The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1995

  • PMQT Written Answers – 10 January 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

     

    Intelligence and Security Committee

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is the annual expenditure earmarked for the Intelligence and Security Committee;

    (2) if he expects to give oral evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee;

    (3) if senior staff below the level of director general in the security services are to be allowed to give evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee if the committee requests this;

    (4) at what time of the year he expects to receive the first report from the Intelligence and Security Committee;

    (5) if officers of the House are involved in staffing the Intelligence and Security Committee.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 21 November 1994, Official Report, column 25 .

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlay the decision to hold meetings of the Intelligence and Security Committee in the Cabinet Office; what consideration was given to holding them in the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The House has always recognised that intelligence issues cannot be dealt with in the same way as normal departmental affairs. Special arrangements have been made therefore for the committee to meet in suitable secure accommodation in the Cabinet Office, reflecting the necessary secrecy of the committee’s proceedings.

     

    European Parliament

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy not to agree to any proposal which would extend or increase the powers of the European Parliament.

    The Prime Minister: The treaty on European Union accorded the European Parliament new powers. We do not believe that the case has been made for an extension of these powers. The primary democratic focus in the European Union rests with national Parliaments, not the European Parliament.

     

    Hunting Engineering

    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide a breakdown of all ongoing Government contracts with Hunting Engineering and those completed in the last two years, summarising the amounts relating to each purpose within the contracts and the total of them overall.

    The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Voter Satisfaction Surveys

    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister what surveys Her Majesty’s Government carried out in 1994 to assess voter satisfaction with Her Majesty’s Government’s policy; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Employment Statistics

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will propose action to increase the numbers of people aged 16 to 20 years employed in each Department and associated agencies;

    (2) if he will give an estimate of the numbers of people available for work aged (a) 16, (b) 17, (c) 18, (d) 19 and (e) 20 years; and if he will compare their ratio to all employees with the ratio of young people employed across the public services and agencies.

    The Prime Minister: Government Departments and agencies recruit staff on merit through fair and open competition. The details of recruitment procedures are determined by each Department or agency in the light of its own needs and circumstances.

    The Employment Department aims to integrate young people into the labour market by providing a wide range of employment and training measures and services for them. Government Departments and agencies participate fully in programmes such as youth training.

    The employment of young people in different occupations or sectors of activity is affected by recent recruitment levels and by the qualities and experience appropriate to the work.

    In particular, young people tend to group towards particular occupations, some of which may not be associated with the public sector.

    The available estimates from the labour force survey for Great Britain in summer–June to August–1994 show that there were 1,597,000 16 to 20-year- old employees in total, representing 7 per cent. of all employees. Of these 119,000 were in the public sector, representing 2 per cent. of all public sector employees. A further 507,000 16 to 20-year-olds were classified as International Labour Organisation unemployed of which 157,000 were in full- time education but actively seeking a part-time or vacation job.

     

    Political Resolutions

    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister what are his political resolutions for 1995.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Queen’s Speech, Official Report, 16 November 1994 columns 4 6.

     

    European Councils

    Dr. Marek: To ask the Prime Minister what changes he proposes to make in reporting to Parliament proceedings and debates within European Council meetings and committees; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Ministers give Parliament an account of each meeting of the Council of Ministers. Press releases, which include details of voting, are deposited in the Library of the House. I see no reason to change these arrangements.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library his correspondence with Mr. Martin Cadman, of the Lockerbie victims’ relatives association, and in particular his response to Mr. Cadman’s letter of 18 December 1994, concerning Lord Parkinson’s meetings on 19 September 1989 and 5 December 1989 with the relatives, and his answer of 15 December, Official Report, column 1068.

    The Prime Minister: No, it is not my normal practice to do so.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his response to Lockerbie victim relative Rev. John Mosey’s letter to him of 28 December 1994.

    The Prime Minister: No, it is not my normal practice to do so.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if, following communications from Mr. Martin Cadman, Pamela Dix, Rev. John Mosey and Dr. Jim Swire, relatives of Lockerbie victims, he has anything to add to his oral answer to the hon. Member of Linlithgow of 15 December, Official Report, column 1068.

    The Prime Minister: I understand that the meeting between Lord Parkinson and a group of British relatives of the Lockerbie victims to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 15 December took place in December 1989, not in 1990. At that meeting, Lord Parkinson explained the Government’s decision not to hold a confidential inquiry into the disaster, but said that the Lord Advocate was likely to hold a public fatal accident inquiry. I have received representations from several relatives of Lockerbie victims calling for a further inquiry. However, in view of all the investigations that have already been carried out, and the need to avoid the danger of prejudicing a criminal trial of the two accused, I do not believe such an inquiry is warranted.

     

    Ghazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position in the case of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali, detained in Mirpur prison in Azad Kashmir.

    The Prime Minister: We continue to raise our concerns over the delays in the hearings of the charges facing Ghazanfer Ali. There has been no progress since my previous answer. The hearings continue to be adjourned.

     

    Scottish Devolution

    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to conduct an analysis of the effects on the rest of the United Kingdom of devolution for Scotland as proposed in the Scotland Act 1978; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The proposals for a Scottish assembly contained within the Scotland Act 1978 were the subject of a referendum in 1979 and failed to gain the support of the electorate. The proposals of the Scotland Act 1978 no longer enjoy the support of any political party, but the inconsistencies inherent in those proposals, which were clearly highlighted over 15 years ago, remain today unanswered by the proponents of devolution.

  • PMQT – 10 January 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th January 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

    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.

    Ms Corston: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable for the Government or for any individual Minister to hide behind Britain’s laudable ban of the veal crate system while turning a blind eye to the annual export of hundreds of thousands of calves, knowing full well that they will spend their short lives in wooden boxes in the dark?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done more than most people in this country to try to change the laws right across Europe to deal with veal. Both he and I would like to see less trade in live animals and more in carcase form. But, as the hon. Lady will know, there is a long tradition of Agriculture Ministers having farming interests, which they rightly stand back from when they are Agriculture Ministers. What the hon. Lady did not mention was that my right hon. Friend’s farm is managed on a day-to-day basis by a farm management company headed by a Labour Front-Bench spokesman in the House of Lords.

     

    Q2. Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members want to wish him and his family a very happy and prosperous new year? Is it the Conservative party that wants to put VAT on school fees, split up the United Kingdom with devolution plans, or nationalise utilities under clause IV, or is it the lot opposite, led by Bambi, with his 60 quid-a-week haircut, who sends his son to a grant-maintained school when his party want to abolish them? Is there anything more dishonourable than that? I do not think so. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I can tell, Madam Speaker, that this is going to be an uncontroversial Session of Parliament. My hon. Friend leads us in that direction. Clearly, the policy-making activities of the principal opposition party are running into some difficulties at the moment. I do not think that many people are quite sure who these days is forming Labour policy on education, health, energy and other subjects. The closer one examines Labour policy, the more it falls apart. My hon. Friend should not object to that; he should lie back and enjoy it.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that any attempt by the rail regulator under privatisation to cut through-ticketing, with the result that people may have to travel 50 miles to get a train ticket, would be utterly unacceptable, and will he, if necessary, intervene to stop such an attempt?

    The Prime Minister: As the Secretary of State for Transport said the other day, and as I am happy to reaffirm, we have repeatedly made clear our commitment to maintaining through-ticketing.

    Through-ticketing should continue to be available from a wide range of outlets, to meet passengers’ needs. The regulator, like other regulators, is by law independent, but the Secretary of State has powers to give him guidance under the Railways Act 1993. The regulator is bound to take account of such guidance, but at this stage, prior to the issue of a consultation document, the question of guidance is entirely premature.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister has no power to prevent the regulator from introducing such an arrangement–what he has described is merely guidance–will he undertake that if the regulator makes such proposals he will direct the franchising director not to offer a franchise to any of the 25 companies unless it offers a complete through-ticket service?

    The Prime Minister: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman, I am at least as committed to through-ticketing as he is. He is trying yet again to have it both ways. The Labour party complains routinely that the Government should have more powers over the regulator, but if we had such direct powers it would complain about Government interference, as it did during the rail strike.

    Mr. Blair: I shall tell the Government what we complain of–the railway system being sold off instead of being used as a proper public service. If the Prime Minister cannot guarantee through-ticketing, and if he is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a privatisation that people do not want, when the public rightly fear that it will be used to produce the same pay excesses as exist in other privatised utilities, why does he not accept, as this country does, that our party’s campaign to halt the privatisation is right, and that the railways should be retained as a proper integrated public service?

    The Prime Minister: If privatisation is as bad as the right hon. Gentleman says, why will he not commit himself to renationalisation of British Rail? After 50 years of nationalisation, is he really satisfied with the present rail service? Can he name any time at which the service was satisfactory? If not, why does he oppose changes that will make it satisfactory? The Labour party has opposed every privatisation. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what Labour said about other privatisations. It said that British Airways would be

    “the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all”.

    British Airways is the most efficient airline in the world. I have a stack of similar quotations for the right hon. Gentleman, about every privatisation. Privatisation works; we are privatising rail and there will be a better service.

    Mr. Dover: What hope can the Prime Minister give to the oppressed people of Chechnya, in view of the determination of President Dudayev and of the Chechnen people?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone doubts that a tragedy has been taking place in Chechnya in recent weeks. Chechnya is indisputably part of the Russian Federation, and the long-standing revolt that has taken place there under local leadership has posed serious problems. I share my hon. Friend’s implicit concern about the way in which the problem has been handled in recent weeks and about the bombardment that has led to so many civilian casualties. As with other allies, we have expressed our concerns directly to the Russian Government. Most recently, the Foreign Secretary saw the Russian ambassador this morning.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Beith: Under this Government, can any Cabinet Minister claim that he is responsible only for the policy of his Department and not for its operational failings, however many there are and however many have been preceded by warnings from those in a position to know that things are going wrong? Is not good government about running things properly? What will happen to Ministers who have proved not to have done that?

    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State concerned is responsible for the policy of a Department, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear in the illustration to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Operational matters fall into a different category, as has been the case for many years. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to recent gaol escapes, and he will know that during the past 20 or 30 years there have been a large number of incidents under Governments of both major parties, and also a Government involving the Liberal party. Such incidents have occurred without making necessary the resignation of the appropriate Secretary of State.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Townsend: Recalling that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself voted for the Second Reading of the War Crimes Act 1991, and noting that the funding for the special war crimes unit at New Scotland Yard is to be wound up at the end of March, will my right hon. Friend consider drawing stumps on the whole grisly business? It must be perfectly obvious that not a single person will ever be successfully prosecuted under that expensive Act.

    The Prime Minister: It was recognised from the outset that the police investigations into serious crimes which were committed a long time ago would be difficult. I understand that the police investigations will be completed by the end of March this year. The decision therefore on whether or not to prosecute will be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who will be advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I prefer to await that advice before saying more.

    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the matter of war crimes, we are talking about personal involvement in mass murder? As the House has repeatedly approved the principle in the War Crimes Act, will he confirm that if–but only if–there is sufficient evidence against individuals of complicity in that murder, they will be prosecuted no matter how long they have managed to evade justice?

    The Prime Minister: I think that that was implicit in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) a moment ago, when I made clear that a decision on whether or not to prosecute will not be a political decision. The decision will be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General upon the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

     

    Q5. Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a full range of educational opportunity is of the utmost importance to the citizens of this country? Is not it clear from the utterances of the past few days that the old, nasty Labour party is waiting to leap out, given half a chance?

    The Prime Minister: I am not altogether sure that it has not already leapt out during the past few days. We have seen the quickest U-turn in history about a tax on school fees, the education spokesman unfortunately not being told what the education policies really are; and Opposition spokesmen in open disagreement about a graduate tax and a range of other totally and utterly vindictive education policies. Those policies will show everyone where the Labour party stands on equality of choice, opportunity and freedom.

     

    Q6. Mr. William O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 January.

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

    Mr. O’Brien: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern that has been expressed by many fire service authorities about reductions in their expenditure, which may bring about a danger to property and to life? May I warn him of the situation in West Yorkshire? There has been a £3.2 million cut in expenditure, which could mean a reduction of 116 firefighters in West Yorkshire. Will the Prime Minister take action to ensure that we have continuity of service which will help in the protection of property and life in West Yorkshire in particular, and across the country in general?

    The Prime Minister: Of course the fire service is immensely important. Of course we will make a judgement that we believe will ensure that it can be adequately available to all people who are likely to need it. I am not immediately familiar with the particular circumstances of West Yorkshire. It would be surprising were I to be so. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend to look particularly at that in the light of what the hon. Gentleman says.

    Mr. Kynoch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal for a Scottish Parliament put forward by the Labour party must inevitably lead to higher taxes and costs for businesses, particularly in Scotland? Does he further agree that if that is so, it will inevitably be the first stage on the slippery slope towards the break-up of the United Kingdom–something which the Labour party seems to be intent on achieving?

    The Prime Minister: I fully understand the many people in Scotland and, indeed, in Wales, who believe that a tax-raising assembly may be of assistance to them. I passionately believe, in their interests, that that is a mistaken judgement. I do not believe that the degree of investment that has gone into Scotland and Wales would continue if those investing there had the unique advantage of being more highly taxed than people in other parts of the United Kingdom. I see a great danger of businesses uprooting themselves and moving away from Scotland.

    I have seen no answers yet to the West Lothian question, which the Leader of the Opposition apparently failed to understand when he was asked about it at a press conference yesterday. I have no doubt that the sort of devolution proposed by the Labour party would do immense damage, first to the people of Scotland, secondly to the people of Wales–although they would apparently have a lesser form of devolution–and above all to everyone throughout the United Kingdom.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Single Currency – 8 January 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the single currency, made in an interview on 8th January 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was keeping open the option of the single currency at a later date].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course, I mean there are many people who still fear that we may get a single currency in 1996 to 1997. We won’t, we will not get a single currency in 1996 to 1997. Before that could happen we would have needed almost certainly to have been in the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years, we aren’t in it, no immediate prospect of us going back into it. Secondly the Bank of England would need to be independent, we have no proposals to bring forward legislation for the independence of the Bank of England. And thirdly, there would need to be a proper convergence of economies coming together in performance right across Europe, no question of that happening by 1996 to 1997. Now sometimes people raise the fear that a single currency will go ahead in 1996-1997. Firstly, it can’t in logic. But secondly, let me make the point even clearer, if despite logic, despite the commitments that need to be met before it should go ahead from the Maastricht Treaty, if despite all that other people decided to go ahead in 1996 to 1997 with a single currency, I would not advise the British Parliament to follow them, I don’t believe it would be remotely appropriate for it at that stage.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there should be a vote in the House of Commons on early membership].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t, I don’t believe the economies are right and I don’t believe anybody is going to be remotely ready for it. So I don’t think anyone will go ahead but I know some people harbour these fears, they ought to remove them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be a referendum before the IGC].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t favour a referendum before the IGC. I mean a referendum on what before the IGC? Nothing can stop the British Government at any stage in all the IGC raising any subject it wishes, that is equally true of all the other 14 Governments that are going to be there. So a referendum prior to the IGC would be a very curious beast indeed and I certainly don’t favour that.