Category: 1996

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 October 1996

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Departmental Salaries

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons working in (i) No. 10 Downing Street and (ii) the Cabinet Office are paid more than £43,000 per annum.

    The Prime Minister: The number of payees whose national salary is more than £43,000 per annum in No. 10 Downing Street, the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service and its agencies, is as follows:

    No. 10: 12

    Cabinet Office (including the Office of Public Service and agencies): 116.

     

    Oman University

    Mr. Meacher: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what reports he has received regarding the involvement by Mr. Mark Thatcher, in respect of companies in receipt of export credit guarantees from the ECGD, in the construction of a university in Oman; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) what reports he has received that part of the university of Oman has been used for the storage of military equipment or for other military purposes; if these purposes were known to Her Majesty’s Government when export credit guarantees were given by the ECGD in relation to the construction of the university; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: As far as my office is aware, none.

     

    Parliamentary Recall

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 9 September, if he will state the conditions in which he believes the public interest requires Parliament to be recalled, with particular reference to the involvement of British personnel on active service.

    The Prime Minister: A decision to recall Parliament depends upon the prevailing situation. It is made after consultation with colleagues and through the usual channels.

     

    Academy of Sports

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister what advice he sought from voluntary coaches and administrators in (a) athletics, (b) rowing, (c) canoeing, (d) swimming and (e) cycling (i) prior to and (ii) since his original announcements concerning his proposed academy of sports.

    The Prime Minister: Details of the Government’s proposals for the British Academy of Sport were included in the sports policy statement, “Sport: Raising the Game”, which was published on 14 July 1995. The policy statement invited the Sports Council to bring forward proposals on what the structure and content of the academy might be, and to consult widely with the sports world on the ideas that might emerge. On 6 December 1995, the Sports Council published a consultation paper on the academy and comments were invited by the end of January. The Sports Council also held a series of consultation meetings with groups of administrators, coaches, performers and specialists from all sports, including representatives of the sports listed.

    A prospectus inviting bids to establish the academy was published jointly by the Department of National Heritage and the Sports Council on 24 July. A summary of the consultation was published with it. Bidders have until 31 October to submit their bids.

     

    British Legion

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister what further correspondence has been received in his office from the Royal British Legion in relation to its call for the setting up of an ex-service affairs unit; what reply has been sent; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I have received one recent letter directed from the Royal British Legion regarding the setting up of an ex-service affairs unit. A reply has been sent. The position remains as I detailed in my answer to the hon. Member on 11 March, Official Report, columns 434-35.

     

    Poverty Resources

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what policies Her Majesty’s Government have established in support of the 1996 United Nations Year for the Eradication of Poverty: and what additional resources have been committed in support of these policies.

    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom has extensive social protection and assistance arrangements, among the most comprehensive in the world. It is by working to maintain and improve living standards through economic and social policies that we will fulfil the aspirations of the United Nations Year for the Eradication of Poverty, and in a way relevant to our society. The most effective way of eradicating poverty is to promote flexible labour markets since this reduces the level of unemployment. Claimant unemployment has already fallen by over 125,000 so far this year. The UK has more of its people in work and a lower unemployment rate than any other major EU country.

  • Mr Major’s 1996 Conservative Party Conference Speech – 11 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s 1996 Conservative Party Conference speech made on 11th October 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam Chairman, we’ve had a good week.

    It’s been the week the Tory family came together – to renew the family contract with the British nation.

    And through the week, colleague after colleague has set out fresh, detailed, new policy for the future.

    There’ve been some marvellous speeches.

    It’s been 21 years since Michael Heseltine first got a standing ovation at this conference. And no one has sat down since.

    The well-being of our country is more important than any political party.

    And the well-being of the Conservative Party is more important than any member of it.

    So the lesson is clear. Everyone in the Conservative Party should work – and if I know them, will work – heart and soul, irrespective of personal interests, to secure the re-election of a Conservative Government.

    Over the last two or three years there’s been attempt after attempt – by our opponents – to sully the reputation of our Party.

    Well, I know this party.

    No doubt it’s not perfect – nor is everyone in it.

    But I grew up in it.

    And that campaign won’t succeed.

    Because this Party as a whole is straight and honourable and true and – like you – I’m proud to be a member of it.

    Unlike Labour, we aren’t ashamed of our past.

    Unlike Labour, we haven’t abandoned our principles.

    Unlike Labour, we haven’t had to reinvent ourselves. We’re proud of what we’ve achieved.

    Because, Madam Chairman, we’ve changed Britain – for the better.

    ENTERPRISE CENTRE OF EUROPE

    When I became Prime Minister, I set out to make Britain a low inflation economy.

    I knew what a fight it would be.

    But we went for it. We took the flak.

    No weakening. Heads down. We did what we always do when we’re challenged: we came out fighting.

    And, as a result, we’ve had the longest run of low inflation this country has seen for a generation.

    I want to thank my colleagues – and you – my party – for standing with me through that battle. Between us, we’ve transformed the prospects for our country.

    And we did it with raw political gut.

    We set out to create jobs. And we’re succeeding.

    Unemployment is lower here than in any comparable country in Europe.

    In Britain it’s falling.

    In Europe it’s not.

    Last year, this year, and next year we’re set to have higher growth here, in our country, than any big country in Europe.

    Curiously enough, the Labour leader didn’t mention these successes in his flight of fancy last week.

    Pages missing perhaps?

    He just said the country was falling apart.

    Inflation down.

    Mortgages down.

    Unemployment down.

    Some fall.

    Of course, there was a time when this country was falling apart. It was when we had a Labour Government.

    So I’ve got some friendly advice for Mr Blair. If you knock your country, you’ll never lead it.

    The plain truth is I’m the first Prime Minister for generations who can say “We’re the most competitive economy in Europe”.

    And I intend to be the Prime Minister who builds on that success after we’ve won the next General Election.

    Madam Chairman, at that election there’s a central question. It’s this: who can be trusted with the future?

    Labour try to persuade people it’s them.

    “We’re different” they say. “We’ve changed our name”.

    “Rely on us – you know we’ve always been wrong in the past”.

    Well, that’s candid – if a touch eccentric.

    Trouble is, they’re wrong in the present as well.

    And it simply won’t do for Mr Blair to say, “Look, I’m not a Socialist anymore. Now, can I be Prime Minister please?”.

    Sorry Tony. Job’s taken.

    And anyway, it’s too big a task for your first real job.

    Mr Blair’s handlers are trying to spread the tale that he’s a very fierce dog indeed. Indeed, but also that he’s quite harmless.

    Another eccentric messages, “Fierce dog – no teeth!”.

    By the way, have you noticed how the less a politician has to say, the more over-heated the language in which he says it?

    When every aim becomes – “a crusade”.

    Every hope – “a dream”.

    Every priority – “a passion”.

    Then it’s time to duck from cover.

    And when the whole show is laced with words like “tragedy”, “catastrophe”, “triumph” and “destiny” – terms with real meaning, but which, ransacked for political advantage, degrade the message – then I think of Ralph Waldo Emerson: “the louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons”.

    BELIEFS

    Madam Chairman, I came into politics to open doors, not shut them.

    They were opened for me.

    I was born in the war.

    My father was 66. My mother was – how shall I put it? Surprised.

    We were like millions of others. Not well off, but comfortable, until financially the roof fell in.

    Nothing special about that.

    But for us, it changed our life.

    My mother coped – as women do.

    I left school at 16, because 5 pounds a week mattered.

    I learnt something from that experience. In the game of life, we Tories should even up the rules.

    Give people opportunity and choice, to open up an avenue of hope in their lives.

    And by “people”, I don’t mean “some people”. I mean everyone.

    Opportunity for all.

    It’s in the bloodstream of our party.

    It was Shaftesbury who gave an education to thousands of children from poor homes.

    It was Disraeli who gave many working men the freedom to vote.

    It was Salisbury who brought free education within the reach of almost every family in England.

    All Tories.

    And it was Margaret Thatcher – another Tory, as you may know, who sold council houses and public industries, giving people a real stake in this country.

    Giving people opportunity marks the great divide in British politics.

    In its heart, Old Labour, New Labour, any old Labour still believe that Government knows best.

    I don’t.

    But then, I’m a Conservative.

    I believe we should give families opportunity and choice and a wider, warmer view of life.

    Our belief in choice is the driving force of our policy – its not a political ploy; for me it’s the core of what I believe in.

    EDUCATION

    I start with education.

    There are millions of children in our country. All unique. Everyone an original: different skills, different talents, different needs.

    Should each child – with all his or her originality – be made to fit into a regimented education system?

    Or should we design an education system to fit the originality of the child?

    We of course we should.

    So our task is to provide a rich choice of schools and colleges, giving the best to every child and demanding the best of every child.

    And who should choose the right schools for those children?

    The Government?

    The bureaucrat in Whitehall?

    The councillor in the Town Hall?

    Or the parents, who love and care for those children?

    Of course it’s the parents.

    Wherever possible, they should choose.

    We’re improving that choice every year.

    And we intend to widen it further.

    So, I make this promise:

    If parents want more grant-maintained schools – they shall have them.

    More specialist schools – we’ll provide them.

    More selection – they’ll have it. Why should government say “no” if parents think it’s right for their children?

    And if parents want grammar schools in every town – so do I, and they shall have them.

    We grammar school boys – and girls, Gillian – believe in choice for parents.

    That means parents shouldn’t face a choice between one bad school and another.

    What kind of choice is that?

    I’ll tell you.

    It’s the kind of choice you get in Islington – unless you move out of the borough.

    We’re going to change that. That’s why this autumn, as Gill Shepherd told you, we’ll turn today’s promises into tomorrow’s reality with a flagship Education Bill.

    We want high standards in every school.

    It’s why we set up the National Curriculum. It’s why we insist on tests.

    Without tests, how can you know what a child hasn’t learned?

    And how can parents be sure how well their children – of their school – are doing?

    When we insisted on giving that information to parents, John Prescott called it “Political Propaganda”.

    Just pause and think about that for a moment. It tells you a lot.

    Information to parents about their children – and the Deputy Leader of New Labour calls it “Political Propaganda”.

    Well, well. If education’s a passion for Labour, it’s a passion that dare not speak its results.

    SPORT

    While on education, I want to say a word about sport.

    Firstly, well done England on Wednesday. More please.

    And well done Scotland. I hear it was no effort at all. But you’d have won anyway.

    Last year, at this conference, I told you of my determination to restore sport, and particularly team sport, to the heart of school life.

    It’s natural and healthy for young people at school to have their sporting heroes and heroines: sportsmen and women whom they can choose as role models.

    So with the enthusiastic help of the Sports Councils, I’m going to set up a team of Sporting Ambassadors – widely drawn from the best role models in sports, our leading athletes, past and present – who’ll visit schools and talk to pupils, teaching staff, school governors and parents, to enthuse and inspire and encourage.

    To work up the scheme, I have asked that legendary England cricketer – that man for all seasons – Sir Colin Cowdrey – to chair a small committee whose members will be drawn from the elite of the sporting and academic worlds. Colin is here today and I want you to thank him for agreeing to do this.

    His committee will announce their conclusions by Christmas, and I intend that the scheme will be up and running in schools in the coming academic year.

    Colin scored nearly 8,000 runs for England. Now he’s going to inspire nearly 8 million boys and girls who might want to play, compete and represent their country.

    I want them to enjoy sport. And they’ll enjoy it more if they play to win.

    Take it from me – winning is fun.

    THE FAMILY

    There are those who believe in the self-before-everyone, grab-what-you-can school of thought. They may find opportunity for all an odd philosophy.

    But it’s ours.

    And for the last 17 years we’ve followed it.

    We’ve cut direct tax, given more and more people the opportunity to save, to own shares, own pensions, own homes.

    More than ever before, we’ve given families more independence and more freedom to choose.

    As a result, millions have become owners of homes, savings, shares and pensions.

    But not enough yet.

    Madam Chairman, in our next 5 years, we will seek new opportunities: an opportunity owning democracy.

    Helping more people save and build security for retirement.

    Helping people who need care keep more of those savings.

    We’re aiming for the least possible tax to give the greatest possible choice.

    As we can afford it, we’ll move to a 20p basic rate for all. That’s our priority.

    We know that cutting taxes isn’t government giving anything back to people.

    It’s the government taking away less of people’s own money.

    That’s why low taxes are right.

    We don’t want to soak the tax payer.

    Labour often say they want to soak the rich.

    But they’re the only party in history who also regularly manage to soak the poor.

    And sometimes no taxes are right. So, to encourage wealth creation for the future, we’ll reduce and then abolish Capital Gains Tax.

    Many people in our country build up savings long after they’ve enough for their own needs.

    One reason they do that is to pass on the fruits of their life’s work to their children and grandchildren.

    This is a powerful, human emotion.

    So, over time, our next target is to remove the burden of inheritance tax.

    Building wealth for the many, not for the few.

    WELFARE

    People treasure independence. Their own independence. The State is the last option, not the first.

    The more independence, the less reliance. The less reliance, the more we can help those in real need.

    There are many demands we must meet.

    Health – as science provides more treatment.

    Social services – as we improve care.

    We’ve always accepted this responsibility.

    But as we accept responsibility, so must people themselves.

    Dependency must be about needs, not culture.

    I can’t stand the welfare cheats. I’ll tell you why. They deprive those in real need.

    We’re determined that taxpayers’ money goes where it’s needed.

    Our task is to build a welfare system for the 21st century.

    A system for a self-help society – not a help-yourself society.

    And one way of building independence is to get more people back to work.

    We’re now doing that on a scale that’s the envy of Europe – partly because we refuse to make political gestures that cost jobs. That’s why I say “No” to the minimum wage and “No” to the Social Chapter.

    The minimum wage is the wage of the dole queue.

    It’s not a wage at all.

    How can you talk of a Social Chapter that makes it more difficult for people to find work.

    That’s why I say they’re no-go areas for jobs and no-go areas for us.

    It’s business not government that creates jobs.

    But government can help the unemployed.

    Last year I announced our plans to develop a Contract For Work.

    This week we Tories took a big step forward with the start of our new Job Seekers Allowance.

    We don’t want to pay people to stay on the dole. We do want to help them get back into work.

    So first we’re going to help those who’ve been out of work the longest. They’re the people for whom the barriers to opportunity are highest.

    First, we give them help to find a job and if that doesn’t succeed, they’ll be offered work on a community project.

    For many it’s just the motivation they need.

    But it also shows up those who don’t want to work. I think that’s right.

    So over the next year we’ll be extending the scheme to towns and cities across the country.

    This is part of building a welfare system we can afford. One that goes with the grain of the British nation. Fair to those in need. And fair to those who pay the bills.

    HEALTH

    Madam Chairman, every year, someone writes to The Times to say he has heard the first cuckoo of spring.

    And every year at the Labour conference, some cuckoo distorts out commitment to the National Health Service.

    Listen.

    Our NHS is unique.

    In this country, when you’re ill, we take your temperature.

    In other countries, they take your credit card. While I’m in Downing Street, that will never happen here.

    That doesn’t mean that National Health Service shouldn’t change. It must. If it were fossilised, it would decline.

    I saw that clearly the other day when Norma and I visited a doctor’s surgery – in Glossop actually.

    The family doctor is the gateway to the Health Service. More people see their doctor than anyone else.

    This was a fundholding practice – part of our reforms – and, in its own small way, an example of the quiet revolution of the NHS.

    Waiting lists have been slashed.

    People no longer have to trek to the district hospital.

    More services were available. Osteopathy, acupuncture, Alexander technique, counselling, nursing, physiotherapy and occupational-therapy posts created. Community Care improved. More money spend on patients, not paperwork.

    Tory policy working for the patient.

    Now, this practice is one of the very best. But that excellent service could be the future everywhere.

    Our task is to make it so.

    And this autumn, Stephen Dorrell will introduce a Bill to do just that – giving family doctors greater freedom to develop local services in their surgeries – creating a new generation of cottage hospitals all over Britain.

    And that’s only half of it. In the Autumn, Stephen will set out our ambitious plans to build the National Health Service for the 21st Century.

    And Labour’s vision? Stuck in the past and stuck in the mud – as usual. They plan to end fundholding.

    What ideological madness. Do you know what that would mean? I learnt in Glossop. It would mean that those new clinical posts, new nurses, new physiotherapists, the new occupational therapist – all these would go.

    New Labour, no new services.

    But, in the NHS we must always try to improve our services.

    So, before the end of this year, we’ll unveil new plans to help mentally ill people followed by new plans to reform social care for children, disabled people and the elderly.

    More practical Tory measures.

    And looking a little further ahead, I still hear too many stories of politically correct absurdities that prevent children being adopted by loving couples who would give them a good home. If that is happening, we should stop it.

    Madam Chairman, for over 17 years, through thick and thin, we Conservatives have found extra money for the NHS.

    It’s become a habit.

    So today, I give you a Health Service Guarantee.

    Our Manifesto pledge that the NHS will get more, over and above inflation, year … on year … on year … on year … on year … through the next Conservative Government.

    LAW AND ORDER

    Earlier this week, Michael Howard set out our new plans to fight crime. But there’s two things I’d like to add.

    Firstly, in a few weeks, we’ll published new plans to deal with younger offenders.

    They’re a real problem.

    We must spot school age children turning to crime and stop them in their tracks early on.

    One theme of our plans will be to make them repair the hurt they’ve done. And we’ll have some new ideas.

    But today, let me tell you of our plans for young tearaways who are out of control.

    We only want them in institutions if it’s really necessary.

    But if they don’t deserve that punishment – severe for young people – they mustn’t think they can offend and get away with it.

    Over the last year, we’ve been testing an electronic way of tagging offenders so we can confine them to their homes, and know that that curfew is being kept.

    It’s worked. We think it will work on younger offenders as well – so, we’ll try that too.

    If we know a young trouble maker is out there, night after night, disturbing the peace and committing crimes, we’ll make sure the courts have the power to order him to stay put. At home – off the streets.

    And the tag around his ankle – that can’t be removed – will raise the alert the moment he tries to go out.

    If he can’t go out on Friday and Saturday nights with his mates it might cool him down a bit. If he can’t watch his football team on Saturday, let me say it plain. That’s his fault. Not mine, not yours, his. And it’s time the buck stopped where the responsibility lies. No-one will miss the hooligan on the terrace.

    And he might just learn the lesson.

    And that will help him – as well as us.

    NORTHERN IRELAND

    Earlier this week, the IRA once spat their hate at the British nation.

    Many good people tell me I shouldn’t bother with Northern Ireland. “No votes in it” they say. Maybe not. But there are lives in it.

    And that’s why I bother.

    I don’t believe Northern Ireland will leave the United Kingdom, nor do I wish it to.

    But I know that there can only be a peace in Northern Ireland if all its citizens – Catholic and Protestant alike – feel their traditions have a welcome place in the United Kingdom. And there will only be peace of mind if we remove the causes that have given rise to so much conflict.

    This is a political task. Grindingly hard, I know. But that is what the multi-party talks are for.

    Progress has been slow – painfully slow. But progress has been made. And there is no other show in town.

    Bombs will not bring Sinn Fein into the talks.

    All they mean is that Sinn Fein has slammed the door on themselves.

    I applaud the way the Loyalists have maintained their ceasefire in the face of the IRA’s provocation. Their political leaders have gained in influence and standing as a result. I urge them to stand firm and not to throw away what they have achieved.

    The IRA’s latest betrayal of Northern Ireland means the demand for decommissioning of illegal arms is justified even more clearly.

    We must have decommissioning in parallel with the talks.

    And so that there’s no hiding place for those arms, missiles and explosives, Paddy Mayhew will introduce legislation into Parliament this autumn to set out how they can be taken out of circulation.

    I want those weapons off the street.

    And I want to remove the false excuses peddled by the men of violence for keeping their weapons. Let us expose these men to the world for what they are.

    I also want to make government in Northern Ireland more accountable and give MPs more responsibility. We have already given the Scottish and Welsh members greater ability to question Ministers.

    This autumn, I shall do the same for Northern Ireland. MPs from there should be able to question the Ministers and scrutinise Government policies directly in the Grand Committee, meeting sometimes in Northern Ireland. I will consult the parties about how best to achieve that.

    The IRA has always believed that Britain can be deflected by terrorism. They’ve always been wrong. And they’re wrong now.

    No-one will take Sinn Fein seriously ever again until they show a serious commitment to end violence for good.

    I believe in the politics of reason – backed by strong law enforcement. I know in the end it will prevail.

    And I promise the people of Northern Ireland this;

    For as long as there is a political breath in my body, I will fight for a secure way of life in Northern Ireland for a settlement fair to all.

    EUROPE AND THE WIDER WORLD

    Earlier this week, Ian Lang, Malcolm Rifkind and Ken Clarke set out exciting new possibilities for Britain as a global trading nation with interests around the world. Wonderful speeches, all of them.

    We have links and influence on every continent.

    We have given birth to a whole family of nations.

    I never forget that as I contemplate our future role in Europe.

    The sharpest element of the European debate is the possibility of a single European Currency.

    We Conservatives are in grown-up politics. We know that where Britain’s national interest is at stake, Britain’s national voice must be heard.

    Over recent days in articles, interviews and in this conference hall on Wednesday, I spelt out why we must play a full part in that debate.

    Madam Chairman, Europe is changing. The only thing that is certain is that it won’t be the same in the future.

    In a few years, Europe will have 26 or 27 members. They’ll be widely different. Many of them will never match the economic performance of the larger European nations.

    So, how do we cope with this?

    We believe Europe must become more flexible and responsive. That the only realistic future is a partnership of nations, not a United States of Europe.

    But some of our partners do see the future of Europe as ever closer political as well as economic integration.

    We don’t believe this is practical. Nor, to be frank, desirable.

    It’s not the Europe we joined and it’s not a Europe we can accept.

    This debate about the future direction of Europe is one of the most critical we have ever engaged in. We need to argue it fiercely but fairly.

    Europe is at a watershed.

    Britain is a great nation. Of course, we must be in Europe. But we are in Europe to help shape it – not to be shaped by it.

    NATION

    Madam Chairman, a buccaneering spirit, gritty resolve, give and take, a conviction that everyone is entitled to the same dignity, courtesy, and esteem because of what they are, not who they are.

    These are some of the values we all share. That’s what makes us a nation. Down the centuries, they have moulded our democracy.

    It’s not a concept of government copied across the world because it’s the oldest. It’s because it’s the best. We treasure it. That’s why we must hold on to it.

    The Union. Parliament. Our voting system. It’s naive to think that radical change would be easy or risk-free.

    And it’s revealing to look at Labour’s plans.

    Their priority would be to gerrymander the British constitution.

    They’ve avid for more parliaments, more assemblies, more regional assemblies.

    Their policy in in chaos. On Scottish referenda, they change sides more often than a windscreen wiper.

    What a message. “Vote Labour – for more politicians, more bureaucrats, more taxes, more regulations, more tampering, more meddling, more authoritarianism”.

    If this is the New Gospel, give me the old religion.

    In less than 1,000 days, Labour would vandalise nearly 1,000 years of British history.

    Once again, they show their true colours.

    Labour are the Party of the State. We are the Party of the Nation.

  • Mr Major’s Question and Answer Session at Conservative Party Conference – 9 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s question and answer session at the Conservative Party Conference in Bournemouth, held on Wednesday 9th October 1996.


    QUESTION:

    [small section at beginning of session missing] within the Caribbean and Ethnic minorities to vote Conservative and not Labour.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you were to scratch any politician down to the core, you would find some things that they instinctively believe. There are many bits of ideology we learn. That is part of our intellect that we accept them because they are right. And then there are the things that go beyond that. There are the things that go to the very instinctive heart of that particular politician.

    [Indistinct] that equality of people in this country, equality of opportunity and choice. Whether people are black or white or brown. Whether they are rich or poor, old or young. From the north to the south. Is the most instinctive part of the core of what I believe in in politics. I don’t have a shred of hesitation in saying to you I would like more people from the Caribbean background, more people from an Asian background. More people, whatever their backgrounds are, who are now living in this country as British citizens to realise that they are welcome here in my Conservative party. Not just as members, but to seek elected office, whether at local level, county level, parliamentary level, or to be appointed to the House of Lords. They are British citizens. They have the same rights as every other British citizen, and indeed they have a Prime Minister who will stand up for them.

    QUESTION:

    Good afternoon Prime Minister. Just what are we going to do with the idle scroungers and abusers of our welfare system? Thank you.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me ask you to reflect firstly on what has already been done. And then perhaps I might invite you to look forward to two speeches later this week. The first you will hear from Peter Lilley, who in my judgement, since he is not here, I will say so in his absence, in my judgement has done more to draw down unreasonable dependency on the state than anybody for a very long time. He has taken some very courageous decisions. And what is more, those courageous decisions have often involved legislation, controversial legislation, being taken through the House of Commons with a very tiny majority indeed. We have done that consistently, year after year after year. Because our interest is in the hard working classes of this country – not in the people who abuse and rip off the system in any way. So I invite you to look forward to two speeches later this week, Peter Lilley, and then perhaps be around on Friday as well.

    QUESTION:

    I am Babs Martin, Women’s Chairman for Warwick and Leamington Conservative Association. Prime Minister, I would ask you, nay, I would beg you, that when a person is condemned to life imprisonment for the murder of a policeman or a child, that life will mean life.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We now have provision to ensure that in many cases that is precisely what it can mean. Michael Howard set out a further range of issues yesterday where we propose to handle not just this question, this question of very serious violent crime, but a whole range of other crimes as well. It is not very long ago that this conference heard Michael outline a twenty-seven point plan some time ago, and it was much mocked by the opposition who opposed every part of it. It has now been carried out and we are moving beyond that so that there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that our determination is to act firmly but fairly with those people who commit crimes, but above all to protect those innocent victims of crimes.

    Now, you refer to one sort of crime. I would like to touch, if I may, on another. Because it refers to something we propose to do later this year. I guess if you ask most people around the country which is the crime that perhaps, a serious crime, that they perhaps are most concerned about, because they have seen it happen to someone near to them, or they know about it, or perhaps its has happened to them. I think many people would say it was burglary. Well, I wish to share with you some thoughts about that. I, many years ago, when I was in my late teens, maybe early twenties, had my flat burgled. I was a single man, I had nothing much to go, but I remember how I felt about it. If you then imagine how people feel, perhaps particularly elderly people, when someone has entered their house, stolen their possessions, ransacked through their personal belongings, and perhaps stolen mementoes that can never be replaced. And rifled through their clothes and other possessions. I vividly remember someone saying to me, I shall never feel safe again in my home now that it has been violated, in this fashion. I understand that. And when Michael and I discovered sometime ago that the sentence for a first act of burglary, upon being found guilty, was about fourteen months, of which seven were served. Well, prison is not a pleasant place to go to, we thought that was about right. But when we discovered that if it was a multiple offender who had perhaps committed ten offences of burglary, he did not get fourteen months in jail, of which he served seven, but about sixteen or seventeen months of which he served eight or eight and a half. Then Michael and I reached the judgement that that was not a fair response on behalf of society and on behalf of those who were burgled. So we will introduce legislation this November to correct that and more accurately reflect the penalty that I believe that crime deserves.

    QUESTION:

    Bill Garret from Buckingham Branch. It has been suggested Prime Minister, that if we don’t agree to join the Single Currency, our voice, or whatever, won’t be heard in Europe with the same weight as it is now. Is this true?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, it is certainly true. Europe at the moment is changing. And Europe is going to go on changing. I think that is the first point we need to filter into this great debate that there has been about Europe. It is a great debate. I will take a moment or two about this, if you don’t mind. And elaborate upon it because I know the passions and tensions that have been aroused by this debate over the last few years. So I want to put it in some sort of context. Europe is changing. And it is going to go on changing in one way or another. Our concern and our determination is to make sure that it changes in a way that is acceptable to the United Kingdom and not damaging to the United Kingdom. Now the central part of that debate is what should the European Union be doing. I think it should extending its boarders further to the East to take in those countries in Central and parts of Eastern Europe, who were for so long with the other side of the Iron Curtain militarily. And also economically. There are been an economic Iron Curtain down the middle of Europe as well. And we need to bring them into the free enterprise nations of Western Europe. Not just as a piece of autism, because in this generation of politicians, we have the chance to frame a new Europe that will never again lead to the conflicts that have twice decimated Europe and the rest of the world during this century. We can shape something for our grandchildren, that our grandparents would never have imagined could have happened. Now that is a very great prize. And Britain is one of the nations who believes that is the single most important thing that the European Union should be concerning itself with, rather than other institutional questions.

    But there is the second question, and clearly it was what was in your mind, and I know in the minds of many people in my party. The question of a Single Currency and what will it mean. Malcolm, I know touched on that this morning. And I will develop on that a little further if I may. If a single currency goes ahead, it will have an impact in one way or another way, upon every nation in the European Union, whether or not that particular country is in the Single Currency. Let us accept that fact. If it goes ahead, even if a particular country is not in it, it is going to have an impact upon it. If it fails, that Single Currency, then the fall out from a failed economic and monetary union, would make the fall out from the collapse of the Exchange Rate Mechanism look like a teddy bear’s picnic economically, right the way across Europe. So the first thing we have to determine is that the circumstances for that experiment, if it is to proceed, are right. That the conditions are right. Now this isn’t a new idea, that was why Britain, that is why Norman Lamont and I insisted on what became known as the Convergence Criteria – good economic conditions were written into the treaty some five years ago. They are still important today. And the decisions upon those have still not been made. We don’t yet know what the convergence, how the convergence criteria will be interpreted, to let anybody into the Single Currency. And yet is the wrong people go in, with the wrong economic circumstances, it might collapse and damage us. So we don’t know that yet. We don’t know what the legal circumstances of it are. We know that only a small part of the European Union will go forward. But what is to be the relationship between that part that goes forward and the bulk of the European Union that doesn’t. How does that affect the institutions? How does it affect who pays for what? What happens if the Single Currency circumstances mean that many others who perhaps wish to, join can’t? And give rise to structural unemployment. Perhaps in the Southern part of Europe. Who will pay for that? Will the European Union doing it the tradition way with money transferred from the richer Northern nations to the Southern nations. I don’t think that will happen. Because I don’t see who is going to transfer those resources.

    So this is an issue that if it were to go wrong, could crack wide open the European Union as we have seen it build up over the last twenty five years. And if it cracked it open, then it would impact upon this country as well, so we need to make sure in the national interest that we have Britain’s voice in this debate. I put it to you perhaps the other way round. Let us suppose I earned some easy applause from many by saying I am going to rule everything out immediately. If I did that, and I then had no British voice in this great debate that will effect us, what would I say to the British nation when they said to me, Prime Minister, how can you protect or advance our British position if you have unilaterally ruled yourself out of the discussion upon something that will affect us and affect the whole of Europe. It is very easy to say make up your mind and do this, but it is not wise to make up your mind when you have your country’s interest to protect, and you are in a position to protect them and advance views that may be of importance of your country and to the rest of Europe. And let me say one other things about the Single Currency if I may. We will make our judgement when we have all that information. There are advantages in it. There are disadvantages in it. We will be cautious but we will look both at the advantages and the disadvantages. But we have made one thing clear. Beyond any doubt, and I would like to re-emphasise it for you – if, if a future Conservative Cabinet decided that it was right to enter into a Single Currency, if it decided that, then there would be a referendum of the full nation specifically upon that particular question. We have made it clear that we would not have consent wrapped up in a General Election victory. This decision is going to be the biggest political decision economically that has been taken in this country, perhaps at any time, if a British Cabinet decided to go ahead. A British Conservative Cabinet, decided to go ahead, then I think it is right for us to put that question distinctly, clearly and unequivocally for the British nation to decide and that I promise you, we would do.

    QUESTION:

    Sharon Messey, Bexley Heath and Crayford. Prime Minister, I understand your wish to await reports following the Dunblane massacre. My view is, guns should be kept for the armed forces, but should they be wanted to pleasure, then may I suggest to them only being held on licences premises. In a secure environment, i.e. a gun club. But Sir, you did not get where you are today by awaiting to hear what your opinion should be. I ask you, as a fellow parent, does your gut instinct not say to you, and I crudely quote, “my child’s right to live is far greater than any man’s right to hold a firearm”.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No one could be unaffected by what happened in Dunblane. We were asked before the party conference season to delay the report from Lord Cullen so that it could be examined dispassionately, and dispassionate decisions taken in the interests of children up and down the country, families and everybody else. And we agreed to delay it and we will receive that report at the moment Parliament returns at the beginning of next week. We’ll ask Lord Cullen to report. I have my own very clear views, but we have asked Lord Cullen to report. When Lord Cullen reports, we will make a clear cut and firm decision within a matter of days of receiving that report. But I do not wish to examine that at the moment. I think we have asked for the report. There are many complexities as to how we do things as well as to what is done, and I hope we will have wise advice from Lord Cullen at the beginning of next week, and we will act upon it very speedily. But I do not in a public forum like this, wish to delve into those questions until we have received the Cullen report. And then the Home Secretary and I will be both advocating and explaining precisely the action that we personally, both of us as parents as well, believe is right to be appropriate for the future of gun law in this country. There are only a few more days to wait. I would ask you to be patient.

    QUESTION:

    George Richie, Shrewsbury Constituency. Could I say that I am Chairman of a ward which twelve days ago regained a seat from Liberals. Can I also say we did a very full canvas, and what is absolutely clear is traditional Conservatives are coming back home. Now for the question. It actually has to do with the Single Currency, but an aspect which you, Sir, didn’t actually mention. It is a fact that British pension funds total more than all the pension funds added together in the European Union – the Germans, the French and the Italians – to mention but three. All their pensions are funded from tax. Now if we go into a Single Currency, inevitably there will be a single taxation system and equally inevitably we will have to start having to fund German unfunded pensions. Now if the debt of the German pension, pension debt, was included in the convergence criteria, they would have a debt of something like 140% of GDP. There was no way that they could hit the criteria which is why I suspect they have left them out. Now Sir, we need to smoke the Germans out on this one and it seems to me that one, it seems to me that a hot button could be “Single Currency; your pension in danger”.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well Brian, I was saying earlier we had better bring in one of those cynical journalists to find out if the questions were rigged. I think they would be pretty cynical to imagine they are now. I am delighted to hear about your win in your ward. I hope there are a lot of constituency chairman here who are going to take back Liberal held constituencies at the next General Election as well.

    You’re right about the build up of British pensions funds compared to the rest of Europe. Because of action taken by Conservative Governments many years ago, we have a better gross aggregate of pension funds to look after people’s future security in any other nation in Europe. Indeed, than all the other nations in Europe added together. And that is one of the reasons why over the next few years our economy will become increasingly competitive because it will not have the same extra burden to build up secure pensions in the future because we have laid the ground work for that over very many years. But if I may say so, you illustrate one of the reasons precisely, reasons like that, why the British Government need to be in the negotiations to make sure the convergence criteria are appropriate. If I were not in the discussions, how could I examine your point and raise it with our partners in Europe. And I could offer you fifty other examples like that.

    QUESTION:

    My name is Barbara Stroud, I come from Poole, and I am Chairman of the Dorset and East Devon European Union of Women. In my Conservative work in my area, I am now being more frequently asked, or people more frequently saying, you know, there is hardly any difference now between the Conservative and the Labour policies. But we know from the previous question or two that there is this great fundamental difference that the Conservatives want to the United Kingdom united and Labour want to tear it apart. This message is not getting through to constituents, to the electorate. Not at all. Now we can all go away from here with the strong message that we heard in the debate in the union yesterday. But much much more needs to be done. My question now, can we make this vital issue fundamental issue in the election campaign, and on you place all the resources at your disposal into getting this message to the electorate day and night from now to polling day?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will tell you what will draw a distinction between our approach to the development of the nation states of Europe, and the Labour Party’s determination to bring policies they could not enact here back from Europe through the backdoor. I will tell you what will drive that distinction home to the people right across this nation. It would be if this party stopped conducting an internal debate with itself and began conducting a debate with the electorate and the Labour Party. And that I believe has happened. We’re not conducting an anti-European campaign. Let me make that perfectly clear. I am in favour of Europe, I am in favour of our membership of Europe. I wish to see that membership work and I wish to see Europe succeed. But my job is to take our ideas to Europe, not just hijack their ideas and bring them back here.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, Pierre Oxley, I am candidate for the Holland Haven district by-election next month. Prime Minister, what do you say to residents of that ward when Liberal and Labour run Essex county council cuts money off social services, whilst Conservative run Government increases money on such vital people in society?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I would say there is nothing unusual in that happening when you have Labour and Liberal councils. If you want to look at deprivation across a wide scale in this country, if you want to look at lack of opportunity and education in this country, go to the areas that are run and have been run for years by the Labour Party. The Labour Party tell us now they’ve got all sorts of wonderful ideas for education, but they control the education authorities. Why are they not putting them into practice if they really know what they wish to do, The Leader of the Labour Party says his priority is education, education, education. Well, ours is the same but perhaps in a different order. And I said it in ’91 so I am delighted he has caught up at last.

    But let me offer you a memory I have about education. It goes back a very long way. I went in the early ’80s, I can’t remember which year it was, so many events telescope together. On a brief tour of some countries in South America. I went to Peru, to Columbia and to Venezuela. I was just outside Peru, not one of the richest cities, one of the poorest cities of the world, menaced by a wicked terrorist group called Sendera Luminosa. And I went on the outskirts of that to a small school one morning. I was there, it was part of my visit. And it was adjacent to housing that really by any standards that we see in this country is truly appalling. Unbelievably poor circumstances for people to live. Just after eight o’clock in the morning, those front doors opened, and out of those front doors came a whole selection of moppets up to the age of ten or eleven. Nicely turned out. With satchels, not expensive ones, but satchels. Hair brushed, eyes bright, heading off to their school. And I stopped one of them and asked them what them what his ambition was. And he looked at me and said, I would like to be a brain surgeon. Can you imagine that, a boy from the slums of Lima, who had the soaring ambition to wish to be a brain surgeon. If you wish to know in a sentence what education is about, it is making it possible for boys or girls from whatever background to achieve that sort of superb ambition if they have the guts, the will power, the intellect and the effort to achieve it. That is what education is all about.

    QUESTION:

    Tom Wearing, Redditch. And may I say that Redditch Association is a loyal and united association. Can we have that on the record, BBC. My question, Prime Minister is this, if television advertising is effective, and there is little doubt that it is, why should television be less effective when in advertising gratuitous violence, pornography and permissiveness generally.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When you’ve finished your question just then, sitting down here, and shyly hiding himself away on the front row is the Home Secretary. I have just a shrewd feeling that when you finished your question, that he agreed with you. And shall I let you into another secret? I agree with you too. And we do need to look at those extra definitions of pornography and other matters in order to protect our children. I think sometimes the judgements that are made are not right. They’re not easy judgements. We’re not a party of censorship and pray God, will never become one. So there are difficult judgements to be made. I don’t believe the judgements always are right. Neither does Michael. And we will take what you say to heart.

    QUESTION:

    Ann Priestly, leader of the Conservative Group on Wycombe District Council. Prime Minister, in spring many people in this hail will be standing as candidates in the elections for local government. I know that you realise from experience how important it is that we return as many Conservative Councillors as possible. Can we be reassured that as much as possible will be done to return those candidates so that we see a sea of blue on the map of local authorities.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Gosh, that’s a tricky one. Yes, of course. I come from Local Government and I know how important it is and I know also how deep the roots of the Conservative Party are sunk in local government as well. From local government has come over the last century or so some of the great figures of Conservative politics, and out there in local government at the moment are young people in it or going into it who will be the great figures of Conservative politics in the future. I want a sea of blue right across local government. Don’t let there be any doubt about that. But I will just say this one thing, since this is a party meeting, and since I can speak to you in the discretion of a private occasion, I would just say one thing for you to take back to your constituencies. I look very carefully at the local election results and I see results in unpromising areas like Hackney where the Conservatives have done spectacularly well and I make enquires and ask what has happened. And I have to say to you, if the Conservatives are out on the streets, knocking on the doors saying we are the Conservatives, this is what we stand for – we win. And if they’re wringing their hands saying well, we’re behind in the opinion polls, we’re very unpopular, then they don’t win. Within a very few months, we have a general election to win. I believe that we will win that general election. I believe we deserve to win that general election.

    Here in this hall today, is the heart and soul of the Conservative Party in the country. Doesn’t lie in cabinet or in Parliament. It is here. You are the movers and shakers who make the Conservative party what it is in the country. You are the people as resentful as I am at the slurs that have been cast at the Conservative party. You are the people that did not join the Conservative Party for fame and fortune, but because you believed in what we stand for. Because you believe in what we want to do. I want you to go back and get every single person in your constituencies out on the doorsteps, reminding people that we Conservatives are not a party apart, we are a part of the nation itself. We have been for 200 years and no party has served its country in Government for so long, so often, and in my judgement, so well, as the British Conservative Party.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Chairman, David Leal, Treasurer, Conservative Association, Hornchurch in Essex, and Chairman of one of its branches. My question to the Prime Minister; information is being let out from EEC, EU, EM, I don’t really know what they call themselves from day to day, that Europe is moving towards federal Europe. Can the Prime Minister tell me that if federal Europe becomes a reality, it will not be part of it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are people in the European Union who would move for a more integrationalist European Union, because they believe it, that is what they think is right. They have a different perception on the way in which Europe will develop from us, that is what the great debate in Europe is about. But I don’t have to say anything fresh about that today because I said it to the conference last year or the year before. If Europe go ahead with integration, sometimes called federalist integration, of a sort that is unacceptable to the British, then we will stand aside from that integration. That has been our stated position for a very long time and it hasn’t changed, and it isn’t going to change under a Conservative government.

    QUESTION:

    Peter Fleet, PPC for Southampton ltchen. Prime Minister, whether I am meeting dockers at our port, ship builders at Bosba Thornycroft, or line workers at our Ford plant, one theme is consistent. These working Tories want to pay less tax. Can you assure us that the budget in November won’t be a budget for Europe, but one for Britain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Now tell me, hands up those who think I’m going to tell you what’s in the budget? I can tell you that we Tories are by instinct tax cutters. I can tell you that we believe money is better off in people’s pockets to make their own choices than in the Government’s pockets to make those choices for people. And I can tell you also that we are concerned to deliver right the way through the next Parliament the economic miracle that is emerging from those difficult years in the recession. We are now in a better economic position than we have been in this country since I can’t remember when. We are going to deal with that responsibly. That means if it is appropriate and prudent to cut taxes, our first instinct would be to cut taxes. But if it is not, if it would be imprudent, and would imperil the recovery that we have got, would imperil the falling unemployment that we’ve got, would imperil the low interest rates and low mortgages that we’ve got. Then we would not do so. We will make a judgement on what is right for the country, we will not make an imprudent budget judgement. But that we are tax cutters, all of us, every single member of the cabinet and the party is beyond doubt, it is one of our instincts because we believe that people’s money is best left in people’s pockets in the largest possible sums.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I am Councillor Sally Wilkes, a member of Christchurch Borough Council and very proud to have won my seat last year, as a Conservative gain in a seat that has not been held by the Conservatives for more than ten years. My question to you Prime Minister, is when canvassing for the next general election, what can we tell our voters to assure them that this nation is safe in our hands.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You have several hours? I said a moment ago that our economic circumstances were better than they had been for a long time. That opens up opportunities. I will not answer your question at length this morning, but I will answer your question in very great length indeed on Friday morning if I can invite you to be patient for just another forty eight hours or so. Because when one says safe in your hands, there are two elements to safe in yours hands. There is the domestic element, safe in terms of taxation, in terms of health, in terms of a fair and a good welfare system, in terms of making sure the money goes where it really should, in terms of a good police force, properly, effectively armed, armed forces. All these things are safe, safety on the streets. All those things are part of being safe domestically. There’s also the question of being safe internationally. I talked perhaps sufficiently enough this morning, as Malcolm did earlier, about the European Union, but there’s a wider world beyond that as well, in which Britain is a force of great significance. One of the great nations of NATO. A central pivot of the Commonwealth as well, one of the members of the Group of Seven, on the Security Council of the United Nations. That is, that element of the Nation also has to be safe. There is one difference you know between a British Prime Minister today, and a British Prime Minister of many years ago. For example, William Pitt when he was Prime Minister never moved more than 40 miles away from Downing Street in all the years that he was there. I must have visited 60 countries over the past six years, and I could probably pick up the phone and speak directly and personally to forty or fifty Heads of State around the world because we have met on more than one occasion. We know one another. That helps in its own way to make the world safe and to make it secure. It is very different. And that is true of the changing face of the world. We have seen the unbelievable changes that have been for example in what was the Soviet Union, the collapse of the complete empire, and an embryonic democratic state gradually beginning to emerge. And how I hope that Boris Yeltsin soon successfully has his operation and is fit and can go back to running that country.

    Now you may remember that he was my guest at Chequers with Naina Yeltsin. Norma and I had them at Chequers for the weekend about a year or so ago, and we had our talks on the Friday morning. And I said to Boris, well, we’ve finished some discussions, shall we go out for a walk. And Boris thought this was a very good idea. And he went upstairs and he changed into a blue and white tracksuit and trainers, and I slipped into a rather fetching Val Doonican sweater. And we went out for a walk. Just the two of us, with Norma and Naina, two ambassadors, about 40 security guards, large number of civil servants, for a private walk through the Chequers grounds surrounded only by the birds, the trees, the grass and four or five hundred photographers. It was a very instructive walk. Chequers, the grounds at Chequers, are lovely. And much of it is very hilly. We went over one hill, Boris and I, and there was a lady walking her dog up the hill, because part of it is public ground, and she suddenly looked up, and over the brow of the hill came the President of Russia in a blue and white tracksuit and the Prime Minister in a Val Doonican sweater. And she was undeterred. Magnificent. She swept through us saying “Good Morning Prime Minister, Good Morning Mr President”, and left us in her wake as she walked straight through. And Boris Yeltsin said, “Now I know why we won the war”. And we went on. And I said to “Boris, well, we’ve had a long walk. We’re got three choices; we can take the long walk back to Chequers, we can go down to the little village down there and we can get the cars back, or we could, you and I Boris, go and have a lemonade in the Bernard Arms.” And at this stage, the West Security Forces learnt that the President of Russia could speak English. “The Bernard Arms!” said Boris, “The Bernard Arms!” And we got there. And there were cars parked all outside, but the Bernard Arms was shut; the cars belonged to all the photographers still hanging in the trees! They were staying there. And the Bernard Arms was shut! This was something of a blow. And one of President Yeltsin’s interpreters went up to the door and went [knock, knock] “open up!” It’s the President of Russia”. And a voice came back “This is the Kaiser!”. Now you know why I want him to get well!

    QUESTION:

    Sylvia Tidy, Chairman of the South East Area and Countryside Forum, and a member of Wealden Constituency. Prime Minister, there are a group of farmers in this country that are suffering the most severe hardship they are known for decades. Can you please do your best to see that we get the ban lifted in Europe because our beef and our food is the best and the safest in the Community.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had a meeting yesterday for around about an hour with Sir David Naish, the President of the NFU, and representatives of farmers who had come for the demonstration yesterday. And I understand the concerns that they feel. Through something that is not within their control, and decision that are collectively being taken abroad. They are concerned about their future and their livelihood. And the British Government is very sensitive to the concerned of the British agriculture industry and very sensitive to see what we can do to help the dairy industry and the beef industry. And we entered into discussion.

    We’ve thus far committed in order to help the industry something in the region of £2,500 million and you heard Douglas Hogg make some more commitments just the other day. But it isn’t just the money. What we need to do is to try and persuade people across Europe and across the world – not the Commission, [indistinct] who have been better friends of the British farmers than the nation states, but the nation states that British beef is safe. I believe it to be safe. Our scientists believe it to be safe. But a panic has been created and it is very difficult to persuade other people of that. And new evidence has emerged in the last couple of months or so which is very material. The first was the report by Professor Anderson and others that BSE is actually dying out of the British herds faster than we thought, as a result of action that we took in 1988/1989, around about that time. And secondly, that the question of genetic inheritance of BSE may not be as straightforward as people thought. A few weeks ago there was a lot of publicity that calves could inherit BSE, from the cow. Now there is considerable doubt about that. What it looks as though it might be, although this is not yet certain, the scientist are still looking at it.

    Uncertain science has bedevilled this matter from the outset. What it now looks as though it is, is that what can be inherited is a genetic tendency to catch BSE if, if the calf is fed contaminated feed. And there is no contaminated feed. It has now been taken completely away. So these are two new ingredients in the debate. And I am sorry that is not 90 at 30 seconds, but this is a matter of crucial importance to the agricultural industry. Desperate worry to the farmers and the most difficult problem, I believe, that any British Government has had to face and seek to solve for very many years. My heart and my sympathy is with the farmers. A large part of tax payers support is with the farmers because when we have come through this, I am determined of one thing above all, that we will have a viable beef and a viable dairy industry in each and every component part of the United Kingdom. However we do it, that is a guarantee the farmers can rely upon.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Dublin – 5 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Dublin, held on Saturday 5th October 1996.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was any point in today’s meeting].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is always a point in getting together to discuss matters that are still undecided. I think in many ways we are here because we are here. But I think there are interesting things to be discussed and we will have to see what emerges from the meeting.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the meeting was caused by Britain’s strategy towards the IGC].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, certainly not. We are here because there are a whole series of decisions that are not yet addressed. Europe has to make a whole series of decisions at this IGC and beyond it. What Britain is doing is not being recalcitrant, what Britain is doing is saying those matters have got to be properly addressed, they have got to be properly examined. There is no point in talking about a great leap forward unless people know precisely where you are leaping. We have to look at precisely what is being examined and discuss precisely what it will mean. That is the purpose of meetings like this.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what his key priorities were today].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will need to set out the things that concern us. There are some areas where I think that progress can be made: cooperation in justice and home affairs, for example; cooperation in subsidiarity for example; a re-weighing of votes in the European Union. These are all concrete matters that we can discuss. But I shall also need to say to people that we can’t accept the present situation on quota-hopping, as it is. I shall need to say to people that as far as the Working Time Directive is concerned, I believe that if the European Court of Justice finds against the United Kingdom, that that will breach and break the agreement that I reached at Maastricht, and I shall require a treaty change to amend that. So there are certainly important points for us to make.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would be discussing the single currency].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That isn’t the subject of the meeting today. The meeting today is about the Intergovernmental Conference. I certainly don’t expect a substantive discussion on Economic and Monetary Union. But I think our partners know my view about that very well indeed. This is going to be one of the biggest decisions ever taken – be in doubt about that. It is going to affect the United Kingdom whether we are in it or out of it. It is going to affect every single country in Europe whether they are in a single currency or whether they are not. So every country has an interest in making sure that they are involved in the discussions and that the right decisions are taken. And if it isn’t right to go ahead, then they shouldn’t go ahead, but it is too early to be sure about that yet.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was worried at the pace the other countries wished to go].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the worry is that the economic conditions won’t be right. That is the fundamental problem. If the single currency were to be formed and would fail, it would not only impact upon those countries that were in it, it would impact upon all of Europe. So we all have a very great interest in making sure that the economic conditions are right, quite apart from the other matters that need to be decided.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would be talking to John Bruton about the peace process in Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I have no doubt I will talk to Mr Bruton. We talk regularly on the telephone and we always take the opportunity of meetings to discuss where we are and what we think might happen, so I am sure we will be talking this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was content to talk to some other EU leaders who had been backing Tony Blair].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well they are socialists, aren’t they? They are socialists and they would like a socialist government because they think a socialist government would give to Europe those things that a Conservative Government never would. So it is perfectly clear what they are doing, it is perfectly clear why they are doing it and I think it will show people in the United Kingdom very clearly. I don’t intend to let the sort of socialism that we put aside in the United Kingdom comes to the United Kingdom from Europe. If the Labour Party wants socialists from Europe, well, perhaps that sort of intervention at their conference will show up precisely what they are about.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Malcolm Rifkind – 5 October 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, held in Dublin on Saturday 5th October 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a word or two at the outset about the discussions we have had today. The purpose of today’s discussion was to look particularly at the Intergovernmental Conference and the progress that had been made thus far. As with any negotiation of course, the real substance of the negotiation is likely to be done pretty near the end. We agreed today that we would seek the end the negotiation in June next year under the Dutch Presidency. We have also agreed, on a suggestion that I had made some time ago, that it would be helpful to see a draft treaty, perhaps in many cases with alternatives clauses for examination, at the December meeting in Dublin.

    A number of purposes of the IGC: firstly, to prepare for enlargement; secondly, to make the European Union more accessible to its citizens; thirdly perhaps to improve the efficiency of the European Union. I am bound to say for different members of the European Union that tends to mean at the moment rather different things. For some of our partners that means more majority voting, it means more powers for the European Parliament and more powers for the European institutions at the expense of national governments. Others have a different view of what it means.

    Let me make this point to you. The British are good Europeans. By good Europeans I mean that our record in implementing European law, our dedication to a liberal trading policy and our leading role in European defence, in all of those ways, if we enter into a commitment, we deliver upon that commitment. But I think that “Look before you leap” is a far better watch-word for the European Union than “Leap before you look”. And I made the points this afternoon that upon many of the issues to be discussed, it is no good just simply saying what the aspiration is, and what people would like to achieve, it is necessary to examine how you would get there and what it would actually mean for the member states if you did.

    I have tried to attest some of the assumptions that our partners have made. Let me perhaps give you a couple of examples. There is some suggesting amongst some of our colleagues that we should have a European Employment Charter in the Treaty. I wonder whether that is a good idea? We already have in the European Treaties a commitment to a high level of employment. But a treaty isn’t just a declaration, it is not just a declaratory document. A treaty creates rights, it creates obligations, it is justiciable before the European Court. I believe it would be cynical to write in obligations that cannot be met, and I made that point to our partners this afternoon.

    The second example I will give you, there could certainly be others, but the second example I will give you is defence. We can have a European defence identity through the Western European Union and through NATO. And of course that is the only credible way in which we can use NATO defence assets to carry out European initiatives. If we made the Western European Union subordinates to the European Union – as some colleagues in Europe wish us to do – then those NATO assets would be denied to us. I must say, I want a real defence, not one on paper only. So clearly there are difficult hurdles to overcome in that aspect of the negotiations.

    There are also some issues, as I indicated to colleagues this afternoon, where we shall require solutions to very serious problems. We reached an agreement to Maastricht some years ago which means that British companies are not saddled with job-destroying burdens. I shall expect our partners to stick to the letter, and to the spirit, of that agreement. And if the European Court decides against us in the Working Time Directive, I shall require treaty amendment to return the situation to what it was at the end of the Maastricht negotiation.

    I made clear to our partners this afternoon that it is also necessary to resolve the very serious question of quota hopping. National fishing quotas are meant to benefit not just the fishermen who catches the particular catch, but the fishing communities of each member state. If the present treaties don’t allow us to correct the abuses that presently exist under the Common Fisheries Policy, then the treaties must be changed, and that is another subject for discussion in the weeks and months that lie ahead.

    In many of these areas I expect there will be quite a lot of tough negotiation. On some of the issues we will find allies; on others, perhaps at the outset at least, we may be alone. But I shan’t hesitate to say no to the ideas that I believe are wrong for Europe as a whole or wrong for the interests of the United Kingdom.

    I want to add another point if I may. There are more important matters at stake for the European Union than treaty changes. I prefer creating jobs than writing an employment chapter into the treaty that would not create jobs. I prefer real defence to defence on paper. I prefer practical cooperation on drugs and crime, not a theoretical arguments about Community competence. I know Community competence is a very fascinating subject for the cognoscenti, but competitiveness is a much better one for those people who don’t have jobs and would like to have jobs.

    When we had finished the discussions, and they were very much preliminary discussions, on the Intergovernmental Conference, we spent time, both over lunch and later in the afternoon, on the Middle East peace process and the Foreign Ministers spent some discussing that as well. The important issue essentially is that we continue to offer support to the Middle East peace process, vital we encourage people to negotiate, vital we ensure that nothing we can say can be seen as boxing people in corners and making it more difficult for them to try and reach an agreement with one another.

    I also took the opportunity of being here to have a brief discussion with John Bruton about the Northern Ireland peace process. We reviewed the position that we have currently reached in the Belfast talks. Both of us believe that progress is not remotely as rapid as we would have liked and we would like all parties to redouble their efforts in the talks. We clearly need to discuss the question of decommissioning further. We are certain that progress in the decommissioning talks should be made on the basis of Senator Mitchell’s report. We are agreed about that. We will of course keep in very close contact. Today wasn’t the day for making decisions, it was just an occasion to review the present state of play in those negotiations.

    So those are the matters we have touched upon today and the Foreign Secretary and I will happily answer any further questions you may have about any of those matters.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Hugh Pym, ITN):

    Prime Minister, did you register your disapproval of Dr Hansch’s remarks in his speech in Cork, and remarks after that that he made in a debate last night?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I did. Yes I did. I told him his remarks were offensive, and I think he knows that. I suggested in particular that it was apparent some members of the European Parliament, senior members, senior representatives of the European Parliament, clearly did not understand what British policy was. He took the point very clearly that I was talking about him and not other people. I think the points I made to him had some impact.

    QUESTION:

    Are there specific areas that you would like the Irish Presidency to deal with in the coming months that have not been addressed to date?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I think it has been rather a good Presidency. Having the Presidency of the European Union is not the most attractive job in the world, it is trying to reconcile 15 different competing interests across a whole range of subjects. I think they have done rather well. They assembled an agenda for today. I think there were mixed feelings about whether there was any practical purpose in having today, but the Irish had no choice but to proceed today.

    That was a decision that was taken some time ago, and they have done so. They are working extremely hard to produce a draft treaty, albeit with alternatives for December, and that is a pretty massive job and I think they are doing it pretty well. So I have no criticism at all to make of the Irish Presidency. I think they are doing well and I am sure they will continue to do well.

    QUESTION (Hosni Imam, Kuwait News Agency, London):

    I wonder if you could put some gloss on the decisions you have taken on the Middle East, particularly about sending an envoy to the region?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was discussed both amongst Foreign Ministers and amongst Heads of Government. If I could make a general point about that first. Progress in the Middle East talks will be made between President Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu, or it won’t be made. Let us not believe that the European Union, or indeed anybody else, is going to determine that progress. What will happen is that Dick Spring, representing the European Union Foreign Ministers, will be going, probably on Monday I think and will meet Mr Netanyahu and also meet Mr Arafat to express the European Union’s concerns, and of course to offer any assistance that we can perhaps provide. But essentially we can do a little more than continue to assist in material matters, as we do very much with the Palestinian authority, quite a lot of cash from countries within the European Union and the European Union collectively, and quite a lot of important relationships with Israel through the Cooperation Agreement. So I think we are in a position to apply some pressure, but we ought not to let anyone misunderstand how much we can do. We can apply pressure but it is the Israelis and it is the Palestinians that will determine whether progress is going to be made or not. The Foreign Secretary may want to add something about his talks?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    No, I have nothing to add to that, Prime Minister.

    QUESTION.

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He is going on holiday.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    That is Dick Spring. Dick Spring will be going on behalf of the European Union.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And he is probably going on Monday, as I said.

    QUESTION (Polish News Agency):

    Both Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac said that enlargement to Eastern Europe would happen by the year 2000. Would you consider this date unrealistic and in what context was enlargement discussed during today’s talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, you will recall it was the United Kingdom and Germany who were the foremost advocates of enlargement to the East. I passionately believe that the most important thing that the European Union ought to be doing at the moment is not institutional change, which often takes so much time, but enlargement to the East. We have an historic opportunity in this generation of politicians to extend the European Union to the East, which I think has great security advantages and will have great advantages in removing the economic Iron Curtain that has also been set right across the middle of Europe. So I am very much in favour of that and we were one of the great advocates of Poland and the other Central and Eastern European countries coming in, and we still are. I would add we are also more enthusiastic to open European trade borders to the Central and East European nations than most of our colleagues as well.

    Can it be done by the year 2000? If it can, no-one would be more pleased than us. It is an ambitious target but it is not a target that would be delayed as a result of any policy inhibition on the part of the British government, we would welcome it.

    As to the context of enlargement, enlargement is going to involve institutional change and it was in that context predominantly that it was discussed.

    QUESTION (RTE News):

    On Anglo-Irish matters, you had a brief discussion with the Taoiseach, but in essence the peace process in Northern Ireland is dead in the water. For three and a half months nothing has been achieved at the Stormont buildings, how are you going to put new life back into the process between you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t agree with your assessment, with respect. I am something of a veteran over the past four years of being told that the peace process is dead. I have been told that on many occasions. But I don’t believe it. The peace process does often take two steps forward and one step back. If often gets into a phase where suddenly everyone is very optimistic because quite a lot suddenly seems to be being achieved and then suddenly it grinds to a halt while each of the respective negotiators goes back to their grass roots, assembles views, assembles feelings, and decides how they can move forward. We have been in a frustrating stop period for some time, it has got bogged down, I think that is absolutely true. But I don’t think, because it has been bogged down for a period, that one should assume that it is dead.

    And the reason I don’t believe you should assume that is not because there are not difficulties about, self-evidently there are, it would be foolish to deny that there were not difficulties. But the overwhelming wish, the overwhelming will, of the people in Northern Ireland, is to push the politicians further into making an agreement. And I think that is very important.

    The process was dealt a very savage blow indeed when the IRA returned to violence, there can be no conceivable doubt about that, not just because they had returned to violence, but because it fractured any embryonic belief that existed amongst any Unionists that they ever were serious about giving up on violence. So we must judge them on their actions. I hope we are going to get another ceasefire. There is no sign of it. We occasionally get talk of it from Sinn Fein/IRA circles, but that is all thus far it has turned out to be.

    But the peace process itself will continue and there will be set-backs. I have no doubt on future occasions people will say to me this is dead.

    But for so long as I can push it forward I will continue to try and do so and I believe that would be John Bruton’s view as well.

    QUESTION (Spanish News Agency:)

    When you say that you are not happy with the quota fishing system, because it does not benefit the community, do you mean that it is necessary to change the treaty, do you mean that it is necessary to change the distribution within the treaty, do you mean that it is necessary to change the distribution with the quota, or you are completely against the system of quotas?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We discussed quotas in a different context at one stage in terms of asylum, so I wasn’t quite sure which element you were talking about. As far as quota hopping is concerned, the principal problem is this. When the Common Fisheries Policy was first determined, there were quotas determined for each national country. And the expectation was that the fish would be caught by the national fishermen, and then docked in the national ports, and create the growing employment for the fishing communities that results from the fish going back to its own domestic port. What has happened subsequently, with quota-hopping, is that national quotas have been purchased by another nation and that has had a very severe impact upon the fishing industry ashore, and upon fishing communities. And what I have said to my colleagues is that that was not what we intended when we agreed the Common Fisheries Policy and it has very severe effects on particular parts of Europe, and particularly particular parts of the United Kingdom, and it is no longer tolerable for the system to continue as it is.

    So we have tabled a Protocol to change the circumstances on quota-hopping and we will be looking at that, and other issues, to see what can be done to ensure that the original intention of the treaty becomes the current operation of the treaty.

    QUESTION (Tom Burrows, Market News):

    Although it was not on the official agenda, was in any shape or form EMU discussed; and secondly, was the EU’s trading relations with other blocs discussed, for example in the context of the work the Foreign Secretary has been doing on improving trade relations with [indistinct] and North America?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. On the second point, no, trading blocs were not discussed on this occasion. They are very important, but they just weren’t on the agenda today. As far as EMU was concerned, it wasn’t discussed. If I might say, it was mentioned but not discussed. People made passing references to it, I made passing references to it, but it wasn’t a subject of discussion. I hope that is not thought to be an odd difference to draw, but that is actually what happened, some people said we must go ahead with it; other people pointed out the timetable was at risk; other people said there are difficulties that haven’t yet been confronted. But that was all that was said, not discussed.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, Guardian):

    In common with a limited number of other senior Privy Councillors, you have received a letter from the Editor of the Guardian containing prima facie evidence alleging a government cover-up in reaction to the recent corruption scandals which are being investigated. What is your reaction to the evidence that you have been presented with and can you give a clear and unqualified assurance that no member of the government has been involved in any such cover-up or has in any sense misled the House of Commons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For some time the Guardian and other people have been running the most extraordinarily suggestive stories. Let me say to you absolutely clear that I am determined that the House of Commons investigates properly and fully the allegations that have been made. I might perhaps remind you that, against the opposition of many people, I was the person who set up the Nolan Committee. Many people didn’t like that, but I was determined that Parliament should be clean and above suspicion and I established the Nolan Committee. Sir Gordon Downey sprang out of the Nolan Report. I asked Sir Gordon Downey, I was not asked by Sir Gordon Downey, I said to Sir Gordon Downey that he might have all the documentation that he requires to carry out the inquiry that he needs to carry out.

    And I went further. I said he can also see all the documentation that was provided for the court case that did not take place, so that he – Sir Gordon – can satisfy himself he has every document that he needs to carry out his investigation. When he has investigated, he will report to the appropriate Commons Committee on members’ interests. I have no doubt they will follow their previous practice of publishing his report, and that is what I would expect them to do. What I am not going to do is to respond to a whole series of individual allegations, upon which a particular spin may be put, until this investigation is completed.

    I have made sure that the investigation has full cooperation, I am sure the investigation will be comprehensive, I have no doubt it will be properly considered by the appropriate House of Commons committee and I have no doubt the report, at their instigation, will then be published. And I would think that people, since they have such a comprehensive report, might wait for that report before they make comments or publish articles that may mislead and encourage other people to misunderstand.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing in London – 25 September 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing, held in London on 25th September 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to make a long introductory series of remarks. Just very briefly, there are just 2 or 3 things that seem to me to be quite important at the moment. Very important that the peace process continues. I remain as committed to it as I was in the past. Underneath the surface oratory quite a lot is happening, a lot still has yet to happen, and it is very important that it does. We will continue to give it all the support we can. I will no doubt enlarge on that in any questions, if you wish me to. Not a helpful occurrence, the huge potential explosion that didn’t take place. We have been in no doubt for some time that the IRA were planning future atrocities. This would have been a very big one, it didn’t take place, I think we can all be thankful for that. Thirdly, the European Summit approaches with the Irish Presidency, clearly a lot of very important European issues about, not just the preparation for the Inter-governmental Conference, though that certainly is important, also the continuing work that is proceeding towards the possibility of monetary union at a later stage, and also of course a range of other problems – working time directive, beef, fishing and a whole series of other things.

    If I may say so, the Presidency of the European Union is always a mixed blessing for the country that has the privilege to hold it. I daresay that John Bruton and his colleagues are discovering that, just as all his predecessors have in the past. It is a tough old job being President of the European Union for 6 months, and everyone takes it up with huge enthusiasm and in my experience usually lays it down with equally huge enthusiasm 6 months later. So I look forward to seeing my European colleagues in Dublin twice – once on 5 October for an informal meeting I believe, though the agenda is not yet finally determined, as I understand it; and then for the normal 6 monthly meeting at the end of the year.

    QUESTION (Sunday Tribune):

    Prime Minister, there was that incident in London that you said was not very helpful, has it been clarified yet as to whether the person who was shot dead was armed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be a matter for the Coroner. The Police undertook the action, the incident occurred, I don’t know what happened. The Coroner will examine that and there will be a subsequent investigation but I don’t know the details of it yet. I don’t know all the details of the police investigation yet, no doubt that will come out subsequently.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] so many explosives and arms [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Some things self-evidently are revealed. It self-evidently reveals the fact that the IRA were perfectly prepared to continue violence on the mainland, and not only continue violence on the mainland but continue violence on a very large scale indeed – 8 to 10 tons of explosives. That dwarfs anything we have seen before. This was clearly, whatever it was going to be, one or more for all we know, one or more very large incidents. Having said that, it is difficult to know what the psychology of the IRA is. I suspect there are divisions of opinion, quite sharp divisions of opinion, within the IRA as to the right way to proceed. There will be those, I am sure, who are arguing that if you commit another outrage it will force the British Government into concessions. That has been a standard piece of Republican – I mean Republican in the sense of IRA Republican – thinking for a very long time. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way any British Government, not just this one, would respond, but it is the way they think. And so very possibly they were thinking that it would put pressure on us. It would have done immense damage to the peace process if that had occurred, and would have destroyed any shred of credibility that remained amongst the leadership of Sinn Fein. I am very disappointed that Sinn Fein have not unequivocally denounced what happened, I think it would have been extremely helpful if they had.

    At some stage Sinn Fein are going to have to make it clear precisely what their position is: either they are the political wing of the IRA, in which case there is no real role for them as people who will sanction violence; or they have got to denounce the IRA and say we are a democratic political party, in which case they are welcome at the negotiating table to argue their views with the DUP, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and the others. I hope they will prove to be a political party. I have to say, they haven’t proved it yet. And a failure to denounce what undoubtedly would have been an atrocity, leading to mass murder, in unequivocal terms is pretty disappointed to put it mildly.

    QUESTION (Daily Correspondent, Dublin):

    As a supplementary to what you said about atrocities not influencing the British Government, the public perception throughout Ireland is that the Canary Wharf bombing did in fact influence you into taking action, action that people felt had been very slow in coming before that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That may be the perception, because that is the way people choose to think and act. I can tell you, sitting here, the only thing atrocities do as far as I am concerned is make me dig my heels in more against the people who commit the atrocities. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the British character, and I think the Northern Irish character, I don’t mean it isn’t the case for the southern Irish character, I don’t know that quite so well, but the Northern Irish character to believe that we would actually respond in that fashion. I know it is something that the IRA believe, that is self-evident to anyone who has made even a cursory study of them, but it is just flatly wrong. Canary Wharf did not influence the government’s decisions at all. Those sort of atrocities often, if they have any influence at all, have a malign influence in holding back moves that might otherwise have been taken towards rapprochement and proper dialogue. That is the only impact it has and it is a wholly negative impact. It would not have a positive impact of encouraging the British government into constructive dialogue, quite the reverse.

    QUESTION:

    There is another perception which is that for 17 months up to the Canary Wharf bombing the British Government perhaps acted too slowly in response to the initial ceasefire. How do you respond to that now, looking back, and possibly looking forward?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will tell you exactly how I respond to it. I genuinely say to you it is a wrong perception. It has always seemed apparent to me that if you were going to have these negotiations continue, they cannot continue down a track in which one side seems to be winning every element of the argument and the other side seems to be losing. And there was a straight-forward and blunt disagreement between two effective sides of the negotiating table, one side saying we will only decommission at the end of the talks, and the other side saying we will only begin the talks if you decommission before the talks begin. Aft immense amount of work went into trying to find a way through that. It was apparent at the beginning that at the end of a long amount of discussion it was very likely that the way through would have to be decommissioning in parallel with talks. The Mitchell Commission was established, an independent look was taken, and they indeed ratified what I expected would be the case when they looked at it, and that is the only way it is going to come forward. But what caused the delay was the fact that if one had proceeded without having that particular element of the argument in play, the talks would have got nowhere because we would have called the talks and one side or the other would not have been prepared to talk because there would have been conditions laid on the table that the other side simply could not meet. And that is the fundamental reality that we had to face during that long period.

    QUESTION:

    But was that pragmatic?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is pragmatic, I am a pragmatist on some issues. I am a pragmatist about finding a way that will end the murder and mayhem that we have seen in Northern Ireland. It is important to me that people realise that this is an issue that has been, and is, and will remain for as long as I sit in Downing Street, a matter at the top of the British government’s agenda.

    I don’t think what happens in Northern Ireland is tolerable. If it had been happening in Surrey or Sussex I wouldn’t have tolerated it, couldn’t have tolerated it, why should I tolerate it in Northern Ireland, I can’t. That is why I will pursue these talks. But the belief that you can do it, and reach a peace and a settlement that will last to provide both peace and peace of mind in Northern Ireland, without actually getting a negotiated settlement is folly. So you have got to create the conditions for a negotiation and that is very painful and difficult when you have competing views asking for pre-conditions that the other side can’t meet, and it is a lengthy business that takes a lot of time. I said at the beginning that it would often be 2 steps forward and 1 back, 2 forward and 1 back, and so it has proved. The important point is that we keep taking the steps forward.

    QUESTION:

    You mentioned that had the bomb gone off it would have caused immense damage to the peace process. How do you respond to the view that is being expressed, not just by the media but by politicians as well, that if it is discovered that the alleged IRA volunteer was unarmed, that that will do damage to the process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to comment on something I know nothing about at this stage, and I think it would be extremely unwise of me to do so. Let us wait and see what happened, and why it happened, and then we can make a proper judgment of it. What we do know is that there was a huge amount of explosives which presumably wasn’t there for any purpose other than to be used. We do know that. Beyond that the information is not yet clear and our system of law requires that there is a Coroner’s Inquiry and a proper investigation. When we have had the inquiry and the investigation, then would be the time for the government to respond, not in advance of the inquiry and the information. So I fear there is nothing I am going to say about that until I have the information, but at the moment I don’t have that.

    QUESTION:

    What is your personal assessment of Gerry Adams?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I find it difficult to make a judgment of Gerry Adams. He talks of his wish for peace and yet he doesn’t denounce atrocities that operate against peace. He has indicated on a number of occasions that he is moving in a particular direction, he hasn’t done so. What I don’t know is whether he is a man who wants to move in that direction but is constrained by his membership, or whether he is deliberately seeking a public relations posture that does not reflect his real views. It is difficult to know precisely.

    What I can say is that I do think that he could be a good deal more forward and constructive in trying to carry the peace process forward and I hope he will be so. But I don’t think my personal view of Gerry Adams is – well I won’t continue with that sentence, I will leave it there.

    QUESTION:

    What does this mean, I am quoting from Sir Patrick Mayhew’s speech today, in which he says that the restoration of the ceasefire, [indistinct] to the Mitchell principles, and then it says and entrusting to the issue of decommissioning. What does that mean, to the issue of decommissioning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It means exactly what it says, that there has got to be constructive discussion about how one actually decommissions the weapons. What we have not said, not because it wouldn’t be desirable but because it wouldn’t be deliverable, is that the weapons should be entirely decommissioned before Sinn Fein enter the discussions, the talks. What we have said is that during the currency of the talks there has got to be progressive decommissioning in order to build confidence on both sides. And don’t think, unless we have a parallel track like that operating, that we will get to the end of the talks.

    And what has been the missing ingredient for so long in this whole sorry affair is any element of trust between the representatives of the various communities. Progress in the talks, and decommissioning, would add an element of trust and confidence that this could be carried through to a conclusion that we haven’t previously seen. And I hope that is the direction that we can go in. If we don’t move in that direction then I think the prospects for the talks are grim.

    QUESTION:

    Something you said earlier echoes something that the Secretary of State said this morning, and that is that progress is being made even if it is not being seen. Not only is it not the public perception that progress is not being made, many of the politicians taking part in the talks, and particularly Seamus Mallon has said that in fact the Unionists are stalling and holding them up. Can you give us any indication which shows that progress is being made and indeed would explain the Taoiseach’s optimism about what is happening at the moment, because it is certainly not apparent to anyone else?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If one wanted an analogy for the talks I suppose you could think of a duck on the water, not a lot seems to be happening on the surface but the animal is paddling like hell beneath it. And there is a certain amount of that going on.

    There is more contact between the two sides in private, between the Unionists and the Nationalists in private; there is a much greater understanding between the two sides; I think there is a greater appreciation of what I called a moment ago the parallel process of decommissioning. All of those are happening under the surface. One of the things that bedevils it of course is that often public statements are made in order to bolster a particular position and as part of the negotiating process, which give the impression that no progress is being made at all. And progress is being made, not as fast as I would wish, but I think progress is being made.

    QUESTION:

    In what areas, other than perhaps the breakdown and the animosity that was there previously between the SDLP and the Unionists, in what areas is there further progress because the one particular issue that we thought we would see reaffirmed by September, September was the date, was the whole question of a format for decommissioning. We know that people are meeting each other certainly, and we know that people are making statements in public, but we have had no evidence to support the claim that these are purely public statements and that progress is being made. So what evidence is there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you will have to wait. I am not going to outline the information that has come to me of what has emerged from some of these private contacts, I don’t think it would be productive to the peace process to do so. I can only say to you that I think the atmosphere has improved quite significantly over the last few weeks, I am not saying to you that all is roses, self-evidently not, you know that and I. know that and everybody involved with it knows that. But the atmosphere has noticeably improved and many of the hurdles that people wondered whether we would get over just a few months ago have been got over. Would we actually get up to the elections? Would people take part? Would the forum be established? Would anyone turn up? Would anybody sign up to the Mitchell principles? All those things, one by one, all of them have had their little dramas of one sort or another – well not little, in many cases quite big dramas – all of them have had their dramas but one by one we have overcome those points. And you could actually go back over much of the last 5 years and see the same thing. The frustration one has is really two-fold: firstly that it is taking so long; and secondly that from time to time there is a set-back. Both of those I share the frustration very personally that all of you must share reporting it, but that the progress has been made is undeniable and I think it is still happening and I think it has a good deal further to go.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that John Cree contributed to the distrust that has been established between the two communities and that that had any impact on the progress of the peace talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no doubt that there was a great deal of fuss after John Cree, absolutely no doubt. There was a great deal of fuss on both sides of the sectarian divide after John Cree, it would be absurd not to say that that wasn’t the case, it was, and there was plenty of blame to spread around in every direction. The point is the atmosphere has lightened a good deal since then, I said there would be occasional set-backs, that was a set-back, don’t expect me to say it wasn’t, it was.

    QUESTION (Irish Times):

    One of the perceptions in Ireland is that Mr Bruton is doing more to lean on Nationalists, Republicans, than you are doing in leaning on the Unionists, and in fact the idea that the Unionists are holding things up, are not being persuaded is quite widely spread. There is also a feeling that they can be persuaded, they can be pushed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a false perception. I don’t doubt that John Bruton is encouraging people to move. I have regular discussions with John and I know how strongly he feels about this issue, he knows how strongly I feel about it. Anybody who seriously thinks haven’t used all the influence I have to encourage people to move forward into this process, hasn’t examined what has happened in this process over the last few years. So people may have that perception. But I suppose there are many things you learn sitting in this particular chair and one of them is that there is often quite a gap between perception and reality.

    QUESTION:

    The Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein maintain, at least in public, that if they were sure of the how and the when of decommissioning then it might be possible to have a ceasefire and Sinn Fein go into talks, because Sinn Fein’s fear is that they will be sucked into talks and get nothing.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But that is the reason for the progressive decommissioning. I think that argument, I mean I wouldn’t agree with that argument because I think there is absolutely no justification for violence to pursue a political argument at all. Let me just say that at the outset. But given that that is my position, and I think the position of most people, what people are saying to Sinn Fein and the IRA is let us have progressive decommissioning, decommission something, see how the talks proceed, as the talks proceed decommission a bit more. If you are really trying to press your political points, remove the impediments to other people who are saying we are not going to negotiate everything, and then at the last minute have Sinn Fein walk away from the table threatening to return to violence because they didn’t get the last element of the deal that they wanted. There are going to be compromises in this deal, if this is going to come to a conclusion there are going to have to be compromises, don’t imagine otherwise. No one side is going to get everything they want.

    So what is the logical argument against a progressive decommissioning in line with progressive movement in the political process? I am not asking, and never have asked, the IRA to put themselves in a position where they have to come and throw down their weapons in front of the British government. I don’t mind how they are decommissioned, I don’t mind what international body actually oversees the decommissioning, I don’t mind about that. I just want them taken out of use.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] in the north of Ireland to the extent that the RUC was forced to back down in the face of the threat of violence at Drumcree, and he said on a number of occasions that it was not possible for the police to hold the line and that that situation might prevail again. That seems to be a very serious admission that the British Government has lost control in the north?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we patently haven’t lost control in the north. We have got 17,000 troops there, we have had them there for years, we have got a very large RUC presence, there were a particular set of circumstances on a particular incident. No-one should think one hasn’t learned from that incident. To draw a general conclusion about law and order from a particular incident and a particular series of decisions taken by the Chief Constable I think would be to read too much into that particular incident. So I wouldn’t accept the conclusion you draw from it.

    QUESTION:

    The Secretary of State made that conclusion.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen what the Secretary of State said and I don’t draw the conclusion in its generality in the way that you present it to me.

    QUESTION:

    When the Taoiseach went to Washington recently, I am sure you will have seen that there was a story generated as a result of that that he appeared to be optimistic about the chance of a new ceasefire and there was some clarification sought [indistinct] the true import of what he said. But in the Republic I sense there is a feeling that the Taoiseach has been drumming up a sense of optimism, that a deal is inevitable, and we are trying to get the sense of whether this optimism is founded on a good basis. Can you send us away with some feeling of where the progress really is occurring?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer is I won’t. I am sorry but it is the outcome I want, not the publicity. Forgive me, I suppose that is a dreadful thing to say to you, but it is the outcome I want, not the publicity,

    QUESTION (Sunday Tribune):

    I listened to you very eloquently last year of your passion for peace in Northern Ireland, as you are today. What went wrong in the last year and how do you re-mend it to get Sinn Fein/IRA to the talks, at the same time undoing the damage of Drumcree and the sectarian [indistinct] that exists in Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Quite a lot has gone right as well as gone wrong. I won’t reiterate the points about the elections and the forum, and the Mitchell Principles and the fact that the parties are now actually sitting down talking together in a way that we haven’t seen in the past. All that is right. What has not gone right is the fact that violence has returned – that was a unilateral decision by the IRA – and Drumcree was an incident which caused difficulties, we have dealt with that and that we can’t get Sinn Fein back into a position in advance of the ceasefire where they could credibly join the talks.

    They couldn’t credibly join the talks, even if .I were inclined to invite them – which I wouldn’t be – because nobody else would remain at the talks to talk to them. So the question in many ways ought more accurately to be directed to the IRA. I don’t know what caused them to decide that they would return to violence. I can make judgments as to what it is – I am not going to, before you ask me to – and I think those judgments might be right, but I don’t know. I hope that as it becomes increasingly evident that progress is going to be made, and that we are not going to back away from this peace process and neither are the Irish Government, whether Sinn Fein are there or not, that it will become increasingly apparent to Sinn Fein that they are going to have to be there. And if they are going to have to be there, there is going to have to be a ceasefire and it is going to have to be credible, and there is going to have to be progressive decommissioning in line with political progress. What I am not prepared to do is to see these talks grind into the sand and stop because of the way the IRA have behaved. I am not prepared to do that, I will do everything I can to avoid that happening, and I hope that we will see a ceasefire in due course and that they will return. But I can’t determine that myself.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I don’t, if you mean of a particular issue?

    QUESTION:

    Yes.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I don’t, no. I don’t do that.

    QUESTION:

    If you enjoyed a stronger majority in the House of Commons, do you think you might have been able to move faster?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think that is a false assessment because I have had a lot of cross-party support in the House of Commons. The majority in the House of Commons for the posture the government has taken is absolutely overwhelming. On any free vote in the House of Commons I would have a massive majority for this policy in the House of Commons. So the argument that the policy is held back by the size of the government’s majority does not stand up to any logical examination at all.

    QUESTION:

    What about the increasing evidence that the Republican movement, both Sinn Fein and the IRA, are going to sit it out and they are going to wait for a Labour government in Britain and a Fianne Foyle government in Dublin. Does that cause you concern?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They are going to have a jolly long wait.

    QUESTION:

    But it is something obviously you are aware of?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am aware that that might be their view. I think they are in for an extremely unpleasant shock, I can live with the shock they are going to be receiving, but I think they are in for an extremely unpleasant shock if they actually take that view.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My word, you are sharp.

    QUESTION:

    The implication of it is that they are not going to do business, that they are going to hold back and that they are going to continually attack the British Government and try to force a coalition in the south against the British Government as well.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If that is the strategy that they choose to pursue, why were they floating the prospect a few weeks ago that they were going to declare a ceasefire? If that is the strategy, how are they going to deal with the fact that there is going to be progress made in the talks without them being there? There is going to be progress made in the talks without them being there. If they want to sit it out they will miss the progress, they will have no voice at that table for those talks and those talks are going to continue. I am determined on that and so is John Bruton. So if that is their strategy it is an extremely misguided one.

    QUESTION:

    On progressive decommissioning the [inaudible] argument is very valid. Can there be an agreement in the multi-party talks that all the parties already in the multi-party talks will accept progressive decommissioning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what you mean by all the parties.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you had better ask that question of David Trimble and not me. I am looking for an agreement that will enable us to have parallel decommissioning and political progress.

    QUESTION:

    At what stage would the first [inaudible] have to be decommissioned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That would be one of the matters that the decommissioning sub-committee would examine. It is not something that I would prescribe myself, I would be perfectly prepared to prescribe it myself but it wouldn’t be the best way of getting an agreement, it would have to be an agreement in the discussions between the participating parties in the Mitchell sub-committee, it would have to be done that way.

    QUESTION (Sunday Independent):

    In the event of a sustained impasse developing in the all-party talks, what alternative is there open to the government? Would it, for example, have a bilateral agreement with the Irish government and then attempt to impose that over the heads of the parties?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I wanted to bring the talks to a juddering halt, I would suggest what I would do in the event of that actually happening. I don’t think it would be helpful for me to speculate at all on what I would do. I expect the talks to continue, and I believe the talks will continue and I wish the talks to continue and I am not going to speculate.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that the British government has a fall-back position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Whether we have a fall-back position or not, I am not going to speculate about it.

    QUESTION:

    Tomorrow morning Gerry Adams will be in the House of Commons. Does this infuriate you, what are your feelings on [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am happy to offer cross-party support to Mr Blair in his problem.

    QUESTION:

    Is he offering you cross-party support in your problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He has offered me cross-party support on Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    But on Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But he has got the same problems that I have.

    QUESTION:

    But yours are particularly acute.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Only because your colleagues in the press tend to concentrate more on ours. He has got more real anti-Europeans and Euro-sceptics in the Labour Party than there is in the Conservative Party. Do not be deceived about that. The day Mr Skinner, Mr Benn, Mr Shore and 50 others I could easily mention become anything other than solidly opposed to any aspect of the European venture will be a very remarkable day indeed. They are keeping very quiet for the time being.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] and maybe history will tell us, that by meeting Gerry Adams in the House of Commons you might actually achieve the securing of the peace talks once again. Have you thought that you might be able to help by having such a meeting, would it not be an issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that it would help at this moment to have such a meeting.

    QUESTION:

    Why?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it would help to have such a meeting at this moment. Gerry Adams has just utterly declined to condemn the prospect of 10 tons of explosives, in the middle of London or wherever it may be; he utterly failed to condemn the murder of those little boys at Warrington; he utterly failed to condemn Canary Wharf. Upon what basis would a British Prime Minister meet him when that is his position?

    QUESTION:

    Because you might move the situation forward and achieve a ceasefire as a result of a gesture like that, it is just a suggestion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I understand you are putting it to me as a suggestion but I don’t think it is a suggestion that is credible at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    There is very little evidence that the Unionist parties have any interest in these talks, with or without Sinn Fein, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that they will sit down with Sinn Fein, even in the context of a ceasefire. How do you bring all-party talks about?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With great respect, you say there is little evidence that they will actually do it.

    QUESTION:

    Because they feel that they don’t have to.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is right and I will try and answer your question I think in two complementary ways. Firstly, the comment that you just made that they don’t have an interest in proceeding and so forth, that is exactly the view that many people have taken right the way through the last few years, that they would never accept the Downing Street Declaration, they would never accept the framework plan, that they would never accept a whole range of other things. Gradually they and the Nationalist parties have accepted those things. I understand the frustration, and at any one time can find 10,000 reasons why there won’t be progress. But slowly, often I concede at a snail’s pace, progress is continually being made, each hurdle gradually has been overcome.

    The other point that I personally make, you may have heard me say it before but I passionately believe it to be true, that whatever the view may be of the political parties at any one stage, the view of the everyday citizen in Northern Ireland is that they want progress. For the first time in the lifetime of nearly half the people in Northern Ireland, they had an 18 month period in which they had the same sort of peaceful existence that people could expect in London or in Dublin. And they liked that. When one is out on the streets meeting with them and talking with them, the tangible feeling from them, from the churches, from the community leaders that they wish to see that return is real. Now the political parties have to be in negotiating posture. But don’t think as individuals that in the case of the politicians that they too don’t want the return of that. I have seen some of them, both sides, I am not making a Unionist point or a Nationalist point, I have seen some of those MPs, whether in the Ulster Unionist Party or any of the other political parties, the SDLP, the DUP, I have seen those MPs after there has been some atrocity in their constituency. So of course they have negotiating positions, but the feeling amongst their supporters, whichever party they represent, that they want and they believe the politicians should find a way through this problem is tangible.

    Now what we have to do is to stop the thing that has bedevilled Northern Ireland so frequently over recent years where you have something that becomes a part of the mythology and hauls progress back just when you think you are moving forward. That happens from time to time but we are going to have to try and ride over that. The greatest hope for peace in Northern Ireland is retaining the determination amongst ordinary people, everyday people, that they have a right to that peace in their part of the island of Ireland. I believe that very strongly. Every time I go there I believe that, whether they are people who are supportive of what r am doing or oppose what I am doing. I think the politicians are not immune from that and they cannot be immune from that.

    QUESTION:

    The worrying thing is that of course there is a desire for peace, but we have never seen the dearth of sectarianism that we now see across Northern Ireland, and indeed across the [indistinct] and this is the result that it would seem from the post-Drumcree split where the Province was paralysed, where towns and villages were surrounded and barricaded and where force seemed to triumph. So the politicians really would need to break out of that sectarianism and show leadership, but there is very little leadership being shown. Certainly perhaps on the Nationalist side we have people like John Hume and Seamus Mallon, but on the Unionist side [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Out of disaster can come triumph. I think the sheer concern that you illustrate, which I know existed in Northern Ireland after Drumcree, the sheer concern and in some cases fear as to what might happen that actually came out of that, I think shook everybody, including the politicians. I believe that does change minds. Who would wish in any way to be in the position where it was said they had contributed to that problem again? Who in public life in Northern Ireland would wish to find themselves in that position? It is not so easy to strike attitudes on the back of that. So I don’t think Drumcree was a plus, but I think out of Drumcree you can see the possibility of changed attitudes and I think we will see a possibility of changed attitudes, and I am not as pessimistic as some of the comments around this table lead me to believe that you are, not at all.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] which is the religious thing [Indistinct] do you understand that, because that is your core problem? [Indistinct] and the churchmen have [Indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My experience of the churchmen, overwhelmingly, whether it is on the Protestant side or on the Catholic side, is that they have been very supportive. I have met the senior churchmen regularly here and they have been unfailingly supportive. They haven’t always agreed with every aspect of government policy, I am not trying to suggest that to you, but their desire to see this process move forward, on no occasion have they denied their support when I particularly needed it to move the process forward. And I think some of the things they have said, on both sides, have been very brave. I don’t agree with everything they have said and I wouldn’t pretend to you that I did, but some of it I think has been very brave.

    QUESTION:

    Ted Heath, in his proposal through the power-sharing executive [Indistinct] education because of the failure of [Indistinct] they don’t get to the core. What are your proposals for an integrated education in Northern Ireland? It is things like that that get back to the basics.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take that point directly. One of the things that Northern Ireland has lacked over the past 25 years or so is politicians in Northern Ireland who had to take decisions rather than to advance views. That is profoundly worrying. Politicians ought to take decisions and then answer for their decisions. I want to get back to a situation in Northern Ireland where politicians actually take decisions on local matters and have to answer to people for the decisions they take, rather than simply represent their electors with the views that they and their electors have had. When you are faced with the reality of taking decisions, it is a different proposition from when you are simply advancing a view. And that is the direction in which I am moving and the direction in which I wish to move. Once they are taking decisions the ball-game begins to change. And there is a lot of talent in Northern Ireland. It is a tragedy in Northern Ireland that for 25 years you have not had politicians with any real decision-making to take.

    QUESTION:

    I am happy about what you are saying. I remember being present at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin when Protestant churchmen came down, and I think it was Dr Mahaffey who said, he was being asked to discuss the problem of leadership, and he said you can’t lead from a mile down the road. And that struck me, I thought it was a worrying kind of observation. Would you make any comment on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a slightly ambiguous observation. Can you tell me who said it?

    QUESTION:

    Dr Mahaffey, the Bishop of Derry.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For a Bishop he would make a superb politician because there is a degree of studied ambiguity in that which I very much admire.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you for clarification of one point, because it is ambiguous and it is open to several interpretations, and that is your comment that you want to see politicians in Northern Ireland getting back to making decisions. You know there is a great fear on the part of a number of Nationalists of a return to a Stormont-type situation and you know there is a desire on the part of some Unionist politicians for a return. So what exactly do you mean?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I know exactly what you are worrying about, am I talking about a wholly internal settlement? No, I am not talking about a wholly internal settlement. I am talking about the fact that as part of the three-stranded process, as part of the discussions between the parties, we have got to get ourselves into a situation where there is a genuine capacity for decisions that in the rest of the United Kingdom are actually taken directly by local politicians actually being taken in Northern Ireland as well. I am glad you raised that question so that there was no misunderstanding about it. It is a lack of accountability when so much of the decision-making process which normally ought to be in local hands is not in local hands. I would like to put it back in local hands, I think it is a very healthy thing to do. But it isn’t an easy thing to do and it has to be done by agreement, but it is one of the things that I think we need to stretch to. If we are going to get this thing really working properly it is going to be platform by platform, step by step, you are going to have to build it up. I think that is one of the building blocks.

    QUESTION:

    What contribution do you think the framework document can make in that respect, and the [Indistinct] document that actually talks about building political structures locally as well as cross-border institutions and executive powers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The framework document is not a blueprint. The blueprint, if indeed there is to be one, will come out of the talks and then it will be agreed between the political parties. What we were effectively asked to do was to provide a cock-shy as it were, a framework that we thought, that we the government thought, would be acceptable to people. But neither of the governments are saying this is an absolute blueprint from which no-one can deviate, these are things that they will have to discuss themselves.

    QUESTION:

    The Irish Government is saying that it should form a very important building block.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is self-evidently a very important building block.

    QUESTION:

    You accept that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course it is an important building block, that is why we developed the frameworks. An important building block, yes; written in letters of fire and immutable, no. It has to be discussed and agreed, it is a basis for the discussion and agreement that is to follow. But what we wish to see is to make sure that that discussion and agreement takes place. We have set out in the frameworks the areas that we think need discussing. But if it was immutable there would be no point in going into the talks process. We have to go into the talks process so that we can find out the degree of support, or opposition, or areas where mild changes may be needed amongst the various political parties in Northern Ireland. And then after that of course, when a final agreement has been reached, it will need to be put to all the people of Northern Ireland as an outcome in a referendum.

    QUESTION:

    Can you envisage the outline of a settlement, as Dick Spring has suggested he thought was possible over the last few days, an idea yourself of how this could be resolved and over what timescale?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Timescale depends on goodwill. It is very difficult to pick timescale. With serious and mature discussion and a willingness to pragmatically compromise and decommissioning proceeding in parallel, I think quite rapid progress could be made. Without any of those ingredients progress is going to be very slow. So I think that is the difficulty when people occasionally say to us well why don’t you set a constraining time limit to the talks? What would happen is that anybody who wished the talks to fail would simply fail to reach agreement within the time frame and that it would all fall to pieces. So although it sounds as though it would put impetus into the talks, I think it would ensure the talks ground to a halt. If you mean can I see a way in which you could have an outcome, personally yes I do see a way in which there could be an outcome. But it isn’t what I think at the end of the day is going to be the only determining factor. The principal determining factor will be what can be agreed between the political parties and either for John Bruton, or Dick Spring, or I to say we think this is the right way forward might not necessarily – I say this with some humility – be the best way to ensure that you got that agreement.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that you will call your general election before John Bruton calls his?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that depends on when John Bruton calls his.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] November, but May/June might be more realistic?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This year or next year? Well I am in no hurry for my general election. Our economy is now outstripping the rest of Europe quite comfortably and the economic statistics are rolling out extremely well. We have now got inflation at levels we haven’t seen it for a very long time; we have got mortgage rates and interest rates lower than we have had for a very long time indeed; we have got growth accelerating, exports accelerating and we are probably the most competitive nation at the moment in Western Europe. And there is no doubt that that trend looks pretty well established. So I am in no hurry. I am happy to let the trend roll on for a while.

    QUESTION:

    When will you decide on EMU?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t know the facts to decide on it yet. Let us assume you were a farmer, well you might be for all I know. A farmer asked me the other day: How will EMU affect me? And I said to the farmer: Well I can’t tell you the answer to that question. He said how will it affect me if we – by that he meant the UK – are in EMU? I said: I can’t tell you that yet. How will it affect us if you are not in EMU? I said: I can’t tell you that yet, I don’t know what the circumstances of it are. Will it affect us? Yes, I said to him, it will affect you whether we are in it or whether we are out of it.

    And that is really the substantive point. If it is going to affect my country whether we are in it or whether we are not in it, how could I explain to the farmer, or the businessman, or the man in the city, or the man or woman in the street, that I had decided to rule myself out of those negotiations when the outcome of those negotiations would affect them? What would I have said to my farmer who asked me whether it would affect him, and I said Yes, when he then said to me: Then why are you, the British Prime Minister, not in there negotiating in my interests?

    What is the answer to that question? There is no answer to that question. And the decision that will be taken on Economic and Monetary Union for Europe as a whole, I am not just talking of the UK, will be the biggest economic decision Europe has taken. It needs to be right, it needs to be considered. You have to consider what it means for the smaller countries of Europe as well as the big countries of Europe. You have to consider what it means for the countries who don’t go into a single currency as well as those who do go into a single currency.

    If people are Statesmen, they would have to consider what it means for the countries who are coming into the European Union as well as those who are in it. The biggest single issue I think that the European Union has to face is how to absorb into the European Union those former Iron Curtain countries in central Europe who look to the West for freedom, an open market and a quality of life that we enjoy in the West. That is an opportunity for this generation of politicians that no generation of politicians has ever had before – the opportunity to create an economic market that would prevent the sort of wars that have twice started in Europe in this century and that in the last few years we have seen in Yugoslavia. l think that is a bigger prize than institutional change within the existing members of the European Union. And I think to concentrate on the institutional change, without looking at that wider picture that may ensure that our children and our grandchildren never face the sort of difficulties that our fathers and our grandfathers faced, is not Statesmanship but folly. And that is why I think we have to look at that as the first issue.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Israeli Prime Minister – 24 September 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu, held in London on Tuesday 24th September 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Evening. Let me just say a few words about the discussions the Prime Minister and I have just had.

    I am very pleased indeed to welcome the Prime Minister to the United Kingdom for the first time so that we might have a face-to-face discussion. We have had the opportunity over the last two or three months of telephone discussions, but this was the first time since he became Prime Minister that we have been able to meet.

    We spent some time discussing bilateral matters. I think it is fair to say that the bilateral relationship between Israel and the United Kingdom is in as good a shape today as I can ever remember it being. And it is my intention, and the Prime Minister’s intention, to ensure that that remains the case. Trade growth is continuing and we both agreed this evening that we see ample scope for it to continue a good deal further.

    We spent some time discussing regional matters – Iraq/Iran and related matters; and of course we also spent a substantial amount of time on the Middle East peace process when the Prime Minister was kind enough to up-date me on the position as he sees it.

    What I would like to do now is to invite the Prime Minister to say a few words to you, perhaps about the peace process and other matters, and then we will take two or three questions. Following that we have to return into Downing Street where the Prime Minister and I both have further but separate engagements.

    MR NETANYAHU:

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. You have been exceptionally cordial and I welcome the opportunity to speak not over the phone but in fact face-to-face and to hear what I thought were your reasoned and perceptive comments about our efforts to pursue peace.

    What I explained to the Prime Minister is that Israel is committed to move ahead on all peace fronts, and we are doing that with the Palestinians. As you know, I and my senior Ministers have met with Arafat. We are going to have a meeting of the Steering Committee this week to begin to discuss the outstanding issues in the Interim Agreement. And once these are disposed of, we can move on to negotiations on a final settlement.

    I made it clear to the Prime Minister that we believe that the basis of proceeding here is good faith and reciprocity and the fulfilment of commitments on both sides. I think that the first commitment that is important is security. It is vitally important for Israel but I think it is important also to the Palestinians because fighting terrorism is, or should be – and I believe is – as important for the continuation of the peace process that is important for Palestinians and Israelis alike. I think that the idea that terrorism and peace are compatible, or terrorism and the peace process are compatible, is unacceptable. I think it is something that many in Britain would understand, and rightly so. In many ways I found of course common ground on a number of issues, central issues. I don’t want to say that Israel and Britain have exactly the same foreign policies, that would be an over-statement, it would also mean that we represent not our own peoples. But I found, I think, two important ideas that guide our mutual commitment to peace, and that is the idea of security as a basis for peace and the importance of both sides fulfilling their obligations – something that we are deeply committed to.

    I welcome the Prime Minister’s willingness and offer to help on the issue of economic assistance, and diplomatic assistance if necessary, in the peace process. I think that Britain has great roots, deep roots, in the Middle East, is respected there, could do a great deal, has been doing a great deal and could do more for our common cause for peace and I thank you for that, Mr Prime Minister.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Netanyahu, what do you think about the relationship with Egypt and what steps Israel is going to take to encourage the peace process?

    MR NETANYAHU:

    I value the relationship with Egypt as the cornerstone of our peace with the Arab world. It was the first peace agreement that we signed with the Late Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat.Anwar Sadat coined I think the most important principle for peace, three words – no more war, no more war and threats of war and no more violence, no more bloodshed – and this is very much our policy. I of course regret that we have had some rhetoric in recent days which I think is not conducive to the process that I believe Israel and Egypt both want to see. And I believe that we can get things back on track. I think that one of the things that we have to remember is that peace is in the interest of everyone, in the interest of Israel, of Egypt and the entire Middle East and I believe that we will be able to work together.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Major, who is more out of line on the single currency – Kenneth Clarke or Sir Nicholas Bonsor?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you need to look very carefully at what was said and you will see that the Government’s position on a single currency is entirely clear. I spoke to the Chancellor by phone today in Bermuda and he is quite clear, and I am quite clear, that his views were completely misrepresented in the way in which they have been reported over the last couple of days. I think upon the basis of that misrepresentation Nick Bonsor was speaking. He now realises that he was mistaken to speak on that misrepresentation and the Government’s position is as it has been for some time.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Prime Minister, there have been threats from extremist groups.

    MR NETANYAHU:

    Which Prime Minister are you talking to?

    QUESTION:

    I am talking to you, Mr Prime Minister.

    MR NETANYAHU:

    Extremist groups could apply to either one of us.

    QUESTION:

    I accept that, but I am speaking of the Islamic extremist groups in Israel, the Islamic Jihad particularly, who have made threats to re-start the bombing campaigns. I am also referring to other threats which you are getting from the Syrian government of possible war or action on the frontier, I would like you to make some comment on that?

    MR NETANYAHU:

    We are always concerned with the possibility of renewed bouts of terrorism. We obviously are taking precautions in our own capacities. I have spoken about this with Chairman Arafat, expecting him to do what he is obligated, what he has committed himself, to do under the Oslo Accords. And I think that if we each do our share then we can reduce substantially these risks. And in fact this is one of the main changes that we have introduced in the course of the three months that we have been in government, and that is to make the fulfilment of obligations, and especially those relating to security, not excluding other obligations on both sides, to make that element, that foundation a cornerstone, not something that is episodic and passes, but a constant in our relationship for peace. Peace and security are intertwined, they are inseparable. And the battle against terrorism I would say is the foundation of ensuring the successful continuation of the peace process which we seek.

    As far as Syria is concerned, I think there has been consistent efforts on the part of Israel to de-escalate tensions to bring about a resumption of the talks with Syria in the wide [indistinct] we have made such a suggestion. The Americans have engaged us. I assume they will engage Syria as well and we will seek a way to resume those negotiations to reduce tensions, build trust, so that we can proceed on the matter of achieving peace between Israel and Syria.

    QUESTION:

    [Not interpreted].

    MR NETANYAHU:

    [Not interpreted].

    QUESTION:

    If I may go back to Syria, what in your view is wrong with the principle of land-for-peace? And as far as the Palestinians are concerned, the Palestinians have so many times before been urged not to pre-empt talks on the final status of Jerusalem and yet we hear today that-the Israeli authorities have constructed a tunnel near Aksam Mosque [phon]?

    MR NETANYAHU:

    Let me begin with that. We have implemented a decision taken by the previous government, the Labour Government, that stipulated the opening of this tunnel which would benefit the tourists, tourism in Jerusalem immensely, benefiting primarily the Palestinian merchants in the Arab quarter because they will be the beneficiaries of increased tourist flow. I think this is very good for Jerusalem and for its Arab and Jewish residents alike. At the time when the Rabin government made this decision it also informed the Palestinian Woks [phon] – the Palestinian authority on the Temple Mount – that it would enable, at the same time that it took the decision on the tunnel, to facilitate prayer on the temple mount in a certain portion of the temple mount that had not been open for such prayers. This was widely understood to be accepted. I believe that the Palestinians, and indeed anyone interested in the welfare of Jerusalem, should view the opening of this tunnel as a positive development for the growth of Jerusalem and its development, as a city that would attract many, many millions of tourists, many, many more millions of tourists, and I think this is only for the benefit of peace.

    As far as the question about the framework of resuming the talks with Syria, there is such a framework, it was established in the framework of Madrid. It includes the references to 242 and 338, those resolutions, and each side has been left free to offer its varying interpretation to these resolutions. Rather than try to coerce my interpretation on President Asad, or having him try to coerce his interpretation on me, I suggest that we get to the table and begin to negotiation. I think this would do a lot more for the progress of peace than any hair-splitting that we would do now in advance of the negotiations.

    QUESTION (Jerry Lewis, Israel Radio):

    Could I ask both Premiers, you have mentioned the excellent relations that there are between the two countries, could you just indicate whether you discussed the two areas where there might be slight problems – one on settlements and the second on Orient House?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We discussed a whole range of issues. But I think one of the aspects of our relationship is where we have matters to discuss we speak as frank and candid friends and we do so in private. Our interest in the United Kingdom is trying to provide a rapprochement of problems, not adding to them.

    MR NETANYAHU:

    This is an example of how cogent I think the Prime Minister is, in private as well as in public, and I found the ability to discuss all the outstanding matters in good faith, with open hearts and open minds. I thought it was a very productive meeting.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview – 20 September 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held on Friday 20th September 1996.


    QUESTION:

    What is your response to Fischler this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are operating within the Florence Agreement. It was perfectly clear within the Florence Agreement that if new evidence arose we had to consider that new evidence, and Mr Fischler isn’t saying we shouldn’t. I am sure he is not saying that. We clearly have to look at the new evidence on maternal transmission – the possibility of it being genetic, which in effect means the calf would only catch it if it eats infected food. There is no infected food now. That is a new matter that has to be considered. Then there is the evidence from the Anderson Report, which I am sure people will wish to examine very carefully. I don’t think anybody wishes to see a cull take place which is unnecessary and economically wasteful. I hope we can discuss these matters rationally with the EU and reach a rational, proper decision. And that is what we are seeking to do. And then when we have reached that decision and we take the action that is necessary, I hope it is equally clear that the ban will be lifted, and that it won’t be a matter of considering whether. I hope it will be clear it will be lifted.”

    QUESTION:

    How do we restore confidence in British beef?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a very good question. We have always said that beef is safe. There is, even now, no proven link between BSE and the concerns about CJD. That has always been the position. We have to continue to say that so the confidence restores in the market. In this country confidence has been restored a good deal more than in many other countries in Europe. I hope people can push aside some of the hysteria they have heard. It is not all that long ago that we had people claiming to the authorities saying there was going to be the most huge epidemic. They were saying so here – you could see them on TV in Germany and France saying the same sort of thing, creating great difficulties for the export of British beef. I hope that now the immediate flurry has settled down, people can look rationally at the science, forget about artificial squabbles, artificial difficulties, look rationally at the science of the matter and decide to make proper decisions. Of course we have to look carefully first and foremost at public health. We do, and we have. But what we have seen from the Anderson Report recently is that the action the Government took in 1988 is eliminating BSE more rapidly than we thought. So I would ask for a rational debate, rational consideration, no more hysterical over-reaction, so that gradually we can restore the confidence I believe should never have been lost in British beef.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Choice and Freedom for All – 19 September 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on Choice and Freedom for All, made on the 19th September 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    CHOICE AND FREEDOM FOR ALL: THE MORAL CASE FOR A SMALLER STATE

    Tonight I want to talk about the role of government. Not from the perspective of political theory, but from practical experience. Why my aim of smaller government can produce better government and better public services.

    The role of government has changed massively – and is still changing. All around the world, people ask the fundamental question – how much government do we want and what kind?

    Some might have imagined that the 1980s would have settled this debate. The pressures of a global market place were already evident. The centrally planned economies collapsed and the victory of the free market model was clear.

    That remains true. But it doesn’t settle the question. Because within the free market economies there are many differing visions of the role of Government.

    At one end of the spectrum are most members of the European Union, with the state spending half or more of the nation’s income and a long tradition of high state intervention.

    At the other end are the US, Japan, and the emerging Asian economies spending around a third or less – in some cases much less.

    Britain is somewhere in the middle, with the state spending a little over 41 per cent of GDP.

    A look at the growth and job creation records of countries with a smaller state argues persuasively the economic case for restraining public spending.

    And that is certainly one, though not the only, reason why the Government has set a target of getting public spending below 40 per cent of national income.

    When we achieve that I believe we should look further at a lower target.

    But the case for smaller Government is as much a moral case as an economic one.

    “Moral” is a word I usually prefer to leave to the Church but it is apt for what I intend to say.

    For example, is it moral to take from individuals the right to make personal decisions? I think not.

    Is it moral to impose obligations on employers like the Social Chapter and the minimum wage that will cost jobs and prevent those without jobs from getting them? Again, I think not.

    Is it moral to compulsorily take too much tax from people for government to spend and diminish individual choices? My answer is no.

    Smaller Government fits with a belief in individual freedom and choice – still one of the basic divides in British politics.

    I start from the presumption that government should not interfere and meddle where it is not needed. The belief that power, choice and responsibility should, wherever possible, be left with individuals and their families, with entrepreneurs and businesses.

    I don’t want my personal choices made for me by the State. Nor do most people. Nor is it necessary. The British people are better able to order their lives effectively than the most efficient and humane of Governments.

    ‘Trust the People’ is an old Conservative battle cry. It must be central to our future policies.

    We aim to regulate less of people’s lives.

    We trust people to spend their money, or save it, or give it, and to do so sensibly.

    We don’t believe most people are selfish or greedy.

    And we think they can be trusted to exercise those instincts themselves – not to have them exercised on the people’s behalf by men in Whitehall who claim to know better.

    So we aim to tax and spend an ever smaller share of what people earn. To reduce and, in due course, abolish capital taxation.

    I want to do that because it makes good economic sense; it ends a penalty on enterprise and investment; it will release capital and create jobs. And that is the right thing to do.

    There is a moral case for low taxation if you genuinely want to see growing prosperity and more employment.

    And it is that moral view, just as much as the economics, that leads me to the conviction that the state should progressively disengage and do less – but that what it does it should do well. Indeed, I believe that by doing less it is more likely to do better.

    I can hear the cries of ‘uncaring Conservatives’ already forming on the lips of our opponents.

    Cut taxes? Just an electoral bribe, they say.

    End capital taxation? Just a ramp for the well to do.

    But these cries just blur the argument. They are nonsense. We should not be put off by them. They are the baggage of a welfare state mentality that distrusts personal choice and resents personal ownership.

    I reject the muddled thinking that says a smaller state must be uncaring. And I reject the thinking that equates big government with benevolent government.

    We’ve seen time and time again that high government spending and good public services don’t go hand in hand. If they did what a glory there would be in some states.

    But look at the failure of socialism to improve people’s lives in Eastern Europe. Or the recent strains and popular unrest in high spending economies in the EU as they seek to cope with escalating public budgets. And at home you only have to look at the Britain of 20 years ago, with its crumbling state industries, high tax rates and economic malaise.

    Practical experience of Government suggests to me those failures weren’t an accident, a workable philosophy misapplied or derailed by the unexpected. The more I see of Government from the inside the more I believe those failures were predictable, the result of applying fundamental principles that are diametrically opposed to common instinct, common freedom and common sense.

    Underlying socialism, democratic socialism – or even social democracy – is a set of instincts that favours State control. Where there is a choice it is always to be exercised in favour of the State, and too often by the State.

    It’s not always put in those terms, of course. But because the mind set of Socialists and social democrats is to trust Governments more than individuals, their instinct is always to try and bend individuals, businesses, markets, to behaviour they would not naturally see as being in their interests.

    It’s those instincts that lead to high spend, high tax policies, and to ever more regulation. They may be dressed up in the name of better public services. But underlying them is a confident belief that the Government knows better how to spend your money than you do. That government control can produce better outcomes than free choice.

    It’s a philosophy that has two outcomes – both bad. First it stifles enterprise and wealth creation.

    And – second – step by step – too much government control traps individuals in a culture of dependency. Choice, freedom, independence are gradually whittled away until the citizen’s only response is that the ‘government ought to do something about it’. And, of course, all too often the government can’t. The citizen feels helpless.

    At its worst it means that if you are poor the state makes all your choices for you, but if you are well to do you are free. The goal I aim for is to give more choice to everyone.

    If the state takes on more and more responsibilities, it becomes the keeper of the individual’s conscience and duty. There is a danger that people will think their obligations to others are fulfilled solely by paying taxes – whereas they are not, and cannot be.

    I believe that the enrichment of this country – both economically and socially -will come from the people of this country, as individuals, families, businesses, public servants.

    And I believe it is right to think of government as an enabler – not trying vainly to script and control every move, but providing the conditions and support to help people to succeed themselves.

    That’s why we encourage ownership – of homes, pensions and other forms of savings to give people security and independence.

    It’s why we’ve taken steps to reduce the future growth of the social security system, bringing it within the growth of the economy reversing the trend since the war.

    It’s why we emphasise improving standards in education.

    It’s why we are looking again at protecting the public from industrial action in essential and monopoly services.

    It’s why we have opened up the telecommunications industry and deregulated broadcasting, the control of shopping and licensing hours.

    It’s all been about restoring choice and freedom to the individual.

    But while I argue for a small state, I am not arguing for a minimalist state. The state does have a role but we must keep it in proper bounds.

    The great political advance has been to recognise that public interest does not always require State ownership. It is not a paradox to say that a private company can be a public service.

    Not so long ago it was thought that public services like phones, gas, water and electricity had to be publicly owned and had to be monopolies. Now we have shown that private ownership, competition and regulation can protect the public interest better than public ownership.

    It must be galling to those who believe in the innate superiority of State control to see how private ownership has transformed standards.

    Our phone, gas and electricity prices are now amongst the lowest in Europe. Rail fares are capped as never in the past.

    Our water industry is at last able to afford long-delayed investment. The consumer gets better quality.

    We now have phone boxes that work.

    Fewer disconnections.

    Better standards of service.

    Compensation if they let you down.

    And quality is increasingly bolstered by choice, an everyday reality in telecoms and increasingly so for gas – with people actually knocking on doors round the country offering cheaper gas. And soon competition will begin in electricity and water too.

    And if we had not de-nationalised I wonder what the standard rate of tax might be today to deliver services of this quality under public ownership?

    Of course, improving services and giving power back to consumers is not how it is seen by our political opponents. To hear them talk, you would believe denationalisation amounts to abolition. Their mind set has not moved on from their traditional hostility to private ownership. All sorts of scare stories were peddled. But the reality has been quite different, and a huge success.

    But private ownership is not the best answer for all areas of the public sector. There are some where it is simply not right, or acceptable, for the government to cede its role.

    To take an obvious example, no Conservative would argue that the State should not have the responsibility to provide a secure defence, or an effective police force.

    Equally, it is right that we should provide universal access to a taxpayer-funded Health Service, and to provide every child with the choice of a State-funded education.

    And other areas are self-evident, such as the welfare safety net.

    But where privatisation is not an option the Government has a double responsibility to ensure efficiency and good service.

    We owe that to the consumer and taxpayer – after all it is their money, compulsorily extracted. And we owe it to the people who work in our public sector to help them deliver the best possible service.

    But if that is our aspiration, how do we deliver it? There’s no simple straightforward solution. The public service has to be picked up, shaken down, re-shaped and given a new culture. That is what I am seeking to do and I’d like to bring the strands of that policy together for you.

    Our problem is not the many dedicated people who work in the public service, it is the structure and culture of monolithic post war public service that has weighed against them.

    So what are we doing about that?

    First, we recognised that too many public services have been run by organisations that were too large and bureaucratic.

    With control sucked to the centre, they became insulated from the issues and problems on the ground.

    Their front-line workers were often as frustrated by inflexible bureaucracy as the public itself.

    And second, since the system was so reluctant to provide information on service standards, and there was no choice to go elsewhere, there was no countervailing pressure – and few incentives – to put their customers’ interests first.

    To deal with this I believe we needed a revolution in the way Government runs itself.

    We’ve slimmed down the number of government employees – at a time when it has been growing in most of our major competitors – and wherever possible we’ve broken up the large monoliths and created smaller, more manageable units closer to their users.

    The Health Service is a good example.

    I, and successive Health Ministers, have been attacked for years for seeking to improve the service of a much loved national institution. But what our reforms have done has yielded huge efficiencies to be ploughed back in patient care.

    And the smaller, more manageable units that have resulted – Hospital Trusts, GP Fundholders – have a much closer relationship with their local community and a much better appreciation of their needs. The intention is that the people providing the service look outwards to the people they serve rather than upwards to the top of some distant organisational pyramid.

    As our health service develops, I believe these reforms will ensure it always takes account of the need to serve people on a human scale – at local level. People first means efficiency first.

    Of course any reform is traumatic. I was involved in the NHS reforms from the start – and they were no picnic.

    But I also remember why we did it. Who could forget Sir Roy Griffiths’ famous remark that if Florence Nightingale were wandering the corridors of an NHS hospital in the eighties, it would be because she was trying to find out who was in charge.

    A bit too true to be funny, actually. I remember being astonished, as Chief Secretary, how little we knew about where the £20 billion we spent on the NHS was actually going. I asked questions. Officials scratched their heads. No-one knew the answers.

    But it’s not just a matter of changing management structures.

    Increasingly we are also introducing private finance into public services. This makes taxpayers’ money go further, which is the only realistic way to deliver the better services and infrastructure we all want. And the successes are already visible, for example in our inner cities where challenge funding has harnessed public and private money to achieve tremendous results.

    Of course some of the changes we’ve made to devolve management and bring in the private sector have provoked a huge debate about Parliamentary accountability. Some politicians believe Ministers must know and control every tiny action and detail.

    Well, they don’t.

    They can’t.

    Frankly, they shouldn’t. And it’s silly to pretend otherwise.

    Yet, for years past every successive Minister and for that matter Prime Minister has been expected to answer questions of administration that fall far below the level of policy. No wonder Question Time sometimes sheds more heat than light.

    The idea that Ministers are omnipotent is very flattering but history and experience argues against it. And in the complexity of modern government, it is absurd. The important thing is that Ministers are accountable for getting public services properly managed, putting someone in charge with clear objectives and making sure they are kept on their toes.

    I have seen the injustice and indignity and demoralisation that people feel when public service is frustrating and patronising.

    I’m not prepared to tolerate a culture where it is the norm to wait in queues, to be passed around from pillar to post, and treated like a cog in some labyrinthine machine.

    That must change. And the way to change it is to continually ratchet up the quality of service; to tell the consumer the standards he has a right to expect; to give the information about the service he’s getting, and offer decent redress for failings.

    That’s why I launched the Citizen’s Charter five years ago. I saw it then as a ten year programme. But attack came immediately from all sides – as so often happens, when you aim at fundamental change.

    Some thought the standards too demanding: others too modest. Some thought it all a gimmick. Others said we were only tinkering. Most believed we would never deliver targets and standards.

    But these improvements are happening. Spectacularly in some areas, patchily in others. But they are happening.

    Only a few years ago the holidaymaker used to have to wait three months for a passport. Now it usually takes just a week.

    Not long ago, some 170,000 patients had to wait more than a year for hospital treatment. Last year, that was fewer than 5,000.

    Several patients used to be given the same hospital appointments and then be expected to wait the convenience of the consultant without complaint. Patients now get a timed individual appointment in hospitals and should never have to wait more than 30 minutes.

    We see even more fundamental improvements in education, where tests and performance tables are finally giving parents the information they deserve. Gillian Shephard will shortly be announcing further measures to drive up standards, including increased use of targets in a variety of areas.

    In these ways, standards are pulling up public service performance to levels far better than we have seen before.

    And, as they do, I expect them to raise the public’s expectations. And that too is happening.

    The White Paper published tomorrow will show a near quadrupling of nominations by the public for Charter Mark awards – more than 15,000 nominations this year from last year’s 4,000.

    To me that suggests the Charter is increasingly taking root. And in time I have no doubt my ambitions for the Citizen’s Charter – a fundamental shift in power from the state to the consumer – will be fulfilled.

    Of course, we still have much to do. We are only half way through our programme. But the direction in which the Government wants to go is towards more choice, more information, more accountability.

    Some like to claim these days that the main political parties are closer together than ever.

    I wonder how true that is when it comes to hard decisions – rather than oratory.

    The kind of programme I have set out tonight requires perseverance to drive it through. If you come to a boulder in the middle of the road do you drive to the left or the right? Your instincts take over. If you come to problems is your instinct to trust the government or the private sector to find a solution?

    Our instinct is for less government. Our opponents’ instinct is for more government. This is still a sharp divide.

    I believe our programme to reform government is more than a managerial question.

    For me, there is no more political question than how we define the limits of the State, how we run our public services, how they treat their customers, and how the burden of financing government falls on the economy and the individual. These issues touch on the fundamental philosophical and political divide between the parties.

    I have spent my life fighting on one side of that divide.

    My beliefs are for a future with a smaller state and lower taxes. Where individuals and families have more independence to own and save.

    This is a distinctive Conservative agenda with a common theme: choice and freedom for everyone. Not for one class, not one faction, but all in society.

    Having built the strongest economy we’ve known for decades, we now need to turn to giving all in society the chance to take more control of their lives. Those living in Labour strongholds, just as much as those in leafy Conservative heartlands. They all matter just as much.

    Extending choice and freedom is an endless task, performed against the clamour for the government to do something – be it spend more, intervene more, regulate more.

    But, as I have explained tonight, that is not my way. The right role for Government as we approach the millennium is quite different.

    It is to enlarge choice, not restrict it. To extend freedom, not curtail it.

    To trust the people more and control them less.

    That runs with the grain of what the British people want, and that is what I set out to deliver.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on BSE – 19 September 1996

    Below is the text of the Government statement on BSE, issued on 19th September 1996.


    GOVERNMENT STATEMENT ON BSE:

    The Prime Minister chaired a Ministerial meeting this evening. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food briefed his colleagues on his discussions in Brussels earlier this week. Ministers considered how to take forward policy in the light of the latest scientific evidence and in the context of the Florence framework.

    The Government remains committed to taking decisions on the basis of public health and objective scientific criteria as agreed at Florence. The new scientific evidence now available means that further work is needed on appropriate culling strategies. The Commission’s decision yesterday to seek the advice of its multidisciplinary committee will contribute to this re-evaluation.

    The Government also intends to consult further with the Commission on proposals for relaxing export restrictions for animals from certified and other herds which have had no contact with BSE. For the present the Government is not proceeding with the selective cull but will return to cull options in the light of the developing science and of discussions on the certified herds scheme.

    Ministers noted that the specialist beef industry has been very hard hit over the last six months, and that a further package of assistance for the industry is being considered by the European Commission on which the Government will seek early agreement in the Agriculture Council. Meantime, the Government considers it right to provide significant new aids for the specialist beef sector in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, an additional £60 million will be provided in respect of cattle in the hills through the 1997 Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance (HLCA) scheme.