The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Matrix Churchill

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Wild Birds

    Mr. Sweeney : To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals for making the power to impose licensing regulation over the shooting of wild birds, including pigeons, crows and sparrows, a matter for individual member states of the EC.

    The Prime Minister : We shall continue to seek the support of member states for an amendment to the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC), to recognise specifically the need for member states to exercise year-round control of pest. Member states may, under the provisions of the directive, derogate from the general prohibition on the killing of birds by issuing licences for controlling species which cause damage or threaten public health or safety. We intend to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to enable us to bring in a licensing system. The other member states have already introduced licensing systems.

     

    Matrix Churchill

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what account he took of the minute of August 1990, about the implications of the invasion for trade with Iraq, referred to in his letter of 23 November to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, in making statements in 1992 relating to legal proceedings involving the directors of Matrix Churchill.

    The Prime Minister : In all my correspondence and other replies I have taken into account the advice and information which was available to me.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Matrix Churchill

    Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister when the ministers concerned signed public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill case; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The relevant certificates were signed by the Home Secretary on 16 June 1992 and 29 September 1992, by the President of the Board of Trade on 11 and 26 September 1992, by the Secretary of State for Defence on 7 September 1992 and by the Minister of State (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) on 3 and 23 September 1992. I explained the basis for issuing these certificates to the House on 12 November.

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister on what date it was first brought to his attention that Matrix Churchill exports had been used for military purposes by Iraq.

    Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister when he first knew that Matrix Churchill exports to Iraq had been sanctioned.

    The Prime Minister : I shall write to the hon. Members as soon as all the relevant records have been checked.

  • PMQT – 12 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

    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. Garrett : Today’s unemployment figures confirm that Britain is in the longest recession since the 1930s and is still heading for the deepest recession since the 1930s. How would the Prime Minister describe his stewardship of the economy, when to most people it has been incompetent and callous?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know the difficulties that are faced not only here but elsewhere across Europe and beyond Europe. What the hon. Gentleman characteristically forgot to mention is that, this morning, notwithstanding the fact that every single figure in the unemployment increase is a personal tragedy, that increase is smaller than the average monthly increase has been for some considerable time. I hope that that will prove to be a welcome trend. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out some measures later on today of which I think the hon. Gentleman may approve.

     

    Q2. Mr. Devlin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Devlin : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since his recent chat with Mr. Delors, it was reported in yesterday’s American press that the French Government are hinting that a compromise on GATT may now be only just around the corner? I do not know what my right hon. Friend said to Mr. Delors when he popped into Downing street recently, but, for the sake of all those manufacturing industries in the north of England, will he keep on saying it please?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly keep pressing the case for an early conclusion to the GATT round. I certainly welcome the assurance that the President of the Commission gave me last Friday about an early resumption of talks with the United States. I am delighted that that has subsequently been endorsed by the full Commission and equally pleased that Mr. MacSharry will be rejoining the talks. We will certainly continue to press for a very early conclusion. I believe that the Commission hopes to regroup on 20 November. It would be very agreeable if it were able to report a success with the United States so that the matter could then go to Geneva for final settlement.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister tell us when he first knew that the Government guidelines on the export of arms-related machinery to Iraq were being breached?

    The Prime Minister : Let me try, for the sake of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members of the House, to disentangle the true issues from some of the misunderstandings and wilder allegations of recent days. Let me make the first and fundamental point that the issues raised by the Matrix Churchill case have been referred to an independent judicial tribunal. All the papers that the inquiry seeks will be available to it. All Ministers and officials who are asked to give evidence to that inquiry will be required to do so and the inquiry will be free to publish whatever material it wishes.

    The second point relevant to the whole House, I think, is that every relevant aspect of the conduct of all Ministers will be open to scrutiny by the inquiry and I thoroughly welcome that. I will, if I may, clear a third point and that is that Ministers, in claiming public interest immunity, were doing what they were obliged to do by law. They signed such documents only as advised by counsel and the Attorney-General. It follows that they were not concealing information from the court. On the contrary, they were making available the relevant documents to the court. It was then for the judge to decide which of the documents should be protected by public interest immunity and which should not. I hope that that will clarify matters.

    Mr. John Smith : Instead of answering a clear and direct question, the Prime Minister has issued a prepared statement. I remind him that this question goes right to the heart of the credibility of his Government. I ask him it again. When did he first know that the guidelines on arms- related exports to Iraq were being breached ; what date, please?

    The Prime Minister : It is not clear at all that they were breached. The first allegations that they might have been breached were made by The Sunday Times in late 1990. Following that article, I, together with the Cabinet Secretary, had a meeting with Mr. Alan Clark. At that meeting he told me that it was totally false to suggest that he was advising the companies concerned on how to prepare licence applications in such a way as to conceal military use. Mr. Clark took the same position in the written witness statement which he provided to the court. It was not until his testimony in the case, therefore, that I had any reason to believe that what he had told me and what was in the written witness statement might not correspond with his oral evidence.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister understand that if he thinks that the guidelines were not breached, he must be about the only person in this country who has arrived at that conclusion? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, when he gave replies, in particular a reply to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on the Liberal Benches on a previous occasion about exports to Iran being conducted in the light of the guidelines, that was the whole truth as he knew it at that time?

    The Prime Minister : Every parliamentary answer that I have given or letter that I have dispatched has been based on the position as I understood it to be. I am utterly confident that that will be clear in Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry.

    Mr. Duncan-Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is quite appalling for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to go on the media and accuse my right hon. Friends of dishonourable conduct before– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat unless he questions correctly. The Prime Minister has responsibility only for Government activities. Will the hon. Gentleman frame his question correctly or not?

    Mr. Duncan-Smith : Yes, indeed, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that all that he has said so far this week indicates that there will be a complete inquiry and that all will be revealed, honourable conduct included?

    The Prime Minister : The House has that complete assurance. Indeed, if I had wished there not to be a complete inquiry and hon. Members to be open to questions, I might have followed the proposal of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and had an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, which would have made the matter sub judice in the House.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is it not the case that the Prime Minister and the Government knew as early as July–that is, six months before the Prime Minister’s letter to me–that the machine tools being exported to Iraq by Matrix Churchill and other companies were beyond peradventure being used to make munitions for the Iraqi army?

    The Prime Minister : I have replied to the right hon. Gentleman’s letter and the many media appearances that he has made. As he will see when he receives my letter, his second letter shows that he has completely misunderstood the position. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked a question ; he might have the courtesy to listen to the answer. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my letter of 6 December and wrongly claimed that I misled him by concealing knowledge of the Matrix Churchill case when I explained the Government’s policy on export licences for Iraq. That is not the case. If the right hon. Gentleman reads my letter, he will see that I refer in the second paragraph to an investigation by Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise which was into Matrix Churchill. I made it clear that I could not comment in case I prejudiced any proceedings. That is the rational explanation for which the right hon. Gentleman asked. He failed to understand my correspondence.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest figures, for October, for manufactured car exports show an increase of no less than 37 per cent. on last year? Is he also aware that the Textile Alliance anticipates that the exports of the textile industry from the United Kingdom, at £4.8 billion, will be a record for this year? Does he agree that a newly competitive exchange rate will give British exporters the opportunity to improve even on that excellent performance?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. That is certainly the case, and there is no doubt that car production rose very dramatically in September, and the figures for October, which were released today, suggest that production is holding up. I have no doubt that our present competitive exchange rate will improve that position.

     

    Q3. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Cryer : Instead of passing the buck continually to a vague and unsatisfactory inquiry, will the Prime Minister clean out the cesspit of the present Government by sacking all those Ministers who conspired to pervert the course of justice in the Matrix Churchill case in order to cover up a Government policy of encouraging the sale to Iraq of machinery which they knew was to be used for the manufacture of munitions and nuclear weapons? Or would that involve sacking himself?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is one of the foremost conspiracy theorists in the House and an acknowledged expert at muckraking. But not even he can call an independent judicial inquiry anything other than an impartial, clear-cut and independent inquiry. That is what we have ordered and that is what we shall have.

    Mr. Tredinnick : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great scandal that some local authorities are obstructing schools that want to become grant-maintained? Will he join me in welcoming the statement by the Secretary of State for Education that the law will be changed to make that obstruction impossible? Does he agree that most of that obstruction has come from Labour-controlled local authorities?

    The Prime Minister : I think that that is a matter of fact and not conjecture. I very much welcome the action taken by my right hon. Friend in the Education Bill to ensure that parents have a proper choice. It is intolerable that some local education authorities should deliberately scare parents by claiming, entirely falsely, that by voting for grant-maintained status, they will damage their children’s education. It is equally unacceptable that LEAs, as teachers’ employers, should put pressure on staff to resist the ballots of parents.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mrs. Mahon : Does the Prime Minister intend to retain the nurses’ pay review body? If so, does he agree that, if that body is to have any relevance to the pay that nurses actually receive, the Government must accept its recommendations and fund them?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady will be able to hear my right hon. Friend’s statement very shortly.

    Mrs. Peacock : Is my right hon. Friend aware that a private sector proposal to work the Markham Main colliery has been with British Coal for almost three weeks without any acknowledgement? Does he agree that that may suggest that British Coal does not want competition?

    The Prime Minister : I shall pass my hon. Friend’s remarks to the President of the Board of Trade. I have no knowledge of that particular proposal, but I have no doubt that it will be brought to British Coal’s notice very speedily.

     

    Q5. Mr. Don Foster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Foster : Does the Prime Minister agree with those Conservative councillors in Bath who this week supported a motion expressing dismay at the deterioration of the national health service in Bath? Or does he support the comments of the Secretary of State who, on a recent visit, said of the closure of wards at the district hospital, of the loss of beds for the elderly mentally infirm and of the increased waiting lists for elective surgery that she thought they were “mere teething problems”?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman is just a little selective. He makes no mention of the fact that health service expenditure is up by more than 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979 or that, for every pound spent in 1979, nearly £4.50 will be spent this year. Neither did he mention the fact that the national health service will spend nearly £2,500 a year for every family of four in this country. No other Government would have provided those resources.

    Mr. Ottaway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sunday trading at Tesco superstore in Purley has resulted in an increased turnover, more jobs and a surplus of staff who want to work on a Sunday, and it is very popular with my constituents? Will he introduce legislation that clarifies that area of the law before an unacceptable compromise is introduced to the House in January?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we have a manifesto commitment to bring forward proposals for reform once the European Court of Justice has settled the compatibility of the current law with the free trade provisions of the treaty of Rome. We expect that judgment in the Court in November and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will then make an announcement to the House about legislation.

  • PMQT – 10th November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

    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. Cox : Does the Prime Minister recall the many promises that he made at the last election that there would be no increase in taxation? Against the background of those promises, will he confirm in the House that there will be no increase in national insurance contributions, or are the people of this country to see in the very near future yet another broken election promise from an already totally disgraced and devalued Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman ought not to get himself into such a tiz. He will know the answer to his question soon enough. On the subject of income tax, I seem to recall the Labour party contesting the election on the basis of increasing tax and the shadow Chancellor saying only yesterday that the Opposition are not proposing raising income tax at this time. Some U-turn.

    Sir Peter Hordern : Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, notwithstanding the efforts of Mr. Mitterrand and Mr. Delors, the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations will be brought to a successful conclusion?

    The Prime Minister : We are doing all we can to make sure that the Community re-engages in negotiations without delay so that we can reach a satisfactory GATT settlement in a matter of weeks at the outside. I hope that we shall reach agreement between the Community and the United States ; then the remaining aspects of the GATT round ought speedily to be determined. It is the first priority for international economies at the moment to make sure that there is a GATT agreement and no single country should be permitted to stand in the way of it.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister recall assuring the House in January 1991 that

    “for some considerable time we have not supplied arms to Iraq”?–[ Official Report, 31 January 1991 ; Vol. 184, c. 1102.]

    How does the Prime Minister reconcile that assurance with the revelation in the Government documents produced at the Matrix Churchill trial that as late as 27 July 1990, only six days before the invasion of Kuwait, machine tools known to be intended to make fuses for missiles and artillery shells were supplied to Iraq?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that from 1985 until the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the Government operated under guidelines first set out by the then Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Howe. Since the invasion, we have operated, and we continue to operate, the full embargo to which I referred in answering the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel).

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister understand that there are two aspects of this matter that are causing grave concern to the British public? The first is that equipment was supplied to Iraq which could have been valuable to it in hostilities against British service personnel ; and the second is that the truth about a secret change of policy appears to have been concealed from the House and also from the British public. Will he now set up an inquiry under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 to make the fullest investigation into this deeply disturbing matter?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there have been some extraordinary stories about this matter and I agree with him that they must be clarified beyond any measure of doubt.

    I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to make a statement on the matter later this afternoon. My right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House that the Government will be setting up an independent judicial inquiry, which will have full access to all the papers and will be able to take evidence from all the Departments and all the agencies concerned.

     

    EC Financing

    Q2. Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the issue of contributions by member states.

    The Prime Minister : The European Community’s future financing arrangements are currently under review. This will be one of the issues on the agenda of the European Council meeting at Edinburgh in December.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : As Britain’s net contribution this year will be £2.6 billion, which is about £4 per week per family of four in Britain, and as the Court of Auditors has told us that much of that is spent on waste, fraud and food destruction, will the Prime Minister advise President Mitterrand and the others that it would be wholly unacceptable to expect the people of Britain to pay a great deal more for the potential huge extra costs of Maastricht when life is so hard for everyone in Europe at the present time?

    The Prime Minister : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend on the continuing need for restraint in Community spending overall. I have already made it clear that President Delors’ future proposals are excessive and that we will not be able to support them. The Community, as with each individual member state, should not spend more than it can afford. It will remain our priority in the negotiations up to and including those at Edinburgh to secure firm budgetary discipline and value for money for all Community spending.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Roy Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

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

    Mr. Hughes : Does the Prime Minister recall black Wednesday when the sharks and speculators made a real killing? Now we are approaching black Thursday with the autumn statement, when it will be the poor and needy in Wales and elsewhere who are likely to be affected as a result of cuts in public expenditure. When will the Government realise that those cuts in public expenditure will only hinder Britain’s long-term recovery, or is this yet another example of a “Major” vision of a nation at ease with itself?

    The Prime Minister : I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits until Thursday.

    Sir George Gardiner : Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the House hardly needs lectures from President Mitterrand on how to organise its own business? Does he accept that when he gives his word to this House that we will not consider the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill until after the Danish referendum, we know full well that he will keep it?

    The Prime Minister : I have expressed my views on President Mitterrand’s reported remarks in a private letter to the President, but I am quite prepared to state publicly that the passage of the Maastricht Bill is a matter for the British Parliament and the British Government. The crucial immediate issue before Europe is achieving a GATT settlement and avoiding a trade war. I note that in the same interview President Mitterrand described a global settlement as

    “not only useful but necessary.”

    I agree with that; a delay on GATT really would be unacceptable. I set out the answer on Third Reading in reply to the House earlier last week.

    Mr. Ashdown rose — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. This is very time consuming..

    Mr. Ashdown : Is the Prime Minister aware that there are at this moment more than 6,500 refugees who could be free but remain trapped in Serbian prison camps, living in the most indescribable conditions and without any kind of adequate shelter, because no third country can be found for them to go to? Does he not realise that temperatures will drop to minus 17 deg C in that area during this month? Does he not realise that the consequence of his Government’s disgraceful decision to limit refugee entry from that area, together with his failure to put together an adequate programme of co-ordinated action by the European countries, will soon mean that some of those people risk paying for his failures with their lives?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman really should get his facts straight on what the European Community has done and on what the British Government have done. The United Kingdom has received more than 30,000 visitors this year from the former Yugoslavia. More than 3,000 have applied for refugee status and no one will be forced to return to the conflict zone. We fully support the view expressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that the best solution is for the displaced to remain close to their homes, making eventual repatriation a much more possible proposition. The visa regime, which has clearly activated the right hon. Gentleman, needs to be seen in the context of overall asylum applications, and that point has been made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

    Mr. Michael Brown : Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the British Airports Authority on its outstanding results, just announced? Will he take the opportunity to remind it that it has an obligation to ensure that regional airports, such as Humberside airport, have the opportunity of flying regional flights into Heathrow? Is he aware that failure to enable that to happen leads to business men in Humberside having to fly to Holland –to Schiphol–thereby depriving British Airways of good business?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right to offer congratulations to BAA, which has had an outstandingly successful period, and I am happy to add my congratulations to his. I agree unreservedly with the balance of his remarks.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

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

    Mr. Cohen : In relation to the Matrix Churchill trial, will the Prime Minister be a little less economical with the actualite and say whether he thinks it is proper that three innocent men might have been imprisoned because Ministers tried to suppress the evidence? Has it not clearly emerged from that trial that the former Foreign Minister, now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, knew that the sales breached the arms embargo but agreed to the deception? Should he not be considering his position in the Government, or the Prime Minister be considering it for him?

    The Prime Minister : I advise Opposition Members not to go down the route that so many of them took with BCCI just a year or so ago. They would be wise to await the Attorney-General’s statement. I have already said that there will be a full, independent judicial inquiry, and I repeat that to the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Hayes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that public interest immunity must be claimed, that it is at the sole discretion of the judge and that it cannot be waived by Ministers? Hence, all the talk in the tabloid press about a cover-up is nothing more than arrant nonsense.

    The Prime Minister : Ministers have a duty to claim public interest immunity where appropriate and that duty cannot be waived. It is then for the courts to consider where the balance of interest lies, and successive Governments have acted in that way.

     

    Q5. Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

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

    Mr. Madden : What action does the right hon. Gentleman propose, through the United Nations, to stop the partition of Bosnia? Why were Her Majesty’s Government prepared to breach the arms embargo to allow Iraq to wage war, but now refuse to lift the arms embargo to give the Government Bosnian forces the means with which to defend their independent country, to stop genocide, to stop ethnic cleansing and to stop the displacement of thousands of men, women and children who face death?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to tie his questions to allegations that are as yet uninvestigated. A few moments before I came into the Chamber, I was advised–as yet, it is not confirmed- -that there is said to be a cease fire in Bosnia from midnight tomorrow. We have heard that before. If it is sustained it will be extremely welcome news, but we must wait and see whether it is sustained. The hon. Gentleman should not seek to misrepresent the Government’s position.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and British industry fully support his efforts to force Mr. Jacques Delors and the bureaucrats of Brussels to pull their bootstraps up and get cracking to find an urgent and equitable solution to the stalled GATT round? Although the cricket season is now over, will my right hon. Friend promise the House that he will not put his bat away until that matter is sorted?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to say that I share my hon. Friend’s view entirely about the imperative need to get an early GATT settlement. There is no doubt that there is no longer a great distance between the United States and the Community on the substantive issues that need to be determined. I, myself, cannot accept that it is impossible to reach an agreement that will be acceptable to both the Community and the United States. At the moment that agreement is reached, the GATT round can be concluded in Geneva without further delay. The damage of there not being a GATT round is too profound to contemplate. I assure my hon. Friend that that is a matter of primary importance to the Government and we will pursue it in each and every forum until there is an agreement.

    Madam Speaker : Time’s up. I call the Attorney-General to make a statement.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 30 April 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th April 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prisoners (Visits)

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate policy on the allocation of prisoners so that persons convicted in either England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland may serve their sentences at a convenient establishment for regular visits from their families.
    The Prime Minister : The allocation of prisoners in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the respective prison authorities. Nearness to home is one of the factors which is taken into account, along with other matters, in deciding a prisoner’s allocation. There is provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1961 for the transfer of prisoners between United Kingdom jurisdictions.

    Engagements

    Mr. Soames : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 30 April.
    The Prime Minister : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Advertising

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Prime Minister’s office on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990-91 and budgets for 1991-92.
    The Prime Minister : My office has incurred no expenditure on advertising or promotional material, and there are no plans for any such expenditure in 1991-92.
    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Cabinet Office on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979-80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990-91 and budgets for 1991-92.
    The Prime Minister : The Cabinet Office has not incurred and does not expect to incur any expenditure on promotional advertising on television, radio or in newspapers in the years 1979-92.

    Information on other promotional material is not available for the years 1979 to 1987. Expenditure on such material from 1987-88 was :

    |£
    ———————-
    1987-88 |19,306
    1988-89 |9,500
    1989-90 |14,833
    The estimate for
    1990-91 is £1,000.

    The Cabinet Office does not expect to incur any expenditure on other promotional material in 1991-92.

    Matrix Churchill

    Mr. Terry Davis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the Government Department to which a Crown servant calling himself Balson and visiting the offices of Matrix Churchill in Coventry at 11.15 am on 24 April 1989, 3.51 pm on 11 September 1989, 3.10 pm on 27 October 1989, 9.35 am on 1 December 1989, 9.35 am on 26 March 1990, 9.35 am on 20 April 1990 and 1.17 pm on 26 April 1990 was attached between 1 April 1989 and 30 April 1990; what was his grade; and what were his official responsibilities.
    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and industry.

    Arms Trade

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister which proposals he has to allow international advance warning of arms’ build-up by a particular country.
    The Prime Minister [holding reply 29 April 1991] : On 8 April I proposed the establishment of a United Nations register of arms sales to enable the international community to monitor and control any excessive build-up of arms by a particular country. The proposal was endorsed by our European partners. We are now pursuing it in discussions with the other permanent members of the Security Council and the United Nations secretariat.