The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT – 10 December 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 10th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    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. Kirkwood: In spite of commendable resolution at the weekend, is it not clear to everyone that attempting to run a minority Government, with a party in open revolt, makes it impossible to secure a deal that is in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom, at Amsterdam, Dublin or anywhere else? If, as the Prime Minister suggested on Sunday, he is motivated by the national interest, will he operate on that basis and call for an early Dissolution of Parliament, so that we can have an early general election?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to hear that I will pick the election date in my own time and not at his behest.

    On the discussions in Europe, I set out the Government’s position with great clarity. There are a number of extremely difficult questions to face in the intergovernmental conference over the next few months; on some issues, we have allies in Europe and, on others, we do not, but in each instance we have set out our position and we propose to stick with it.

    Mr. Alison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how greatly the public at large, especially parents, will welcome the Government’s decision to press the broadcasting authorities to curb television violence? Does he agree that, if there is even slight evidence that increased screen violence is linked, via imitation or disinhibition, to increased crime, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the potential victims of such crime and no reasonable remedies must be discounted?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. Friend has spoken for parents throughout the country. There is a difficult balance to keep in ensuring that we have free and open media and that they maintain the standards that are appropriate for society generally and for children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has today agreed a plan of action with the chairmen of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council, and we look forward to its being carried out.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with Sir Leon Brittan, who said this morning that Conservative party divisions were weakening Britain’s negotiating position in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: There are two things that really damage the national interest in negotiating in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that, when the House of Commons is not united on any issue, that weakens any Government’s position in international negotiations. That is certainly true; but what also undermines our national interest and our negotiating position in Europe is the fact that many of the socialist Governments in Europe expect, were there to be a Labour Government, a very easy ride and a distinct change of policy. They believe that a Labour Government would make changes and surrender positions to which this Government have held–positions which, if surrendered, would be damaging to the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Blair: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, after his interview on Sunday, much of which I would agree with, there is less clear water between him, his deputy, one half of the Cabinet and the Opposition than between him and most of his Back Benchers? If he is not prepared to agree with Sir Leon Brittan, does he stand by his own comments at the weekend that the Conservative divisions were “self-evidently” damaging to Britain’s interests?

    The Prime Minister: I made that perfectly clear at the weekend. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. I have also made it clear that the Government have set out a position that we believe to be in the national interest. The national interest is going to come before the party interest. There is no doubt about that, and I made that absolutely clear again. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that what also damages the national interest is the belief among our partners in Europe that many of the positions that we hold would be surrendered by an alternative Government.

    Mr. Blair: I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has admitted that these Conservative divisions damage the country’s interest. [Interruption.] “It is obvious,” shouts a voice from the Back Benches. It is obvious, except to the Conservative party. Is the Prime Minister aware that Lord Blake has said in the past few hours that he has never seen the Conservative party in such disarray in 14 general elections? Is he aware that, this lunchtime, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) referred to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) as “politically insane”? Some might say that he is a good judge of such matters. If all that is the case, does not the Prime Minister agree with the vast majority of people who say that, if the Conservatives cannot be trusted to run themselves, why should they be trusted to run this country?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that he has precisely the same divisions on his own Back Benches. I look at the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I ask whether they share the same position on European matters as the right hon. Gentleman. But I shall tell him about unity: we are united in our opposition to a centralist, federalist Europe as much as Labour is united in favour of a federal Europe. We are standing up for Britain’s interests in Europe; the Labour party is determined to stand up for Brussels’ interests in Britain.

    Mr. Nigel Evans: My right hon. Friend knows, because he has visited it, that Ribble valley is a beautiful part of the United Kingdom that attracts many thousands of tourists every year. Many hundreds of jobs are involved in the tourism industry there; many of them are in small businesses, such as bed and breakfast, small restaurants and cafeterias. What does he believe would be the impact of the introduction of a minimum wage and the social chapter and of caving in to every rule and regulation from Brussels on small businesses in Ribble valley?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the impact. Small businesses would suffer greatly were those policies to be imposed on them. Not only would existing small businesses suffer greatly but jobs would be lost. Not only would present jobs be lost but the future construction of small businesses would be inhibited and future jobs that would otherwise be created would not be created.

     

    Q2. Mr. Denham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.

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

    Mr. Denham: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the changes taking place in the administration of war pensions include the end to automatic reviews of entitlement, an end to reminders to submit claim forms and a requirement to provide independent evidence before a review can take place? Most important, will he confirm that civil servants estimate that, over and above any administrative savings, 16,000 war pensioners will lose out as a result of those changes?

    The Prime Minister: Last week, the Leader of the Opposition made a number of charges about war pensions which he now knows to be incorrect. He may not have known it last week when he said it in the House, but he now knows that it was incorrect and I hope that he will correct it. A few hours ago, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) made charges about war pensions, which she now knows were incorrect. She was told, in the past half-hour in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, that they were incorrect. The fact is that some of the changes made last week extend benefits rather than reduce them. Some claimants will get more. No claimants will lose.

    The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) will know of the letters written by the British Limbless Ex-Service Men’s Association and the Royal British Legion which made it clear that the publicity last week and the activities of the Labour party totally misrepresented the Government’s policy and what the Government had done on the issue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not in the same business.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Prime Minister confirm full and continuing support for grammar schools, which provide unique opportunities for children from low-income homes to achieve educational excellence? Will he resist in all ways something that is worrying us in Southend, where a quarter of all our children attend such grammar schools–abolition of selection tests, which would be a recipe for the destruction of these excellent schools?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that. As my hon. Friend will know, there are proposals before the House to allow a limited amount of selection in schools of all sorts in the state sector. What we seek to do in the education sector is provide a degree of diversity that matches the diversity of the children. A single, regimented, rigid system does not enable the diversity of education that our children need to have provided. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is presenting a Bill to the House that will extend diversity and prevent the problem set out by my hon. Friend.

     

    Q3. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.

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

    Dr. Jones: Surely the Prime Minister must now accept that the civil war in his party makes it impossible for his Government to have any clear authority in negotiations in Dublin or anywhere else. Would he take seriously any other European Government who were in the same shambles as his own? The last time this happened, the Prime Minister resigned as party leader. Now that it has happened again, will he, in the interest of the country, resign as Prime Minister and call a general election?

    The Prime Minister: The simple answer is no.

    As for divisions, if the hon. Lady is so concerned about them, perhaps she might have a word with the 50 or so of her colleagues who have made it perfectly clear that they are wholly opposed to a single currency. On one day, we have 50 of them saying that they are opposed to a single currency and others, led by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), writing to The Independent saying that they are in favour of it. The hon. Lady had better realise that the splits in the Opposition are seismic.

    Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the MORI poll published in The Sun newspaper yesterday, which was, in part, conducted in my constituency and which showed that 68 per cent. of respondents felt that they did not wish to be in a single currency and wished to keep the pound; and that almost 50 per cent. said that they would rather not be in the European Union at all? Is he aware of other polls that reflect similar sentiments? Does he not think that the honest way to clear the air would be to have a referendum and ask the people of Britain which way they would like our country to go in future?

    The Prime Minister: We made it clear last April that, if the Government decided that we would enter into a single currency, there would be a referendum on the specific question whether we should go into a single currency. That has been settled policy since last April and I hope that my hon. Friend will support that policy.

    What we need in this country is a rational debate on the issue of Europe, so that–not only on the issue of a single currency, but on all the other important issues that lie ahead of us in the intergovernmental conference–people have a reasoned debate and are then able to make reasoned judgments on the basis of facts, and not scares.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 9 December 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    IRA

    Mr. Robert McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions, and through what arrangement he or his office has had communications with the IRA since 1 September 1994.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Council of Ministers

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by Department each occasion when Her Majesty’s Government have entered a scrutiny reserve at Council of Ministers meetings, indicating the matter concerned.

    The Prime Minister: Arrangements exist to prevent items coming forward for decision in the Council of Ministers where a member state’s parliamentary scrutiny procedures have yet to be completed. The presidency may, nonetheless, occasionally place an item on a Council agenda for decision which is still subject to parliamentary scrutiny in a member state. Information on the occasions when the United Kingdom has as a consequence maintained a scrutiny reserve at the Council of Ministers is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library (a) a copy of the letter recently sent to him by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume); and (b) any documents which accompanied the letter or his reply.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 December 1996]: It is not my practice to reveal correspondence, either letters or accompanying documents, which are sent to me in confidence. As for my reply to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 28 November, Official Report, columns 460-61.

     

    President Mary Robinson

    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if the present visit to Great Britain by President Mary Robinson is an official visit.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 December 1996]: No.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with John Bruton – 9 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with John Bruton, held on Monday 9th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly apologise for the fact that we are running so late, but I think you know there were some fog problems this morning and the Taoiseach arrived at Downing Street a little later than previously advertised, we had a very lengthy agenda and I am afraid that accounts for our late arrival out here in Downing Street. My apologies for that.

    I welcome the Taoiseach here really in two capacities: first as the current President of the European Union; and secondly of course as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland. We divided our discussions today into both those quite separate compartments.

    We began with a very comprehensive examination of the European Union issues that lie in front of us, most obviously of course the Intergovernmental Conference and the summit that we have in Dublin on Friday and on Saturday.

    I would like at the outset to congratulate the Irish Presidency not only on the work they have done during their Presidency thus far, but on the excellent Presidency text that they have produced about the Intergovernmental Conference, which is not prejudicial to the subsequent decisions to be taken, but which seta out with great clarity and fairness the differing positions of all the countries on the various European issues. It cannot have been easy to get such an excellent text but it is one I think that will be very useful in the months that lie immediately ahead.

    The text of course sets out the basis for negotiation during the period between the Dublin Summit and the Amsterdam summit, and it does not prejudice what the outcome of any of those discussions may be. But I think there is little doubt that at the Dublin Summit this weekend, as we discuss many of the issues in the Intergovernmental Conference, that the different positions of member states on a range of issues will be set out, and certainly we anticipate discussing Economic and Monetary Union, common foreign and security policy, employment, justice and home affairs, and also some anti-drugs initiatives that the United Kingdom have been working on with France and with other countries as well, and I look forward to discussing all those issues, and others as well, I strongly suspect, at Dublin on Friday and Saturday.

    We also spent some time discussing the current position in Northern Ireland, about which the two governments have worked together for so long and so well with the same objective in mind. We are united in wishing to see a credible ceasefire, and we are united also, provided we can get a credible and verifiable ceasefire, in peeing Sinn Fein join the talks and making them inclusive in due course. And of course they would have to join the talks in accordance with the ground rules that were established some many months ago.

    We both wish those talks to succeed, but we recognise that if they are to succeed they must be carried out on a basis that will require all the participants to remain at the table so that we can credibly examine the issues that still lie before us in Northern Ireland.

    I don’t wish this afternoon to speculate about whether a particular date is possible for Sinn Fein to join the talks. That, as I have indicated on a number of occasions recently, depends on what is said and done and whether an unequivocal ceasefire is declared and is then held after having been declared. Clearly the developments on the ground need to be consistent with the Mitchell principles of peace and democracy. And I certainly share with the Taoiseach a wish that we will be able to get in due course to inclusive talks involving all the parties as soon as all the parties have established their commitment to a democratic process and to peaceful means.

    I share his judgment too that there should be no undue and unnecessary delay in coming to a judgment upon matter. But the onus, to enable us to reach that judgment, depends upon the actions of Sinn Fein/IRA firstly to restore their ceasefire credibly, to do so as soon as possible and then to have a judgment, made upon whether it is a genuine and lasting ceasefire and upon the actions on the ground that we need to see in order to establish the ground rules procedure.

    Those are the matters that we need to look at, but whether they join the talks or not, we expect the talks to continue in any event. They would be better if inclusive, but whether inclusive or not depends upon the actions of Sinn Fein/IRA and a proper judgment being made upon whether those actions are sincere and lasting or not.

    So these are the issues we have been discussing, we have discussed also some, if I may use the jargon, east-west issues, London/Dublin issues, where there is a range of initiatives that I don’t think I need detain you with at the moment, but add up to an ever improving relationship between London and Dublin. I very much welcome that. I think the developments between the two countries are much better when we work together, and we have done so very successfully in recent years and I look forward to that continuing.

    I would like now to invite the Taoiseach to say whatever he wishes on European matters, and Northern Ireland matters as well no doubt, as well as East-West, and then we will endeavour to take any questions you may have.

    MR BRUTON:

    First of all, this is the 13th of a series of 14 meetings that I am having with other Heads of EU Governments. I am travelling to Paris tomorrow to complete the series of bilaterals in each of the capitals of the European Union in preparation for the Dublin Summit next week. And I have outlined to the Prime Minister basically what we would like to achieve at the Dublin Summit. First of all we want to move forward on the issues that remain to be resolved in regard to the creation of an Economic and Monetary Union in Europe based on a single currency. The issues that have been worked upon and are ready for decision at Dublin include the actual date, the confirmation of the date for the commencement of the single currency, which is 1 January 1999; the legal arrangements, which are exceptionally complex when one is moving from one currency regime to another, which have also been finalised; the arrangements for the relationship between those Union countries that will be in the single currency from day one, and those who will not be in it from day one, that again required a lot of complex work, which has been completed; and finally the budgetary discipline that will apply to the countries that are already in the European currency from day one.

    There are some difficulties that remain to be resolved as far as that is concerned, but tremendous progress is being made and I hope that the remaining arguments will be settled at the Economic and Finance Ministers meeting, which is taking place later this week.

    We will also be reaching conclusions in accordance with the Essen Process, and which the Prime Minister was involved in initiating, in regard to employment. We will be re-dedicating ourselves to work as members of the European Union to reduce unemployment as it exists in the Union at the present time. It is worth noting that the total level of unemployment in the European Union at the present time is equivalent to the population of the three smallest member states combined. So clearly we have a requirement to work hard on that question.

    We will also be taking note of the treaty, to which the Prime Minister has referred, which we have prepared a draft of, which we hope will be completed at Amsterdam, a new treaty for the European Union.

    And finally, we will be making decisions we hope on crime and drug issues. In particular we hope to adopt a major statement on organised crime, which is an increasing problem across national boundaries within the European Union, and also on the supply of and the demand for drugs within the European Union, which is a trans-national problem, it is not a problem confined to one member state.

    We hope that across all of those issues that I have mentioned, plus a number of foreign policy questions, including the Middle East Peace Process, our relations with central and eastern Europe, we will be able to reach very substantial conclusions which will mark a major advance in our work.

    As the Prime Minister has said, we availed of this opportunity which arose primarily from an EU-related visit, to review our joint work in regard to Northern Ireland. We have two objectives in common: firstly, both governments are seeking a truly inclusive process of negotiation involving all of the parties, of the electorate represented; secondly, we are both working for an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire at the earliest possible moment. Both of these conditions are necessary for any durable and freely negotiated agreement to be reached which will be fair and acceptable to all. Violence is inimical to the reaching of a freely agreed solution.

    Obviously the problems that we are dealing with are complex and long-standing. But the two governments are working together to solve those problems on the basis of the firm foundation of the communique that the Prime Minister and I agreed here on 28 February of this year, and also the ground rules that we agreed between our two governments for the all-party talks which relate in particular as far as an IRA ceasefire is concerned, to paragraphs 8 and 9, which determine eligibility as far as Sinn Fein is concerned for participation in the talks.

    Since the original IRA ceasefire, it is worth noting that major steps forward have been made. We have agreed a joint framework document between the two governments which set out a long term outline of how we see the solution to the problem being arrived at, an agreed position between the two governments, something never achieved before historically. Since the ceasefire also there has been amelioration in the conditions of prisoners, and also the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin reached a joint report involving the largest range of parties ever to sit around the same table in Ireland since 1917.

    Since the ceasefire broke down, we have continued our work. We have fixed a date for all-party talks, that date – the 10th of June – and the talks have started. We agreed detailed ground rules for those talks and procedures for those talks, and we are now working together to achieve an IRA ceasefire so that all the parties, including Sinn Fein, can participate in the talks.

    My government’s position is that if the IRA calls an unequivocal ceasefire, in words that are believable and provided there is nothing done that is inconsistent with this ceasefire, or with the Mitchell Principles, then Sinn Fein should be admitted to participation in the talks in accordance with the ground rules that we have agreed. The first step, however, is a credible ceasefire. The onus is on the Republican Movement to restore the ceasefire credibly at the earliest moment. I want to see Sinn Fein’s participation in the talks at the earliest moment too on that basis.

    In practical terms, given the imminence of the Christmas recess, would hope that this would be possible early in the New Year. But there could also be room for reciprocal confidence-building measures in the meantime. The sooner we have a ceasefire, the sooner we can work in that direction.

    A way forward is now in place. All who are willing to negotiate with patience and determination are welcome to take part. For the sake of the people of Ireland, and of all in these islands, I call on the Republican Movement to give us an IRA ceasefire so that all can negotiate their future together free of threat.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask you if you agree with what Mr Bruton has just said, that this business of bringing Sinn Fein in and starting the substantive phase of the all-party talks could happen by the New Year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have never been prepared to put a date on to it because I don’t think the question is the passage of a particular timespan. The question at issue is the actions of Sinn Fein/IRA. It is not just a question of saying we are going to have a ceasefire, we need to know on this occasion that it is a genuine ceasefire, so we need to examine that, we need to see not only what they say about the ceasefire, but what they subsequently do. And that is why I have spelt out on a number of occasions the particular things that we will be looking at. So we are not looking at a particular time frame, either short or long, I am not seeking undue delay, this is not a delaying process, but I need to be certain that if they have a ceasefire it is a genuine ceasefire and for that reason we have set out the sort of things that we will look at to make a judgment about whether it is a genuine ceasefire. And once that is the case of course we are better off with an inclusive process. But I can’t put a date to it. Sinn Fein/IRA may be able to put a date to it, but that is for them, not for me.

    QUESTION:

    But you are not ruling out the prospect of this being settled by the New Year or by January?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not ruling anything out or ruling anything in. I am not going to be drawn on dates because I have said until I am blue in the face that I don’t think dates are the point, the point is actions, the point is people need to be convinced, in order to sit down and talk with Sinn Fein, that this time it is not a fake. Another fake is of no use, except in the very short-term. What we want is a genuine ceasefire, so we need to see whether the actions that follow the words are satisfactory, and I can’t and won’t put a timescale to that because it is the actions that are relevant, and I have spelt that out on a number of occasions over recent days.

    QUESTION:

    Isn’t it a fact that based on what you have said, and what the Taoiseach has said, that there still appears to be a gulf between your two positions? The Taoiseach seems to be saying, ceasefire, adherence to the Mitchell Principles, straight into talks against the backdrop of a credible ceasefire. You don’t seem to be saying that, am I interpreting you correctly?

    MR REYNOLDS:

    Could I just say that what I have said consistently on this matter is that for a political party to take part in the all-party talks, there must be compliance with the ground rules for the talks. They are set out in paragraph 8 and 9 in particular, and paragraphs 8 and 9 require a ceasefire, but also paragraph 8 in particular requires demonstration that the ceasefire is credible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And I couldn’t have put it better myself, thank you.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] on how you established paragraph 8?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We set out the ground rules, as the Taoiseach said, some time ago and I put some flesh upon how we will interpret the ground rules. And so that is why I say to you, the point isn’t just setting an arbitrary date, that is not really the point. I understand the fears that some people have that because there is not an arbitrary date that that necessarily implies a very long delay. Well that would be a wrong reading of the situation. We set out the ground rules some time ago, we need to make sure the ground rules are kept. I have set out some of the things that we are going to look at to make sure the ground rules are kept. Once we have examined those, if there is a ceasefire, we will look at the wards that are issued with the ceasefire, but beyond that we will look at the sort of things necessary to see if the ground rules themselves are met, and that is what we propose to do, that is why you can’t put a particular timescale to it.

    QUESTION:

    Taoiseach, on Europe, on the basis of your talks do you think it is going to be possible to make any meaningful progress on the sensitive areas or whether it is going to be again a question of Britain against the rest?

    MR BRUTON:

    It certainly won’t be a question of Britain against the rest. The issues which I have outlined are ones on which I believe we will make substantial progress in Dublin, I believe we will make substantial progress on crime and drugs, because here there is a complete identity of views around Europe that this must be a very high priority for all political leaders and governments. I believe also we will make progress on employment based on each government taking its own responsibilities, but also our working together to free up the internal market, and indeed to free up labour markets so that maximum job opportunities are created within Europe and between European countries.

    As far as Economic and Monetary Union is concerned, it is obviously the case that Britain has an opt-out of their own which was negotiated and agreed to by all other member states, but as far as the other states are concerned we are on track to move forward on time to introduce the single currency on the date specified, and I believe you will see at the Dublin Summit evidence of a huge amount of detailed painstaking and effective work that has been done to lay the technical basis for the early introduction of the single currency.

    QUESTION:

    In the current circumstances the conditions that now exist for Sinn Fein to get into talks, the Republic Spokesmen and the IRA have repeatedly made clear on the current circumstances they simply are not interested. Is there anything that either you or the Taoiseach can say to Sinn Fein to persuade them to talk to the IRA to persuade the IRA to have another ceasefire, because on the current circumstances they don’t want to know.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter for Sinn Fein/IRA, they must make their own judgments. If they wish to remain pariahs then I suppose they will remain pariahs, but I don’t believe that they can expect suddenly to return to the talks after having been in a process, after having effectively broken their word during that process. We were told repeatedly during the last ceasefire that the ceasefire was for good, the bomb and the gun has gone forever we were told time after time. We now know self-evidently that that was not true. Not only have we discovered it wasn’t true, we know that it wasn’t true at the time they said it, because they were planning to return to violence at the same time that they said it. So if they are frustrated about the need to get back into talks, the frustration arises out of their own actions, not out of anything anyone else has done.

    MR BRUTON:

    That question was addressed to both of us and I would like to answer it too. I would like to say to the Republican movement, first of all you have a talks process now in existence, which you can join. You know the terms upon which you can join it, they are set out in the ground rules for the talks.

    When you had the previous ceasefire there was no talks process in existence; there is one now which you can join. Furthermore, we have independent chairmen ready and willing to include you in the talks and take the necessary steps to ensure that your position is adequately safeguarded, as will be the position of all other parties. There are detailed procedures agreed insofar as the talks are concerned to ensure that no minority is in any sense badly treated. None of these conditions existed when the first ceasefire was called. These conditions exist now, so why not have a ceasefire now.

    I would say in particular to the Republican Movement, those who are in Sinn Fein are people of ability. They should have nothing to fear from sitting down at the table to discuss their future – and it is a joint future – with all their neighbours in Northern Ireland. They don’t need recourse to violence to argue their case, they have the ability of their minds and the strength of their convictions to argue their case. They have nothing to fear from a ceasefire, nothing to fear from taking part in the talks. The only barrier that is preventing them from taking part in the talks is the absence of a ceasefire and the absence so far of compliance with the ground rules for the talks.

    QUESTION:

    Those talks have been going now for 6 months, they appear to be heading nowhere, surely those talks are pointless without Sinn Fein?

    MR BRUTON:

    First of all I think it is fair to say that the problems which those talks are addressing have existed on the island of Ireland for 400 years, they have caused 25 years of violence. I don’t understand these expressions of impatience at the fact that after just 6 months of talks we haven’t found a solution yet. Anybody who looks at this problem against the sweep of history will have to see that what we have now is something we have not had for 75 years, which is all the people with a table that they can sit around, with governments that are willing to work with them to find a solution, with governments that respect both minority and majority in that situation. Let us not ask whether the glass is three-quarters full or not, let us look at the fact that we have got a process now which enables the participants together to fill the glass to the brim if that is what they want to do.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And let me add just a word to that. We heard similar expressions of pessimism about what would happen repeatedly before the first cease-fire and before the progress we made on a whole range of things – the Downing Street declaration could never be reached, the frameworks could never be reached, the agreements I have reached with John Bruton could never be done – we have heard all this time, and time, and time again. It is certainly true that this is a frustrating process, often two steps forward and one step back. It was always likely that it was going to be that way, and it certainly has been that way. But I think what the Taoiseach and I share is a conviction in the power of reason, reason suggests that the only way this is ever going to be resolved is by people coming together and reaching a conclusion in democratic talks.

    Anyone who believes this is going to be resolved in anyone’s favour out of the barrel of a gun I think mis-judges the situation, deceives themselves and deceives other people. Reason must prevail. It must be very frustrating, I know, for many people who wish to see faster progress that reason often seems to take so long to be reached, but I think that is the only way of making progress, that is what the two governments are seeking to

    QUESTION:

    You set out in your interview yesterday a number of areas of pressure for greater integration in Europe which you were prepared to resist, for example border controls, asylum and immigration, qualified majority voting. Do you expect to find yourself isolated in Dublin on those issues and are you prepared to face such isolation, and do you agree with the Taoiseach that unemployment is a problem for the European Union to solve?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take the first point. I don’t expect to be isolated on all those issues, certainly on some of them we will have allies, how vocal they will be only time alone will tell, but we are certainly not isolated on all those issues. But on some of the issues where we are isolated I have to say I am undeterred by that.

    I think the needs and requirements of what is right for the United Kingdom must govern what I do in the Intergovernmental Conference, in the discussions at Dublin and beyond, and it most assuredly will do so. When the Taoiseach spoke a moment ago about employment, he spoke also of the Essen Process. The Essen Process of course is explicit to the extent that this is a matter for the member states and sets out quite particularly a range of supply side measures, a number of which we have adopted in the United Kingdom. So certainly across Europe there is a communal interest in employment. What is not the case is that getting unemployment down further could best be done at the centre by Community policies, I don’t believe that and I don’t think most dispassionate observers could believe that. That we should discuss how unemployment generally could come down, of course that is fine, but the decisions and the judgments as to how to get it down must be decisions and judgments made individually within each member state, as foreshadowed in the Essen Agreements.

    QUESTION:

    Taoiseach, you have called on the Republican Movement to ensure a ceasefire, but given that there is a difference between yourself and the British Government over a possible time or date for the verification process to be completed, could you say with conviction to the Republican Movement that if they called a ceasefire that Sinn Fein would speedily get into substantive negotiations?

    MR BRUTON:

    First of all, let me say that there are no time limits on the table. The conditions, and the only conditions, that have to be fulfilled for Sinn Fein to take part in the talks are set out in the ground rules paper. Obviously that calls upon the IRA to take certain very clear decisions. They know, and have known since April, what are the conditions they must fulfil because they are set out in a published document, namely the ground rules paper. I believe that if a credible ceasefire is called, a ceasefire which sets out in the terms in which it is called, to convince everybody in Northern Ireland, including those who have been at the receiving end of IRA violence over 25 years, to convince them that this time there is no going back to violence.

    And if the IRA makes the necessary effort, in the way in which they frame their ceasefire declaration, to convince all concerned that this time there is no turning back to violence, yes I believe Sinn Fein will be quickly admitted to talks.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Single Currency – 8 December 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the single currency, made during an interview held on 8th December 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had to change his mind that Britain might in future join a single currency].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I’m asking everyone to accept – not just my Party – what I’m asking the whole country to accept is that the decisions that lie ahead on Europe – a single currency, but only a single currency – the decisions in the Inter-Governmental Conference are very important too – are decisions that are critical to our own national interest.

    Whether we go into a single currency, or whether we stay out of it, it is going to affect the United Kingdom in a whole series of ways, very significant ways, that will impact upon our livelihood. Now, I believe, it is in the national interest for the British Government to be in there negotiating. And, I have to say to people: I do not know what I would say to people of this country; people in the City, the farmer, the businessman; if I said, at this stage: “I’m going to opt out of negotiations and I will not be in the negotiations to protect your interests”. If I did that, I think, you would ask me why are you Prime Minister? Why aren’t you there protecting British interests? Well, I intend to stay there.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that was a question of keeping the opt-out and whether he should rule out entry].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, let us take your premise. Certainly, a number of other countries are moving towards a single currency. Some of them for their own reasons are very enthusiastic about it. For some of them, it certainly makes undeniable sense. There’s a great head of steam behind it. All that is absolutely true. You say they’re looking at a flawed way of going in and by that I assume you mean that they will.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if criteria would be fudged].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, the criteria is a jargon. Fudging the economic circumstances that would make it prudent to go into a single currency. Well, let me take that proposition. Let us assume that is what they are doing. If they are fudging the criteria, then, there would be no question of the United Kingdom joining, no question at all. We established those criteria. We have no intention of going into a flawed economic and monetary union. That would be absurd.

    But, let me take a second point then. If they are fudging it, should we therefore say: “now, we’ll have nothing to do with it?”. Well, I don’t believe that we should. And, I will tell you exactly why I don’t believe that we should. If they are fudging the criteria and they then set up a European monetary system that is weak, that will have a very damaging effect upon the United Kingdom. But giving ourselves a red card now and fleeing the field, when the game’s still to be played, seems to me to be a dereliction of responsibility.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 December 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East reference GK/HB/311096, which was acknowledged on 4 November.

    The Prime Minister: The letter will be replied to shortly.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

    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.

  • PMQT – 5 December 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EU Unemployment

    Q1. 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 (Mr. John Major): Yes, I expect to do so as part of the discussion on the intergovernmental conference.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: As unemployment in the rest of the European Union has risen by 5 million in five years, which means 3,000 individual human tragedies every day, and as Britain alone has falling unemployment, partly because of our exclusion from the exchange rate mechanism, does the Prime Minister appreciate why a growing percentage of people in Britain consider the European Union a rather inadequate organisation? In the light of those alarming figures, is he willing to consider the possibility of letting the people of Britain have a say in their future? Can he at least guarantee that, in any referendum on the European currency, the decision will be taken before sterling is linked in any way to the euro?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, unemployment is falling consistently across the United Kingdom, and is either rising or static in the rest of the European Union.

    On my Friend’s main point, we have made a firm commitment to hold a referendum if the next Conservative Government recommend that Britain should join a single European currency in the next Parliament. I confirm to my hon. Friend that, if such a referendum were held, it would of course be held before sterling was linked in any way with any putative European currency. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have often made clear, we do not intend to rejoin the so-called ERM mark 2, and would not wish to institute any policy of shadowing the euro.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

    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. Beith: Is the Prime Minister seriously pressing ahead with Budget measures that would deprive between 7,000 and 10,000 ex-service people of their entitlement to war pensions, and cost thousands more their entitlement to benefit paid for deafness resulting from war service? It is only a few weeks since we saw disabled war pensioners determined to march, limp or be pushed in wheelchairs past the Cenotaph. Surely the Prime Minister has not forgotten them now.

    The Prime Minister: Of course not. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has been misled by reports in The Guardian and by the conflation of two separate and distinct matters. The first involves proposals to simplify about 19 complex measures. No pensioner will lose money as a result of that. The second concerns new independent medical advice on pensions paid for loss of hearing. The purpose of that independent advice is to determine what disabilities have been caused, so that people can be compensated accordingly. Those changes were–[Interruption.] That independent medical advice is the normal way of dealing with these matters. It has invariably been accepted. It usually puts up entitlements–that has always been the case in the past. I know of no circumstance when it has not been accepted. It was discussed this morning with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, which will now consider the details.

    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great rejoicing today in the knowledge that A-level standards will be retained and strengthened? Does he agree that that is one of many reforms introduced by the Government for the benefit of British education?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend speaks for many people, including many millions of parents. Standards are at the heart of the Government’s policies on education and will remain so. Our national qualifications must remain at the highest standard, and A-levels are central to that.

    Mr. Blair: May I return the Prime Minister to the subject of war pensions? Future pensioners will lose as a result of the changes. Those changes to war pensions were described in the Government press release on Budget day as proposals

    “to simplify policy and procedures”,

    whereas they actually mean £50 million-worth of cuts. Does the Prime Minister accept that that was inaccurate and misleading, and will he apologise to the British people for that deception?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is just plain wrong. If the House will permit me to repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I shall take the Labour leader through it gently, so that he understands. Two issues have been run together in a simplistic and misleading way by The Guardian. If the right hon. Gentleman relies on The Guardian for his information, that explains why he is so often inaccurate in his questions.

    The first issue involves proposals to simplify complex measures. No pensioner will lose money as a result of that. The second is the way in which we have always dealt with independent medical advice concerning pensions. [Interruption.] Hon. Members shout. After some months, we have just accepted independent advice on emphysema, having been pressed to do so by the Opposition. We did so willingly. That is what we always do with independent medical advice and what we have done on this occasion. The purpose of the independent advice that we have always sought is to determine what disablements have been caused, so that people can be compensated accordingly. That is happening on this occasion–nothing different, no change. We are following the normal practice for dealing with these matters.

    Mr. Blair: Let me deal with each part in turn, so that the Prime Minister can answer each part. The first involves hearing disability. The Prime Minister says that the changes were made on independent medical advice. If the reason for the changes was independent medical advice, why were all his Social Security Ministers opposed to them, which they were, and why did not the Budget press release mention the fact that the changes reduced expenditure by £35 million?

    The second part involves the other changes that the Prime Minister mentioned. He says that they are merely a simplification. Are they on the basis of medical advice? Is that why widows’ rent allowances are to be abolished for new cases? The Prime Minister shakes his head. Is that happening or not? Not issuing reminders to return claim forms–is that happening or not? Ceasing to issue copies of decisions to third parties–is that happening or not? Is the instruction “Do not direct appellant to Royal British Legion as their representative” correct or not? Instead of patronising comments about how we do not understand, will the Prime Minister deal, first, with the matter of medical advice and his Social Security Ministers and, secondly, with each of the points that I have made?

    The Prime Minister: As I told the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago, he has completely misunderstood what has happened. He has not seen the full range of correspondence, and as usual–despite his piety about a leak a week or so ago–he relies on leaked correspondence. If he had seen the correspondence, he would not have misunderstood the matter in the way he just has.

    I repeat: the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong, and I hope that he will not pursue it. We are trying to simply the procedures, as that is the right thing to do in the interests of the taxpayer, as well as of the applicants and the recipients of benefits. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to simplify procedures across government, no wonder he envisages expenditure rising under a Labour Government.

    Mr. Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the specific points that were put to him, he will stand condemned out of his own mouth. I must ask him why–[Hon. Members: “Question”]. This is a question–“why” is normally the start of a question. Why, if it is all just administrative procedures, does one Minister talk about a storm that is about to break about the Government’s head?

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister shakes his head. A Minister said that. Why do the Government talk of “sweeteners”? They talk of these things because they know that they have been caught doing something shabby and mean-minded. If he cannot be trusted with British war pensioners, why should he be trusted at all?

    The Prime Minister: As is typical, the right hon. Gentleman has quoted out of context and wrongly, and he has drawn the wrong conclusion from what he has said. One day, he might find out what he is talking about before he starts to talk about it.

    Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend knows that, when he vetoes the Commission’s new proposals on borders–as Conservative Members know he will–the European Parliament has said that it will renew its action in the European Court. My right hon. Friend’s own advisers say that the court will rule our borders unlawful, as the treaty now stands. Will he therefore explain to the House the contradiction, in that he says that our borders are not negotiable but his Ministers say that we will not break European law?

    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear to our European partners on innumerable occasions that we will not accept any form of treaty change that alters the sanctity of British borders. Treaty change will need to be by unanimity, and we will not give our consent to it. There should be no doubt among any of our European partners that we are not prepared to accept any change whatsoever to the present system of safeguarding Britain’s borders and, hence, our immigration controls.

     

    Q3. Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Prime Minister aware that his absent Chancellor of the Exchequer has been briefing journalists on the Prime Minister’s failed attempt to change Government policy on Europe? Does he agree with the Chancellor, who has described the Prime Minister’s failed attempt as a boomerang wrapped in high explosive which has blown up in the Prime Minister’s face?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may know that I have a statement in my hand that denies the report to which he refers.

    Mr. Dover: Following the excellent Budget speech by the Chancellor last week, my right hon. Friend will have heard stupid statements from the Labour party about a lower basic rate of tax than 20p and lifting the ceiling for the 40 per cent. tax rate. Will not these unfounded pledges or promises–call them what you will–only give rise to higher taxation–

    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister answers questions, not about the Opposition but on behalf of the Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister might turn the question around and attempt to answer it.

    The Prime Minister: It is certainly–[Interruption.] It is nice to welcome back the deputy leader of the Labour party. I thought that he was in Scotland answering focus groups.

    It is certainly the case that, in order to contain public expenditure and hold down taxation, many extremely difficult decisions have to be taken. We have taken those decisions and I acknowledge the difficulty of doing so.

    Mr. Faulds: Out of order.

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

    I think that the whole country understands the unlikelihood of any alternative Government taking such decisions.

     

    Q4. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December.

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

    Mr. Skinner: Can the Prime Minister tell us where he has hidden those economic jewels that he referred to in a speech last week? I went to the Treasury chest to find them and I found a big IOU that said that the country owed a £380 billion national debt which had doubled since the Prime Minister took office. There was another IOU showing a £19.5 billion public sector borrowing requirement shortfall.

    Then I met a bloke on the street with his head down. I said, “Are you looking for these economic jewels too?” He said, “No, I’m looking for work.” In my opinion, the Government sold off the economic jewels along with all the silver that they sold off the other years.

    The Prime Minister: I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury basement the other day, he did not leave a match behind him.

    As for our economic jewels, I invite the hon. Gentleman to find any other country with unemployment falling like ours, tax rates and growth at our level, growing exports, a narrowing trade gap and economic prospects as good as ours. He cannot do it, because there is not one. The chap he found looking for work would be joined by many others looking for work if the policies that the hon. Gentleman advocates were ever put into effect.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 December 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EU Legislation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister who is responsible for Government scrutiny of laws initiated by (a) the European Commission and (b) the European Council of Ministers, which do not require United Kingdom parliamentary approval before their implementation.

    The Prime Minister: All proposed Community legislation submitted by the European Commission to the Council of Ministers is subject to parliamentary scrutiny before its adoption. Where the Council, in such legislation, delegates powers to the European Commission to make detailed implementing legislation, within a prescribed committee procedure, it is the responsibility of the relevant Government Department to ensure that the implications of draft Commission implementing legislation are fully assessed and taken into account in the negotiations in committee.

     

    Departmental Decisions (Appeals)

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those administrative decisions of his Department affecting (a) United Kingdom citizens and (b) non-citizens where there is no right of appeal.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 November 1996]: 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 Paymaster General yesterday.

  • Mr Major’s Opening Address to the London Peace Implementation Conference on Bosnia – 4 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening address to the London Peace Implementation Conference on Bosnia, held at Lancaster House in London on Wednesday 4th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Could I begin by extending a warm welcome to the fifty-six delegations of the Peace Implementation Council assembled here today.

    This is the fourth time in as many years that I have had the pleasure of welcoming many of you to London for a key international conference on the future of Bosnia.

    So to all of you who are returning, it is excellent to see you again. And to those of you here for the first time, it is very good to have you here.

    When we last met here in Lancaster House a year ago – for the first ever session of the Peace Implementation Council – the conflict in Bosnia had just ended. It had claimed over 200,000 lives; and it had forced more than two million people to flee their homes.

    At that meeting, we set ourselves the task of ensuring that the guns remained silent. And we embarked on the massive task of implementing the peace settlement and rebuilding a shattered nation.

    One year on, we should not understate the achievements:

    – the guns have stayed silent. The armies have disengaged and have returned to barracks. Heavy weapons have been put in cantonments;

    – national, entity and cantonal elections have been held;

    – reconstruction has begun, with hundreds of millions of dollars spent over the last twelve months;

    – a quarter of a million refugees have returned to their homes;

    – Sarajevo, for so long a city under siege and a symbol of the Bosnian war, has been transformed;

    – the new Presidency has begun its work and agreement has been reached on the structure of the Council of Ministers.

    This is a substantial record.

    It would be easy to claim that we should have done better, that more refugees should have returned, or that the new central institutions are not yet working.

    But that would be to undervalue how much has been achieved. And it would fail to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of so many different organisations and individuals over the last year:

    – the drafters of the Peace Agreement who, under American leadership and with Contact Group support, drove the negotiations to a successful conclusion;

    – the 60,000 strong NATO-led implementation force, drawn from over thirty nations, which represents the biggest such effort that NATO has ever undertaken. It proved itself a success – and has provided an historic turning point in NATO-Russia co-operation;

    – the OSCE, which has organised elections involving about two million people;

    – the World Bank and European Commission which have together led the reconstruction effort;

    – the 1,500 plus members of the International Police Task Force who have been active throughout Bosnia, monitoring, training and improving police standards;

    – and the UNHCR, who have been taking forward the difficult and complex task of refugee return.

    I should like to pay a particular tribute to Carl Bildt, who as High Representative, has presided over the civilian side of peace implementation with exceptional energy and dedication, and formidable political skills. He has cajoled the international community and Bosnia’s leaders in equal part, driving forward the peace process.

    Could I therefore say to you, Carl, on behalf of all at this Conference, how much we have admired and appreciated your efforts over the last 12 months. No-one could have done more than you to consolidate peace in Bosnia: and we all welcome your agreement to stay on for a few months into 1997.

    Last month’s meeting in Paris set the framework for action to consolidate peace in Bosnia over the next two years. Today’s conference focuses in on the next 12 months:

    – on the priorities for Bosnia’s leaders;

    – and on the tasks and commitments of the international community.

    Just before coming here, I was glad to have the opportunity of a talk with Bosnia’s new Presidency. I would like to underline to this wider audience a little of what I have just said privately.

    None of us at this conference underestimate the task you face. You are rebuilding a nation, only a few months after a bitter war, with the wounds and divisions not yet healed.

    But you were elected by the Bosnian people as their investment in and commitment to a brighter future.

    They have placed their trust in you.

    They want you to help them restore their homes, reunite their families and recreate the communities in which they once lived in peace.

    And they want, above all, to be sure that the war which disfigured Bosnia’s past will never return.

    This is a heavy responsibility. And none of it will be easy:

    – it will require difficult decisions, difficult compromises, difficult concessions;

    – it will require the statesmanship to put the wider interests of your people above short-term or factional concerns;

    – and it will require concentration on the substance – on the establishment of your Council of Ministers and of your Central Bank for instance – not on the trivia of protocol.

    Over 50 states and international institutions have come to London with one objective in mind: to decide how we can best help you in the future.

    We are united in our wish to see Bosnia and Herzegovina succeed, so that you are able to assume in full your rightful place in Europe. The UK has devoted huge resources, both financial and human, to Bosnia over the last few years. We are now planning, with our allies and partners, to maintain troops on Bosnian soil into 1998.

    I am sure I am not alone in saying that a peaceful and secure future for Bosnia is a key foreign policy objective – and that our relations with Bosnia’s neighbours will be conditioned by their support for this objective.

    But the international community’s efforts in themselves will not be enough. There has to be a real commitment to peace and reconciliation within Bosnia.

    And as representatives of the different communities, the people of Bosnia and the international community look to you to lead the way.

    What precisely do we look for? The recent agreement on the structure of the Council of Ministers represents excellent and very welcome progress. I know that you are working to nominate individuals to their Ministerial posts as soon as possible. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of your establishing quickly a fully-functioning government with which the international community can deal.

    Economic regeneration also has to be a key priority.

    In 1996, the international community took the lead in kick-starting the economy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dedicated efforts by thousands of technical experts, NGOs and IFOR soldiers have restored some of the basic infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of people will benefit from the return of electricity this winter. Thousands of children have restarted their education.

    But there is a limit to what the international community can do.

    It is most important that next year, Bosnia and Herzegovina should accept the primary responsibility for your own economic development. Judging by my own visits, at least, what ordinary people want more than anything else – there as elsewhere – are jobs and a decent standard of living. These modest aspirations can only be achieved by establishing effective institutions and sound, market-based economic policies.

    But such policies can only work if people, goods and capital move freely throughout the country. There will be no economic revival while a businessman in Banja Luka cannot pick up the telephone and call Sarajevo.

    Moreover, without the right legal framework, the inward investment so crucial to economic recovery will tend to stay away.

    The international financial institutions stand ready to help. The international community will continue to provide support. But we look to you to take the lead:

    – to set up the Central Bank;

    – to pass the necessary legislation;

    – and to recognise that in today’s open trading environment, economic cooperation is not an option but a necessity.

    We look forward to 1997 also being the year in which large numbers of refugees start to return. In 1996, we achieved a great deal for those already living in Bosnia. But there are hundreds of thousands more in neighbouring states or further afield, who want to return but are unable to do so. We must address their fears and problems.

    We need a comprehensive approach, which recognises the linkages between the various refugee groups in the region.

    And we need to create conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina in which refugees feel safe to return. This means:

    – full respect for human rights;

    – police forces working within international democratic policing standards;

    – and genuine freedom of movement. One year on from the signature of the Peace Agreement, ordinary Bosnians are still afraid to cross the line between the two entities. This cannot continue.

    I will identify one further priority among the many for 1997. This is full implementation of the arms control commitments in the Peace Agreement, within the agreed deadlines.

    The achievement of a sensible balance in armaments in the region is self-evidently necessary for future peace and security. Everyone recognises this: that is why it was agreed at Dayton.

    But follow-up has been less than whole-hearted. This cannot be allowed to slip. The international community is determined to maintain pressure on this issue until we have achieved our objectives.

    How can the London Conference help with these priorities?

    The aim in the next day and a half is to have a detailed debate on all aspects of peace implementation, drawing on the extensive expertise of those around this table.

    I suggest that we need to identify precise, practical, tasks and targets in all areas, and commit ourselves to accomplishing them.

    So, within the framework of the Peace Agreement, we shall be looking for a series of detailed political undertakings from Bosnia’s leaders. We hope that the representatives of the Entities at this meeting will be ready to make commitments on areas within Entity competence.

    The international community will in turn undertake to provide substantial further help and resources, both human and financial. But this international help will be conditional on the willingness within Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement all aspects of the Peace Agreement.

    If we can work together to meet these shared goals over the next 12 months, we shall have taken a crucial and irreversible step towards securing Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future, as a nation able to stand by itself, and to look after its own affairs.

    Later in this conference, we will hear from Hans Van den Broek about the European Union’s support for the peace process.

    This is a key aspect, because Bosnia and Herzegovina’s destiny lies in Europe. All of us look forward to the day when Bosnia and Herzegovina can take its place in European structures and institutions as a successful independent nation based upon the principles and values that we all support.

    Much must happen before this vision can be realised. But if we can achieve our objectives for this conference – and then, crucially, carry them through on the ground over the next twelve months – we shall have laid solid foundations for a peaceful and prosperous future for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    I wish you well in your deliberations.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 3 December 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Cabinet Papers

    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister how many Cabinet papers were submitted to the full Cabinet in each year from 1991 to 1995.

    The Prime Minister: Details relating to proceedings of Cabinet and Cabinet Committees are not published.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

     

    Cabinet Ministers

    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister how many former Cabinet Ministers receive (a) police protection and (b) at what cost to public funds.

    The Prime Minister: For security reasons it is established policy that information of this kind is not published.

  • PMQT – 3 December 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    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. Butler: What advice can my right hon. Friend give to the many constituents of mine and of other hon. Members who are excellently served by innovative and increasingly comprehensive GP fundholders, in the light of Labour’s repeated pledge to destroy such practices?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the helpful changes that have been made to the health service over recent years. More than 4 million extra patients have been treated since 1979–a million since the reforms began. There is no doubt that the reforms, including GP fundholding, have been an enormous success. I very much regret that the Labour party cannot accept what is successful and, instead, threaten it.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister say clearly, without any qualification, that his statement of 3 April on behalf of the Government that at the next election he will not rule out the option of joining a single currency in the next Parliament, remains unequivocally the position of the Government?

    The Prime Minister: That remains unequivocally the position of the Government.

    Mr. Blair: It is right to give the Prime Minister credit for such a clear reply. Let us see whether we can get another little clear reply. Can he tidy up one small loose end? Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement on the radio at lunchtime, when he said of that position:

    “We are not going to change our position in the election campaign or in this Parliament”?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said that; that is our position.

    Sir Michael Spicer: The assurances gained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Brussels yesterday are to be warmly welcomed. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is now important that those assurances are written into the treaty of Rome, given the experiences that we have had with the European Court of Justice and the way in which it has interpreted the treaty of Rome? Will he press for such amendments at the Dublin summit?

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said to the House the other day, the elements of the stability pact would not affect the United Kingdom unless we were part of stage 3 of economic and monetary union. As my right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House in his statement shortly, our position is legally protected under the treaty, but we intend to ensure that the detailed regulations leave no room for ambiguity.

    Mr. Ashdown: Ordinary people in Britain will pay more tax under the Conservatives at the next election than they paid under the Conservatives at the last election. The Treasury figures show that, the Treasury’s Red Book confirms it and Treasury Ministers admit it. Why is the Prime Minister the only person left in Britain denying it?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House and I shall explain gently to him how. If one earns more, one pays more tax. That is certainly true but, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made clear, if we had not changed direct taxes at all since before the election, a family on average earnings would have paid more next year under the old regime than they will as a result of our tax cuts. The increase in taxation is a result of increased earnings. Unless the right hon. Gentleman would like marginal earnings to be untaxed, that is inevitable.

    Mr. Sumberg: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the bulletin of the Bury and Bolton chamber of commerce, which reports a dramatic upturn in business confidence and business activity in my constituency? As it is the chamber’s Christmas lunch on Friday, which I shall attend, will my right hon. Friend send my constituents a message of congratulations on that achievement and his best wishes for a new year of greater prosperity under a new Conservative Government?

    The Prime Minister: The strict answer to the first point about whether I have read the bulletin is no, I have not, but it clearly provides comforting reading. There is no doubt that the economy is improving, unemployment is falling, growth is continuing and manufacturing is doing extremely well in Bury and Bolton, and across the country. That is the result of the policies that we have been following, and we shall continue to follow them.

     

    Q2. Ms Walley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Ms Walley: Given that the Government have now been forced to admit, contrary to what the Prime Minister said to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), that the Budget was a tax-raising Budget, and given that changes to direct tax mean that income taxes have gone up, will he now take down his untrue posters that falsely claim that honest John has given lower income tax?

    The Prime Minister: All I can say to the hon. Lady is that she should read the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and she will find that the premise of her question is wrong.

    Dr. Twinn: Will my right hon. Friend support an inquiry into economic incompetence in local government and will he start that inquiry with the London borough of Enfield, which in this year alone has failed to spend £5 million on housing maintenance and £1 million of single regeneration budget money, due to be spent on industrial renewal in my constituency? Is that not another example of new Labour, new incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: There are many examples of that and it might be difficult to inquire into all of them. In view of my hon. Friend’s remarks, I shall draw the situation to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Betts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Betts: I refer the Prime Minister to the comment of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Sunday–that direct taxes have risen during this Parliament–and to his own comment a few moments ago that direct taxes have risen only because earnings have risen. Will the Prime Minister accept the figures produced independently by the House of Commons Library, which show that, during the course of this Parliament, families on average earnings will not only pay more in direct taxes absolutely, by more than £2 a week, but–as a proportion of their earnings–their direct taxes will rise from 20.2 per cent. to 20.7 per cent? Will he now accept that the Chief Secretary was right to make those comments on Sunday, and will he withdraw his statement that the Government have kept direct taxes down, as it is simply not true?

    The Prime Minister: People who are receiving larger incomes and are moving up the tax bands of course distort the figures. The reality is that people will be £1,100 better off next year, allowing for tax and inflation, than they were before the last election. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do not like that and, under Labour, no one would be richer but everyone would still have to pay more tax, as is inevitably the case under a Labour Government. Everyone knows that there would be higher tax rates under Labour, and I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the effrontery to pretend otherwise.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Marshall: As First Lord of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend is responsible for providing much of the finance for local government. Is he aware that many local authorities with high council taxes give poor services to their constituents? Does he agree that those who cannot run Islington or Hackney are incapable of running the country?

    The Prime Minister: New Labour hopes to produce a revolution in government, but I am astonished that it has utterly failed to do so in the element of local government that it already controls. There are a large number of examples of inefficiency that one could give, including a council that has not collected 20 per cent. of its council tax, is owed £16 million in arrears, has a debt of more than £800 million, pays interest of £91 million, has the sixth-highest council tax in the country and has the worst education results. That council should be well known to the Leader of the Opposition–it is his council in Islington.

     

    Q5. Mr. O’Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Mr. O’Hara: The Prime Minister boasts about 25 tax cuts. Will he confirm that, to qualify for them, a taxpayer must–among other things–be a small company, drive a vintage car and be dead?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is very amusing, but wrong.

     

    Q6. Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Banks: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has cut some 25 taxes in the previous two Budgets, and that, since the last general election, the average family now have some £1,100 more to spend? Do not such facts show the contrast between the Conservative and Labour parties?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reality is that the basic rate of income tax is at its lowest level for 60 years. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) will remove himself for the remainder of this day’s sitting–I will have order in this Chamber–I am cautioning the hon. Gentleman. I will have no more of that in the Chamber.

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) intimated, we now have the lowest basic rate of income tax for 60 years and people’s living standards are rising. There is no doubt that Labour’s appetite for European-style regulation would provide European-level taxes.

     

    Q7. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Mackinlay: Can we cut out all the claptrap? The top 10 per cent. of earners in this country have done very well, and people earning more than £64,000 are not paying higher taxes under the Tory Government. But the poor people–the most disadvantaged in our society– have seen their incomes fall and their tax demands go up. Is that fair? Should not the broadest backs bear the heaviest burden?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants to cut out claptrap, he should remain seated in future. The reality is that, as they were at between 83p and 98p when the Conservative Government came to power, it is hardly surprising if those upper rates of taxation have fallen. At the moment, one in four taxpayers–28 per cent., to be precise–now pay tax at only 20p in the pound and we seek to bring more people within that rate, so that the basic rate becomes 20p in the pound. That is a fair tax system, and we are delivering it.

    Dr. Spink: On a day when the Palace is graced with the presence of the forces’ sweetheart, Dame Vera Lynn, will my right hon. Friend send a message of good will to everyone in the British armed services who will be serving abroad over Christmas, and will he pay tribute to our armed services, which are the most professional in the world?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to pay tribute to our armed forces, both abroad and at home, and I am delighted to see that, on this issue at least, I have the whole-hearted support of those on the Opposition Front Bench.