The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Scott Inquiry

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Kaufman: To ask the Prime Minister what steps he will take as a result of the finding of the Scott inquiry that the letter written to the hon. Member referred to in paragraph D.4.43 concerning changes in the Government’s policy on the supply of arms to Iraq was misleading.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    The Government continue to take the view that the Howe guidelines were not changed. My right hon. Friend does not consider that further action is necessary.

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister what action he proposes in respect of Scott’s recommendation, K8.8, that the refusal to answer parliamentary questions on sales of arms or defence-related equipment to other countries should be re-examined.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    As my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade made clear in his speech in the House on 26 February, the Government will be considering the extent to which information about overseas defence sales can be publicly disclosed. A background note on “Ministerial Accountability and the Release of Information on Defence Related Exports” has been placed in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he accepts the observation contained in the Scott report, section K3.3, that the DTI should not continue to be the export licensing authority in respect of goods whose export is primarily the policy concern of some other Department; and if he will make a statement.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    Sir Richard Scott recommends that consideration should be given as to whether the DTI should continue to be the export licence authority for the good concerned. The Government accept this and propose to publish a consultation paper on export control legislation and procedures. We will reach decisions on particular issues in the light of comments received, in response to the consultation paper.

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants had direct sight of the Scott report as of 13 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 16 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    As of 13 February, only those required to assist the Government in preparing their response to the report, as agreed between the Government and the Scott inquiry.

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister what action he will take in response to the conclusion in section K4.1 of the Scott report that the role of Customs and Excise in policing and prosecuting export control offences is anomalous; and if he will make a statement.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 27 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade told the House in his speech during the debate on a motion for the adjournment of 26 February 1996, Official Report, column 597, the Government accept that there are benefits in Sir Richard Scott’s recommendation that in future the role of the Attorney-General should include the exercise of increased supervision of Customs and Excise prosecutions in relation to export control matters. The Government are urgently developing proposals on the precise nature and scope of the increased supervision, and the Attorney-General will be reporting to the House as soon as possible.

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will enumerate and detail the shortcomings of Government in relation to the Scott report to which he referred during Prime Minister’s Question Time on 22 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 27 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on Monday 26 February, Official Report, column 589.

     

    Scottish Grand Committee

    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to attend a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee; how many officials will attend with him; how many of these will be press officers; and what estimate he has made of the total cost involved.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend expects to attend shortly. Details of officials and costs are not yet known.

     

    Women’s Issues

    Ms Jowell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the members of the Cabinet committee dealing with women’s issues.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 18 July 1995, Official Report, columns 1005-12.

     

    Iraq (Exports)

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty’s Government will now make public details of the involvement of British companies in Iraq’s (a) chemical, (b) nuclear and (c) biological and chemical warfare programmes as communicated to Her Majesty’s Government by UNSCOM–the UN special commission on Iraq.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply. UNSCOM has communicated to us in confidence the names of a number of British companies which may have been involved in supplying items found at sites associated with Iraqi programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM does not make this information public, and it is important that we respect its confidence. UNSCOM considers that a high degree of confidentiality is essential to the successful performance of its work.

    Moreover, release of the names included in UNSCOM reports could unreasonably damage the reputation of British companies. It would be wrong to conclude without further analysis that companies whose names might appear in reports from UNSCOM have behaved wrongfully. Should any evidence of wrongdoing emerge, it will be investigated and, if appropriate, will be a matter for the courts.

     

    Western European Union

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the policies he presented to the Western European Union assembly in London on 23 February; and if he will place a copy of his speech in the Library.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    This Government’s approach is set out in detail in a memorandum of 1 March 1995. Copies of this and of my right hon. Friend’s speech to the WEU assembly have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

     

    Export Credits Guarantee Department

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister on what dates between 1987 and 1990 he met officials from the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and if he will make a statement.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 27 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    Advice about policy on export credit cover would normally be given to my right hon. Friends, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer by Treasury officials. It is not possible, without disproportionate cost, to ascertain if, and on what dates, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may have met ECGD officials between 1987 and 1990. It would, however, have been unusual for Ministers to receive advice on export credit policy from officials other than those in their own Departments.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if information communicated by the United Nations special commission to the International Atomic Energy Agency by Her Majesty’s Government on British companies which supplied materials relevant to Iraqi programmes to acquire weapons of mass destruction, was communicated to the Scott inquiry in its entirety.

    The Prime Minister [holding answers 26 February 1996]: Yes, insofar as it related to the period covered by the inquiry’s terms of reference.

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received from Ministers at the time he established the Scott inquiry in respect of (a) the remit and (b) the format of the inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: My discussions with Ministers are private.

    Mr. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Iraq note referred to on page 439 of the Scott report;

    (2) if he will now place in the Library a copy of the information note prepared by his private secretary on 3 December 1990.

    The Prime Minister: This document was submitted as evidence to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry. I understand that Sir Richard Scott proposes to publish as soon as possible any documents which he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister what response he plans to make to the representations made by the secretary of the Scott inquiry concerning the nature of statements by various Ministers following the press conference held by Sir Richard Scott on 15 February.

    The Prime Minister: A reply has been sent to the secretary of the inquiry’s letter on this matter. As the inquiry’s letter has been widely quoted and reproduced in the media, this reply was made public.

    The inquiry wrote again subsequently making it clear that Sir Richard’s view applied to any summary of his report, whether by Government, Opposition or the media.

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place copies of ministerial and departmental responses to the first draft of Sir Richard Scott’s report of the inquiry into the sale of arms to Iraq in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 February 1996]: Departments’ closing statements to the Scott inquiry have already been published in part B of volume V of the Scott inquiry report. I understand that Sir Richard Scott proposes to publish as soon as possible documents that he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. However, paragraph B3.11 of the report records that, in the interests of fairness, Sir Richard does not propose to publish comments submitted by witnesses on the draft report.

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the people who received copies of the Scott report in advance of the official publication date; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 February 1996]: The following Ministers received advance copies of Sir Richard Scott’s report: the Prime Minister; the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary; the President of the Board of Trade; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; the Secretary of State for Defence and the Attorney-General.

    In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the Paymaster General and the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, had access to the report prior to publication, in accordance with the terms laid down by the Scott inquiry.

    A small number of civil servants in the main Departments concerned also received advance copies.

     

    Iraq (Defence-related Exports)

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister when he first learned of the 1988 amendments to the 1985 Howe guidelines into defence-related exports to Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The first time I learned that a change in the guidelines had been considered in 1988 was in a minute from my private secretary dated 13 November 1992.

     

    Mr. Omar al Hassan

    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in 1994 he met Mr. Omar al Hassan; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, once, at a speaking engagement.

     

    Millennium Exhibition

    Mr. Booth: To ask the Prime Minister what part he envisages that Government will play in relation to the millennium exhibition; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The Government very much welcome the announcement by the Millennium Commission of its decision to stage a national millennium exhibition in Greenwich. This visionary and exciting scheme will enable the whole nation to mark this significant event in a wholly appropriate way. It should also encourage large numbers of overseas visitors to join in our national celebrations during the millennium year.

    Arrangements for the millennium exhibition are the responsibility of the independent Millennium Commission. The exhibition will be funded by the Commission from its share of national lottery proceeds and from private sector contributions. Given its scale, the event will, raise many issues to which the Government have to respond.

    In order to ensure that the Government’s participation in this significant national event is well planned and co-ordinated, I have asked the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister to convene a ministerial group with the following terms of reference:

    “to oversee the Government’s role in relation to the Millennium Festival and to take forward any necessary planning of the Government’s involvement in this event.”

    In addition to the chairman, members of the group will be as follows:

    Chancellor of the Exchequer

    Secretary of State for the Home Department

    Secretary of State for the Environment

    Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

    Secretary of State for National Heritage

    Lord Privy Seal

    Secretary of State for Transport

    Secretary of State for Scotland

    Secretary of State for Wales

    Other Ministers will be invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

    The Government will do all they can to assist the Millennium Commission to ensure that the millennium festival is an outstanding successful national event.

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet Mr. C. H. Tung, Mr. Rong Yiren, Mr. David Choy, Mr. Tsui Tsin-tong, Mr. George Cardona and Mr. Algy Cluff during his forthcoming visit to Hong Kong.

    The Prime Minister: I hope to meet a broad range of business men, politicians and other opinion formers.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 26 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the consistency between his statement in The Sun on 17 February as to United Kingdom arms exports to Iraq with the details of export licences provided on pages 21, 33, 34 and 77 of the appendix A of volume V of the Scott report.

    The Prime Minister: Appendix A of volume V of the Scott report confirms that the UK did not on any occasion approve the export of lethal defence equipment to Iraq. This is the point that I was making in my article in The Sun on 17 February.

    Mr. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines he has issued to Departments in respect of the retention of papers dealing with export licences since the Scott inquiry commenced.

    The Prime Minister: No specific guidance has been issued on the retention of papers dealing with export licences. Central guidance on the retention of Government papers generally is issued by the Public Records Office. More detailed criteria are applied by each Government Department to meet its own needs.

    Mr. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the briefing note prepared for him in support of his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of 12 November 1992, Official Report, column 990.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 February 1996]: This document was submitted as evidence to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any document which he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible. Documents which Sir Richard does not consider relevant to his report and which contain internal discussion and advice will not be made available.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will now place in the Library a copy of the chronology of United Kingdom trade with Iraq, prepared for his Office by the Cabinet Office in November 1992.

    The Prime Minister: This document was submitted as evidence to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any document which he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.

     

    Ministers’ (Resignations)

    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers have resigned in each year since 1979.

    The Prime Minister: This is a matter of public record.

     

    Ministers (Broadcasting)

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make arrangements for the transcripts of all television and radio broadcasts made by Ministers of the Crown to be deposited in the Library.

    The Prime Minister: This is a matter for departmental Ministers. The cost of making it a universal practice would be very substantial.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    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.

    Deregulation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking to ensure that each Government Department lists in its annual report (a) what action it has taken in the past 12 months and (b) what it plans to do in the next 12 months to reduce the regulatory burdens on businesses.

    The Prime Minister: The Government have agreed as part of their response to the deregulation task force’s 1995 annual report, published in September 1995, that all governmental Departments will provide this information in their annual reports. It is for each Secretary of State to ensure that this happens.

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his written answer of 14 February, Official Report, column 592, from what sources of information he assesses the record of Government against their targets for repealing or amending regulations.

    The Prime Minister: I receive regular reports from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on progress under the deregulation initiative. These incorporate information from individual Departments on their progress in repealing and amending regulations.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister how he responded to communications received from Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru; what were the dates of letters; and if he will deposit copies in the Library.

    The Prime Minister: I and my officials have responded to a number of letters from Mr. Muttukumaru, for example, about my evidence to the inquiry in January 1994. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any document he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.

    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: I do not envisage making such changes. Where officials criticised in the Scott report had acted conscientiously, in good faith and in accordance with Government policy, it would not normally be appropriate to take disciplinary action against them. If there are cases where disciplinary action is considered appropriate this would be carried out under normal departmental disciplinary procedure.

    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government’s response to the report of the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues and a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government’s response without sight of the report. It is not therefore possible to give their number or grades.

    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he had with non-ministerial right hon. and hon. Members before the publication of the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: I had no such consultations on the contents of the Scott report or on the Government’s response to it.

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will revise “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” following the report of the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” is updated from time to time as the need arises. That will continue to be the case.

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister from which civil servants he took advice before making his decision not to permit members of opposition parties to see the report of the Scott inquiry until three hours before it was presented to the House.

    The Prime Minister: Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature or the specific sources of the advice they receive from the civil service.

    Mr. Kaufman: To ask the Prime Minister when the Scott report was made available to the head of research at Conservative central office.

    The Prime Minister: At 15.30 pm on 15 February 1996.

    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Prime Minister when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: Wednesday 7 February 1996.

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister what consultation he had with the Secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government’s response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place.

    The Prime Minister: I have regular consultations with the Secretary of the Cabinet on current issues affecting the Government. These generally take place in 10 Downing Street. Details of these consultations are private.

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister when he first consulted other Cabinet Ministers about the contents of the report of the Scott inquiry; and where and when such discussions took place and with whom.

    The Prime Minister: I have frequent meetings with Ministers at which we discuss Government business. These meetings usually take place in No. 10 Downing Street. The details of such meetings are private.

    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government’s response to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned in accordance with the procedure agreed with the Scott inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues and a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government’s response without sight of the report. It is not therefore possible to give the cost of the work.

    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister what communication he received from the secretary of the Scott inquiry, concerning the time needed by the opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer given to him by the President of the Board of Trade today.

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister at what hour and minute of what day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office.

    The Prime Minister: During the afternoon of Wednesday 7 February 1996.

    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report.

    The Prime Minister: A small number of civil servants in each of the main Departments concerned had access to the report prior to publication for the purpose of preparing the Government’s response. Such access was in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Scott inquiry.

    Mr. Banks: To ask the Prime Minister on whose authority it was decided not to permit members of opposition parties to see the report of the Scott inquiry until three hours before the report was presented to the House.

    The Prime Minister: The Government decided, in the light of precedents, that it was appropriate to allow access to Opposition spokesmen three and a half hours before the publication of the report.

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all locations where a full set of the transcripts from the Scott inquiry are lodged.

    The Prime Minister: Transcripts of oral evidence to the Scott inquiry are publicly available from Smith Bernal, Official Court Reports, 167 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2EA, tel. 0171 939 2266. I understand that copies are also available for public consultation in Westminster public libraries. Since transcripts of oral evidence were available to the general public I have no means of identifying the locations of all such transcripts.

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister how many photocopies the Government have made of the Scott report as of 13 February.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 February 1996]: No photocopies were made of the report as a whole prior to publication. Photocopies of some sections of the report were made, in accordance with agreements reached with the inquiry.

     

    Press Gallery Writing Rooms

    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February.

    The Prime Minister: If any Ministers did so, that is a matter for them.

  • PMQT – 22 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    United Nations

    Q1. Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 January, Official Report, column 772, what proposals he has made for the abolition of United Nations bodies.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I believe in an effective United Nations. Eliminating waste must be part of that. As I advised the hon. Gentleman recently, that includes, where necessary, a long-term look at the functions and programmes that have outlived their usefulness.

    Dr. Godman: Before any such bodies can be abolished, the United Nations must contend with the election of a new Secretary-General. Why are the Government advocating the re-election of Dr. Boutros Ghali so assiduously? Should not the Prime Minister and other leaders be campaigning for a candidate of the stature of, say, President Mary Robinson of the Irish Republic, or some other stateswoman or statesman of equal standing? As for Dr. Boutros Ghali, should we not be saying cheerio to the old fellow?

    The Prime Minister: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not indicate how they will vote on these occasions, and I do not propose to do so now. What I think most important is that the United Nations is efficient, and efficiently run. It is distressing to note that a large number of United Nations bodies have patently outlived their usefulness. They have no proper functions to perform either now or in the future, and they should be removed.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

    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.

    Mr. Bruce: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House–and, indeed, to the public–why, when the reputation of members of his Cabinet is at stake and when the House is to debate a report that he personally commissioned, he is denying the House a substantive motion on which to vote and, moreover, is not prepared to come here and take part in the debate?

    The Prime Minister: I am here every Tuesday and Thursday to answer questions, and I do answer those questions.

    Mr. Mackinlay: Where is the right hon. Gentleman on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays?

    The Prime Minister: If hon. Members wish to have Prime Minister’s Questions on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I am not entirely sure that they will carry the whole House with them.

    The House will be able to vote on Monday’s motion, and it is very likely that it will do so. If the main charges against the Government had been proved, of course it would have been entirely proper for me to be here to defend that, but they were not proved. Sir Richard has agreed that there was no conspiracy, no cover-up. It is entirely proper that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whom the report was addressed, should lead for the Government, and he will do so.

    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is simply unacceptable that an unelected foreign court should put its judgement on British policy before that of a British Home Secretary? If ultimately we have to follow the consequences of backing British opinion and contemplate leaving the European Court of Justice at the expense of pandering to the European liberal intelligentsia, would that not be very much the lesser of two evils?

    The Prime Minister: It is of course extremely disappointing–and to many hon. Members extremely irritating–that the European Court of Human Rights has found against the Government on a procedure that has been used in this country for very many years. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is looking very carefully at the judgment to see precisely what effect it has. I have said before that the Government are not satisfied with some of the rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights and we are pursuing with other members of the Council of Europe precisely what might be done to improve what we believe is a flawed system.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are two questions on the Scott report: first, was Parliament misled and, secondly, were Ministers to blame? On the first, the Chancellor has been forced to issue an apology today for a Treasury press release and has admitted that Scott found that Parliament was misled. Does the Prime Minister agree with that? Can we have a clear answer? Does he accept that Scott found that Parliament was misled?

    The Prime Minister: There were two questions, of course, that Sir Richard Scott was asked to investigate, and he investigated both those and other matters as well. The two principal points that Sir Richard was asked to determine were, first, whether Saddam Hussein was illegally supplied with arms–as charged by right hon. and hon. Opposition Members–and he found that he was not; and, secondly, whether there was a conspiracy to pervert justice by an improper use of public interest immunity certificates and, again, he found that there was not.

    On whether Parliament was misled, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, none of my right hon. Friends intentionally misled Parliament. They did not. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Scott report carefully, he would know what Sir Richard had to say about that. He would know that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was cleared of duplicitous intent and that he was not accused of deliberately misleading Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman knows that and I am surprised that he keeps pursuing a point that he knows is wrong.

    Mr. Blair: We will come to the question of blame, Ministers deliberately withholding information from Parliament in breach of rules of accountability, not telling the truth when they were in a position to know so–all of which Sir Richard found. Can I have it clearly on the record whether the Prime Minister, leaving aside the question of intention, to which we will come, accepts that Parliament was misled–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: I answered that question on Tuesday. I have answered that question again today and I have made it absolutely clear. There was no intention whatever to mislead Parliament–nor did my right hon. Friends do that on any occasion of which I am aware.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is not prepared to answer the basic question. How has he reached the position of commissioning the report to get at the truth, and three years and millions of pounds later walking away from the findings that he does not like? Just like Nolan, just like Greenbury–it is a textbook definition of Majorism. Can the Prime Minister please tell us whether he accepts the key findings, first, that Parliament was misled and, secondly, that Ministers deliberately withheld information in breach of the rules of ministerial accountability? If he cannot answer them, we will conclude that he is unable and his Government are unable to distinguish between what is true and what is false.

    The Prime Minister: That was not so much a sound bite as a sound nibble. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there was no deceit whatever, and that was apparent from the report. I will tell the House why the right hon. Gentleman keeps moving to these points. He knows that on the substantive issues Sir Richard found in the Government’s favour. He knows that on the issues that the inquiry was set up to consider, the Government were found to have behaved entirely properly. That is why the right hon. Gentleman changes the ground rules.

    On the central issues of the Scott report–the issues that have led the Opposition to blackguard the Government repeatedly over the past three years–Sir Richard found in the Government’s favour. The right hon. Gentleman will scrabble on wherever he can to change what he said before and to hide what he said before, and to try to impute deceit where there was none.

    Dr. Spink: Why are non-wage labour costs in the UK half those of our major competitors? Why is our take-home pay higher than that of our major competitors and why is our unemployment lower? Is it a result of the Government’s policies, which are making us the enterprise centre of Europe?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this country’s favourable economic position. He is equally right to draw attention to the fact that, if we accepted the social costs, through the social chapter as it is now and the social chapter as it would be if any British Government were foolish enough to join it, we would find the same extra costs, the same lack of competitiveness and the same increase in unemployment as we have seen in so many of our competitor countries across Europe. We have no intention of making those mistakes. No party that is genuinely concerned about employment should contemplate such policies, because they will keep people out of work who are out of work at present and they will put out of work people who are in work at present.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mike O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

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

    Mr. O’Brien: Returning to the Scott report– [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Conservative Members suggest that it is boring. It is not boring in my constituency, which is just down the road from Matrix Churchill. Now let the Prime Minister try to give us a straight answer to a straight question. Does he accept the finding of the Scott report that the Attorney-General was personally at fault for failing to pass on the view of the Deputy Prime Minister that the documents for which he claimed public interest immunity should be shown to the defence?

    The Prime Minister: The Attorney-General made it clear to the House on Monday that he took specific steps to ensure, through my right hon. Friend’s special PII certificate, that the judge was alerted to the need for special care. The judge exercised his discretion, precisely as the Attorney-General had said he would, and ordered the disclosure of the relevant papers to the defence. The hon. Gentleman should stop twisting and misinterpreting what happened.

     

    Q4. Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

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

    Mr. Carrington: Does the Prime Minister agree that, with high unemployment in this country and even higher unemployment in our European partner countries, we need policies that will lift the burden off industry to enable it to create jobs? Whatever the wriggling, the Labour party’s support for the social chapter and the minimum wage blows apart its claim to be able to create jobs. All it would do is tax jobs.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. [Interruption.] I said “my hon. Friend”. Fond though I am of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I do not regard him as my right hon. Friend in parliamentary terms–[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman seeks repeatedly to interrupt Prime Minister’s Question Time. He reminds me that it was he who said that, after 15 years of deregulation, he did not see much investment flooding in. He should go to Sedgefield, Livingston and all sorts of other places throughout the country to see the inward investment that has been a result of this Government’s policy. It has provided jobs for people whom the right hon. Gentleman’s policies would leave on the scrap heap for ever.

     

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

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

    Mr. McAvoy: The Prime Minister keeps on repeating that the Scott report has cleared his Government. If that is the case, why is he so scared of allowing the House a vote on the future of the two Ministers concerned? What is he scared of?

    The Prime Minister: The House will have its opportunity to debate and to vote on the motion on Monday. I have indicated my confidence in both Ministers. I have indicated that, on the two substantive matters that caused me to set up the Scott report, Sir Richard has cleared the Government of any malpractice whatsoever. I have also said before, and I repeat it again now, that what happened did bring out shortcomings in some areas. I said that last week and I repeat it again today. We will take those shortcomings very seriously. We are examining what Sir Richard had to say and we will bring before the House speedily our proposed measures to remedy those things that need changing.

  • PMQT – 20 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.

    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. Jones: Does Prime Minister accept Sir Richard Scott’s judgement that the Attorney-General was personally at fault? Given the collapse in public confidence in him, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman started referring to him as unassailable?

    The Prime Minister: I have to say that I believe that the Attorney-General acted perfectly properly throughout this whole affair.

    “How the narrative of fairness can be fabricated into an indictment of the Attorney-General, I fail to follow.”

    Mr. Mackinlay: It is because he is an awful lawyer.

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to hear what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) below the Gangway says because I was quoting the defence counsel at the Matrix Churchill trial.

    Mr. Matthew Banks: On a different point, does my right hon. Friend recall the dark days of nationalised industries when they cost the taxpayer £50 million a week? Is he able to contrast that with the position now where, in the private sector, they contribute £50 million to the national coffers? Is that not about five new schools a week? Is that not something that the Labour party simply has not grasped?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the advantages of private ownership over public ownership. We have seen this in a wide range of areas over many years. I have no doubt that, wherever appropriate, things are better handled in the private sector and should be in the private sector rather than in the public sector. That is so in terms both of the experience that we have of the way in which the private sector operates and of the general demand to make this country competitive, with the lowest possible tax regime consistent with that.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with the specific finding of Scott that Ministers agreed to the sale of non-lethal weapons to Iraq, and agreed not to inform Parliament and the public, and that that failure was deliberate and in breach of their duty of ministerial accountability? Does he agree with those specific findings of Scott or not?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman takes time to read the whole of Sir Richard Scott’s report, he will see that Sir Richard accepts that Ministers regarded not that there was not a change of the guidelines but that there was an interpretation of the guidelines against changing circumstances. Sir Richard accepts explicitly that Ministers regarded the relaxed interpretation

    “as being a justifiable use of the flexibility believed to be inherent in the Guidelines.”

    [Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members are laughing. That is Sir Richard’s view and I agree with him on that point.

    Mr. Blair: The point that I am asking the right hon. Gentleman about comes before that about whether the guidelines were changed; it is whether he is prepared to accept the specific findings in D4.42 of the Scott report that Ministers agreed to the sale of non-lethal weapons to Iraq, that they agreed specifically not to tell Parliament, and that that agreement in Sir Richard’s words was “deliberate” and in breach of their duty of ministerial accountability. Rather than the general, will he answer that specific? Will he tell us whether he agrees with that paragraph of the report–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: What Sir Richard says is that the reason for the decision not to inform Parliament was because of a concern that to do so

    “might be detrimental to British trading interests”–

    that is to say, jobs. That is a direct quotation from what Sir Richard had to say.

    Mr. Blair: That is simply not the case. Sir Richard gives specifically the reason why Ministers did not tell Parliament and the public. He said:

    “the overriding and determinative reason was a fear of strong public opposition”.

    That is a quite different matter. [Interruption.] Does not the matter go to the very heart of parliamentary democracy? On virtually every page of the report there are details of answers that are inaccurate, untrue, misleading. Is no one going to take responsibility for that? Have no Conservative Members got the courage? Does none of them want to hold Ministers to account? If the Prime Minister cannot answer and say whether he agrees with the paragraph–it is his report, which he set up, on which he spent money–the Conservative party and the Conservative Government will remain knee deep in dishonour.

    The Prime Minister: On the question of defence exports, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman–he may not like it–of what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said when he was a Minister. That spokesman for a Labour Government said:

    “It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal information on the supply of arms to individual countries.”–[Official Report, 10 June 1974; Vol. 874, c. 396-97.]

    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that was the Labour Government’s position? He huffs and puffs with false indignation. If he had a shred of honesty himself, he would admit that the two central charges levied at the Government repeatedly by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his hon. Friends have been found to be untrue and should be withdrawn.

    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in an increasingly competitive and turbulent world, this or indeed any Government must take great care in the way in which they balance national interest and the promotion of British exports? Is it not clear that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General are honourable Members and that they should be given some degree of trust and flexibility, as the Labour party would give its Ministers if it were in government? The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should have a care.

    The Prime Minister: I think that there are some substantive points, which tend to get lost amidst these exchanges, and I shall tell the House what the important ones are. We did not export lethal weapons to Iraq, unlike many other countries. No British troops in Kuwait faced British weapons, and our guidelines for the export of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq were at least as strict as, and probably stricter than, those of any other country. That is the reality that the British nation needs to understand, and that the Opposition seek to hide.

    Mr. Ashdown: Can the Prime Minister think of any other organisation in Britain, except perhaps British Gas, in which senior executives who had been criticised by an independent inquiry in the terms in which his Ministers have been criticised by Scott would be allowed by the boss to hang on to their jobs?

    The Prime Minister: Again, the right hon. Gentleman resorts to partial understanding. Whether that is a tactic or whether the right hon. Gentleman really understands only partially, is something that neither I nor the House has ever been able fully to understand. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the whole report, he will realise that the central charges levied, the charges that required me to set up the report so that they could be impartially examined and laid to rest, have been impartially examined, and have been laid to rest.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Sunday Telegraph this week about the relative competitiveness of British industry? It was entitled, “Britain advances, Germany retreats”. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our vital interests lie in free trade, free markets, free enterprise policies and freedom from the social chapter and from the other Euro-meddling so beloved by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I am entirely happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the economic circumstances that we now face, as a result of the difficult and often unpopular decisions that we have taken to put the British economy on an even keel. We now have the best platform for sustained prosperity, and for sustained growth with low inflation, that we have seen for many years. Nobody doubts that, except those who are professionally inclined to wish to doubt it, because it conflicts with their interests–and they sit on the Opposition Benches.

     

    Q2. Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Williams: Does the Prime Minister agree with Sir Richard Scott that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury again and again, in letter after letter to hon. Members, misled Parliament about the arms sale policy to Iraq, and consistently failed to discharge his duty of ministerial accountability to Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: No; I have made the point before, and I shall reiterate, that I do not believe that my right hon. Friend deliberately misled Parliament. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I do not believe that. The requirement to inform Parliament is clearly set out in “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”–and the reason why the House knows that is that I arranged for its open publication for the first time. Unlike previous Governments, who were asked to publish it by their own backbenchers, I published it without being asked. Previous Governments were asked, and declined to publish.

    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as having the fullest support of the British people, both in Ulster and on the mainland, in pursuing the peace initiative, he also has the widespread support of the British people both in Ulster and on the mainland in vigorously pursuing those who wish to damage the civil liberties of the people of London and elsewhere, through a bombing campaign? Does he further agree that those who wish to damage the civil liberties of our people should not be too surprised if their own civil liberties are damaged in the pursuit of justice?

    The Prime Minister: We are determined to maintain law and order and democratic principles and we shall continue to seek and hunt down those responsible for the recent attacks. We give the highest priority to the security of citizens on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. Each of the three bombs in the past 10 days or so has been the act of men callously unconcerned about the death or injury of innocent people–perhaps people who have had no connection whatsoever with the ancient feuds and disputes of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that they either deserve or will receive sympathy and understanding from any decent citizen, either here or in Ulster.

     

    Q3. Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February.

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

    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Prime Minister agree that, since the Chief Secretary has repeatedly given inaccurate and misleading information to Parliament and to the public, he is the ideal man to present the Tory party’s tax plans at the next election?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that my right hon. Friend will be presenting tax plans from this Dispatch Box after the election also.

     

    EU Unemployment

    Q4. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of unemployment in the EU.

    The Prime Minister: I shall take every opportunity to protect the United Kingdom’s flexible labour market and falling unemployment against the damaging effects of the social chapter. No other significant European country has an unemployment rate lower than ours.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As high unemployment is becoming a tragic nightmare on the continent of Europe– by comparison with the UK, where unemployment has been falling consistently–will the Prime Minister do all in his power to persuade his colleagues in Europe to abandon illogical policies such as fixed exchange rates, which are simply a recipe for job destruction?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about the relative levels of unemployment. While unemployment fell here last week to a five-year low, in most similar large European countries it is either growing or remaining static at a much higher level than here in the United Kingdom. As the president of the European Monetary Institute said just the other day, other member states should use the United Kingdom as their economic model. I am delighted to have his support–that is what I have been saying to my colleagues on the European Council for several years now.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Scott Report – 16 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Scott Report, made on the 16th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Sir Richard has done a very thorough, very competent job and I am very grateful to him. It has taken three years of work and I think people can now see the outcome. I thought it was very important that Sir Richard examined these matters because the charges that were laid, that the Government were seeking to arm Saddam Hussein and that Government Ministers had conspired to send innocent men to jail, were very serious indeed. I thought the only way that they could be comprehensively examined and people would realise that they were untrue was to have the sort of examination Sir Richard has carried out so I am immensely grateful to him for it.

    I think you need to look at the whole context of the report. What was the report about? The report was about whether innocent men were going to be sent to jail by conspiracy and whether Saddam Hussein was being armed by the British Government. Those were the charges, those frankly were the smears with which Robin Cook and others have run with consistently over the last three years. They are comprehensively dismissed and I don’t think you can overlook the fact that that was what the report was about. They have gone. There is no doubt that didn’t happen. I am delighted at the outcome. I believed that that would be the outcome because I know William Waldegrave very well. It never occurred to me for a second that these charges would be true and it was important to me that the British nation realised that and now they do.

    I think there are lessons to learn from Sir Richard’s report. It is very comprehensive. It has shown up some shortcomings and mistakes and I shall take these very seriously.

    When I invited Sir Richard to set his own terms of reference I did so knowingly. I did so knowing he would look at it very carefully and he might throw up things that needed to be amended and needed to be changed, and he has in some respects and we will examine these very carefully. Some we have already put into operation and others we are examining. All of them will be examined with very great care. The dissemination of intelligence material for example. Clearly it would have been better if that had been better disseminated. That is an illustration of it. Indeed the fact that there are something like 100,000 pieces of intelligence to be looked at in a short period is a mitigating circumstance but there is more to be done. So there are things to be learned from the report.

  • PMQT – 15 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how long it took him to read the Scott report?

    The Prime Minister: I am a very rapid reader.

    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the destruction of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords is but a short distance from the destruction of the hereditary monarchy?

    The Prime Minister: I am surprised at the hostility of the Labour party to the hereditary principle, for this reason: when the Government were defeated in a vote last week, we were defeated by the votes of hereditary peers. As it happens, one of the Labour frontbench remarked to the House, “the people have spoken”.

    Mr. Blair: In retrospect, does the Prime Minister believe that the Scott report would have been better handled if it had been released in the way in which Sir Richard Scott requested? Does he have any regrets about the extraordinary disparity of treatment given, on the one hand, to Ministers and the Conservative machine and, on the other, to Members of Parliament, Opposition spokesmen and civil servants–a disparity about to be exemplified by the shambles at 3.30 pm?

    The Prime Minister: Nothing has been given to the Conservative machine–the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark. Sir Richard wrote–I think to you, Madam Speaker–on 31 January to say:

    “Subject to the imposition of strict conditions on access (which Mr. Cook is prepared to observe), I view his request sympathetically.”

    We permitted access at 12 o’clock. I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman disagree. The arrangements are exactly those offered to the shadow Home Secretary when we published the Learmont report. We even offered him sandwiches. Not only did he not describe the arrangements as “outrageous and insulting” but, when he made his statement, he said:

    “I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in arranging for me to see the report earlier than is usual.”–[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 33.]

    I look forward to similar thanks from the shadow Foreign Secretary later.

    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend believe that British Telecom’s doubling of the amount that is spent on building the information super-highway by people other than BT is the Government’s competition policy in action, or does he believe that it would be better to sign a sweetheart deal just with BT to have the information super-highway built more quickly?

    The Prime Minister: The information super-highway has been in the process of being built for some years. The sweetheart deal that was entered into–apparently by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)–seems to have come badly unstuck since its initial publicity.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Hoon: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many of his Ministers who had early access to the Scott report have since been confined in a secure room, have had their mobile phones confiscated, have had all their messages brought to them by civil servants and have been escorted throughout by officials who are present for their convenience and security?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman heard what I said to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman is overacting outrageously on this issue. I shall tell the House why Labour Members are behaving in this fashion. The right hon. Gentleman did not want to sign a form promising secrecy and decided to attack the Government for asking him to do so. He then discovered that the requirement to sign the form was not that of the Government but that of Sir Richard Scott and that all Ministers, including me, have signed it. To save face, the Opposition went into sulks and denounced the whole arrangement.

    Mr. Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend share the following view expressed in today’s The Times:

    “Kenneth Clarke, the Chancellor, was yesterday presented with a golden economic scenario of low inflation and falling unemployment.”?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with the comment. That economic scenario has resulted from the sustained policies that the Government have followed for some time. We now have the lowest sustained level of inflation for 50 years, which today has fallen to below 3 per cent; the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years; the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years; more foreign investment than any other nation in Europe; and we export more per person than Japan and the United States.

    The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), in his usual heckling form, talked about taxes. Let him tell us about the new taxes that the Labour party plans: the windfall tax, the tartan tax, the training tax and the social chapter tax on jobs. The right hon. Gentleman should realise that the Labour party is the taxing party– it is in opposition now and that is where it will stay.

     

    Q3. Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. McFall: Why has it been necessary for the Government to prepare a shorthand version of the Scott report for distribution to Conservative Members and to the media? Would it not have been preferable to allow people to make up their own minds, based on Sir Richard Scott’s key conclusions and not on the Government’s version of events?

    The Prime Minister: That is rich coming from the hon. Gentleman. Most Labour Members made up their minds about this issue three years ago–long before Sir Richard started his report. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall read to him a large selection of quotations from Labour frontbenchers that show that they had made up their minds before Sir Richard Scott started his investigation.

    I set up the inquiry so that we could find out precisely what happened and so that the matter could be investigated independently and publicly. It was investigated under the conditions that Sir Richard Scott wanted. I was determined that the report be published and debated by the House, as it has been. The hon. Gentleman will see the outcome shortly.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that more than 7,000 head teachers are members of the Secondary Heads Association? Is he aware that that association has described Labour’s education policy as naive? Is it not typical of the Opposition’s arrogance that they have now said that those 7,000 hard-working headteachers should go to the bottom of the class for not doing their homework?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend characteristically understates what was said by the secondary heads. What they actually said was:

    “The document is an uncomfortable combination of the naive and the messianic”,

    that they find

    “little evidence in the document of thought in detail or research”

    and that they regret

    “the absence of recognition of valuable initiatives already in place”–

    put in place by this Government.

    We have learnt over the months that Labour’s education spokesman has a tough job. Teachers openly criticise his policy and shadow Cabinet Members openly contradict it–but now that they know what makes a good school, I am sure that they will be able to improve their education policy.

    Mr. Radice: In April 1994, the Prime Minister wrote to me to say that, if Ministers fail to give accurate and truthful information to the House of Commons, they should relinquish their positions. Is that still the case?

    The Prime Minister: I have said before that, if I judge Ministers to have knowingly misled the House, they cannot stay. That remains my position.

     

    Q5. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend join me in rejecting the insulting suggestion made last night by the Leader of the Opposition–that when old-age pensioners want a treat, they should steal it? Is he aware that shoplifting costs every household in the country £90 a year? Does he agree that the idea that shoplifters from certain groups should not be prosecuted is yet another example of Labour saying one thing and wanting to do quite another?

    The Prime Minister: Shoplifting is certainly a serious crime. It causes a great deal of loss for small and large shopkeepers. If the right hon. Member for Sedgefield did indeed describe it as my hon. Friend suggests he did, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw those remarks. They certainly cannot reflect his settled consideration.

     

    Q6. Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Hill: As the Prime Minister has had a full eight days to read the Scott report, and as I have only eight minutes, would he care to advise me which of the 1,800 pages I should find the most interesting?

    The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that, in addition to examining the report so that I and others can be answerable to this House, there have been some other things to do. The hon. Gentleman has 11 days now to consider the report. I hope that he will contribute to the debate in the House then–on the basis of fact, not of sneers, smears and innuendo of the sort that we have heard for three years.

     

    Q7. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we have the most encouraging set of economic indicators that this country has had in modern history? Will he further accept, although he knows that I have had concerns in the past about aspects of the health service reforms, that the private health sector is now so popular and so instrumental in playing a role in the health service that my socialist opponent at the next election works for it?

    The Prime Minister: I am truly shocked at that example of how Labour does not always do what it says. I hope that we will not find it in other elements of the Labour party.

     

    Q8. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

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

    Mr. Prentice: Did Lord Justice Scott not make it quite clear that all hon. Members should receive his report at the same time? Is it not almost a contempt of court that backbenchers such as me have no time at all to absorb his important report and that we will find it impossible to quiz the President of the Board of Trade intelligently on its conclusions?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should really come off this silly line that he and his hon. Friends–[Interruption.]–this silly line that he and his hon. Friends are concerting. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is having hysteria, would be better advised to look at the precedent, to see what happened to the shadow Home Secretary, and to see what he said a few days later.

    Hon. Members have tried every trick to prejudice the reception of the Scott report. I suggest that they would be very wise to wait for just a few minutes to see what is in the Scott report. They can then deal with the reality of it on the basis of knowledge, and not on the basis of the smears that they have been putting around for the past three years.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Deregulation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his written answer of 6 November, Official Report, column 546, if he will place in the Library copies of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal; and which of these had been repealed by 1 December 1995.

    The Prime Minister: The 1,000 regulations due for repeal or amendment are identified individually by the responsible Departments and no comprehensive central list is held. However, we achieved our target of repealing or amending over 500 regulations by the end of last year. Examples included the simplification of the food temperature control regulations which will save business about £40 million a year with no diminution in food safety; removal of restrictions on Sunday trading and allowing shops to stay open later in the evenings if they so wish; and reform of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 which will result in savings to charities of up to £450 million a year by giving them greater investment flexibility. New measures are under consideration.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Robin Cook: To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 1 January 1995 (a) he and (b) officials in the Cabinet Office have had contact with Lord Howe concerning his correspondence with the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 February 1996]: Lord Howe, like other witnesses to the Scott inquiry, has had contacts with officials in the Cabinet Office from time to time. I have had no such contacts with him.

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made for civil servants whose actions are discussed by Lord Justice Scott to receive copies of his report before its official publication on 15 February.

    The Prime Minister: Pursuant to my answer of Tuesday 13 February, Official Report, columns 506-7, it has subsequently been agreed with the inquiry that all individuals who, from earlier drafts submitted to them, have reason to believe they may be criticised in the report should have access to those sections of the report relevant to them shortly before publication, but only in controlled circumstances.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 13 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Departmental Publications

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister which of his Department’s administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 12 February 1996.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what was the final date on which (a) a Minister and (b) a civil servant delivered information to Lord Justice Scott for his inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: The Government have been in correspondence with Sir Richard Scott’s team throughout the period of the inquiry. The Cabinet Office was last asked to provide documents and information to the inquiry on 22 January.

    Mr. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made for civil servants whose actions are discussed by Lord Justice Scott to receive copies of his report before its official publications on 15 February.

    The Prime Minister: The Government are in discussion with the inquiry about this.

    Mr. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister how many pages of evidence were provided by his office to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: My office and the Cabinet Office have provided 6,197 pages of evidence to the Scott inquiry. This figure does not include correspondence between my office or the Cabinet Office and the inquiry or evidence supplied to the inquiry by individual witnesses.

    Mr. Robin Cook: To ask the Prime Minister if he (a) has discussed and (b) has authorised his Ministers to discuss media presentation of the Scott inquiry report with (i) newspaper proprietors, (ii) newspaper editors and (iii) governors of the BBC.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 February 1996]: The arrangements agreed by the Government with Sir Richard Scott do not permit anyone outside Government to have access to the report before publication, nor to have the contents of the report disclosed to them. I have made it clear that those arrangements must be adhered to. The only exception at present agreed is that the spokesmen of the leading Opposition parties should have access to the report some hours before publication in accordance with the precedents for weighty reports of this nature. The preparation of the Government’s response to the report has been and will be conducted in accordance with those arrangements. Any changes would be made only after consultation with Sir Richard Scott.

     

    Higher Education Institutions

    Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each occasion on which he has visited (a) a British university, and (b) another institution of higher education in each of the last five years; and what was the purpose of the visit in each case.

    The Prime Minister: I have visited a range of education establishments and discussed a variety of issues over the past five years.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

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

     

    Munitions Dumping

    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department has responsibility for responding to accidents caused by the dumping of munitions in the Beaufort’s dyke area.

    The Prime Minister: The response to any particular incident would, in the first instance, be a matter for the relevant emergency services. Any associated departmental responsibility would be determined by the circumstances of the particular incident.