The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Lockerbie Bombing

  • 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 Written Answers – 28 February 1997

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 20 February, Official Report, column 1042, what factors led him to conclude that it was doubtful that the Libyan Government would deliver the suspects for trial in The Hague under a Scottish judge under Scottish rules of evidence.

    The Prime Minister: The Libyan Government may have said they accept the holding of the Lockerbie trial in a third country, and a trial in The Hague is one such proposal. But they have not said that they will ensure the appearance of the accused at any such trial. Despite agreeing in 1993 that a trial in Scotland would be fair, they have argued that they cannot compel the accused to stand trial there, or in the United States, in the absence of a bilateral extradition agreement with either country. The same Libyan argument would apply to The Hague, there being no extradition agreement between Libya and the Netherlands.

    I conclude, after five years of Libyan prevarication over delivering the suspects for trial in Scotland, that it is extremely doubtful that they would surrender them for trial in a third country.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 June 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 May, Official Report, columns 762-63, what consideration he has given to the issue addressed to him by the chairman of United Kingdom Families Flight 103, in a letter of 13 May, as to (a) whether the criminal investigation findings were reliable and complete and (b) whether there has been a fabrication of evidence to conceal certain matters therein set out.

    The Prime Minister: My noble and learned Friend, the then Lord Advocate, concluded after the most intensive investigation in United Kingdom history that there was no evidence to support charges against the nationals of any other country. The alleged involvement of a Palestinian terrorist group was closely investigated during the early stages of the investigation, but no credible evidence emerged to substantiate its involvement in the Lockerbie crime. It is for a jury to decide how reliable the evidence is, but successive Lord Advocates would not have brought and maintained charges if they had believed that the evidence on which they were based was unreliable, incomplete or fabricated.

     

    Beef Ban

    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Prime Minister what representations were made to the United States Government following their banning of British beef in 1989; what further negotiations have taken place since; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: It is not true that the United States authorities banned British beef in 1989. However, the USA has not accepted imports of bone in beef from Britain since 1989. After 1989, negotiations concentrated on securing access to US markets for boneless beef, which were successfully concluded in July 1994. Negotiations continue on securing wider access to the US markets, although in regular discussions with representatives of industry, the USA has not been identified as a priority market for the export of beef.

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations to the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir concerning the detention in Mirpur prison of Chazanfer Ali; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: As Ghazanfer Ali, a Pakistani national, has now been formally charged and has made appearances in court, it is now a matter for the Azad Kashmir authorities. It would not be appropriate for us to make further representations.

     

    European Union Flag

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister what instructions were issued to Government offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 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.

     

    Security and Intelligence Services

    Mr. Day: To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s sixth annual report for 1995 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided in that Act and for reviewing the issue of warrants under the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I note that he is satisfied that the Secretaries of State have exercised their powers in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 Act.

    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s first annual report, for 1995, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(6) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(7) of the 1994 Act. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and authorisations, and in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided for in the Act. I note that he is satisfied that the Secretary of State has properly exercised his powers under the two sections of the 1994 Act.

    Sir Jim Lester: To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: A copy of Lord Nolan’s annual report for 1995 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided for in the Act. I note in particular the commissioner’s view that the interception of both postal and telecommunications remains both an effective and essential operation in the interests of national security and the economic well being of the United Kingdom, and the prevention and detection of serious crime.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 October 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Self-governing Schools

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to his press statement of 24 August concerning his hopes for education, what procedures, flexibilities and diversity will potentially be available to future pupils, or parents, not already available at schools currently under local management arrangements, if they become directly funded under conditions laid down by Her Majesty’s Government; and by what means in those circumstances Ministers will ensure that the options now preferred, or currently available, will be maintained under such arrangements.

    (2) pursuant to his press statement of 24 August concerning education, which freedoms, flexibility, and additional diversity will potentially be available to future parents and pupils in schools now under local management arrangements in England and Wales if they became directly funded under conditions laid down by Her Majesty’s Government; and by what means Ministers will ensure that options currently available will be maintained.

    The Prime Minister: Self-government is a significant and logical step beyond local management. A self-governing school controls its total budget, not just the proportion delegated by an LEA. It is also free to preserve its existing character or to propose changes without reference to the local authority.

    This gives self-governing schools greater flexibility to innovate, and to respond quickly and efficiently to the needs and aspirations of the communities they serve.

    I believe that the benefits of grant-maintained status should be extended to all schools. This option is currently being examined.

     

    Sports Facilities

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will require all relevant Government Departments to maintain a register listing sporting facilities in receipt of public funds (a) closed after 1 September 1995 and (b) proposed for closure; and if he will then instruct his Minister for Sport to investigate and report to him on relevant reasons for closure.

    The Prime Minister: The sports policy statements issued during the summer recognised the important role which sports facilities, including those provided by public funds, play in the development of sport. The documents detail the measures that have taken and will be taking to safeguard and improve the current level of facilities provision. We will also shortly be consulting on a proposal that the Sports Councils should be given statutory consultee status on planning proposals affecting all playing fields. Additionally, the Government will retain statutory area standards to protect school playing fields. The Government do not see a need for a register of publicly funded sports facilities of the kind that the hon. Member suggests.

     

    Breast Cancer Campaign

    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister how many postcards he has received expressing support for the national postcard campaign for breast cancer; and how many of these have been answered.

    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister how many postcards he has received in response to the recent campaign on breast cancer.

    The Prime Minister: I have received a substantial number of representations regarding this campaign.

     

    Lockerbie

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

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 79.

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

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 78.

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

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 80.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government were informed by the US authorities on or around 19 December 1988 of the travel plans of Major Charles McKee.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 79.

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

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 78.

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

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, columns 80-81.

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

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 79.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will now discuss with President Clinton the implications regarding Iranian links and baggage being onloaded on Air Malta 180, destination Frankfurt airport.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 78.

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

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 78.

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

    The Prime Minister: So far as I am aware, no such approaches have been received.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the reasons why the Justice Department of the German Government have challenged Anglo-US explanations of the Lockerbie crime.

    The Prime Minister: The German Federal Ministry of Justice has not challenged the basis on which charges have been brought against the two individuals accused of having carried out the Lockerbie bombing.

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

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Intergovernmental Panel on the Oceans

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 9 March to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what recent consideration Her Majesty’s Government have given to the recommendation of the Government’s panel on sustainable development on the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on the oceans.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is organising an international workshop from 30 November to 2 December to consider the machinery by which global decisions on the oceans take place. The Government will be putting the conclusions of this workshop, with their own views, to the next meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.

     

    East German Security Service

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty’s Government have had recently, since 15 July, from the German Government about their interrogation of Edward Bollier’s Stasi control, and the sale of timing devices to the Stasi.

    The Prime Minister: So far as I am aware, none.

     

    Trafficking in Fissile Materials

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 2 May to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what progress has been made on the plan of action agreed by the European summit at Essen in December 1994 to improve co-operation between member states of the Union on how to develop programmes of assistance to third countries in relation to illegal trafficking in fissile materials; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The Essen report on Illicit Traffic in Radioactive Substances and Nuclear Materials recommended a plan of action to improve co-operation with countries which were potential sources of illicit nuclear material. Since then, EURATOM has promoted a number of projects, the primary aim of which has been to provide assistance on improving nuclear materials accountancy and control. Three projects involving co-operation with Russia are currently under way and five are planned for 1996. The United Kingdom has been pursuing bilateral projects in Russia and Kazakhstan to assist those countries in a range of safeguards-related areas.

     

    Libya (Extradition)

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

    The Prime Minister: No.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 March 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Northern Region

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    a substantial number of homes built and improved;

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

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

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

     

    Internet

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

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

     

    Government Policy

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

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

     

    Social Development Summit

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

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

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

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

     

    Lockerbie

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister: None.

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister: None.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Prime Minister: No such approaches have been received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    European Courts

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

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

     

    Scott Inquiry

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

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

     

    Disabled People

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

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

     

    Public Inquiries

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

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

     

    Libya

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

    The Prime Minister: No.

     

    Command Papers

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

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

  • PMQT – 19 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

    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. Hain : Did the Prime Minister personally obtain the permission of Her Majesty the Queen to privatise the Royal Mail?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about the Royal Mail shortly. I have no doubt that he will deal with all the matters that concern the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Batiste : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the statement by the French Government that they propose to remove a part of their forces in Bosnia by the year end if there is not more rapid progress towards a political settlement and if other countries do not provide greater assistance. What is the British Government’s response to that?

    The Prime Minister : What the French Government have said is not that they are going to withdraw all their troops from Bosnia at the end of the year but that they propose to reduce by 1,000 their troops in Croatia, and a small number of further troops–I think 1,500–from Bihac. Even when those reductions have been made, the French will still be the largest troop contributors to the former Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom Government, of course, come second. We have no intention at the moment of removing our troops, although, of course, their safety at all times is paramount.

    Mrs. Beckett : When the Post Office was not even mentioned in the Conservative party election manifesto and the effects of privatisation are causing chaos on British Rail and pushing up gas prices for ordinary families, why are the Government now looking to privatise the Post Office?

    The Prime Minister : As I said to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) a moment ago, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a full statement to the House about the Government’s proposals in just a few moments. The right hon. Lady would be well advised to wait for that statement. As to British Rail, I think that she will find that, when it is operating as a privatised concern, as with the other privatised concerns, the service will be infinitely better than it was under nationalised control.

    Mrs. Beckett : Contrary to what the Prime Minister says, the experience of most of the British public, particularly in the case of British Rail and of water, is that the end result of privatisation has been higher charges and poorer service. Do the Government never learn?

    The Prime Minister : What we see in what the right hon. Lady had to say is the same old knee-jerk opposition to private ownership. It is interesting to see that the same old centralising tendency remains among those on the Opposition Front Bench, just as it always has. What privatisation has produced is better services, profits instead of losses, tax revenue instead of taxpayers’ subsidy, and a better service for the consumer. That is because the private sector will run services better.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Prime Minister realise that the Post Office successfully combines running a profitable business with providing a public service that is of fundamental value to the whole community and that no one can be confident that that service will survive undamaged, especially in rural areas? Is not it another privatisation that is unnecessary, unpopular and unworkable?

    The Prime Minister : Once again, in the way that they have done so frequently, right hon. Members make conclusions before they know what is to be proposed and how matters are to be dealt with. Time and again, they have been proven wrong and, on this occasion, they will see how wrong they are very speedily.

    Mr. Congdon : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed new secure training orders for young offenders are a welcome step in protecting the public from persistent young offenders and will be welcomed by most people?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I think that they will certainly combine an effective punishment with a decent education. What those new centres will offer is the opportunity for young criminals to break away from crime and give the public a break from their offending. I am delighted that that commonsense view is now generally but not, it seems, universally held.

    Mr. Ashdown : If, as I hope and believe, the Prime Minister is serious about wishing to use this opportunity permanently to improve the quality of debate in the House, would he be prepared to open discussions and take suggestions about how we might improve these 15 minutes of Prime Minister’s Question Time–only a few weeks ago, he described as “ritual confrontation”–in order to make them more informative and more in keeping with what most people want?

    The Prime Minister : I think that many people in the country believe that these 15 minutes would be used more effectively on policy matters if questions were asked specifically about matters that must concern the people who watch our proceedings on television or read about them subsequently. I certainly wish that to be the case, but it is a matter for the House and for those who question me rather than for me. I am here to respond to the questions that are asked. [Hon. Members :– “Oh!”] The theory that this time is not always wisely used by the Opposition was most clearly illustrated just now.

    Mr. Stephen : Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of our constituents believe that the young American vandal in Singapore got exactly what he deserved? Will my right hon. Friend consider the new clause that I have tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, designed to prevent that vandal, and every other criminal, profiting from his crime by selling his story to the press?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we are seeking in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to make a whole series of changes to improve crime and punishment in this country. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will be very popular across the country, and I hope that they will have the full support of the people. I regret that so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches still seem to be more concerned for the criminal than for the people against whom the criminal perpetrates his crimes.

     

    Q2. Mr. McKelvey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. McKelvey : Does the Prime Minister recall the helpful reply that he gave me some weeks ago when I asked a question about the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Why then did he go on to direct, or at least condone, the sleekit and contemptible tactics used by a Minister to scupper the Bill? Has he no remorse for the disabled of this country? Does not he feel that he should allow the Bill to be passed so that disabled people can have basic civil rights?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the whole House shares the broad aims of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), but the reality is that the Bill, as has been shown in Committee and subsequently, is unworkable in a number of ways. It would impose immense costs and open up enormous scope for litigation. The people who understand and consider such matters carefully will appreciate that fact.

    As the hon. Gentleman will know, for I have told the House on previous occasions, we intend to press ahead with our own proposals, with consultation on a range of measures about discrimination in order to eliminate unjustified discrimination in employment, provide access to goods and services, to financial services and to buildings and to establish an advisory body on disability. That is the right way to proceed in order to produce measures that genuinely will work and will help disabled people. That is the way that we have proceeded in the past and will proceed in the future.

     

    Q3. Mr. Burns : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. Burns : If my right hon. Friend will forgive me for changing the subject, does he agree that the unemployment figures released yesterday and the steady fall in unemployment over the past 12 months is welcome news which shows that our economic recovery is steady and sustainable? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is somewhat strange that when the news is bad about unemployment no one questions the authenticity of the figures but when the news is good and people are getting back into work some people seek bogusly to take away from that good news by questioning the authenticity of the figures?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a telling point with great clarity. The facts speak for themselves : unemployment is down by about 100,000 over the last three months and it has been down by more than 250,000 over the last year. What has been especially encouraging is that long-term unemployment has been falling as well. What is equally striking is that, while unemployment falls across the whole of the United Kingdom, it is still rising throughout much of Europe. That shows the extent to which our economy has recovered and is continuing to grow, in sharp contrast to most European economies.

     

    Q4. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Has the Prime Minister had time this week to read about the seven suicides reported to have been triggered by the actions of the Child Support Agency? An ever-growing number of fathers are giving up work because they cannot afford to pay what the Child Support Agency assesses them for, yet many single mothers are worse off as a result of the agency’s activities. Will he now set aside his well-worn and repeated phrase about keeping the activities of the agency “under review” and institute immediate radical reform by bringing new legislation to the House?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we made a number of changes some time ago. It is clearly sensible to let those changes settle down and to get a little more experience of how they are working. The changes were widely welcomed and, in many cases, they reduced the amount of maintenance that absent parents were required to pay. There were a number of other changes that I think that most people would regard as the right way forward.

    The hon. Gentleman has now embarked upon the exercise of that useful quality–the wisdom of hindsight. The principle of the legislation is right. It was widely welcomed in the House. We are determined to examine what is happening and make sure that if changes are shown to be necessary, they can continue to be satisfactorily made.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the losses in excess of £2 billion that were announced by Lloyd’s of London earlier this week bring its total losses to more than £8 billion for the past three years that accounts are available? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that that has led to the suicides of 11 of Lloyd’s investors? If it is correct, and it is correct, that there should be an official inquiry into the activities of Mr. Frederick West of 25 Cromwell street, Gloucester, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also right that there should be an official inquiry into the business practices of some professionals at Lloyd’s, which have led to the deaths of its investors?

    The Prime Minister : As I think that my hon. Friend knows, a number of civil cases relating to Lloyd’s are now before the commercial courts. It would be most unwise of me to comment on that issue while that is the case.

     

    Lockerbie

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will have discussions with the German Government about the statements of Edwin Bollier and Ulrich Lumpert concerning the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister : The Scottish prosecuting authorities and police have worked closely with their German counterparts in the course of the Lockerbie investigation. Any discussion of evidence or information that may be relevant to the investigation would be a matter for the Crown Office and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary to pursue with the relevant German authorities.

    Mr. Dalyell : So why has Bollier’s written request to have a sight of his timers, so that he can determine whether they were in the batch that went to Libya or the batch that went to the Stasi, been turned down?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of the recent press reports alleging that both Bollier and Lumpert have additional information on the supply of electric timers to the East German Stasi. The Lord Advocate has taken the view that the available evidence justifies the criminal charges that have been brought against the two Libyans. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that beyond that, I cannot comment on the detail of the available evidence while the criminal investigation is still proceeding.

    Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Spring : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. Spring : As we congratulate President Mandela on his recent inauguration, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope for South Africa’s future lies in economic growth and job creation, flowing from a free enterprise system? Does he further agree that policies such as deregulation, competition and privatisation form the best basis for economic success anywhere in the world?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. It is no surprise that the policies of deregulation, competition and privatisation are now being adopted in every part of the globe. They are certainly being imitated in central and eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. As for South Africa, I wish President Mandela every success in building the strong and stable South Africa that we all wish to see. I am sure that if he pursues those policies, they will assist.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 May 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Roman Catholic Church

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make it the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to accord the same degree of official recognition to the territorial sees and titles of the Roman Catholic Church in England and in Wales as is accorded to the unestablished Anglican churches outside England; and if he will make a statement on the situation in Northern Ireland.

    The Prime Minister : Official recognition for Roman Catholic territorial titles was precluded under Acts of 1829 and 1851, the penal provisions of which were repealed in 1871 and 1978. Since it was raised with me by Sir Hugh Rossi in the last Parliament I have been looking sympathetically at the matter and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will now be consulting the relevant Church authorities about the practices to be adopted in future.

     

    Lockerbie Bombing

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of initiatives taken by the Security Council of the United Nations in relation to Lockerbie and Libya.

    The Prime Minister : The United Nations Secretary-General has tried to persuade Libya to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions 731 and 748, including sending emissaries several times to Libya. Libya has rebutted these efforts and has not complied with the resolutions.

     

    Maastricht Treaty

    Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister why the new article 123 inserted by the Maastricht treaty which provides for the salaries of the President and members of the EC Commission to be determined by majority vote, was inserted under title IV, which relates to amendments to the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Authority ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Article I(7) of the treaty on European union reproduces the provisions of article 6 of the treaty establishing a single Council and single Commission of the European Commission of the European Communities–the “merger treaty”–signed on 8 April 1965–see schedule 1.I(5) to the European Communities Act 1972–and incorporates them into the text of the European Atomic Energy Committee treaty. Identical provisions are to be found in articles G(47), amending the European Coal and Steel Community treaty. This is a matter of textual consolidation only; the legal position will remain as it has been since the entry into force of the merger treaty.

     

    Subsidiarity

    Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister whether he regards the principle of subsidiarity as applicable in any way to the relationship between London and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Government are fully committed to the Union between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, while recognising the need for arrangements which reflect the distinctive interests of its component parts.

     

    UNCED

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to be present at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development for its final two days in June.

    The Prime Minister : I propose to attend the latter part of the Rio conference. I am currently finalising the details of my programme which will be announced shortly.

     

    G7 Summit

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals on environment protection Her Majesty’s Government plan to put forward at the G7 summit of leading industrialised nations in Munich in July.

    The Prime Minister : We will propose that the G7 should take effective follow-up action to the Earth summit, including in the area of environmental protection.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 May 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th May 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EC Committee of the Regions

    Ms. Quin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on United Kingdom regional representation on the EC Committee of the Regions agreed at Maastricht.

    The Prime Minister : Ministers are considering the nomination of the 24 United Kingdom members (and 24 alternates) on the Committee of the Regions.

     

    Minister for War Veterans

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister for war veterans, widows and dependants, within either the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Social Security.

    The Prime Minister : Responsibility for matters affecting war veterans, their widows and dependants forms part of the departmental remit of a number of Ministers. There are no plans to change this arrangement.

     

    Lockerbie Bombing

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the representations made to the United Kingdom Government by the Government of Libya about the proposed extradition of two Libyan nationals in relation to the Lockerbie bombing; (2) if he will discuss with the President of the United States the representations made to both of them by the Arab League in relation to the Lockerbie bombing and policy towards Libya; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : We have had various approaches from Libyans and intermediaries over the Lockerbie bombing. None of them indicates that Libya is ready to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions 731 and 748. We have worked closely with the United States and France and shall continue to do so.

     

    War Crimes

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will state the Government’s policy towards war crimes in the Channel Islands.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policy is that people who have committed murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide as violations of the laws and customs of war in German-held territory during the second world war should not be able to use the privilege of residence in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands to escape justice.

     

    Church Livings

    Mr. Frank Field : To ask the Prime Minister for how many church livings he has the responsibility of appointment.

    The Prime Minister : I am responsible for recommending clergy to Her Majesty the Queen for appointment to 206 benefices where the Crown has rights of presentation. Of these, 126 belong to the Crown in full right, while appointment to the remaining 80 is undertaken alternately or sequentially depending upon the number of other patrons having rights of presentation to those benefices.