The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Northern Ireland – 10 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Northern Ireland, made in Northern Ireland on 10th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he agreed that the all-party talks had started in confusion].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I wouldn’t frankly. I think if you had been in there at the outset of the talks, they started in extremely good order and in extremely good humour. There are going to be many difficult things to discuss over the weeks and months that lie ahead and from time to time they are going to be difficult. I don’t think is any doubt about that. These are very difficult issues. No, I don’t agree with that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why Sinn Fein were turned away when they said they had an electoral mandate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well if I may say so they would say that, wouldn’t they? The reality is that they have known from the outset that the position of the British Government and of the Irish Government and of the overwhelming majority of opinion is that Sinn Fein cannot enter the talks with the gun under the table. Now that is the position. I would like to see Sinn Fein in the talks and the doors are open for Sinn Fein to come into the talks, but we do need an unequivocal IRA ceasefire and then their entry route is clear.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if just a statement was sufficient].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s got to be clear and unequivocal, be certain of that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that would get them entry into the all-party talks].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They could come into the talks.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he needed from the decommissioning of weapons process].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think we need them to meet the proposition set out in the Mitchell Report. If you recall at one stage the position was that from some parties there should be decommissioning before the talks, the IRA position was that they would decommission only at the end of the talks and the Mitchell Report proposed the compromise of parallel decommissioning, that is to say decommissioning taking place during the period of the talks. That is what the Mitchell Report says. It is quite unequivocal about that and that is what we expect from decommissioning.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the main negotiations could begin without weapons being handed over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think everyone is going to have to operate in good faith. If anyone thinks they can enter the talks saying “yes, I’m going to decommission” but in practice not do so right until the end of the talks then the reality is that the other parties to the discussions would not permit that. If there is a progress on decommissioning there will be progress on the other elements of the talks and I think it is a twin-track process that is the purpose of the Mitchell compromise of decommissioning during the period of the talks. But it has to operate in good faith. We need to get through these talks in good faith and without that we won’t get there. It is very easy for people to prevent there being an agreement, that is very easy.

    You can always prevent there being an agreement in talks of this sort but it will take a certain amount of courage and a bit of compromise and a good dollop of commonsense to make sure that we do get through these talks. I hope everyone will show those qualities.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if serious negotiations would start without decommissioning].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the political parties will want to see firstly a clear intention that there should be decommissioning and then they will take stock of progress, probably at the end of September. Now the decision as to how far that goes is a matter that will have to be made by the participants in the talks as well as by the Governments. So I think there will be a general question to be asked about that.

    QUESTION

    [Mr Major was asked if there was a difficulty over the choice of George Mitchell as the chairman of the all-party talks].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we shall see. This is a matter that is being discussed. Quite probably I think it is entirely proper that the participants in the talks should discuss who should chair the plenary and then the decommissioning on top of that. I think that is absolutely fine. I am very happy with that. I have no problems with that at all. I think at the end of the day they will reach an agreement and Senator Mitchell will chair the talks. I believe that will be the case. I almost hope it will. We invited Senator Mitchell to do that because we thought his personal qualities made him an admirable choice for that role and also of course because as author of the Mitchell Report, he is in a better position than anybody else to be clear about what is said in that report. There can be no obfuscation of people saying the report means this, the report means that. The author of the book is there. He can make it perfectly clear what it means.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had any problems over the choice of George Mitchell].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t. I think he will approach it with integrity and with impartiality and if I didn’t believe that I wouldn’t have invited him to chair the plenary.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the talks could succeed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The world is full of pessimists. The world is full of people who will say to me it is not going to work. But those are the same people who have been saying to me over the past five years that you’ll make no progress in Northern Ireland, that you won’t ever agree anything. That you won’t agree the Downing Street Declaration, you won’t agree the Framework Document, you won’t agree how to hold elections, you won’t agree how to set up a Forum. Well we have done all that and now we have a new series of challenges just in front of us and we will do what we can to agree them as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the possibility of a ceasefire being achieved].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is not productive of me to guess. I very much hope there will be a ceasefire. I very much hope so firstly for the people of Northern Ireland and secondly because providing there is an unequivocal ceasefire Sinn Fein will be able to enter the talks and that is clearly better than having them outside. But without such a ceasefire there is no way they can enter and that is the agreed position with the British and Irish Governments and I think of all commonsense opinion as well.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with John Bruton – 10 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Irish Prime Minister, John Bruton, held at Stormont Castle on Monday 10th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me firstly say how pleased I am to be joined at this press conference by the Taoiseach. It has been a fairly lengthy and a fairly difficult process to get where we are today to the beginning of talks. And yet this is in many senses just the end of the beginning. There is a great deal that lies ahead in the negotiations that will begin with the discussions today.

    I don’t think either John or I have any illusions about the difficulty of the task that still lies ahead. It is going potentially to be long, to be difficult and to be demanding not just of the two governments but of all the participants as well.

    Of course in our discussions today Sinn Fein are not present in those discussions. But no amount of grand standing by them can hide the fact that all-party talks are a reality and that they are going to continue. Sinn Fein can be a part of that process provided there is an unequivocal ceasefire. Without an unequivocal ceasefire, they cannot be part of that process and the process will continue without them. And that is a wholly united position between the two governments.

    Despite their absence, this is an historic day. It is an opportunity to begin putting behind everyone some centuries of enmity and distrust.

    In the last two or three decades, we have seen an enormous amount of wholly senseless violence, a violence that I believe is abhorrent to the ordinary law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, similarly abhorrent to other parts of the United Kingdom, and also to the citizens of the Irish Republic.

    In Northern Ireland I have no doubt that people want a just and fair settlement, and I believe that also applies to others as well. And I don’t believe they are asking for something that is unreasonable – the opportunity to lead a normal life, the opportunity to have the same hopes and aspirations that other people automatically accept in their own way of life.

    What we have seen since the ceasefire in 1994 is a glimpse of the opportunities that could exist for Northern Ireland given a permanent settlement of the dispute that has riven the area for so long. I believe it is wicked, quite literally wicked, that the shadow of violence has reappeared in Northern Ireland and I hope we are going to get that unequivocal ceasefire before too long.

    Let me say a word about the talks process that has begun today. There is, I believe, a very heavy responsibility upon the participants in these particular talks, a heavy responsibility to participate fully in the process, a heavy responsibility to, wherever necessary, see if they can reach a reasonable compromise towards getting a settlement, and above all a responsibility to make sure that they will continue to talk one to the other so that they may finally find the settlement that people have been longing for for so long.

    It would, of course, be very easy to prevent a settlement in these talks, nothing easier than declining to agree in discussions of this sort, and it will be very hard to forge an agreement in these talks. But no-one can deny which is the better outcome and I hope everyone taking part in them will try and forge that agreement.

    There has been a great deal of discussion, and I think that is to the good. Before the meeting commenced this afternoon I had a meeting with David Trimble and John Taylor, with Ian Paisley and with Robert McCartney. And I don’t think they have any doubt about the possibilities ahead and I am sure that applies to all the other participants as well.

    Let me say immediately how grateful I am to George Mitchell, John de Chatelain and Harri Holkery for the part that they have so generously offered to play in these negotiations, They have, individually and collectively, a great amount of talent and experience, a great amount of integrity, and I am confident of their impartiality. I believe they can work with objectivity and understanding and I look forward to them taking up their responsibilities. They are very substantial responsibilities. They don’t come to them entirely fresh, they come to them on the back of a practical set of principles to set the talks in a context of democracy and non-violence; they come on the back of proposals that deal with the thorny area of decommissioning, the proposals set out in the Mitchell Report; and they offer a way forward so that both the negotiations and the decommissioning can take place in parallel in the weeks and months that lie ahead.

    As far as the British government is concerned, it will do all it can to further the negotiations. And ultimately it is for the participants themselves in these negotiations to reach and agree an outcome. Once that outcome has been agreed, it must first go to a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland and then, as appropriate, for legislation in the British Parliament.

    To all the people in these negotiations this morning I think I would simply say this. The eyes of people not just in Northern Ireland, the Republic and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the eyes of people right the way round the world are on these negotiations at present. There is a great deal of hope residing in the belief that these negotiations offer the best opportunity for a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland that we have seen for many decades. We cannot afford to fail, because the opportunities that have now been opened, having reached this far in the discussions, may not easily re-emerge were this opportunity not to be taken.

    I hope and I believe that everybody engaged in the negotiations understands quite what rests upon a successful outcome of those negotiations. The hopes and expectations of very many people rest upon the goodwill and the negotiating skills, and courage where necessary to compromise, of the people involved in these particular talks. I wish them well. But there can be absolutely no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland want these talks to succeed, and I very much hope that they will.

    MR BRUTON:

    The first thing I would like to say is that all those who are gathered for these talks have a tremendous opportunity to do enormous good, not only for the people of this island, but for the people of the neighbouring island, and for successive generations to come. This is truly an enormous opportunity, but it is an opportunity that can only be taken if there is a willingness to compromise by those who are gathered around this table, or who have a right to take their place at the table.

    What is being sought is to overcome the legacy of history. And what is being sought to be resolved is a difference about allegiance, and there is no more difficult political difference to overcome than a difference of allegiance.

    I think it is important also that people put their efforts in context by recalling all those who have died in the unresolved conflict over the last 27 or more years. I particularly feel this strongly as I came here to Belfast from the funeral of Garda Jerry McCabe, somebody who was shot down in the prime of his life, for no reason, for no good, who paid the supreme sacrifice. And there are so many other Jerry McCabes who have paid the supreme sacrifice. But there are those who have the opportunity now to make compromises, to have a sense of a very heavy responsibility to ensure that there will be no repetition of these types of loss of life of the kind that we have witnessed on this island and indeed in Britain for so long.

    I particularly recalled in my address some of the politicians who gave their lives, but the politicians were perhaps the ones who obtained more notice. But there are people who didn’t lose their lives, who are suffering, in constant pain from injuries from which they will never recover. Their pain is just the daily bread of their life.

    Those who gather together here have a responsibility. If they cannot alleviate the physical pain that those people suffer, at least to seek to alleviate the psychological pain by giving those who suffered so much a sense that the cause of that suffering is being removed. People should see their responsibilities in that broader human context. This is not simply a political exercise. This is an opportunity for all to put right a great wrong, and that wrong was violence and division.

    I recall the fact that the Republican Movement in particular have campaigned throughout the length and breadth of these islands and across the world on the slogan “Peace Talks Now”. Now is today. Today is the day that talks are available. And only one condition needs to be fulfilled for everybody, including Sinn Fein, to be present at those talks, and that is a restoration of the IRA’s ceasefire.

    Sinn Fein have already accepted the Mitchell principles. And it is worth recalling that the first of the Mitchell principles is total and absolute commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues. There is no consistency between accepting those principles and not having an immediate IRA ceasefire. Failure to restore a full and immediate IRA ceasefire is inconsistent with the very first of the Mitchell principles. I think it is also important to recall that another one of the Mitchell principles calls for an end to punishment beatings and killings for good.

    I want to compliment all the parties who have come to these talks for the commitment they have shown. I want to say that the atmosphere, given the legacy of difference that has existed in the past, at least in the period that the Prime Minister and I were present, was good and constructive.

    I want also, speaking as I do on behalf of an Irish government, to recognise the just pride in their own tradition and in their own British allegiance of a Unionist community represented by various parties at these talks. They are, as the poet John Hewitt said, “no stranger here”. And it is important to recognise that constitutional nationalists in all of the great debates that have gone on within nationalism over recent years has come, not just simply to recognise the Unionist community as having a distinctive cultural ethos, but has also come to recognise – and this was difficult, but it has happened – that their sense of being British is a crucial and central part of their identity as a Unionist community.

    That is now recognised, it perhaps was not recognised in the same way 20 or 10 years ago, it is now recognised by Nationalists and that to my mind gives real reason for hope.

    But to northern Nationalists I also say, on behalf of the Irish government, that we in the south have failed in the past, particularly in the early years when we were so painfully constructing our own state, we failed to give adequate, as distinct from self-serving rhetorical, adequate practical support to the Nationalist community in defending their rights and asserting their sense of Irish National allegiance.

    I believe a great change is now taking place. That change represents an attempt, a sincere attempt on all sides, to come together. As I said in my few remarks, I quoted the words of King George V in 1920 where he appealed to all Irish people to pause and stretch out a hand of forbearance and conciliation, to forgive and to forget and to join in making the land, which they love, one in which there was a new era of peace.

    And the important thing I think, to move on from those words, is the fact that both communities in this part of Ireland truly do love this land. They belong here. All that is needed is for each community to recognise that the other belongs here too.

    I believe that that is happening. And where appeals of that nature may have fallen on less responsive ears in the past, I believe we may be seeing now a time when there will be a meaningful response and where we will create a political structure, in this island and in this part of this island, to which all can give equally.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    Could I ask you both on behalf of your governments at the beginning of the negotiations between the parties here in the north, what claim both your governments make on these six counties now and how far you are prepared to go during the course of negotiations? What claim does the Irish Government make on the six counties?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    Our aim is to provide an opportunity for people to find a way of walking together. I believe that claims of the kind that you refer to which are phrased I think in territorial terms, don’t represent the reality of the modern world where people can move from one territory to another with such great ease.

    What is crucial now is the sense of allegiance that each individual feels not to the land that they live on or what flag flies on that land or who has the deeds of the land. What is important is the sense of allegiance that each individual wherever they live feels themselves and what we are seeking to do in these negotiations and certainly I see the framework document that the Prime Minister and I agreed as being essentially an agreement whereby we are putting the allegiance of people first and putting matters of claims of the kind that you raised into their proper, comparatively less important role.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And the allegiances will be determined and endorsed in a referendum as I said earlier.

    QUESTION:

    Is there a chance that Mr Mitchell will now not chair the talks as you originally planned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope not and I would expect not. George Mitchell is a very able and talented man, he spent a great deal of time and trouble over the Mitchell Report and the Mitchell principles are the basis that formed the entry point into these particular discussions. Quite apart from George Mitchell’s natural talents and ability to chair the plenary, I believe that much otherwise fruitless discussions about what the Mitchell Report might have meant can be readily dispensed if you have the author of the Mitchell Report chairing the plenary when he can make it perfectly plan what he meant and he was perfectly plain in his report about the need for decommissioning to go alongside political negotiations during the talks.

    I think it is perfectly proper for the participants to discuss this, they are going to have to sit under the chairmanship at the end of all the discussions and I think it is perfectly proper for them to discuss it, but I very much hope and believe that George Mitchell will be acceptable and will carry out his responsibilities.

    QUESTION (Irish Times):

    Prime Minister, the Taoiseach mentioned the framework document twice in his speech earlier and he has mentioned it just now, but I notice it is not mentioned in your speech. Has there been a cooling of enthusiasm on the British Government’s part in relation to the framework document, have you retreated from it or gone cool on it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the interesting aspects of these negotiations all the way through is that if John and say the same thing everyone says: “It is extremely boring! They agree! They are concerted!”, but we both agreed the Downing Street Declaration, we both agreed the framework document as a possible outcome. We were asked actually to consider that by the participants and to do that; we did that and those agreements were made and were reached.

    We have now reached the circumstances where the negotiators themselves will determine what is satisfactory. We can’t impose it upon them, we are not in the business of imposing things upon people. That, firstly, is not the way we wish to proceed, and secondly, it would not be effective. That is the background against which they now carry out their negotiations and you should read nothing sinister into any textual differences between the Taoiseach and I on that or indeed on other matters; I dare say there were one or two things in my speech that John didn’t mention, I will look carefully through and see what they are but in essence it has to be determined by the negotiators, that is the basis upon which these talks take place.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, did you ever pinch yourself in the past two years or ask yourself whether you had been too cautious about the peace process because the republicans said today they don’t trust you. Why should they trust you against that background?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I suppose I might have pinched myself two ways: I might have pinched myself if the republicans said I was too cautious and I might have pinched myself if some of the unionists said I was quite the reverse. The reality is that this is only going to succeed if we bring all the parties together to talk and an awful lot of people I seem to recall, not just over the past two years but over the last five years or so, have predicted with absolute certainty that we would never get to this day, exactly the same people who said you will never get agreement on the Downing Street Declaration; exactly the same people who said you would never get agreement on frameworks; exactly the same people who said you would never find a way in which you can hold the elections and everybody will take part, someone will walk out; exactly the same people who said you won’t get agreement on the forum and exactly the same people who said you would actually not get everybody sitting around the table. If I pinched myself every time somebody suggested that wouldn’t be achieved, I would quite literally be black and blue from head to tail and I promise you I am not.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, on what basis you have this confidence, unlike many people in Northern Ireland who believe this process is doomed, and you believe it can work?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is the same point I have just been making. People have been saying this process is doomed from the very first day but there is, if I may put it this way, a secret weapon in making sure that this talks process succeeds and the secret weapon is the determination of the people of Northern Ireland who have had not just the last 25 years, historically much longer but certainly the last 25 years in which their living standards, their well-being, their security, their safety, their whole way of life has been totally diminished by the violence that we have just seen and my judgement of the people out there – I don’t just mean the negotiators, I mean the people they represent, all the people of Northern Ireland – is that they are sick and tired of this issue and they want their politicians and their governments to come together and actually see if they can find a solution. I think that is a powerful imperative and it is upon that basis that I think there is an obligation upon the elected politicians in Northern Ireland to do everything they can to try and reach a settlement. They won’t have to answer to me if they don’t or to the Taoiseach if they don’t, they will have to answer to the people of Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITV):

    Prime Minister, did you get any assurances from either Mr Trimble or Mr Paisley about the position of Senator Mitchell, particularly in view of the fact that Mr Paisley was saying categorically this morning that if Senator Mitchell was there he would walk out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I didn’t hear what Ian Paisley may have said to you this morning and I am not going to comment on reported comments. I discussed the matter with them and I think at the end of the day that George Mitchell will prove acceptable and I think that is most certainly going to happen, it is being discussed now and I am confident of the outcome.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITV):

    Did he give you a promise to that effect though?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I had a private discussion with them Michael; I don’t talk about private discussions.

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, have any events in recent days or weeks changed your conviction that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness do not intend to get the ceasefire upon which their participation depends?

    To the Taoiseach, the same question but is it still your conviction that they cannot and that they are somehow beholden to other forces within the IRA?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We can’t know entirely what is happening within their minds or within the IRA. What we can know and what we have both stated quite clearly is that providing there is an unequivocal IRA ceasefire, then the route is open for Sinn Fein to take part in this talks process. Without that, the route is closed for Sinn Fein.

    We have done what we can in order to facilitate an all-party talks process that included Sinn Fein. We have carried out our obligations, it is now a matter for the IRA.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    There are two other points I would add to what the Prime Minister has said.

    First of all, I think it is very important to recognise that many people who voted for Sinn Fein did so in order to encourage Sinn Fein to pursue a peace strategy and indeed in their campaign they referred to peace a lot and obviously the opportunity that they have to pursue a peace strategy is made available to them in these talks starting today and the only obligation that is required is that the IRA would reinstate the ceasefire and I believe that that in fact creates a great pressure for a restoration of the ceasefire.

    I would also like to make the point that John Hume and the SDLP over many years when many others didn’t, shall we say, have confidence in the commitment of Sinn Fein and the Republican Movement ultimately to a peaceful solution, John Hume kept faith with them. It is very clear that John Hume and the SDLP also want them to come into these talks and want the IRA to have a ceasefire now so that that can happen. I think all of those forces within their own community and in light of their own mandate are working towards the restoration of the ceasefire and I believe that weight will be given to those.

    It is furthermore very important to make the point that the two governments have sought to give answers to every query – to every issue that was raised there have been answers provided – and the condition has been created now for truly inclusive and meaningful negotiations which you will recollect is what they were looking for all along. That is now there, those negotiations start today and all that needs to be done for Sinn Fein to take their full part on the strength of their full mandate is for the first of the Mitchell principles to be accepted by the entire Republican Movement.

    QUESTION (Daily Mail):

    Prime Minister, if there is an IRA ceasefire will you be willing to meet Gerry Adams and shake his hand?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let us get the IRA ceasefire first shall we and then we will deal with other matters of that sort.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it is possible to reach a lasting settlement which will take in this part of Ireland without Sinn Fein or do you think the talks are, in the words of an Irish government official, not worth a penny candle without them?

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I think that it is very important that Sinn Fein should be in the talks but I will put it this way: nobody has a veto. I think we have been hearing indeed from the Republican Movement that no one party should have a veto; they were of course thinking of somebody else when they were saying that but equally, they don’t have a veto either and it is important to make the point that nobody, whether they be nationalists or unionists, whether they be a big party or a small party, has a veto and in that sense of course the talks that are starting today, which represent 85 percent of the people plus the two governments, can do a great deal of business but for the sake of completeness and as part of the reflection of the peace process that has been running for a number of years now which was one of bringing everybody in from both extremes as well as the middle, to give fulfilment to that process it is important that Sinn Fein are there and it is important that they be allowed to be there by the IRA.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    Let us see. Hopefully, that question will not have to be answered. We can’t answer that with a double hypothesis involved in the question and it is not really possible to answer it without engaging in the gift of prophecy and it is difficult enough to deal with the present without having to cast oneself and one’s skills that far forward.

    QUESTION (BBC Newsnight):

    If and when there is a ceasefire and Sinn Fein come to the talks, the DUP has said quite clearly that they will leave. Is it possible to have a settlement in Northern Ireland without the DUP on board?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will have to see what happens when we get a ceasefire and what the circumstances of the ceasefire are. I think often many people and many parties have a particular position but these are moving negotiations, they are not static. I can recall other statements made by one party or another relating to today – that has changed as they all sit down together today so I am not going to be in the business of saying things that are going to make it more difficult for everybody to take part in inclusive talks later. I think we can get inclusive discussions and that is what we will be working for.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I think it is also worth making the point that all the parties represent people and that the overwhelming majority of the people who support all the parties want a settlement, they may not want exactly the same settlement but they all want a settlement and I don’t think that the electorate that supported any of the parties would forgive any one of them if they were the ones that prevented the possibility of a settlement being achieved.

    It is important to make the point that there is a responsibility on everybody’s shoulders here, it is not just a responsibility for the governments or for the bigger parties, everybody has a responsibility.

    QUESTION (New York Times):

    Mr Adams repeated today what he has been saying for at least a week now, that regardless of what happens today or this week, Sinn Fein will be part of an all-inclusive settlement. Do both of you agree with him that this will come to pass?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We can certainly be part of an all-inclusive settlement, we have gone to a great deal of trouble to give him the opportunity to become part of an all-inclusive settlement. We would like Sinn Fein in the talks, there ought to be no doubt about that, we have been saying that consistently over the past couple of years.

    The option for that to happen is with Mr Adams and with the IRA. If what he is hinting at is that there is going to be a ceasefire then I am very pleased to hear that.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 June 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

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

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

     

    Beef Ban

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

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

     

    Kashmir

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

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

     

    European Union Flag

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

     

    Security and Intelligence Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 6 June 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Michael: Will the Prime Minister join the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in rejecting the idea of sixth form vouchers, or will he give in to the chairman of the Conservative party who has been telling newspapers that the right hon. Lady should be sacked?

    The Prime Minister: No, he has not. [Hon. Members: “Oh, yes he has.”] No, he has not. I know that the Opposition are a pantomime and I am tempted to say, “Oh no he hasn’t.” I saw the story in the press this morning and fair old nonsense it was.

    Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our overriding attitude towards Europe should be to persuade our partners against further integration? If so, does he think that his tactics on beef enhance or diminish our powers of persuasion?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend’s support against further integration of a federal nature in the European Union. That is right. The issues are dealt with on their own merits.

    On the question of beef, I very much welcome the decision taken yesterday by the Commission, which is a first step. My right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have had a series of constructive meetings, including meetings this morning, on the issue. I hope that we shall be able to make progress by agreement.

    Mr. Blair: With reference to what the Foreign Secretary described as a turning point in the beef crisis, have the Italians simply agreed–as I understand it–to try to use their best endeavours to secure agreement with other European Union countries, or have the Italians now agreed to support the lifting of the ban and the British position?

    The Prime Minister: No–the Italians, who have the presidency, have now seen the framework document that we have produced and are using their best endeavours to see whether we can reach an agreement in advance of Florence. We have not finally discussed every aspect of that agreement with the Italians–that is happening at the moment, as it is with others. I hope that, as discussions continue over the next few days, we shall be able to reach an agreement. It is not certain, but I think that we have made a good deal of progress in the past few days, which is encouraging.

    Mr. Blair: May I then ask the Prime Minister whether it is still his clear policy and expectation that by the Florence summit there will be a firm agreement to lift the ban completely within a specified time scale?

    The Prime Minister: As I indicated when I announced the policy at the outset, we required two things before the ban is lifted completely. The first was the removal of the ban on beef derivatives, which has been obtained, and the second was a framework so that we were aware of precisely what needed to be done before the ban was lifted entirely. I very much hope that that will be achieved before Florence, but it is not solely in my hands. We can advance the case, and we are doing so; we need the agreement of the Commission and our partners across the European Union, which is what we are seeking to obtain.

    Mr. Blair: I am sure that the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I gather from what he is saying that a time scale is not necessarily part of the negotiation.

    I return to the question of cost that I put to the Prime Minister on Tuesday. He said then that it would not be part of the negotiation because of the refunding mechanism from the European Union. Will he confirm that the refunding in respect of the 30-month cattle slaughter scheme will come mainly out of the British rebate and that the net cost to Britain will therefore be some £2 billion, with several hundred million pounds extra for all sorts of other items? May I put it to the Prime Minister that, if the negotiation neither has a time scale nor an improvement in compensation, on any basis the price that this country will be paying for the beef crisis will be with us for many years to come?

    The Prime Minister: The beef crisis is a very serious crisis. There is no doubt that it is expensive for this country. That has been the case from the outset. We set out what the costs were at the beginning. To reassure people on public health, there is a substantial price to be paid, and we see that in the destruction of animals and in the consequent compensation to farmers. We wish to get rid of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, first, on public health grounds; secondly, to restore consumer confidence; and, of course, for the overriding reason that we wish international confidence in British beef to be fully restored.

    As far as the negotiations on time scale are concerned, we are seeking not an arbitrary calendar date but the steps that need to be taken–

    Mr. Skinner: A retreat is on the way.

    The Prime Minister: This is what I said at the outset. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not understand very much. If he understood a little more, he would probably interrupt a little less.

    As I said at the outset, we are seeking a framework–that is to say, the steps that must be taken to enable us to remove the ban. That is what I stated here when the ban was introduced. That remains our policy and it has not changed one whit.

    Mr. Lamont: Does the Prime Minister recall that, during the Napoleonic wars, Samuel Whitbread, the founder of the modern business, was always predicting defeat and urging the Government to open negotiations with Napoleon? Will the Prime Minister ignore the successors to Samuel Whitbread in the Confederation of British Industry who want to throw in the towel and who seem so indifferent to the plight of small businesses and farmers? Will he tell the chairman of Unilever to stick to cream cakes and detergents?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend puts the point with great clarity and precision. As he rightly says, there are a large number of small businesses–650,000 people are dependent on the beef industry, and it is in the interests of the people whose livelihoods are in the beef industry that we need to reach a satisfactory conclusion to this affair and restore the confidence in the international beef trade, which has been lost because of the lack of confidence and, frankly, the rather over-exaggerated response to the problem that we have had in the past. My right hon. Friend is entirely right to say that that is the priority.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Hoyle: Has the Prime Minister seen reports in the Daily Express that his predecessor, Baroness Thatcher, is calling for non-payment of bills to the European Union? Will he condemn that bizarre, foolish and reckless attempt at law breaking?

    The Prime Minister: I responded to that point several Question Times ago, and my response would not change today.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that gas bills, electricity bills and telephone bills have been slashed since privatisation? Does he welcome today’s news that there will be a windfall rebate of £38 for gas consumers? Did he welcome the £50 rebate for electricity consumers? Does this not show that the regulator has already altered the proposals for a windfall tax of £3 billion into a shortfall tax?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right: privatisation and the regulator are reducing the prices of a large number of utilities. There has been a rebate of £50 on electricity bills and there will be a rebate on gas bills. The regulator is blowing to pieces the prospect that there might be resources for an artificial windfall tax to fund putative expenditure by any other political party. Opposition Members below the Gangway may not know that the Labour party’s industry spokesman is claiming that his party should embrace competition. I will not comment on the look of horror on the faces of the Opposition Members below the Gangway after hearing that.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is totally unacceptable for Yorkshire Water to show a profit of £162 million when it had a dreadful record on water supply, on leakage, on charges to customers and on investment during that period? Does the Prime Minister not think that it is time to revisit that regulator for tougher sanctions so that we can slake the fat cats and their thirst for profits? It is time that we had tougher regulations.

    The Prime Minister: In that case, the hon. Gentleman will support the water regulator, who took action against Yorkshire Water to cut its prices earlier this week.

    Mr. Viggers: May I ask my right hon. Friend to spare a moment during his busy day for the plight of people involved in a small section of the beef industry, the cow head de-boning sector? Is he aware that this small industry, which is made up of about a dozen mainly family-owned companies, has been driven out of business by the Government order of 28 March banning head meat? I ask my right hon. Friend to take the modest step of authorising the Ministry of Agriculture to discuss the amount of loss with the industry involved.

    The Prime Minister: I will invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture to examine that matter and then to contact my hon. Friend.

     

    Q5. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Mullin: Is it not time that the Prime Minister put a stop to the hypocrisy of the Tories being the party of the family? Perhaps he could take a tip from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and impose a curfew on his Ministers in the hope that they might sleep in their own beds rather than someone else’s.

    The Prime Minister: The policy of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)–which does not seem to carry the support of his Chief Whip–is for a curfew for people under the age of 10.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend seen the advertisement in today’s paper supporting a new political party in this country? Will he take the opportunity to confirm that he will always heed the views of the British people to stay part of the European Union so long as it is a part of a Europe of separate states and never part of a federated super-state of Europe?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I did see that advertisement this morning and I am happy to confirm that no Government that I lead will enter into a federal Europe. I have argued for a Europe of nation states and I shall continue to do so. I am delighted to see that there seems to be some support for that in other quarters as well, as was highlighted by the advertisement.

     

    Q6. Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Campbell: If money is available for tax giveaways in the next budget, will the Prime Minister guarantee that it will be put into the health service and the education service of this country?

    The Prime Minister: We have increased the resources for the health service above the level of inflation year after year after year. I shall not make any projections about what will happen in the Budget some months hence, but I note the hon. Gentleman’s expectation that the economy is doing well enough to mean that it might place us in a position to reduce taxes or increase expenditure. I am grateful for that unsolicited commendation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor’s management of the economy.

    Mr. Thomason: Has my right hon. Friend noted that the Rover Group, which is based partly in my constituency, has put in figures for the first quarter of this year showing an increase of 10 per cent. in production, and that the group’s exports are up even more? Can he confirm that it is his policy to encourage enterprise, and that that sort of improvement would be severely damaged by the Labour party’s policies?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that. I can also confirm that, in terms of growth, inflation, falling unemployment, investment and many other areas of economic management, this country is now leading any of our competitor countries in Europe as a result of decisions that the present Government have taken in recent years.

     

    Q7. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 June.

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

    Mr. Bayley: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Labour party proposed an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to tighten up on the sale of handguns by mail order? In view of the evidence given at the Dunblane inquiry that one of the guns used to kill those children was sold by mail order by a firm in my constituency, will the Government reconsider their policy and introduce legislation to tighten up or even to ban the sale of handguns by mail order?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have indeed strengthened firearms controls in recent years. Most self-loading and pump action rifles have been banned and a range of other changes have been made. As the whole House knows, we have given Lord Cullen a very wide remit and he may make recommendations to the Government. We will consider those very seriously, discuss them with other parties in the House and then decide what action needs to be taken.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 June 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Running Costs and Cash Limits

    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister what proposals there are to change the 1996-97 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office other services vote.

    The Prime Minister: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Cabinet Office other services, class XVIII, vote 1, will be increased by £741,000 from £36,941,000 to £37,682,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £741,000 from £39,845,000 to £40,586,000.

    This is to reflect the transfer from the Home Office, class VII, vote 1, of provision for certain Government car service costs; and the transfer from the Office of Public Service, class XVIII, vote 1, of provision for Admiralty house and other central service costs.
    The increases are offset by interdepartmental transfers and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Prince’s Trust Volunteers’ Event – 4 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Prince’s Trust Volunteers’ Event held at St James’s Palace by Tuesday 4th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Your Royal Highness, President Robinson.

    I think we have all been impressed by that we have seen and heard here this afternoon. From all those who have benefited in different ways from the Prince’s Trust Volunteers Programme.

    The motto of the Prince of Wales is “Ich Dien” – I serve – and at the heart of all volunteering is the concept of service. It is not what any of us takes out of society that counts, it’s what we put back into it.

    Voluntary work is vital for any healthy society, and young people are the cornerstone of volunteering. Prince’s Trust Volunteers do much for their community, as we heard just a moment ago. There are many examples right around the country of volunteers helping with day care centres, working on local environmental projects, assisting disabled people. Making a real difference.

    But the volunteers also do something for themselves. Most volunteers who were unemployed go on to jobs or full-time training. Those who already had jobs come back with new skills and a better understanding of the views of others in their community.

    The Prince’s Trust Volunteers play a special role by bringing together a mix of unemployed people and those with jobs, for a full-time programme. People of different backgrounds and different abilities, who benefit from working together as a team.

    That requires a substantial commitment from employers, who need to release staff for the programme. Companies like Marks and Spencer, British Telecom, Natwest, Sainsbury’s and Kwik-Fit have shown the way. They know the benefits their staff get out of the scheme. I hope others will follow.

    The Government will certainly be continuing its backing. I have asked Roger Freeman to give a push to Departments to provide more volunteers from our younger employees. The Benefits Agency, the Inland Revenue and the Employment Service are already substantial suppliers of volunteers. And many other Government departments have now committed themselves to sending volunteers on the programme – and more will do so in future.

    We will do so to maintain and strengthen our partnership with the Prince’s Trust, and to do what we can to help meet the target of 25,000 volunteers a year by the year 2000. I hope that the companies represented here – and others – will do likewise.

    This is by no means the only action the Government is taking in this area. Two years ago I launched the “Make a Difference” programme to promote volunteering more generally. We will be spending several million pounds on new projects to provide local information points for volunteers throughout Britain. The new agencies will work closely with the Prince’s Trust, and with others, to help identify suitable candidates and suitable opportunities – and literature about the Prince’s Trust Volunteers is now also on display in job-centres.

    I would like to give every young person between the ages of 16 and 25 the opportunity to take part in voluntary work. The presentations we have seen today make clear why we want to do that. Volunteering really does make a difference, to local communities and to the volunteers themselves. Programmes like the Prince’s Trust Volunteers make people believe in themselves, and in what they can achieve.

    The first 10,000 Prince’s Trust Volunteers know that they made a difference. So will all those who follow in their footsteps. We are all grateful for your efforts, and for bringing us together today to see some of the results.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 June 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kyle of Lochalsh

    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the Kyle of Lochalsh.

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

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

    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.

     

    Bosnia

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will consult other Heads of Government about extending the implementation force involvement in former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Under the terms of the Bosnia peace agreement, and the United Nations Security Council resolution 1031, IFOR’s mandate expires in December. We expect implementation force IFOR to have successfully completed its military mission by that time. When IFOR leaves, we expect the leaders elected in the forthcoming Bosnian elections to take on responsibility for Bosnia’s future. We remain in constant contact with other Governments on this and other Bosnia-related subjects.

     

    Hong Kong (Beef Ban)

    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Prime Minister what consultations took place between Her Majesty’s Government and the Governor of Hong Kong before the decision was taken by the Hong Kong authorities to ban the entry of British beef into the colony.

    The Prime Minister: Hong Kong has autonomy in all trade matters. The Hong Kong Government’s suspension of the import of British beef was imposed after the European Union’s decision to prohibit the export of British beef. In announcing the suspension, the Hong Kong Government made clear that they had taken this decision to restore confidence in the beef market in Hong Kong, and that they did not consider it necessary to restrict the import of British beef on health grounds.

     

    Conservative Party (Donations)

    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations to the chairman of the Conservative party about the conclusions of the Touche Ross report to the Conservative party of July 1993 in respect of donations to that party of fraudulently obtained money.

    The Prime Minister: This does not fall within my responsibilities as Prime Minister.

     

    Dr. Trifkovic and Mr. Zametica

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what meetings his Ministers have had with (a) Dr. Svdja Trifkovic and (b) Jovan Zametica; and what was discussed.

    The Prime Minister: None. Mr. Zametica was present when Rajko Kasagic, former Prime Minister of the Republika Srpska, called on my right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development during a visit to London on 29 April.

     

    Northern Ireland (Talks)

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the advantages for the success of the all-party talks of Sinn Fein taking part in them.

    The Prime Minister: The talks will hold out the best prospects for a settlement if they are as inclusive as possible, but only on condition that all those participating are committed to exclusively peaceful methods. We and the Irish Government have expressed the hope that all parties with an electoral mandate will take part in the talks, including Sinn Fein; but we have agreed that they must be limited to parties establishing their commitment to peaceful methods, and that participation by Sinn Fein requires unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994.

     

    Pay Review Bodies

    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names and occupations of the current members of and the terms of reference of (a) the Review Body on Senior Salaries, (b) the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, (c) the Review on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration, (d) the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay and (e) the School Teachers’ Review Body.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 21 May 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 15 May, Official Report, column 457, and to the terms of reference contained in the 1996 reports of the review bodies, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Personal details such as occupations, when published, may be obtained from the standard works of reference.

  • PMQT – 4 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister agree that Camelot’s profits of £1 million a week, and the bonuses of £100,000 being paid to the directors, are simply unacceptable? Why can we not have a non-profit making lottery, as is generally the case in Europe? When shall we start giving money to good causes instead of lining the pockets of fat cats?

    The Prime Minister: Camelot’s post-tax profits are less than 1p in the pound. Camelot has been extraordinarily successful, and the hon. Gentleman ought to be pleased about that, because his constituency has so far received £1.7 million in grants from the Sports Council, the Arts Council and the National Lottery Charities Board. The more profitable Camelot is, the more money will be available in grants for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others.

    Mr. David Hunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although last night’s decision on a partial lifting of the beef ban is a welcome move in the right direction, what we need is a clear framework for a total lifting of the ban?

    The Prime Minister: I agree. Yesterday’s decision was a further step towards getting the ban lifted, and I am grateful to the Commission and to the increased number of member states that gave their support. We now look to the Commission to live up to its responsibilities and, by following normal procedures, lift the ban on beef derivatives. Of course, we seek not only a lifting of the ban on derivatives but a framework for a lifting of the whole ban–a ban that is not scientifically justified.

    Mr. Blair: I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the lifting of the ban on derivatives, but is the clear framework for lifting the whole ban that he seeks to achieve before the Florence summit to include a time scale–a time by which the ban is to be lifted?

    The Prime Minister: What we seek, what we are discussing with the Commission, and what my right hon. and learned Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are discussing with their colleagues in Europe, is a clear and staged process towards the complete lifting of the beef ban, based on science rather than on the irrational argument that has sustained the ban thus far. We have put our ideas to the Commission, and they are now under negotiation. At this stage, I do not wish to go into the details of the negotiation; I do not believe that it would be productive or in the interests of the beef industry to do so. We are looking for a proper framework that will allow a staged complete lifting of the ban, commencing as speedily as possible.

    Mr. Blair: I do not expect the Prime Minister to expose his hand on the precise time scale, but will a time scale be part of the negotiation, or not? Is that to form part of the framework, or not? Obviously the issue is when the ban will be lifted, so if a time scale is not to be part of the negotiation, what is the Prime Minister’s expectation? Are we talking about months, the end of the year or a longer time scale?

    The Prime Minister: I said that it would be a staged lifting. We are certainly looking for the beginning of the staged lifting at an early date, but it will be dependent on events that are yet to be discussed with the European Union. It would not be in the interests of the agriculture industry for me to go into the details at this stage, although it is tempting. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and I appreciate that we are talking about the livelihoods of 650,000 people who are involved in the beef industry in this country, many more who are involved in the beef industry across Europe and, indeed, the basis of the European internal market. All that has been put at risk by the unjustified action of other member states. We want the ban to be lifted; we are discussing that in detail. As soon as I have more to report to the House, I shall do so.

    Mr. Blair: I am not clear whether the time scale is to form part of the negotiation. We know that the cost of just the 30-month cattle slaughter policy is about £2.5 billion over the next few years and that there will be additional costs because of other measures. Will the refunding of that cost–at present only about 25 or 30 per cent. is to be refunded–be part of the clear framework that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking?

    The Prime Minister: No. A refunding mechanism for the costs of slaughter has been in place for some time. We are not discussing that matter with the European Union. I am concerned about getting the ban lifted. The ban is not justified and ought to be lifted. On the basis of the science available, what the World Health Organisation has said and the information that we have already made available to our colleagues, there is not in my judgment–or in the judgment of many independent judges–a justification for the ban to continue. I am primarily concerned, as I have said, about the health and future of the British beef industry. That is the matter under negotiation with our European partners.

    Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the disastrous loss earlier today of the first Ariane 5 space rocket. While it is still too early to be sure of the reasons for that loss, will he take the opportunity to confirm the Government’s support for the international collaboration that keeps so many fine British companies at the forefront of international science and technology?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, no one is quite certain what happened in the distressing loss of the Ariane rocket. I have not had the opportunity, in the few minutes since the information came through, to determine precisely the scale of British involvement. My recollection is that our involvement in Ariane 5 is relatively modest, although I think that we sponsored one of the satellites on board which would have been lost. Certainly, whatever may have happened, there is a future for co-operation with our colleagues in Europe on that and other matters.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister’s policy of declaring war on Europe has resulted in the partial lifting of a ban that everybody expected to be lifted completely even before the policy was adopted. Is it not perfectly clear that nothing has been achieved by that foolish policy that could not have been achieved without it? The cost to Britain has been lost respect and lost influence abroad, and a campaign by his Back Benchers and the press at home of ugly, petty xenophobia, which insults and demeans us all.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is just being plain silly. No one, as he so absurdly put it, has declared war on Europe. What I said when I announced the policy at this Dispatch Box was that we were not getting the co-operation in discussion on the important issue–important to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents as well as to mine–that we had a right to expect as members of the European Union. If good will is not shown to us, people must not expect us to show it in return. I am determined that the matter be properly and speedily examined so that we may, first, get a lifting of the beef derivatives ban, which now looks probable in the very short term, and then a framework for a lifting of the complete ban. Exaggerated comments such as the right hon. Gentleman has just made achieve exactly what he accuses my hon. Friends of doing.

    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on his election as Prime Minister of Israel? Does he agree that, following the recent welcome discussions with Yasser Arafat and, given flexibility, good will and mutual understanding on both sides, there is no reason why the peace process should not continue?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate Mr. Netanyahu on his election. The United Kingdom has a better relationship with the state of Israel today than at any stage in the history of that state. I know that the new Prime Minister is determined that that will continue, and so am I. Since his election, the Israeli Prime Minister has made it clear publicly that he wants to continue the peace process and to honour the agreements that Israel has already reached. I welcome those objectives. The House may wish to know that I have already been in touch with the new Prime Minister and invited him to the United Kingdom.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mrs. Roche: I am sure that the Prime Minister will share my delight that one of last Saturday’s jackpot winners is a resident of Hornsey and Wood Green. Will he encourage Camelot to give a fair share of its profits to good causes? Will he also admit that the Government were wrong to set up the lottery in such a way and that the pay of Camelot directors is another example of taking from the many and giving to the few?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I congratulate the hon. Lady’s constituent and those bodies within her constituency that have benefited from the lottery. However, perhaps she has forgotten that Camelot was awarded a licence by the regulator because it convinced the regulator that it could deliver the maximum sum of money for good causes. That is the purpose of the lottery and Camelot has achieved it spectacularly well. It also makes substantial donations to charity.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield, I am very proud of the borough of Macclesfield and its achievement in the recent local elections? Will my right hon. Friend accept an invitation from me and the leader of the council, Councillor Mrs. Margaret Duddy, to visit Macclesfield, where he will receive a warm welcome for the principled leadership that he is giving the Government and the Conservative party, and where he will see how a well-run and accountable local authority is warmly and very well supported by its local electorate?

    The Prime Minister: From what my hon. Friend tells us, Macclesfield is a example to us all. I certainly would be very happy to visit Macclesfield at an appropriate time, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not pin me down to a date.

     

    Q3. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Mr. MacShane: Has the Prime Minister read reports that 77 Republican Congressmen voted to support President Clinton’s move significantly to raise the minimum wage in the United States? As America has the best job creation record in the world, why will he not send Treasury Ministers to see their Republican colleagues to learn how a statutory minimum wage goes hand in hand with fair play and good job creation?

    The Prime Minister: There are very few similarities between the structure in the United States to create jobs and the policies that those on the Opposition Front Bench advocate, which would destroy jobs. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see job creation, he can see it here in the United Kingdom. He will not see it in those countries nearby that have a minimum wage and adhere to the social chapter.

     

    Q4. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people who talk tough about fighting crime must understand that we need support measures to act tough? How can any party that opposes our proposals to set up secure training centres for juvenile criminals be taken seriously when talking about curbing juvenile crime?

    The Prime Minister: I very much regret that our proposals for dealing with juvenile criminals did not receive the support of the Opposition, and I am sure that the electorate will have noticed it. I suppose that Labour’s recent proposals for curfews will be adopted for a short while by some Labour Members, but will be ditched after a decent interval. I am not sure that those proposals are workable, as I believe the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has suggested. I believe that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) has made some more scathing comments about the policy.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with President Arafat – 3 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with President Arafat, held in London on Monday 3rd June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say this afternoon how pleased I have been to welcome President Arafat again to Downing Street. We have had the opportunity of talking both about bilateral relationships, but overwhelmingly about the Middle East peace process. There has been very great progress over the last few years with Mr Rabin, Mr Peres and President Arafat, and I was able once again to congratulate him upon the progress that had been made towards a Middle East settlement. We had the opportunity of reviewing the present situation. We both hope that negotiations will continue towards a peace in the Middle East. We recognised some of the difficulties that existed, but also the opportunities that existed both in the short-term and the long-term. I very much hope that those negotiations will be able to continue as soon as possible and that further progress will be made towards a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. And I assured the President that it is very much Britain’s policy to facilitate that in any way that she can.

    I was also able to indicate that of course we will do what we can bilaterally to help the Palestinian state. The Foreign Secretary set out our views some time ago. We will be able to help a little further with aid and President Arafat knows that there are occasions where he may wish to discuss matters with us of importance both to him and I and that the door of Downing Street is open to him to do that on each and on every occasion.

    PRESIDENT ARAFAT:

    I have to thank His Excellency for giving me this opportunity. We had very fruitful, very constructive talks just now. Especially, as he mentioned, we cannot forget his efforts to strengthen more and more the peace process, not only with the Palestinians and Israelis but in the Middle East, including the Syrian track and the Lebanese track, so that we can have a comprehensive lasting peaceful solution. And I am sure his Excellency will continue this very important role of Britain in this attitude so that we will have this comprehensive lasting solution in the Middle East, in the terracentre [sic] not only between the Palestinians and the Israelis, but in the whole area. Because peace is not only a Palestinian need, not only an Israeli need, not only an Arab need but it is an international need. So we are in need of your help, Your Excellency. And I am sure, as you have mentioned, that I am not alone and I have to thank you from my heart, by my name personally, by the name of my people, for what you are offering for the peace process. And I am sure we will have very soon, with your support, with the support of Europe, with the support of the co-sponsors, America and Russia, and for the support of the international community to have very soon the peace process.

    In front of you I have to repeat again that we are committed to the peace process, we are committed to what has been signed, and hope the others to be committed equally like us. And we are respecting the democratic choice of the Israeli people in the last election and we hope that we will continue with them the peace process.

    QUESTION:

    Chairman Arafat, if you had the opportunity to speak to Benjamin Netanyahu, what message would you give him?

    PRESIDENT ARAFAT:

    To continue the peace process, the peace of the [indistinct] which we have signed was bi-partisan, Mr Yitzak Rabin and Mr Peres, and we have to continue with Mr Netanyahu.

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    ANSWER:

    [Not interpreted].

    QUESTION:

    If you expect the peace process to continue, when would you expect Israel to withdraw from Hebron?

    PRESIDENT ARAFAT:

    I hope that the withdrawal from Hebron to be exactly according to what has been agreed upon between us and the Israeli government on the 12th of this month.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, have you had any contact with Mr Netanyahu?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have today invited Mr Netanyahu to come to the United Kingdom and I look forward to meeting him again. I met him when he was opposition leader and had the opportunity of fairly lengthy discussions with him. I look forward to discussing the matter with him again. And we are committed to playing whatever role we can as a facilitator of a peace within the Middle East, and to that effect we will continue our close relationship with President Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu. I look forward to meeting him.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Radovan Karadžić – 24 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments made in Banja Luka on 24th May 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there could be peace in the region when leaders such as Radovan Karadžić were still at large]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If the opportunity comes to apprehend him, then of course we’ll do so.