that grant- maintained schools are successful and popular with parents?

    The Prime Minister: That is certainly true, but I am afraid that time after time Labour’s leaders have voted against grant-maintained schools, Labour activists have voted campaigns against grant-maintained schools, and I doubt whether anyone will be gullible enough to believe that they can be trusted. I clearly recall the Labour education spokesman writing to his colleagues at the end of last year saying:

    “We are opposed to schools opting out”.

    Frankly, they could have saved a lot of paper and a lot of hot air if they had just said that in their recent document.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 June 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Privatisation

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose, my Department is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 20 June, Official Report, column 220.

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid.

    Mr. Horam: Those parts of the work of the Cabinet Office–OPSS–its agencies, HMSO and COI which have been contracted-out without an in-house bid are as follows:

    Central OPSS

    Consortium Reports

    Publishing and print Procurement Service

    CCTA

    GTN (Long-Distance)

    Chessington

    UNISON (Phase 1)

    CS College

    Prospectus Distribution

    RAS

    Catering Services

    Cleaning Services

    IT Hardware Maintenance

    IT Software Support Services

    HMSO

    Print Order Processing System

    Software Development: Business Supplies

    Software Development: Finance

    COI

    Videotext Unit

    The Cabinet Office, its agencies, HMSO and COI have contracted-out activities without inviting in-house bids where it has been judged that the private sector is clearly better equipped to deliver a specific service, has a better understanding of market needs, or the capacity to invest in new technology. Other decisions to contract-out services without inviting in-house bids have been taken where an activity is relatively small and peripheral to the Department’s functions.

    There are no current plans to contract-out any activities within the Cabinet Office, its agencies, HMSO and COI without inviting an in-house bid.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), 12 June, Official Report, column 373, if he will set out the reason for declining to give details of the dates of letters sent from his office to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: The Government do not propose to disclose details of confidential exchanges with the Scott inquiry.

     

    Former Prisoners of War

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to approach the Japanese Government to secure new compensation for British prisoners of war held by the Japanese.

    The Prime Minister: We are precluded on legal grounds from raising the question of compensation formally with the Japanese Government. I have drawn their attention to the strong feelings which the situation of the former prisoners arouses in the UK. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently discussed the matter with his Japanese counterpart at the G7 summit in Halifax on 16 June.

     

    Ministerial Speeches

    Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the total annual cost to public funds of publishing every Minister’s speeches.

    The Prime Minister: It is usual practice for ministerial speeches made on official occasions to be published and distributed to the press by the relevant departmental press office. The cost is not separately identified in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.