The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Libya

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the University of Kurdistan-Hawler – 29 May 2011

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the University of Kurdistan-Hawler, given on Sunday 29th May 2011.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Thank you, Sarah, Vice-Chancellor, for hosting me in this wonderful auditorium, and for inviting students from the Universities of Kurdistan-Hawler and Salahadeen.

    I am delighted to be here.

    From my own country – a long way away – I witnessed the bravery of the Kurdish people following the end of the first Gulf War. Many Kurds were being brutally murdered by Saddam. In the United Kingdom we were horrified at what we saw, and led the way in establishing “safe havens” in the Kurdistan Region. Seeing all of you here today proves how worthwhile that action was, and that the sacrifices made were not in vain. I feel honoured to be here, with you, today.

    I meet today against a backdrop of momentous events right across the Middle East and North Africa. Young people – just like you – have led demonstrations, uprisings and demands for reform. They are demanding the same freedoms and rights for which Iraqi Kurdistan has already fought – and that you want for yourselves.

    This is a moment of opportunity and risk. The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has spoken of his cautious optimism at this “precious moment of opportunity” for the entire region. And our Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has described the eruption of this democracy movement as the most important development of the early 21st century. He is right, for it has potential long-term consequences greater than either the terrorist attacks in America on 9/11 or the global financial crisis of 2008.

    You have already had your Kurdish Newroz. It is striking the extent to which I hear echoes of that in the Arab Spring. The events across the MENA have also prompted Kurdish society to look at itself. That is a healthy thing to do. The consensus seems to be that further reforms in governance and public services in Iraqi Kurdistan are needed. I am sure that is right.

    The history of my own Country means we British understand how challenging it is to build and develop political systems. But it is crucial to enable Governments to meet the aspirations of their people: the future of your country depends upon it. The most encouraging aspect for me is that this is being achieved through dialogue and debate.

    We, the United Kingdom, were with you at the birth of a democratic Iraqi Kurdistan. We remember – as your parents will do – that it didn’t happen overnight. Nor will it in other countries now starting along the same road you travelled two decades ago. We’ve been with you as the process has matured, and will continue to support you as you take Iraqi democracy forward.

    The demands across the region for open government, for action against corruption and for greater political participation are the natural aspirations of all people – and they are right to expect them to be conceded.

    There are risks. Governments should respond to such protests with reform. That is the only way that long-term stability can be achieved. A repressive response to peaceful protest is foolish and wrong: it merely reinforces the case for change.

    The Governments of Libya and Syria have violently repressed such protests. They are wrong: and they will learn that the international community will not accept such abuses of power. Nor should anyone. The Criminal Court at The Hague awaits those who murder and repress.

    Some governments have tried to use the threat of Al Qaeda as an excuse for the repression of their people. This excuse doesn’t hold true. The recent death of Osama Bin Laden has struck a powerful blow against Al Qaeda and that is welcome; but the eventual defeat of its ideology will be by the Muslim people. As the Foreign Secretary has said, “The true expression of the Muslim people want was seen in Tahrir Square in 2011, not at Ground Zero in 2001”.

    The United Kingdom supports the reform movements, but we know there are many paths to Democracy. We believe that freedom and the rule of law are the right of every citizen. We believe also that it is the best way to guarantee human progress and economic success. Modern economies will only thrive with open societies, in which economic and political progress go hand in hand.

    Let me turn to the future.

    Many of you here today are English students. You are a rare asset. Over the last 20 years there has been a dramatic fall in the level of English language teaching in Kurdistan and across Iraq. This needs to change: a lack of English will hold back Kurdistan’s participation in the global community. The grow, you must trade. To trade, you must communicate. And English is the language of commerce.

    I hope that, one day, many of you will study in the UK, where you will find a very warm welcome.

    Education is one of the most important areas to which we provide support to Iraqi Kurdistan and – to ease the way – staff in the Consulate-General in Erbil work hard to prioritise visas to successful scholars.

    [indistinct, but as follows]

    WIDER WORLD. Very exciting. To look at the future we must understand the past:

    EUROPE – after WWII, EU;

    RISE OF ASIA – 20 years ago and now;

    LATIN AMERICA – 20 years ago and now.

    What they have done – you can do.

    You will do things, say… know … be things your parents never dreamed of. Ambition. Aim high.

    With luck … ambition … study … work there is nothing you cannot achieve.

  • PMQT – 13 March 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Chidgey: No doubt the Prime Minister will join me in condemning the leaking of the Select Committee report on nursery vouchers. Does he share the Committee’s concern that nursery vouchers appear to be failing to provide parental choice, failing to improve standards and failing to provide more places? Does he accept that there is great folly in pressing ahead with a national scheme before the pilot schemes have been properly tested?

    The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman’s dismay that someone has chosen to leak a report. I have not yet read it, so I am unable to comment in detail on what may or may not be in it. As a matter of principle, rather than on the specific issue raised by the Select Committee report, parents have choice because of the voucher scheme. Without the voucher scheme, the only way to obtain a free nursery place would be to send one’s child to a state school. There was no choice or opportunity and the half a million parents who have taken up the option will be indicating that they believe that choice is right. The voucher scheme has also led to an increase in the number of places.

     

    Ministerial Visit (Kent)

    Q2. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north-west Kent.

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

    Mr. Dunn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of north-west Kent are glad to be part of an independent nation state and to play their part in our dynamic enterprise economy? They want nothing to do with those who spend their time selling Britain out or who would like to spend their time selling Britain short.

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the people of north-west Kent are glad to be part of an independent nation state. I agree that they and the rest of the United Kingdom have benefited enormously from the economic improvements of the past few years. They, like everyone else, enjoy the benefits of much lower inflation than we have had for many years, the lowest mortgage rate for 30 years and the lowest unemployment rate of any major European country. We intend to continue to pursue the policies that will ensure that they can continue to enjoy those things for many years to come.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of central Government control of non-domestic rates has yielded immense benefits to industry and commerce, especially to small companies? Does he also agree that placing decisions on business rates under local control would add billions to industrial costs in the United Kingdom, undermine our inward investment efforts and threaten the very existence of huge numbers of small firms throughout Britain?

    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about that. The non-domestic rate set by central Government for England and Wales has never risen faster than the rate of inflation, and in Scotland the rate has been reduced in real terms. That is in sharp distinction to what occurred when local authorities set the business rate, often by attempting to hold down the domestic rate and pile costs upon business. That is one of the significant reasons why so many companies were forced out of inner-city areas, leaving the problems that we have been attempting to deal with.

    Mr. Blair: I have given you, Madam Speaker, and the Prime Minister notice of my question. Will the Prime Minister join me in recalling that it is a year to the day since the terrible events in Dunblane? We remember the little ones who died, and we grieve with their parents and their friends. They will not be lost to the nation’s memory. We all say to the people of Dunblane that our thoughts and prayers are with them today and in the years to come.

    One year ago, the House stood united in shock at the senseless and appalling tragedy in Dunblane. Today, whatever our differences are on any other matter, we are united again, this time in sorrow and in commemoration of those who died.

    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken for everyone in the House, and for millions beyond it. We all remember with great clarity the horror we felt when we heard of those appalling events. I remember visiting the school and the gymnasium with the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not believe that either of us will ever forget the scenes that we saw there; neither will anyone else who visited the school. Clearly, this will be a very difficult and emotional time for the bereaved and for the entire community of Dunblane. I am sure that the thoughts not only of the House but of the nation are with them today.

    Mr. Harris: May I raise with my right hon. Friend another tragic matter–the loss of two fishing boats, the Westhaven, from Arbroath, and the Gorah Lass, from St. Ives in my constituency? Will he express the sympathy of all hon. Members to the relatives of the seven men who are feared dead? Will he also honour the debt that we all owe to the fishing industry, and ensure that the investigating authorities have the resources to conduct speedily and thoroughly the urgent task of investigating the cause of that double tragedy?

    The Prime Minister: Seven fishermen have lost their lives this week, in two separate incidents. I am sure that the House will join my hon. Friend in extending every sympathy to the family and friends of those involved in those tragic accidents. I understand that both incidents are being investigated by the marine accidents investigation branch. I will attempt to ensure that that occurs as speedily and as comprehensively as possible, and of course the findings will in due course be made public.

     

    Q4. Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Jamieson: Has the Prime Minister seen the written answer to me from the Secretary of State for Defence on 20 February 1997, which confirmed that most of the “British beef” consumed by Her Majesty’s armed forces is purchased from Spanish-speaking South American countries? Does he not think it more likely that the ban on British beef would be lifted by the European Union if it saw that the British Government were backing British beef?

    The Prime Minister: I have not seen the particular answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I assure him that the British Government back British beef. That has been apparent in the resources that have been put into supporting the beef industry during the difficult past year or so.

    Sir George Gardiner: My right hon. Friend will have read of the campaign being waged by the British section of the European Movement to persuade the voters to scrap the pound and to move towards a federal European state. In view of the vast sums being given by the European Commission to that movement, will he say how much British taxpayers’ money is being laundered through the Commission for that rather dubious exercise?

    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that without notice I can give a figure to my–to the hon. Gentleman on that particular matter. I would add that, from all that I read and understand, there is quite a lot of money available to both sides of the argument.

     

    Q5. Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Fraser: As this is probably the last opportunity I shall have to ask the Prime Minister a question, may I, as one ex-Lambeth councillor to another, wish him a long and happy retirement? It might have been otherwise–because does he realise that when he was running a housing department in Lambeth, under a Labour Government, he started more municipal homes to rent in one year than every single housing authority in England and Wales is now starting in the current year, and that the shortfall is by no means made up by housing associations?

    The Prime Minister: The reason for that, of course, was the dereliction and despair that I inherited from the Labour council, which had spent 30 years damaging the quality of life in Lambeth and has continued to do so whenever it has managed to persuade the people of Lambeth to re-elect it.

    Mr. Dykes: If my right hon. Friend has the chance during his busy day, will he reconsider the strange question of the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner)–a man of unshakeable principles for many years, as we know–whose description of European Movement funding is a travesty of the truth? The sums involved are extremely modest compared with the millions spent by Sir James Goldsmith on his own campaign, which is triumphantly scoring 0.3 per cent. in the opinion polls?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend has made his point very clearly and forcefully.

     

    Sanctions (Libya)

    Q6. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the impact on sanctions against Libya of the legal actions by the United States authorities against (a) Juval Aviv and (b) Les Coleman.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. Mr. Aviv’s acquittal has no bearing on the case against the two Libyans accused in respect of Lockerbie. Legal proceedings against Mr. Coleman are pending in the United States, and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment on them.

    Mr. Dalyell: Have not the American courts driven the proverbial coach and horses through the case of the American Government on Libya? Does the Prime Minister realise that many serious people in legal Edinburgh doubt whether the Crown Office now has a substantial case to provide the basis for sanctions against Libya? Given the view of the families, could there be another fatal accident inquiry into these tragic events to get the truth?

    The Prime Minister: It is not for me to say whether the Crown Office has a case or not; it clearly believes that it does. I have made inquiries in the light of the question that the hon. Gentleman tabled, and I am advised that all the theories about responsibility for Lockerbie, including those of Mr. Aviv and Mr. Coleman, were thoroughly investigated. The evidence supports charges against the accused Libyans, and not against anybody else. The hon. Gentleman asks for a further inquiry of some sort. As he knows, there have been a number of inquiries already–a fatal accident inquiry that was held in public, a police inquiry, a Transport Select Committee inquiry, an air accident investigation branch inquiry, and the US presidential commission. In the light of those, I do not believe that a further inquiry would be productive.

     

    Engagements

    Q8. Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend deplore, as I do, the increasing tendency for Government policy to be discussed as a result of leaks in the media and elsewhere? Does he share my increasing concern about that trend?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly do. It means that policies that are legitimately a matter for discussion in the House are often discussed and misunderstood before the details of the policies or the Select Committee report have been made public. That is damaging. I believe that the leaking of Select Committee reports, as happened last night, is an abuse of the procedures of the House. On that matter, I entirely share the views of my hon. Friend.

     

    Q10. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 March.

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

    Mr. Barnes: It is probably seven weeks to the general election. Will not many people get a shock to find that their names are not on electoral registers? Why cannot we be told how many people are on the electoral registers in England and Wales, which should have been available for a month, before the House dissolves for a general election?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, electoral registers are published at the appropriate time. I believe that when he raised the matter about three weeks ago I told him that the full count is likely to be available towards the end of March.

  • PMQT – 20 February 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. O’Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. O’Hara: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite all the Government’s attempts to massage and manipulate the figures, national health service waiting lists are again at record levels? There is a waiting list of 179,000 in my area of the north-west alone. Could it just be that the Government’s policy of replacing 50,000 nurses with 20,000 managers and doubling the price of bureaucracy has something to do with this crisis?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken.

    Mr. Mackinlay: No, he is not.

    The Prime Minister: Yes he is, and I will explain precisely why.

    Waiting lists are broadly the same as last year. They have fallen very dramatically during the present Parliament. If the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O’Hara) would care to look at the figures for the period before the health reforms and the patient’s charter, he will see that more than 200,000 people had waited for more than a year, of whom 80,000 had waited for more than two years. At the end of December, only 2 per cent. of patients-–22,000-–had been waiting for more than a year, and the number who had waited for more than 18 months was down to 123.

    The fact is that more people are being treated, they are being treated more swiftly, and they are being treated better.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that last month the Treasury repaid £6,000 million of debt? Will he also confirm that, if anyone sought to spend an extra £30,000 million of public money, they could do so only by increasing taxes, increasing borrowing and increasing interest rates, all of which would put an end to the economic recovery that is the envy of the whole of the rest of western Europe?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct on both counts. Certainly, if anything remotely approximating to £30,000 million were spent in the next Parliament in addition to current spending plans, taxes and interest rates would rise, and I have no doubt that it would have very severe effects on the economy as a whole. As for debt, I was delighted to see that £6 billion had been repaid in the past month-–

    Mr. Skinner: Who put it up?

    The Prime Minister: I will just remind the hon. Gentleman that we have a lower debt ratio than any other major economy in Europe. I will remind him that, in every single year since we came to power, the debt ratio has been lower than in any single year in which he supported a Labour Government.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that although, of course, the Government are hostile to a single currency on a non-convergent basis, the Government-–I quote the Chancellor-–

    “doesn’t have a hostile attitude to the single currency . . . The position remains that we have an open option.”

    Those words were repeated by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister repeat those words and say that he agrees specifically with his Chancellor and his Deputy Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister: Of course, if there were not arguments in both directions, we would not have kept our options open. Of course I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has said in very clear terms that he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will he disown Conservative central office, which has been briefing that, in effect, he has closed the option of joining a single currency?

    The Prime Minister: No one has been briefing to that effect. The Cabinet set out its position some time ago. It has been reaffirmed on a number of occasions. I reaffirm it again today. It was set out perfectly clearly. The right hon. Gentleman can forget the minor textual exegesis and stick with the facts: that the policy was set out perfectly clearly and that that remains the policy. I hope that the leader of the Labour party might now care to examine the different statements of members of his shadow Cabinet over recent weeks.

     

    Q3. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the superb and often inadequately recognised work carried out by the Prince of Wales’s group of charities? Quite apart from offering practical help to more than 150,000 young people, it has established more than 60,000 jobs. Will my right hon. Friend endorse the project that I visited in my constituency this week, where the Prince’s Trust rehabilitated a park? By such projects young people take practical steps to serve their local community, while at the same time establishing self-reliance.

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that. Voluntary service plays a very important part in the fabric of life in this country, and I know of no nation in the world in which the sum total of voluntary service matches that of the United Kingdom. The work done by the Prince’s Trust and other voluntary bodies is absolutely magnificent, and the Government will continue to give their support to it.

    Mr. Ashdown: Let us see. Last week, the Health Secretary told us that the Conservatives would abolish a Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Secretary said, oh no, they would not. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government were hostile to a single currency and the Chancellor said, oh no, they were not. Has it yet occurred to the Prime Minister what is so plain and evident to everybody else-–that his divided Cabinet has given up fighting for the interests of the country and has started instead to fight for his job after the election?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s commitment openly and certainly honestly-–I concede that-–to put up the rate of income tax will certainly help to keep me here on this Bench after the election.

    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does not my right hon. Friend have sympathy for the victims of the failed cultural revolution? In Islington, for example, it is estimated that up to 50 per cent. of children are educated outside the borough. What does he have to say to those poor parents who are now driven to flee from a Labour administration and become educational refugees across the face of London?

    The Prime Minister: I think that it was the leader of the Labour party who said, “You can’t tell what a Government is like until it is in power.” In Islington, Labour is in power, and my hon. Friend points out vividly what it is like. If parents are fleeing Islington, as we understand they are, it certainly is a new version of the term “school run”.

     

    Sanctions (Libya)

    Q4. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the consequences for (a) the imposition of sanctions on Libya and (b) the case against Libyan nationals of the dismissal of James Thurman from the service of the United States Government.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. The case against the two accused Libyans does not depend on any evidence that Mr. Thurman might give.

    Mr. Dalyell: Has Thurman been reassigned to other duties for fabricating forensic evidence?

    The Prime Minister: I am certainly not aware that that is the case. If the hon. Gentleman has any information that it is, or any information that he thinks bears on this matter-–

    Mr. Dalyell: It is in the New York Times.

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am not an avid and daily reader of the New York Times. If he has any information that is pertinent to this case, and would care to provide me with it, I will certainly undertake to have it carefully examined.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As senior Scottish advocates have said that it would be impossible for the two accused to have a fair trial in Scotland because of press publicity, and as the Libyan Government have now stated that they will hand over the two accused to the Arab League for committal to trial in The Hague or anywhere else, would it not help those who lost their relatives and friends at Lockerbie to have the issue resolved? My right hon. Friend is, as we all know, basically a straight, decent person, so will he endeavour to solve the problem and stop simply engaging in the throwing of insults? Could we not solve it in the interests of those who lost their relatives and friends at Lockerbie?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly want a solution to this problem. We would like a solution as much as the relatives, but we need a proper criminal trial and there are genuine and practical difficulties in trying to establish such a trial in a third country. I think that many hon. Members, including-–if my hon. Friend will permit me to say so-–me, would, on grounds of principle, find a trial in a third country very difficult to accept. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] I shall tell hon. Members why. It could suggest that a trial in Scotland or the United States would not be fair.

    I am not prepared to accept that premise in terms of a trial in Scotland. Nor do I think that it would be remotely attractive for us to allow alleged terrorists to dictate where they may or may not be tried. That would be a bad principle. The Security Council resolutions say that they should be tried in Scotland or the United States-–two countries with a particular interest in the matter.

    I have to add that I am very doubtful that the Libyans would deliver the accused for such a trial, even if one were to be set up, but, for the reasons that I have set out, the trial should be either in Scotland, which would be the preference, or in the United States.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February.

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

    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Prime Minister share my genuine concern about the outrageous activities of the directors of Camelot in attempting to take gambling on the lottery into every home in the land and extend their links with rather devious gambling projects abroad? Would it not be possible for him to stop this development? Otherwise, he will leave a legacy of children who were brought up in the midst of gambling mania.

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the lottery is very tightly regulated and there will be no changes to the structure or content of the constituent games without the specific involvement of the director general. The Government have no intention of allowing the good name of the lottery to be jeopardised. I think that the hon. Gentleman would share my pleasure at the sheer scale of the resources produced by the lottery for good causes. Today, for example, the heritage lottery fund is awarding £140 million to 24 of the nation’s best loved museums.

    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that efficient professional administration is vital to the success of the national health service? Does he recall that, when we decided to modernise the system by getting rid of the whole regional tier of NHS bureaucracy, the Labour party was against it? What does he therefore think of its promises to save money on NHS bureaucracy?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that there were substantial savings to be made by the abolition of the regional health authority tier, and that those savings were opposed by the Labour party. The health service is one of the most efficient health services in the world and, in terms of management expenditure, it is now 25 per cent. more efficient than in 1979.

     

    Electoral Registration

    Q6. Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce proposals to encourage registration on supplementary lists of those missing from electoral registers before the announcement of the date of the general election.

    The Prime Minister: I see no need to do so. The vast majority of eligible electors are registered and a well-established claims procedure exists for those who are not.

    Mr. Barnes: Why will the Government not publish the number of people who are currently on electoral registers? What have they got to hide? Are the figures as bad as they were last year, when at least 2 million people were missing from the registers? Why cannot we have a massive campaign to put people on supplementary lists, which could be added to lists of those who are eligible to vote at the general election? The Halifax building society organised a massive campaign for what it called its “big vote”. The general election is the biggest vote of all, and all our people should be entitled to exercise their vote.

    The Prime Minister: I, of course, agree with that. The Conservative party has done all it can to ensure that people are registered to vote at the general election. As for the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked, the 1996 electoral registers for the United Kingdom contained just under 44 million names-–the highest number ever. New registers came into force on 16 February, and the figures for them should be available by the end of March.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 December 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Libya (Sanctions)

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what action he is taking to enter into dialogue with Arab and African countries about sanctions against Libya;

    (2) what recent representations he has received from (a) France, (b) Arab states and (c) the USA on the reconsideration of UN sanctions against Libya.

    The Prime Minister: When the need arises, we remind other Governments, including Arab and African Governments, that sanctions against Libya must remain in place until Libya complies fully with the requirements of the United Nations Security Council’s resolutions. These requirements include the surrender of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing for trial in Scotland or the United States.

    The Arab League and some Arab Governments have pressed for sanctions to be lifted and a compromise reached on Lockerbie.

    The US and French Governments agree with us that sanctions against Libya must remain in place until Libya complies fully with the requirements of the UN Security Council’s resolutions.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

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

     

    Council of Europe and WEU

    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the 1997 ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

    The Prime Minister: The 1997 ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be opened in Strasbourg on 27 January 1997. The delegation from the United Kingdom for the Session will consist of 19 members of the Conservative party, 15 members of the Labour party and two members from the minority parties.

    The appointments of representatives and substitutes have been made on the basis of nominations by the parties concerned in accordance with the resolution of the House on 22 May 1992, Official Report, column 682 and the House of Lords on 18 June 1992, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 290-92.

    The same delegation will be representing the United Kingdom Parliament at the Assembly of the Western European Union.

    Representatives from the Government benches will be:

    My hon. Friend, the Member for Reading, West, (Sir A. Durant) who will continue to act as leader of both delegations.

    My right hon. and hon. Friends the Members for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), and Lord Newall.

    Representatives from the Labour party will be:

    The hon. Members for: Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), for Tooting (Mr. Cox), for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), and Lord Kirkhill.

    The representative from the minority parties will be the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston).

    The following substitutes have been appointed to act as necessary on behalf of the delegates from the Government benches: The hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir W. Bowden), for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), for Newark (Mr. Alaxander), Baroness Hooper and Earl of Dundee.

    From the Labour Party the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and Baroness Gould of Potternewton.

    From the minority parties: Lord Mackie of Benshie.

    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the latest information bulletin of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union.

    The Prime Minister: I have done so today.

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Prime Minister how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the public appointments unit.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 December 1996]: Eight of the individuals appointed by me in the last year were first identified by the public appointments unit.

     

    State Opening of Parliament

    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to reduce the expenditure on the state opening of Parliament; and what is his latest calculation of the total cost of the last state opening.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 December 1996]: Expenditure on the state opening of Parliament properly reflects the nature of the occasion. The deployment of police officers to maintain public order on the route of the procession is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

    On the cost of the last state opening, I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 11 November, Official Report, column 32, and to the answers given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, 19 November, Official Report, column 504 and by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Home Office, 16 December, Official Report, column 450.

  • PMQT – 25 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

    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. Hendry: Putting to one side the comments in some newspapers, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the England football team on their magnificent successes so far in Euro 96–showing, in the words of the song, that “football’s coming home”? Will he join me and the rest of the country in wishing them every success and the best of luck in the semi-finals tomorrow night?

    The Prime Minister: Willingly. Euro 96 has been a stunning success so far, and I congratulate the teams on the spirit they have displayed in the games and everyone who has attended those games. I hope that that spirit remains right the way through the rest of this competition. It has been a friendly and carnival-like atmosphere so far, and I hope that nothing changes that between now and the final in a few days’ time.

    Mr. Blair: That is a consensus in which I am delighted to join, and I entirely concur with the Prime Minister’s sentiments.

    Given the strength of feeling about the proposed sale of Ministry of Defence properties, not only among Opposition Members but among all hon. Members, is the Prime Minister prepared to review that proposal urgently, particularly in the case of tenants who are in place now?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that we value the role of the armed forces as much as anyone in the land, and probably more than most. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what is proposed with the married quarters sale. We intend to ensure that the protection of married quarters is safeguarded while at the same time improving the quality and management of service housing. In practice, the sale will produce about £100 million for improvements and refurbishment in service families’ homes. I think that, when the matter is fully understood and debated, many may see it in a different light.

    Mr. Blair: I think that people do see it in a different light, because they wonder whether that is, in fact, what will happen. May I simply tell the Prime Minister that the concerns are that this is a poor deal for the taxpayer, because these properties have been sold on the cheap and there is a guaranteed income stream for the property developer after sale? It is a poor deal for the armed forces, because they will have to apply for those houses to come back to them after the 25 years is up. It is also a very poor deal for service men and women, because their estates may be broken up and changed without their consent, and they may be required to exchange housing sites altogether at the property developer’s option. In those circumstances, is it wise to press ahead until those objections have been reviewed thoroughly?

    The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Gentleman sets out the matter, I begin to see some of the misunderstandings that have caused so much concern. To reiterate on his first point, the sale will release substantial sums for improving and refurbishing service families’ homes. Secondly, those improvements aside, there will be little change for the occupants. The sale will emphatically not mean that service people’s rents will rise; I make that clear to the right hon. Gentleman. It will not mean, as he clearly assumes, problem families being dumped on Ministry of Defence estates. It will not mean service personnel being moved against their will. However, it will allow the Ministry of Defence to reduce the number of empty, unused and unneeded homes. Not to do that would not be a proper use of resources, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees.

    Mr. Blair: Without going through each of the facts, I simply say to the Prime Minister that there is no dispute about the fact that surplus sites that are empty should be sold off. Questions arise where there are sitting service tenants. Yes, it is the case that a small amount of the sale money will find its way to the Ministry of Defence, but large amounts will be paid out by the taxpayer in guaranteed market rents to the new owners. It is not the case that this is a good deal for the taxpayer.

    The reason why the sale has been pushed through with such indecent haste has nothing to do with the armed forces; it has to do with the Chancellor’s need to plug the hole in the nation’s finances. The sale will undermine morale among service men and women and it could, as many independent people have pointed out, do incalculable long-term damage to the armed forces.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. The sale is not a matter that has suddenly arisen. It has been under consideration for a number of years in order to determine how it can be done to release resources, not least resources available to the Exchequer to enable equipment to be purchased for the armed services. The right hon. Gentleman knows of the substantial additional equipment purchases that have been sanctioned in the past year or so. I reiterate that we will ensure that the married quarters are safeguarded, but we also seek to improve the quality and the management of service housing. When people understand the full implications of what is proposed, they will not see the matter as the right hon. Gentleman has done this afternoon.

     

    Q2. Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend remind me and all those people under 35 years of age whether it was a Conservative Government who let inflation rip to 26.9 per cent? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Was it a Conservative Government who allowed the higher rate of tax to go to 98p in the pound? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Was it a Conservative Government who did not pay the senior citizens’ Christmas bonus? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Was it a Conservative Government who had 176 Members of Parliament totally sponsored by the unions? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Or–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. No wonder I get so many complaints in my mail bag every day about Prime Minister’s Question Time. Will the hon. Gentleman please bring his question to a conclusion?

    Mr. Evans: Or was it that lot opposite? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”]

    The Prime Minister: The answer to my hon. Friend, as I heard it, was no, no, no, no and yes.

    Mr. Ashdown: It is not my job to defend another party. However, the Prime Minister has rightly committed himself and the rest of us to defending standards in politics. Will he now tell us whether he personally approves of the unpleasant campaign being run by his party chairman to attack the Labour party through the Labour leader’s wife?

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Mr. Ashdown: I note that he disapproves. Does the right hon. Gentleman really want an election campaign run around personality attacks which extend even to our families? Does he approve of that?

    The Prime Minister: There is no such campaign, nor will there be. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I speak from some experience. There will be no such campaign in my party, there is no such campaign and the right hon. Gentleman should know that.

    Mr. William Powell: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the report prepared on behalf of the Federation of Veterinaries of Europe by Professor Marc Vandervelde of the university of Berne in which he demonstrates beyond any doubt that there are thousands of unreported cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy throughout the European Community and that the worst examples are found in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Portugal? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the report is made available to hon. Members and to members of other Parliaments throughout the European Union?

    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly study the report to which my hon. Friend refers and see that it has appropriate circulation. It is clear that, for some years, the enforcement measures in the United Kingdom have been a good deal more rigorous than those in many other countries, although there is certainly BSE elsewhere. As the European Union vets seem to be saying, it is clear that, without the level of control that we rightly have in the United Kingdom, doubts may remain about the safety of beef. I shall certainly study the report to which my hon. Friend refers.

     

    Libya

    Q3. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions since the statement by the then Prime Minister on the bombing of Libya on 16 April 1986, Official Report, columns 875-81, Her Majesty’s Government have tried to secure information from (a) the German and (b) the United States authorities about the alleged Libyan involvement in the Berlin bombings.

    The Prime Minister: We naturally remain in close contact with both the United States and German authorities on terrorist related matters, but the evidence of Libyan responsibility for the bombing of the discotheque in Berlin was already clear at the time of my right hon. and noble Friend’s statements on 15 and 16 April 1986, as she herself stated.

    Mr. Dalyell: Have the Government had access to the files of the Stasi in relation to Yousef-Salam, who may have been a provocative agent?

    The Prime Minister: We remain in regular contact. The Stasi files found after the fall of the Berlin wall reveal that a Stasi agent had penetrated the group responsible for the bombing and detailed reports on preparations. The Stasi believe that the man to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, who also has other aliases, led the terrorists. That man is a Palestinian, not a Libyan, but at the time of the bombing he worked for the Libyan People’s Bureau in East Berlin, and he is and remains the principal suspect.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: Although it is good news that the issues of the Berlin bombing will now at last be resolved in court, do we not also have a responsibility to the relatives of the Lockerbie victims to seek to resolve that problem in a similar way, particularly as the Libyans have now suggested a trial in The Hague with a Scottish judge? Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that, while the Government are playing straight and open in all their dealings, a number of European states are openly flouting the sanctions to which we are adhering?

    The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend’s point about a trial in The Hague with a Scottish judge, but on the basis of the evidence given to me, I believe that it is right for the Lord Advocate to continue to pursue the matter in Scottish jurisdiction. I would not wish to see it moved away from Scottish jurisdiction as a result of plea bargaining by the Libyans or for any other reason. The crime was committed in Scottish air, so it is right that the matter should be pursued in Scotland. There can be no reasonable doubt about the independence of the judiciary in Scotland or about the independence, honesty or honour of the Lord Advocate, who would lead the prosecution.

    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister’s reply, I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

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

    Mr. McFall: Perhaps I do not speak for the entire nation, but will the Prime Minister accept from me as a Scotsman my best wishes for the success of the England football team tomorrow night at Wembley? Does he agree that the competition has been enhanced by the thousands of European visitors who have flocked into the United Kingdom? Will he condemn unreservedly some elements of the tabloid press that are promoting xenophobia and running a real risk of spoiling the enjoyment of millions of people as well as threatening the good order and the policing of a valuable tournament?

    The Prime Minister: Everyone will be grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s best wishes to the England team. I hope that they play well and have a satisfactory result in their semi-final tomorrow. Visitors from Europe and some who come from beyond are very welcome indeed in this country for these finals. I share the views of the hon. Gentleman, who clearly had one particular newspaper in mind for the nature of the campaign that it has run over recent days. It deserves the criticism that has been heaped on it.

    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd that the British taxpayer should have to pay hundreds of millions of pounds to illegal immigrants and the 97 per cent. of asylum seekers who turn out to be bogus? Does he also agree that it is a great pity that some members of the judiciary go out of their way to show how out of touch they are with the British people’s feelings? They could quite easily remedy the situation by not making political statements and by doing something to contain the burgeoning power of judicial review.

    The Prime Minister: In the benefits case to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, the courts ruled on a rather narrow point. It is widely accepted that our policy is right. It removes benefits from three groups of people: illegal immigrants, people who entered the country on the condition that they said they could support themselves and people who have already been found not to be genuine refugees. I believe that the vast majority of people agree that those three groups should not receive benefits at the expense of the British taxpayer.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the criminal incidents since 1985, other than the blowing up of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, for which Her Majesty’s Government attribute responsibility to Libya.

    The Prime Minister: We believe that Libya was responsible for the murder of a number of Libyan dissidents, mainly in the late 1980s, including some in Europe, but none in Britain.

    We also believe that Libya may have been involved in other criminal incidents outside the UK, including the bombing of a UTA flight in September 1989. It would not be appropriate to provide further detail.

     

    Departmental Expenditure

    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years (a) 1979-80, (b) 1989-90, (c) 1991-92, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95 and (f) 1995-96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996-97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 January 1996]: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by (a) his Department, (b) his Department’s agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979-80, (ii) 1989-90, (iii) 1991-92, (iv) 1993-94, (v) 1994-95, (vi) 1995-96 and (vii) 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 30 January 1996]: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department’s agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for (a) 1979-80, (b) 1989-90, (c) 1991-92, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95, (f) 1995-96 and (g) 1996-97.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 30 January 1996]: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

    Mr. Robin Cook: To ask the Prime Minister which Minister (a) took the decision which set the terms of reference for the Scott inquiry, (b) took the decision to appoint Sir Richard Scott to head the inquiry and (c) took the decision to establish the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer Tuesday 6 February 1996]: The Government set up the inquiry, as I set out in my parliamentary answer on 16 November 1992, Official Report, column 74-75.

    Mr. Cook: To ask the Prime Minister if he will act upon recommendations made in Sir Richard Scott’s forthcoming report.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 February 1996]: The Government will consider carefully any recommendations made by Sir Richard Scott.

  • PMQT – 9 January 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th January 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 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.

    Mr. Flynn: What democratic legitimacy has a Prime Minister who lost the last vote in the House, who has lost every by-election by a mile, and who is now being abandoned by some of his most honourable Members, including the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson), who is warmly welcomed to the Opposition Benches today? How can a party at war with itself provide good government? Is it not degrading of the Prime Minister to deny the country an election and the choice between an exhausted Tory Government and an invigorated young Labour party? They cannot command the confidence of the people. The powerful cry from this country’s people to the Government is to go–

    Madam Speaker: Order. There are others who want to ask the Prime Minister questions.

    The Prime Minister: The legitimacy might have something to do with the largest popular vote ever recorded at the last general election and a majority in the House.

    Mr. Brooke: In his busy life, did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity yesterday to read in The Times, in the series on aging, a self-analysis by a middle-class married woman, in which she identified seven what she called

    “irritating little signs of the spiral towards death”,

    and did he note that she placed at their heart having voted for the Liberal Democrats at the last general election?

    The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, I am afraid that I did not see that article, and I am extremely sorry that I missed it.

    Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister tell us what on earth possessed him to resurrect the idea of Post Office privatisation on Sunday? Is it not exactly because of policies such as that that his party is in disarray, that his Members of Parliament are defecting and that the country wants a change of Government?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has just had an extremely interesting trip to Japan. While he was there, he might have been better occupied if he had travelled on the privatised Japanese railway–a policy which he and his colleagues also oppose for this country. What the right hon. Gentleman, despite his rhetoric, does not in his heart understand is that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector–[Interruption.] I am delighted to see the opposition to private ownership coming from Opposition Members. Private ownership enables people to have, if I may use the phrase, a stake in this country.

    Mr. Blair: He can tell that to consumers of water and electricity. Is it not obvious that the only reason that Post Office privatisation is back on the agenda is to placate that faction of the Conservative party that wants to privatise anything and everything? Is it not precisely because the whole business of his Government is now about pleasing one faction or another of the Conservative party that the country has given up on the Conservatives as a serious party of government?

    The Prime Minister: For the right hon. Gentleman, who tries to tell the world that he is a moderniser who has brought his party into the 1990s, to oppose–as he does lock, stock and barrel–private ownership of industry in this country, when prices are falling and services are improving, shows the extent to which the glossy words he uses are not matched by what he really believes in.

    Mr. Blair: If he is so keen and confident about privatising the Post Office, the Prime Minister should put it in his manifesto and call a general election to decide the matter.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have observed over the years that we have included in our manifesto many policies to which he and his party have objected, and we have won elections on those policies. He should say whether he will re-nationalise those industries that are now in the private sector. What is the answer to that? He does not know and he cannot say, because, if he says yes, he upsets one half of his party and if he says no, he upsets the other half.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Assuming that my right hon. Friend has an extensive knowledge of the Bible, including the Old Testament and Genesis, will he ensure that the policies that he introduces do not enable the Cains of this generation to flourish any more than they did in biblical times?

    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that this party will remain the same centre-right broad church in the future as it has been throughout its history.

    Mr. Beith: Is it not clear that the Prime Minister cannot stop his colleagues from squabbling however many warnings he gives them on television? Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence now indulges in long-distance, intercontinental squabbling. As long as the Prime Minister has to face those elements in his party, he cannot address the concerns shared by thousands of people who voted for him last time, which were so clearly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson). Might he not now admit that the party is over for him?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that the hon. Lady has made a decision that she will, in due course, come to regret, for reasons that I have set out in the past. She has made her decision and will have to live with it, both in the short term and in the long term.

    Matters of concern for people in this country are mortgage rates, which are the lowest for 30 years; the basic rate of tax, which is the lowest for 50 years; unemployment, which is falling more rapidly here than anywhere else in Europe; and inflation, which is lower than it has been for 50 years. Those are matters about which the right hon. Gentleman used to attack the Conservative party some years ago; they are now being solved more successfully than they have been at any stage in the past. The right hon. Gentleman has no response to the economic prospects that now lie ahead of us.

    Mr. Garel-Jones: During his discussions this morning with the leader of the Spanish Opposition, did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to ask him why, after more than 10 years of socialism in Spain, that country still has the highest unemployment figures of western Europe?

    The Prime Minister: There is, of course, a close relationship across Europe between socialist Governments who have been in power for a long time, the level of social costs that they apply, the adoption of the social chapter and the unemployment levels in those countries. That is why we are so determined not to adopt those policies, but to ensure that our economic policies create jobs and do not destroy them for dogmatic reasons.

     

    Lockerbie

    Q2. Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister if, when he last met President Clinton, they discussed the advisability of continuing with the pursuit of those persons alleged to have committed the murders at Lockerbie in December 1988.

    The Prime Minister: On 29 November, I discussed Lockerbie and Libya briefly with President Clinton. Both Britain and the United States remain committed to bringing to justice those responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. The evidence supports the charges against the two accused.

    Dr. Godman: Why does the Prime Minister place so much emphasis on the need to try such persons in either Scotland or America? Why America? Why does he not tell President Clinton that it makes much better sense to try those individuals at the High Court in Edinburgh or, failing that, at an international tribunal at The Hague? Surely he cannot expect the Libyan authorities to allow those individuals to subject themselves to a television show trial in Washington.

    The Prime Minister: We are not asking them to. We think that the trial should take place in Scotland. We certainly do not think that it would be desirable– necessarily–for it to take place at The Hague. If, as they have occasionally intimated, the Libyans accept Scottish law and a Scottish judge, I know of no good reason whatsoever why the accused should not appear before a court in Scotland. That is where the crime was committed–above Scotland–and that is where I believe the accused should most properly stand trial. I hope that that will occur and I hope that the accused will be surrendered by the Libyan Government so that justice can be seen to be done.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As we have an absolute obligation to the relatives of those who died in that appalling massacre, and as the people of Libya are suffering terribly from the policy of sanctions, what is the argument against passing a simple law in this House that would enable the two accused persons to be tried at The Hague in exactly the same way as other foreign alleged criminals–from Serbia, for example–are being tried? Should we not try to resolve the problem quickly in the interests of those who lost relatives in that appalling carnage?

    The Prime Minister: I, too, have seen some of the suggestions that the accused should be surrendered for trial in one place or another, but there is no guarantee whatever that the accused would be made available for trial if we went to the trouble of setting up a trial in a third country–at, for example, The Hague.

    On a wider but relevant point, I do not think that we ought to allow suspected terrorists to dictate where and how they should be tried. That would imply an acceptance of the accused’s assertion that they would not receive a fair trial in Scotland. That is not an assertion that I believe the House should accept.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January.

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

    Mr. Campbell: Since the Prime Minister’s majority is getting smaller and smaller, will he stop the privatisation of the railways, which is costing taxpayers £1 billion, stop the back-door privatisation of the health service, and certainly not go ahead with the privatisation of the Post Office? Will he resign now, call a general election and take his little creeps with him?

    The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is of course no. I am rather surprised to hear that question from him. Unless I misremember, it was the hon. Gentleman who, not very long ago, said that the Labour leadership

    “got it into their heads that Labour is unelectable unless it goes down this social democratic road. That is rubbish”.

    The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would claim that that is exactly the road that they are going down. On that basis, and considering what the hon. Gentleman just said, he ought not to want an election.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alexander: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January.

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

    Mr. Alexander: In view of the healthy economic statistics that my right hon. Friend gave the House a moment ago, especially the fact that inflation is now at its lowest level for 50 years, is it not abundantly clear to all independent observers that Britain is a success story? Will he confirm to the House and the country that he has no intention of putting all that at risk by coming forward with the sort of half-baked ideas that we had from the midday sun in Singapore recently?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely correct about the success that the country now has, which is recognised in almost every country in the world with, perhaps, the solitary exception of this one. I think it is becoming increasingly apparent that we have success. We have provided the basis to turn our country into the most enterprising country in Europe. We are now in a position to return to a tax-cutting agenda and to give people more choice, more opportunity and genuine ownership–a genuine stake in this society. That is the way in which we believe it is right to proceed, and will proceed.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January.

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

    Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Defence that there is no place in the modern Conservative party for those who believe in closer ties with Europe?

    The Prime Minister: Sadly for the hon. Lady, that is not what my right hon. Friend said.

    Mr. Hargreaves: In view of the number of questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber during recent Defence questions, will my right hon. Friend take time to speak with the Secretary of State for Defence on the subject of the forthcoming order of ambulances for the Army?

    The Prime Minister: Nothing has yet been decided on the subject of the order of ambulances for the Army. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who answered questions this afternoon, will report the views of the House to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Libya

    Mr. John Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on what Libya has done to comply with Security Council resolutions 731 and 748 and Her Majesty’s Government’s policy to bring Libya to compliance.

    The Prime Minister : It is our policy that Libya should implement in full the two SCRs to which the hon. Member has referred. Neither we nor the other co- sponsors of the resolution in question, France, and the United States, will be satisfied with less. Unfortunately, I cannot report more than limited success at this stage.

    During the summer the Libyan authorities closed, and in some cases dismantled, many of the camps previously used to house or train terrorists. They have also given us information on their links with the Provisional Irish Republican Army which we believe may prove useful. We welcome both these developments as steps towards demonstrating that Libya has renounced terrorism called for in SCR 731 and 748.

    But the Libyans must take further steps in order to comply fully with those resolutions. In particular, it is necessary for them to surrender for trial in Scotland or the United States the two accused of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and for them to satisfy the French demands for co-operation on the investigation into the UTA bombing. Libya can be sure that a trial in Scotland will be fair, and in accordance with normal Scottish procedures, including trial by jury. If the Libyans convince us that they have decided to surrender the two suspects, then we would be willing to meet them to discuss the mechanics of handing them over.

    We have no hidden agenda, and we are not seeking to use this issue to undermine the regime in Libya. But it is now a year since the warrants for the two accused of Lockerbie were issued. There can be no question of any relaxation of United Nations sanctions, complete or in part, until Libya has surrendered the two accused of Lockerbie and satisfied French requirements on UTA. If they do, this situation will be transformed. If they do not, the consequences for Libya are bound to be increasingly serious.

     

    Iraq (Exports)

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the letter, reference 000399, dated 20 June 1990, from the principal private secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to the private secretary to the chairman of Customs and Excise, under the heading “Exports to Iraq” which was copied to him as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the previous letter, reference 000395, copies of which have been sent to him.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 November 1992] : The first document to which the hon. Member refers relates to consultations between Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise and the Department of Trade and Industry prior to a fact-finding visit by Customs officers to the premises of Matrix Churchill. A reply from Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise to the Department of Trade and Industry dated 22 June 1990 made it clear that decisions about any follow-up action would rest with the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise in accordance with their statutory responsibilities. These documents were copied to my Private Secretary in the Treasury. Treasury records do not reveal whether I saw this correspondence, but I have no recollection of having done so. The then Paymaster General was responsible in the first instance for matters involving Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise.

    The second document is an internal submission dated 14 June 1990 to the right hon. Lord Ridley, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, concerning the implications of the visit by customs officers to Matrix Churchill. It was not copied to other Ministers. It will be for Lord Justice Scott to consider the relevance of this document to the implementation of Government policy on the export of defence equipment to Iraq.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 June 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EC Presidency

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the cost of (i) each of the special presidency events and (ii) each of the other special events that will be incurred by the United Kingdom as set out in the booklet “The United Kingdom Presidency of the European Community”.

    The Prime Minister : Of the 79 special events listed in the United Kingdom presidency programme booklet, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is providing funding support for 11 at a total cost of £315, 426. These are :

    |£

    —————————————————————-

    Presidency Art Exhibition, Brussels |100,500

    Britain and Europe Summer School, LSE |5,000

    European Night at the Proms, Albert Hall |22,776

    UK Presidency Conference, QEII Centre |113,650

    EC R&D meeting of Chief Scientists and European Parliamentary Committee, Edinburgh |5,000

    Women of Europe Awards, FCO |2,000

    EC Organ Festival, Bolton |15,000

    Association of European Journalists Conference |7,000

    Advent for Europe Concert, Durham |5,000

    New Years Eve Festival and Concert, Barbican |35,000

    Beacon Europe, throughout Europe |5,000

    Other Government Departments and the EC Commission are helping to organise or finance a further 32 events. EC ministerial meetings in the UK, including the European Council, are being funded from the FCO presidency budget of £9.8 million.

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister how many events in the calendar of special events for the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community are taking place in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The presidency programme booklet includes two events in Wales, the informal meeting of EC Employment and Social Affairs Ministers in Chepstow and the presidency concert at the Llangollen international eisteddfod. Further events in Wales are planned but not yet confirmed.

    In addition, the European arts festival includes 58 events in Wales and Beacon Europe will take place throughout the United Kingdom.

     

    Death Penalty

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to abolish the death penalty for those offences for which it remains in force in England and Wales.

    The Prime Minister : The abolition of the death penalty is a matter which only Parliament can decide, each Member of Parliament voting according to his or her conscience. The Government have to abide by the decision of the House of Commons, which voted against the abolition of the death penalty during the last debate on capital punishment in December 1990.

     

    Child Health

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken, or will be taking, to promote as a priority the plan of action for survival, protection and development of children, agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting in Harare in 1991, for improving child health in Commonwealth countries in the present decade; what information he has received from other Commonwealth countries in regard to implementing the plan of action; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I presume that the right hon. Member is referring to the plan of action adopted by the World Summit for Children in 1990.

    In response to the summit’s call for national plans of action, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in conjunction with other Departments, has compiled a report, which was presented to the UNICEF secretariat at the end of February, outlining our policies for children in this country and the work of the United Kingdom’s aid programme of particular relevance to women and children in the third world. The report examines problem areas which persist in developed, industrialised societies and explains what measures the Government are taking to alleviate them in this country; and it reviews those areas of the United Kingdom’s aid programme such as primary health care, water and sanitation, and education which are of greatest direct impact on women and children in the developing countries. We plan to publish the report as a Command Paper before the end of the month.

    We understand that Commonwealth states are at various stages of preparation in work on their national reports.

     

    Nuclear Testing

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the United States Administration during his recent visit to Washington about the resumption of nuclear testing by the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : I had discussions on a range of matters with President Bush and other members of the US Administration. The Government’s position on nuclear testing remains as I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 12 May at column 90.

     

    Libya

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the French Government about United Nations sanctions against Libya.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : We have co -operated closely with France on this issue. Sanctions will remain in force until Libya has complied in full with UN Security Council resoluton 731, including handing over the Lockerbie suspects for trial in Scotland or the United States and meeting French demands over the UTA bombing.

     

    Treaty of Rome

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the privileges of British troops serving in other EC countries when the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome comes into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The privileges enjoyed by British troops serving in other EC countries are a matter for the Government and the Government of the member state concerned. Bilateral and multilateral arrangements apply. This provision will not be affected by the entry into force of the proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the diplomatic and other privileges of the European Commission and its employees when the proposed revised article 8 of the treaty of Rome enters into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The privileges and immunities of members of the Commission staff are governed by the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities 1965, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. These privileges and immunities are not altered by the proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will equalise the tax treatment of United Kingdom and other EC nationals when the proposed article 8b of the treaty of Rome on the right to vote in municipal elections takes effect.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The provisions concerning the right to vote in municipal elections have no implications for the basis of tax liability in this country, which will continue to be primarily determined by the residence status and domicile of each individual.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the diplomatic and other privileges of national representatives working in other member states when the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome enters into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : Such privileges are a matter for agreement between the Governments of the member states concerned and relevant multilateral agreements. None of the existing arrangements will be affected by the entry into force of the proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s reasons for agreeing to dual citizenship of nationals of the United Kingdom under the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The proposed new article 8 of the treaty of Rome would confer upon EC nationals limited additional rights, as citizens of the union, defined in the articles which follows. The Government consider that all these rights would confer worthwhile benefit upon United Kingdom citizens. The addition of further rights would require unanimity and national ratification.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister how he proposes to define the purposes of the proposed articles 8a and 8b of the treaty of Rome; and what legislative or other proposals he has to enable electoral registration officers to know whether a national of another member state is a resident for the purpose of these articles.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The proposed article 8a of the treaty of Rome to be added by the treaty on European union in itself establishes no new rights. Unanimity is required in the Council for any measures to facilitate the exercise of these existing rights or to expand them. No such proposals have been suggested. Proposed article 8b of the treaty of Rome makes it clear that the rights to vote and stand in municipal elections described therein should be exercised under the same conditions as enjoyed by nationals of the member state in question. In the United Kingdom registration on the electoral roll is sufficient proof of resident status for the purpose of voting and standing in elections.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to revise the oath of allegiance to give effect to the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : None. The concept of citizenship of the union confers an additional status on British citizens, and does not replace British citizenship or affect allegiance to the Crown.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister to which Department he proposes to transfer responsibility for relationships with the European Community if the proposed article 8 of the treaty of Rome enters into force.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The Government have no such plans.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he gave to proposing that the new article 3b of the treaty of Rome should be given retrospective effect.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The proposed article 3b of the treaty of Rome will have effect only when the treaty on European union enters into force. All Community institutions, including the European Court of Justice, will then be under a binding obligation to respect the principle of subsidiarity which it contains. There is, however, nothing to prevent the institutions operating in this way voluntarily, in advance of article 3b coming into effect. As presidency of the Community, the United Kingdom will encourage them to do so. There is evidence that the Commission is already doing this.

     

    European Monetary System

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what is the legal basis for the European monetary system; and whether its status will be changed if the Maastricht treaty takes effect.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The European monetary system is established by a resolution of the European Council. Its legal status will not be changed if the treaty on European union agreed at Maastricht takes effect.

     

    EC Citizenship

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the level of public support for the creation of Community citizenship by the Maastricht treaty.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 June 1992] : The Maastricht treaty as a whole is a good agreement for Britain, and has been commended by Parliament. The establishment of the concept of citizenship of the union will be helpful in ensuring that the position of individual citizens within the Community is respected and enhanced, in the areas in question–limited voting rights and consular protection.

  • PMQT – 18 June 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th June 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Official Visits

    Q1. Mr. Sumberg : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to Bury.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I shall be making further visits to many parts of the country and hope to include my hon. Friend’s constituency among them.

    Mr. Sumberg : Is my right hon. Friend aware that at tonight’s annual general meeting of the Bury, South Conservative association we shall celebrate our recent victories in the local and general elections and welcome my right hon. Friend’s recent speech on the citizen’s charter to the Adam Smith Institute, in which he made it absolutely clear that in the battle between the Goliaths, who want greater state intervention, and the Davids, who want greater individual freedom, he backs the Davids every time?

    The Prime Minister : I wish that I could be with my hon. Friend this evening for his celebrations. The people of Bury, South made a wise choice, and they certainly did in the general election. My hon. Friend is right : I want to see a change in attitude in many areas of public services. We need public services that meet what the public want, not what the so-called experts tell them they should have.

     

    Q2. Mr. Austin-Walker : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Woolwich.

    The Prime Minister : I will be making further visits to many parts of the country and hope to include different parts of London among them.

    Mr. Austin-Walker : Does the Prime Minister share the enthusiasm of the President of the Board of Trade for the economic regeneration of the east Thames corridor? Does he share the views of previous Secretaries of State for Transport that the Jubilee line is essential for that economic regeneration and that it can be achieved at far less cost to the Exchequer than building the east London river crossing and without the environmental damage that would ensue from the road?

    The Prime Minister : I hope that in due course we shall be able to proceed with the Jubilee line, but we shall wish to see the private sector contribution that we previously set as the sum necessary to ensure that we can proceed. Providing we can achieve that, I hope that we will be able to proceed with the Jubilee line. Economic regeneration is welcome everywhere.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Sir Anthony Durant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 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.

    Sir Anthony Durant : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in nuclear weapons that was agreed between President Bush and the Russian President is good news and is to be welcomed? However, will he assure the House and the nation that he will maintain strong United Kingdom defences within NATO and will continue with the Trident programme?

    The Prime Minister : I warmly welcome the announcements that were made after the meetings in Washington between President Bush and President Yeltsin. We shall certainly continue to maintain our own independent nuclear deterrent. We shall maintain it, build it, arm it and deploy Trident.

    Mr. Kinnock : On this day on which unemployment has gone above 2.7 million again, does the Prime Minister recall that it is exactly a year since he said that economic recovery would begin–and I use his words– “within weeks” and that Britain would come out of recession by the end of 1991? Why was he so absurdly wrong?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will have been very pleased to see the economic indicators this week in the light of that remark–very pleased indeed. He will have been pleased to see that manufacturing production has risen for three months in a row for the first time in two years, that retail sales are up again, that the rate of increase in average earnings has slowed further to 7 per cent. and is now at its lowest level for 25 years. While the increase in unemployment is very unwelcome, it is clearly now slowing, so I think that the right hon. Gentleman can now see that we are on the road to recovery.

    Mr. Kinnock : I am always glad to see any movement out of the trough into which this Government’s policies have pushed the British people and the British economy, but, after the Chancellor’s statement yesterday that Britain is three years away from full recovery, as he put it, is not it clear that whenever the Prime Minister or the Chancellor have made optimistic comments about the economy, they have simply not been telling the truth to the British people?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should not be misled by everything that he reads in newspaper headlines ; he should read the speech itself. He should recall that in January he relied a touch too heavily on a press report and criticised me when he was confusing taxes and interest rates. The reality was that what my right hon. Friend actually said yesterday was :

    “In two or three years’ time people will look back and see that it was now, at this critical juncture, that the right decision was taken.”

    He did not say that it would be two or three years before recovery.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister giving us a date for recovery? He used to be very anxious so to do. I remind him that this time last year he said that it would start “within weeks”. This time last year he said that there would be recovery by the end of the year. Why is he much more coy now, a year later, in giving us a firm forecast on when Britain can rejoin the countries that enjoy some growth, since we have now had two years with negative growth under his Government?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman should now know that we are on our way to recovery, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know perhaps why the recovery was later than it might have been, I quote the words of the general secretary of the Labour party who claimed that the Labour party did not win the election because of the

    “fear of high tax, plus general unease about [Labour’s] economic competence.”

    That did no good at all while the right hon. Gentleman was boasting that he would be sitting on this side of the Chamber.

    Mr. Renton : While I hope that the Irish people will reach a positive conclusion in their referendum today, does my right hon. Friend agree that the holding of referendums on major constitutional issues runs contrary to the practice of parliamentary sovereignty in this country and that further, it would be impossible to boil down the many complex issues of the 134-page treaty of Maastricht into one short, but fair and comprehensive question? Further, has the Prime Minister noted–

    Madam Speaker : Order. One question.

    Mr. Renton : –the recent twists and turns on the European issue by the Labour leader?

    Madam Speaker : Order. The right hon. Gentleman is being very unfair in putting so many questions in a short space of time. I call the Prime Minister to answer the first two.

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend’s comments on the subject of referendums. I believe that he states the classical position concerning parliamentary democracy.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Fyfe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

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

    Mrs. Fyfe : As the Prime Minister says no to a devolved Scottish Parliament, against the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people, and also says no to a referendum on how Scotland should be governed, will he tell us to what, after 10 weeks of taking stock, he is prepared to say yes?

    The Prime Minister : I shall tell the hon. Lady when we have concluded taking stock.

     

    Q5. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Evennett : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech to the Adam Smith Institute, in which he advocated more choice and opportunity for the less privileged in our society. Does he agree that we have a lot to do for our inner cities–and in particular that we must ensure that standards in inner-city schools are raised?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. We are determined to raise standards in all our schools, and especially to deal with the problem that clearly exists in many of our inner-cities. I believe that school governors and education authorities must act quickly where inspectors’ reports show that standards are unacceptably low. That is too often the case in many of our inner-city schools, and the Government do not intend to stand idly by and see it continue.

    Mr. Ashdown : What will the Prime Minister do about unemployment, which is now rising inexorably towards 3 million? It is now two months since the election, and only a handful of weeks until school leavers come on to the register. Are the Government so consumed by self-satisfaction and so sunk in lethargy that they offer no hope, no policies and no action for those who are losing their jobs?

    The Prime Minister : I am in no sense satisfied with the level of unemployment in this country, and I have made that clear before. We need the right sort of economic policy, which will sustain long-term employment prospects ; that is what we are putting into place and we shall ensure that we achieve it.

    When the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asks for action he means short-term subsidy–that is what he is really asking for. His only answer is to subsidise the inefficient, the uneconomic and the out of date. No wonder the Liberal Democrats have so much in common with the official Opposition.

     

    Q6. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert : Is the Prime Minister aware that a distinguished predecessor and former Minister for administrative affairs– Mr. Jim Hacker–reaches pensionable age today? In the spirit of that great statesman, I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s speech to the Adam Smith Institute this week. I also ask my right hon. Friend to urge his colleagues at tomorrow’s citizens charter seminar at No. 10 to press forward with further improvements to our public services. In particular, will he tell us whether we can expect the publication of a courts charter, to deal with the interminable delays to which so much of our law is subject?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, my hon. Friend touches an important matter, which causes frustration for many of our fellow citizens. We are proceeding to produce a courts charter and I hope that we shall be able to make announcements about it before too long.

     

    Libya (Sanctions)

    Q7. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on representations from Arab countries about sanctions against Libya.

    The Prime Minister : We have had various approaches from Arab countries about sanctions against Libya. We and the Arab League share the same objective–to see a satisfactory outcome to the Lockerbie problem. This, as the Arab League well knows, will require Libya’s full compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 731.

    Mr. Dalyell : In the light of my two letters to the Prime Minister on this subject, will he consider putting in the Library a response to the cover story of Time magazine–not exactly a publication of the left–which challenges the whole basis of the Anglo-American position? Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider approaching Spain on the legal proceedings relating to Monzer al Kassar, a Syrian drugs and arms dealer?

    The Prime Minister : I saw the article in Time magazine ; I examined it and sought advice on it. The theories about involvement and links with drugs are not new. They were thoroughly examined by the police during the investigation and were discounted at that stage, at the conclusion of the investigation. No evidence has yet been found to link the Syrian, al Kassar, to Lockerbie–but I shall, of course, examine the matter again in view of the hon. Gentleman’s representations.

    Mr. Wilkinson : Can my right hon. Friend enlighten the House about any dealings between Government officials and the Government of Libya over links between the Libyan regime and the Irish Republican Army? Has the IRA received any supplies from Libya recently? Have the Libyan authorities given assurances to the Government that they will not continue to supply the IRA?

    The Prime Minister : The Libyans have provided some information to the Government about their relationships with the IRA ; they did so in Geneva on 9 June. The preliminary assessment of that information suggests that although in places it was incomplete and unsatisfactory, it contains some positive elements which may well prove useful. One positive development is the fact that the Libyans have indicated to us that they wish to cease providing assistance to the IRA. We are not convinced that that is yet the case.