The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Gerry Adams

  • 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.

  • PMQT – 21 May 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister tell the House about the foreign policy implications, and the implications for our troops on the ground, of the governing party’s decision to accept lots and lots of Bosnian Serb money? Does he accept that our troops cannot be seen as impartial when their commanders at home have accepted money from a–

    Madam Speaker: Order. Let me put the hon. Gentleman straight. The Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility whatever for any funding for his party. [Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about troops, that is an entirely different matter. Let me make it clear, in case any hon. Member wishes to ask the same question later, that the Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility for money that goes to the Conservative party. Now, put the question properly and correctly.

    Mr. Davidson: Does the Prime Minister accept that there are foreign policy implications, and implications for our troops on the ground, in the position that the governing party has adopted with regard to Bosnian Serb money?

    The Prime Minister: Nothing ever stands in the way of the interests of British troops as far as the Government are concerned.

    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to take note of the report of the Transport Select Committee on airport capacity? Will he undertake to give serious consideration to the formulation of a long-term framework for airport policy, possibly including the provision of an estuarial airport, so that there may be environmental relief for the existing London airports?

    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly look carefully at the report to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Mr. Blair: In the light of the concern expressed even in Government circles about the funding of political parties, is not the right, fair and honourable thing to do to widen the remit of the Nolan committee so that the funding of all political parties could be looked at in a proper and impartial manner?

    The Prime Minister: No. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed. Party funding has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which made a number of recommendations on the openness of party accounts. The Conservative party accepted all those recommendations: the Labour party has not accepted all those recommendations. If the Labour leader is concerned about the matter, perhaps he will now commit himself to do so.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister has allegations to make about any party’s political funding, is not the proper and reasonable thing to do to refer the matter to the Nolan committee so that it can consider it impartially? If the governing party does not accept that, the inevitable question that everyone will ask is what it has got to hide.

    The Prime Minister: The leader of the Labour party may not have heard in the hubbub, but I answered his second question–since it was the same as his first question–a few moments ago. I will repeat it for him. The matter has been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee. We follow the remit it set out: the Labour party does not.

    Several hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker: Does Mr. Blair wish to come back?

    Mr. Blair: I do. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Be quiet.

    Mr. Blair: I rise by popular request. When gifts are disguised as loans and money is accepted from foreigners, most people in this country would think–would they not?–that the best thing would be to have the Nolan committee consider party funding, so that justice could be done and be seen to be done and not covered up and hidden by the Conservative party.

    The Prime Minister: It is really no use the leader of the Labour party flying into a tantrum. It is only in the Labour party that donations and money buy influence. In the Labour party, the trade unions provide the funds in return for votes at Labour’s party conference and the party’s trade union paymasters still have a say in Labour’s election manifesto. That is the real scandal in party funding and the Labour leader cannot duck it.

    Mr. Jessel: Here is a popular matter. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, this morning, the National Heritage Select Committee reported on the national lottery? It said that the national lottery is a huge success. It is twice the success hoped for by the most optimistic optimists.

    The Prime Minister: It is undoubtedly a great success and is raising huge sums of money for good causes. I am especially pleased to note that the fears expressed by so many people some months ago that charitable donations would fall are now shown to be wrong. In addition to the fact that donations have risen, a substantial amount from the lottery fund also goes to charities.

    Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister ever discussed with Government officials donations from Serb sources to the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister: I do not discuss donations to the Conservative party with civil servants, nor have I. The right hon. Gentleman should know–it was pointed out to the House some time ago–that I devolved any responsibility whatever for party fund raising more than three years ago to avoid any possible conflict of interest. I did that not recently, but several years ago.

    Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the efforts of Mr. Gerry Adams to try to distance Sinn Fein from the IRA? Will my right hon. Friend remember that, when Mr. Adams tells us that he has consulted the IRA, he has merely looked in his bathroom mirror?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that Sinn Fein and the IRA are two sides of the same coin. That point is well known to every right hon. and hon. Member. We believe that it is extremely important that the talks on Northern Ireland are successful. The only way in which Sinn Fein will find itself a part of those talks is if there is a clear-cut, unequivocal ceasefire by the IRA. In the absence of that, Sinn Fein will not be part of the talks. I hope that that is entirely clear to Sinn Fein, to the IRA and to every hon. Member.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mrs. Prentice: Given the respective states of their finances this time last year, can the Prime Minister tell the House why his Government are still massively in debt but his party, all of a sudden, is not?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady looks at the figures, she will see a substantial reduction in the fiscal deficit; the figure has been falling for some time and will go on falling. I am sure that she will be pleased about that.

     

    Q3. Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of families have cause to be grateful to him for his introduction, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the tax-exempt special savings account? Is that not the right way to create a real stakeholder society, rather than abolishing child benefit and imposing new taxes on cars, which one half of the Labour party wishes to do and the other half does not?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right in both aspects of his question. TESSAs have proved a huge success. Literally billions of pounds have been saved by families in TESSAs; many of them are now coming to maturity, and a large proportion of that matured sum is now being reinvested. I believe that that is the right way to encourage wealth, for the determination of individual purchases and to pass on between generations. We believe in the acquisition of wealth–[Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I am pleased to hear that the Opposition do not believe in that. It explains their proposal for a tartan tax, and the shadow transport spokesman’s desire to tax people more often; it explains their proposal to tax families with youngsters going through A-levels and their proposal to tax everything that they can possibly lay their hands on to fund their expenditure plans. I am happy to set out the clear difference between our party and the Labour party on spending and taxes.

    Mr. Fatchett: Has the Prime Minister seen the report on Yorkshire Water’s failure last summer to deliver a regular and uninterrupted water supply to the people of west Yorkshire? Does he recognise that that privatised company failed in its obligations to the people of west Yorkshire and in its obligation not to put at risk the health and economic activity of those people? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time that the people of west Yorkshire benefited from Yorkshire Water and had a reduction in their water bills? Can the Prime Minister explain why he is the only person in the country who now seems prepared to defend the privatised Yorkshire Water?

    The Prime Minister: I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman still has such innate hostility to private ownership. I am delighted to say that large numbers of people yesterday showed no innate hostility to buying Railtrack when, once again, we had a privatisation that was massively over-subscribed.

    I made it perfectly clear that we want Yorkshire Water to consider and to take action, as the commissioners have recommended that it should. It has begun to do so. It has completed a £100 million programme of pipeline and pumping station construction and this year it has made a £12 million investment in leakage reduction. Those are the measures that we expect it to take so that it can provide the service that consumers in Yorkshire expect and deserve.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 May.

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

    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to endorse the timely and apposite speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the European Research Group last Friday? May I especially draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the Home Secretary’s suggestion that some states in a flexible Europe should be able to repatriate powers from Brussels? In that regard, could not Her Majesty’s Government give notice at the intergovernmental conference that we intend to repatriate to our country control over our own agriculture and fisheries, and make British laws superior to European laws?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I first raised the question of what subsequently became called variable geometry in Europe well over two years ago, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) when he was Foreign Secretary. We have no doubt that that is the direction in which the European Union must develop as it enlarges in future. In relation to fisheries, as I have said to the House before, we shall be seeking changes in the common fisheries policy in the intergovernmental conference.

    Madam Speaker: Rev. Martin Smyth.

    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker: I will take the point of order after questions and statements.

    Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the Prime Minister’s earlier response, does he accept that it is not enough for Sinn Fein to say, “We are no longer part of the IRA” when, through its leadership, it has at no time condemned the atrocities and bombings of the IRA? It would be only in that context that anyone could have confidence in it as a qualified political party.

    The Prime Minister: I hope that everyone would condemn terrorist outrages. There can be no justification for them. As we have made clear, we expect every party that is eligible to take part in the talks that will take place after 10 June to accept at the outset, without equivocation, each and every aspect of the Mitchell principles. That is an essential prerequisite to taking part in the talks.

    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker: I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that points of order are taken after statements, of which there are two today. The first is from the Prime Minister.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Bangkok – 2 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Bangkok on Saturday 2nd March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a word or two about the meeting with Mr Hashimoto. We have an extremely good trade and economic relationship with Japan these days and in our discussions this morning we looked at the opportunities for further investment, mutual investment in trade growth, and the Japanese Prime Minister confirmed again that they continue to the see the United Kingdom as the most important centre for Japanese investment in Europe. So I found that extremely reassuring and we see the way in which the Asia-Europe is going in precisely the same way and look forward to its further development. So it was a very satisfactory meeting.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Prime Minister, are you happy or unhappy with the American decision on Gerry Adams’s visa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The decision on the visa is a matter for the United States. But as I understand it, the visa is for Adams to visit the United States, there is an exclusion, there is no possibility of fund-raising and neither will he be seeing anyone senior in the American administration. So the United States on that seem to have taken precisely the same line as the British government and the Irish government.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Don’t you think perhaps that this is the time for the Americans to be showing displeasure with Gerry Adams rather than giving him favours?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As I have said on every occasion in the past, whatever the American decision has been, it is a matter for the Americans and I have spelt out the circumstances in which the visa was granted, I think the other questions are for them.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you think they will put pressure on him, as you are putting pressure on him, to work for a resumption of the ceasefire, do you hope that Washington will do that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But the United States are doing that, the United States have been doing that continually and I have no doubt that they will continue to do it. They wish to see a ceasefire, they wish to see all-party talks begin and the have been very supportive of both the British government position and the Irish government position in that respect.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you have any expectation of a new statement from the IRA within the next week or so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no idea whether the IRA are going to make another statement. The statement they made the other evening was wholly inadequate, as I said at the time. We will have to wait and see. But the matter is for them, it is now a matter for them to decide. The option is there – they can decide to opt into a democratic process or they can exclude themselves, but it is their decision. I would prefer them to opt in on satisfactory conditions, but if they don’t we will continue without them.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Was Mr Bruton happy with your remarks the other day about the IRA Army Council’s response to the Downing Street agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would imagine he would have agreed with them, we haven’t spoken about them but I would imagine he would have agreed. He shares the same distaste for the way the IRA have behaved in recent years, as do most people.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Your backbenchers are incensed about the visa for Gerry Adams, what is your message to them? One of them at the moment is saying he can’t say whether President Clinton is either naive or stupid?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have said what I have to say about the visa, I have nothing more to say about that.

    INTERVIEWER:

    You are moving on to Hong Kong. What sort of reception are you expecting there? Chris Patten has had a pretty rough time over the last year or so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is understandable that people in Hong Kong are concerned about what is going to happen at the change of sovereignty in 1997. I shall be seeking to listen both to what LEGCO have to say, hearing what Hong Kong opinion is and also talking to them about how the changes are proceeding and what may happen between now and 1997 and thereafter. So I look forward to the trip.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Will you have good news for Hong Kong citizens on visa-free entry to the United Kingdom and do you think Britain could cope with a large influx?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a large number of matters to discuss with people in Hong Kong but I will have to say what I have to say when I get there.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you have any comment on Ron Davies, the Shadow Welsh Secretary, who says the Prince of Wales is not fit to be King?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I heard of those comments out here. I am absolutely astonished that somebody who is in the Shadow Cabinet, and who would presumably be the Welsh Secretary in a Labour administration, can speak in this fashion, particularly about someone who cannot answer back. I think most people will regard that as a pretty distasteful way to behave.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you think Mr Blair should sack him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter for Mr Blair, but he was unwilling to sack Mrs Harman for openly flouting Labour Party policy on education. I can’t imagine that Mr Davies speaks for the majority of people in the Labour Party, but that is a matter for Mr Blair. If he chooses to keep people who openly disagree with his policy, and openly disagree with what the majority opinion is of people in the country, that is a matter for him.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview on Northern Ireland – 8 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Northern Ireland, held on Friday 8th December 1995.

    QUESTION:

    The Peace Process seems to have been dealt a bitter blow today. How do you react to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it’s a very intransigent message that we’ve had from the IRA overnight. I think it will need some time to determine precisely what it means. It certainly isn’t consistent with many of the messages in the past. I think most of the people in Northern Ireland – the nationalist community in particular – but the Unionists community and other governments who have been helpful over recent months will regard this as a slap in the face. There is absolutely no doubt amongst the people of Northern Ireland that they want a peace settlement. That they believe people have an obligation to come together and create a peace settlement. And I think what the IRA have said is in very stark contrast to what most of the people in Northern Ireland have made crystal clear that they want. And I think there’s a second point as well. The IRA and Sinn Fein will now have to show whether they are quite separate or not. Sinn Fein have said for a long time that they can’t control what the IRA have to say. Well the IRA have had their message. Let us hear from Mr Adams and Sinn Fein that they want peace. That they meant what they have been saying for the past year. I would very much like to hear Mr Adams denounce this attitude by the IRA. It’s a tremendous rebuff to the nationalist community and the Unionist community in Northern Ireland and I think it will receive warm support from no quarter whatsoever.

    QUESTION:

    Gerry Adams has described your plans as ludicrous. Where can you go from here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Gerry Adams had better make up his mind what he wants. Is Gerry Adams the man who wants to help bring peace to Northern Ireland or is he a straightforward spokesman for a terrorist organisation who continues producing intransigent statements and putting a bottleneck in the way of peace. The people of Northern Ireland want peace. Gerry Adams is standing in the way of peace. Now he had better decide what he is going to do. There is no doubt what the nationalist community want. They want peace. There is no doubt what the Unionist community want. They want peace. There is no doubt what the British and the Irish Governments want. They want peace. So do the American Government. So does everybody else. Mr Adams wants to stand on his own and say he believes in the changed atmosphere, in the changed circumstances – that it is right for people to keep their weapons, threaten other people and to say that we will only negotiate with a pistol at the head of the other people, then let him say so honestly and clearly and not disseminate as he has tried to do over recent months.

    QUESTION:

    So who makes the next move?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, the International Peace Commission will soon start its work. I think the parties will talk to it. Well wait and see what Sinn Fein have to say. Are they going to try and bring this process to an end? Or are they going to have the courage to proceed with it? This is a moment of trial for Mr Adams. Does he believe what he has been saying, or has he been trying to deceive people? We’ll soon know. I think he has an obligation to the people of Northern Ireland to participate in this process, to talk to the International Commission and to decide to make process. If there is a blockage in the peace process, it is Sinn Fein and the IRA who are blocking it. They can unblock it. Nobody should be in any doubt about that. Now we will see whether they are honest in what they have been saying or whether they are not.

  • PMQT – 3 February 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd February 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

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

    Sir John Hannam : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the visit by Gerry Adams to America has done nothing to advance peace in Northern Ireland? Will he assure the House that the lies and evasions of Sinn Fein will not be allowed to hold up progress towards a settlement in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend, and that will be the overwhelming view of right hon. and hon. Members. The way to advance peace in Northern Ireland is for the IRA to end violence now. That is in its hands, and it is in Mr. Adams’s hands and I believe that he could and should do it. However, progress in Northern Ireland cannot and will not wait for Sinn Fein. The Government propose to carry forward actively the political talks with the constitutional parties and with the Irish Government. In further meetings, my right hon. and learned Friend will be floating ideas to give further focus and direction to all three strands of the talks process. This is a democratic process. If Sinn Fein and the provisionals want to be part of it, they must renounce violence for good. The way is open to them, but it is for them to take it.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it correct that the Government intend to raise prescription charges from £4.25 to £4.75–an increase of 11.6 per cent., which is more than six times the rate of inflation?

    The Prime Minister : When we are in a position to make an announcement to the House about that, we will make an announcement in the normal fashion.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that his likely increase, and indeed any increase, in prescription charges comes on top of massive tax increases already being imposed by the Government on the ordinary people of this country? Given all that, for once could not the Prime Minister spare the sick?

    The Prime Minister : I think that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall, only those who can afford to pay prescription charges are asked to pay them. From memory, around 80 per cent. of prescribed items are now free of charge. In 1979, it was, I believe, around 55 to 60 per cent.–a significant change. There is no firm evidence in any information that we have that prescription charges deter patients from obtaining necessary medication. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that. He makes no acknowledgement of the fact that most people do not pay prescription charges. He should get his facts right before he pursues these matters in this fashion.

    Mr. John Smith : It is quite clear from that that prescription charges are going to go up. Given that the Public Accounts Committee has identified millions of pounds that have been wasted by the Government’s health service quangos, would it not make much more sense to tackle that rather than to seek to tax the sick?

    The Prime Minister : The revenue from prescription charges this year is sufficient to fund around 70,000 hip replacements or 45,000 coronary artery bypass grafts. What I should like to hear from the Opposition, for all their complaints about prescription charges, is whether they would abolish prescription charges. If they would, who would pick up the bill of over £260 million? Would it be the national health service, with fewer people treated? Would it be the taxpayer? Or would they borrow more? That is another example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he would control expenditure, yet every opportunity he gets, he asks for more expenditure to make cheap political points.

     

    Q2. Mr. Burns : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

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

    Mr. Burns : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will close any genuine tax loopholes, but will not close what the CBI has shown are not genuine loopholes, as, by so doing, they would fail to raise revenue and would merely damage the economy in general and the economic recovery in particular? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that blows away the smokescreen of the tax-and -spend policies of the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : On the last point, my hon. Friend is generous to assume that the Opposition have tax and spending policies. In successive Budgets, we have closed tax loopholes and tackled abuse. My right hon. and learned Friend will continue to do so wherever he finds abuse. The Labour party, with its hare-brained schemes, is not genuinely concerned about closing loopholes. It would close not loopholes but businesses. That would be the result of its policies. As the CBI says today, Labour supports higher taxes on business. That is why Labour will always be the enemy of enterprise, of employment and of British business.

    Mr. Foulkes : Has the Prime Minister had a report of yesterday’s debate on the Child Support Agency, during which hon. Members on both sides of the House related tales of heartbreak and hardship caused by the operation of the agency and asked the Prime Minister and the Government to undertake another review of its working? Will the right hon. Gentleman now announce such a review so that people may look forward to an end to the hardship and the heartbreak?

    The Prime Minister : I read with some care yesterday’s debate on the Child Support Agency, and I am glad to say that the principles behind it received a warm welcome from every part of the House. The reforms will have a significant effect once the maintenance bills of those who qualify are reduced. When the legislation was being introduced, we stated that it would be kept under review. We are still true to that pledge–it still applies.

     

    Q3. Mr. John Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £26 million investment by Nestle Rowntree, at its York factory, in the new production line for Kit Kat, which is one of Europe’s leading confectionery brands? Does not that illustrate very clearly the advantage, in terms of new investment, of multinational companies having a significant presence in Britain?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it most certainly does. I had hoped to visit that factory in Yorkshire last week, but, unfortunately, was unable to do so. I was looking forward to seeing the new investment and to congratulating the management and the work force on their success. What that inward investment shows is that Britain is increasingly competitive and increasingly attractive to overseas investors. That is good news for exports, good news for orders and good news for jobs. Conservative Members welcome inward investment–we do not carp at it whenever it is received.

    Mr. Mallon : The Prime Minister no doubt has noticed that during his visit to the United States Mr. Adams provided some clarification by indicating that he does not accept the principle of self-determination based on consent. Indeed, Mr. Adams said that it would be nonsense to argue for such a thing. Does the Prime Minister agree that that runs counter to article 1A of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, counter to paragraph 4 of the joint declaration and counter to the view of every political party in Ireland, excluding the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein, and that it is not the view of the vast majority of the people of Ireland who support the joint declaration? Can he assure the House that the two Governments will jointly pursue the objectives of the joint declaration and there will be no unilateral deviation from it in the interests of short-term expediency?

    The Prime Minister : We will certainly continue to pursue the objectives of the joint declaration–there should be no doubt about that. In America, Mr. Adams avoided the central issue on every occasion he could. Sinn Fein has been challenged to give up violence–it has not done so. I do not believe that I can put it any better than today’s edition of the Irish Independent. I quote : “It is a disgrace that he”– that is, Adams–

    “should go on mouthing platitudes while the Provisional IRA continues its violence.”

    Mr. Skinner : The Prime Minister is jealous–Adams was a hit and he was ignored.

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that people in Britain or in Ireland have been deceived by Adams’s performance, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

    The Irish Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Spring, yesterday posed the critical question : Has Adams got the leadership and the courage to take his people with him in carrying out his own stated commitment to peace and to going the extra mile? That is the question to which everyone awaits an answer.

     

    Ash-cum-Ridley (Visit)

    Q4. Mr. Dunn : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Ash-cum-Ridley.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so but I will keep it in mind for the future.

    Mr. Dunn : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the range and variety of schools available to parents in my constituency and across Kent exist solely and wholly because of the Government’s policies and that choice and variety in education would be eliminated if the nightmare policies of the Labour party were endured?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. His county of Kent has self-governing schools, selective schools, maintained schools, comprehensive schools and schools that specialise in technology. That is the sort of choice that we believe it is right to offer to parents and will continue to seek to offer to parents. Most of that would be swept away by a Labour Government. They would abolish self- governing schools, abolish city technology colleges, abolish performance tables and abolish the right of parents to know precisely what is happening in the schools that their children go to. As ever, the Labour party would put dogma before common sense.

    Mr. Barnes : Could I persuade the Prime Minister to go to Ash-cum-Ridley, wherever that might be, instead of to Renishaw, Holmewood, Clay Cross and areas in my constituency that have high unemployment and have been devastated by the Government’s policies, because we think that the Government are a waste of time? There are other places that the Prime Minister should go–he could take a break and go to Ash-cum-Ridley.

    The Prime Minister : If my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) cannot persuade me to go to Ash-cum-Ridley, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will have much luck. As for employment, I share with the hon. Gentleman the wish to increase employment and reduce unemployment in this country. He will have noticed that it has been falling steadily for the past year in this country, unlike any other country in western Europe, and I expect it to continue to fall throughout this year.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

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

    Mr. Oppenheim : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was not the sale of Rover to BMW that lost Britain the chance of having a genuine global player on world car markets? Rather, that chance was lost during the era of misguided Government direction, industrial practices and unfettered union power when British Leyland became the butt of international music- hall jokes. Can my right hon. Friend imagine at that time anyone wanting British Leyland as a gift, let alone paying £800 million for the company?

    The Prime Minister : Rover certainly has been transformed, and I congratulate the work force and the management on their efforts to bring that about, as well as the investment that has been put into the company by British Aerospace. Rover now produces a world-quality product, and it is winning market shares in extremely competitive markets.

    As my hon. Friend said, the contrast with the 1970s could be scarcely sharper. Mass meetings at that time were addressed by Red Robbo, and taxpayers’ money was being poured into a bottomless pit. Rover is now a world beater and it will become better.

    Mr. Caborn : Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he can give assurances to individuals, companies or organisations about the disbursement of the millennium fund and the lottery fund for the construction of sporting facilities?

    The Prime Minister : No, we have given no commitments on that yet. We are looking at the establishment of a committee to determine how the millennium fund will be disbursed, and it will be a considerable period before we are in a position to say what money will be disbursed and where. Consideration of the matter is still in its infancy and it will be some time before we are able to make an announcement.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 January 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mr. Gerry Adams

    Dame Angela Rumbold : To ask the Prime Minister if a response has yet been made to the letter he received from Mr. Gerry Adams dated 7 January; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I received an unsigned letter on Mr. Adams’s headed notepaper, dated 7 January 1994, last week. I have placed in the Library a copy of that letter and of a reply from my private secretary which was sent on 20 January. Mr. Adams seeks to open issues for renegotiation by pointing back to a position which he asserts the Irish Government put forward in June last year. The joint declaration of 15 December was the result of many months of discussion between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. It is a fair and balanced statement of constitutional principles and political realities, which safeguard the interests and aspirations of both sides of the community. As the Taoiseach and I have made clear, there can be no question of renegotiation of the joint declaration.

     

    Back to Basics

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what are the implications of the Government”s “Back to Basics” policy for his office during 1994.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the scope and effectiveness of his “Back to Basics” social policy.

    Mr. Rendel : To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what working definition of “back to basics” he uses; and what he has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

    The Prime Minister : “Back to basics” is intended to ensure that Government policies are based firmly on the common sense values of the British people and, in particular, that they encourage individual responsibility. The “back to basics” policy is especially important in such areas as education, law and order, and the provision of public services, but it applies across a range of other Government policies as well.

     

    Paymaster-General

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the Departments to which the Paymaster-General has been attached since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : The Departments to which the Paymaster-General has been attached are listed.

    Date and Department to which responsible

    April 1976 to May 1979 – Department of Education and Science

    May 1979 to January 1981 – None

    January 1981 to September 1981 – None

    September 1981 to June 1983 – None

    June 1983 to September 1984 – Not applicable : post vacant

    September 1984 to September 1985 – None

    September 1985 to June 1987 – Department of Employment

    June 1987 to July 1989 – Her Majesty’s Treasury

    July 1989 to July 1990 – Her Majesty’s Treasury

    July 1990 to November 1990 – Her Majesty’s Treasury

    November 1990 to April 1992 – Northern Ireland Office

    April 1992 to date – Her Majesty’s Treasury

    Note : Except where noted, responsibility for Customs and Excise held by other Treasury Ministers.

    Included responsibility for Customs and Excise.

    Responsibility for Customs and Excise passed to the Economic Secretary in 1988.

    General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

    Dr. Lynne Jones : To ask the Prime Minister what are the procedures which apply in (a) the United Kingdom Parliament and (b) the European Parliament on the ratification of the Uruguay round of the GATT.

    The Prime Minister : The Government intend to present a White Paper to Parliament on the results of the Uruguay round later this year. The agreements will also be laid before Parliament, as with other international agreements. The European Community decision approving the results of the round will also be subject to United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. The European Parliament is likely to be consulted, but the procedure used will depend on the treaty provisions which apply.

     

    Habitats

    Mr. Morley : To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends that all Secretaries of State should have a duty to comply with the requirements of the European Union directive 92/43 EEC on the conservation of natural habitats of wild fauna and flora; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Secretaries of State will have duties, both general and specific, as appropriate and commensurate with the requirements of the directive.

     

    International Year of the Family

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking to encourage and promote the International Year of the Family.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on 6 December 1993, Official Report, columns 29-30.

  • Mr Major’s Letter to Gerry Adams – 20 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s letter to Gerry Adams, dated the 20th January 1994. The letter was written on behalf of John Major and signed by Roderic Lyne. The letter was issued to the press on the same day.

    [Dear Mr Adams,]

    The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to the letter dated 7 January which, though unsigned, is on your headed notepaper.

    As you know, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach made their Joint Declaration on 15 December. It is the responsibility of the two Governments and reflected intensive work between them in the preceding weeks.

    Your letter seeks to reopen issues for renegotiation by pointing back to a position you say the Irish Government put forward in June last year. Both the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have made clear that there can be no question of renegotiation of their Joint Declaration. It provides a balanced framework for peace and democracy which recognises the interests and aspirations of both main traditions that exist in Ireland. That text, and only that text, is what is at issue.

    You announced that you were writing to the Prime Minister. In the circumstances, the Prime Minister has decided to make this letter and that received from your office publicly available.

    [Yours sincerely]
    [Roderick Lyne]

  • PMQT – 13 January 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement by Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein calling for the clarification of the Downing street declaration is just a sickening attempt by the IRA’s apologists to shuffle the responsibility for their evil campaign of terror and fear? Is it not time that they faced up to their responsibilities and grasped the challenge of adopting the democratic path?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many millions of people in this country and throughout the island of Ireland. I welcome in particular the recent statement by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), making clear that he sees no excuse whatever for continuing violence and appealing for people to devote themselves exclusively to the democratic process. As the Taoiseach and I have made clear on a number of occasions, the joint declaration is not an invitation for renegotiation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have gone to great lengths in this House and beyond it to ensure that the joint declaration is fully understood and we shall, of course, continue to do so. We still await a positive response from the IRA.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister unequivocally condemn the gerrymandering and wilful misconduct which has cost £21 million of taxpayers’ money in what his party has described as a flagship council?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say unequivocally to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the reported allegations about the council turn out to be true, of course I condemn such activities just as I would condemn malpractice in any council, wherever it occurred. It would be wrong to comment on this case while the auditor is still considering it. The auditor operates independently of Government, has full powers to pursue his inquiries and I have no doubt that he will continue to use them to the full. We should wait and see precisely what the outcome may be. Otherwise, we are in danger of assuming that people have committed malpractice until they are proved innocent. I would think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a barrister, would recognise that that is no way to pass judgment.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister recollect the frequent endorsements that he and his colleagues have offered to Westminster city council, in particular the comment by the Secretary of State for Employment, that Westminster council was one of the Tory’s stunning successes and a source of cheer for every Conservative? Taking everything into account, does the Prime Minister think that those endorsements were wholly wise?

    The Prime Minister : I have just made it perfectly clear to the whole House that the district auditor’s report contains a number of serious allegations. At this stage, they are allegations. There is now a perfectly proper legal process by which the allegations will be examined in depth and the truth arrived at. The district auditor has been at pains to stress that his findings are provisional. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should wait until those findings are confirmed before he is so swift to judge.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that the matter has now been investigated for four years, and what is revealed is a devastating example of financial corruption and an abuse of power by senior members of the Conservative party? Cannot he at least condemn that?

    The Prime Minister : I have already made it clear that if the allegations are confirmed, I will condemn unreservedly. But, as has been made entirely clear, this is the start of the legal process. Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, most people will prefer to wait until that is completed and not find people guilty until and unless they are proven to be guilty. That is a cardinal principle of British law which I commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

     

    Q2. Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

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

    Dr. Spink : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday’s sharp fall in unemployment? Does he recall that one year ago the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) predicted that unemployment would rise month after month? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend invite the hon. Gentleman to make another such prediction?

    The Prime Minister : Most people would probably settle not for another prediction but for an admission from the hon. Gentleman that he got it wrong again and again and again. I very much welcome yesterday’s fall in unemployment, which means that the number of unemployed people has fallen by nearly a quarter of a million over the past year. Of course, it is still too high, but the fall of nearly 47,000 on top of the falls in recent months suggests that we are now seeing a continuing downward trend in the level of unemployment. We are the only western European nation to have low inflation, an economy that is growing and unemployment that is falling significantly.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. There is impossibly bad behaviour today.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does Lord Justice Scott still enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : It was the Government who set up the inquiry and gave Lord Justice Scott the freedom to pursue it as he thinks fit. I have no adverse comments to make on the way that he is doing it.

    Mr. Streeter : Does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £20 million contract won by Plymouth-based British Aerospace (Systems and Equipment) Ltd. in December, further boosted by a share in the £50 million contract announced by the Ministry of Defence yesterday? Is that not a fine illustration of defence contracts boosting and sustaining British jobs? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Liberal policy on defence were followed, those defence jobs would simply not exist and many people in the west country would be out of work?

    The Prime Minister : I am, of course, delighted at the contracts to which my hon. Friend refers. It is certainly the case that if the reductions in defence expenditure advocated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) or, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition were carried into force, the implications not only for our capacity to defend ourselves but for British industry, not least in the west country, would be very profound. It would be a reassuring change if the Leader of the Liberal party were to say the same thing in the west country as he says elsewhere.

     

    London Hospitals

    Q3. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make an official visit to a London national health service hospital.

    The Prime Minister : I shall be making a series of visits around the country, during which I intend to include NHS hospitals, as I have in the past.

    Mr. Corbyn : In his visits around the country, will the Prime Minister undertake to explain to Londoners why more than 150,000 people are on hospital waiting lists? Beds are being closed and wards are being taken out of operation, and one night in Bart’s hospital more than 30 people had to sleep on floors or on trolleys because there was not sufficient space for them. Are not the Prime Minister’s policies of the internal market leading to more and more closures and losses of bed space as the crisis and the chaos get worse? Is not it time for him to intervene to scrap the internal market and give Londoners the health service which they need, deserve and demand? Is not that a basic right?

    The Prime Minister : We are certainly seeking to give Londoners the health service which they deserve. In addition, we are seeking to improve dramatically primary health care in the capital and that has been evident for some time.

    The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention in his catalogue the dramatic reductions in the times which patients wait for hospital treatment. Since the reforms have been implemented, the number of patients who have been waiting for more than a year has fallen from around 120,000 to just over 70,000, and that figure is on a declining trend. The hon. Gentleman will know of expenditure which has been made in his own area’s district health authority. He ought not to underestimate the work that is being done to improve the health service for all the people who live in London.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Milligan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

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

    Mr. Milligan : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work that is being done in Eastleigh to develop a safer door lock for trains? Such a lock could have averted some of the 300 deaths which have occurred during the past 20 years when passengers have fallen out of trains. Will the Government encourage British Rail to invest in the new technology which would not only save lives on the railways but would also save jobs in my constituency?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend may know that British Rail is actively considering the technical feasibility and the cost-effectiveness of the system to which he refers. I know how important the decision is for my hon. Friend, and I know how hard he has worked on behalf of his constituents. British Rail is examining the matter at the moment.

    Mr. Kaufman : On November 10 1992, the Prime Minister, together with the Attorney-General, announced the appointment of Lord Justice Scott to conduct his inquiry. Will the Prime Minister now express his full confidence that Lord Justice Scott is conducting the inquiry fairly, particularly since he is due shortly to appear before Lord Justice Scott? Is the Prime Minister confident that he will be treated fairly by Lord Justice Scott? Will the Prime Minister repudiate the scurrilous attack on Lord Justice Scott by Lord Howe?

    The Prime Minister : I know that it has been a quite noisy House this afternoon, but I seem to recall answering that question a few moments ago. I will reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government appointed Lord Justice Scott to conduct an independent inquiry. It is therefore for him to draw up his own procedures and it is not a matter for the Government to comment on those procedures. I have no adverse comments to make upon those procedures, as I indicated a few moments ago.

     

    Q5. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

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

    Mr. John Marshall : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued incarceration of Ron Arad is quite unacceptable? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will maintain their efforts to secure his freedom?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give that assurance, and we will continue to support efforts to free Mr. Arad. We have raised the case on innumerable occasions with the Iranians, the Syrians and with any others who may be able to help. On his visit to Israel earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary met members of Mr. Arad’s family and assured them that we will continue to do what we can to help. My right hon. Friend gave them our warm sympathy for the pain and suffering which they must feel at present.

    Mr. Beggs : Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance today that whether or not the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic proceeds to interpret, elaborate, explain or, indeed, encourage Sinn Fein-IRA to respond to the Downing street declaration, he will stand by it and that he expects members of Sinn Fein-IRA to cease their campaign completely and indicate that they will lay down their arms so that they can enter the democratic process?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly wish to see them unreservedly and permanently end violence and then enter into exploratory talks that can lead to them taking part in the democratic process. I reiterate again : we are not in the business of clarifying the declaration. The declaration is clear. What is intended by Mr. Adams in his present activities is to seek bit by bit to draw the Government into negotiation upon the joint declaration. That is not on offer to Mr. Adams now. It will not be on offer to Mr. Adams in the future. If he wishes to enter into discussions, he knows how he may do it. He can decide to give up violence. After three months he can enter into exploratory talks. Then he will be able to enter into the democratic talks process itself. That is the route ahead. The only question that needs to be asked is not of the British Government or the Irish Government but of Mr. Adams. Will he stop the violence and enter the democratic process or will he not? Everything else is fudge.

  • PMQT – 2nd November 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd November 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Is the Prime Minister aware that early next month Mrs. Margaret Humphreys will become the first British citizen outside the royal family to be awarded the prestigious Order of Australia medal for her work in rehabilitating victims of the British child migrants scheme? In recognition of that award, will the Prime Minister set up an independent public inquiry into the operation of the scheme until 1967 and the resulting appalling treatment of vast numbers of British children? In view of his professed commitment to open government, will the Prime Minister end the disgraceful Government cover-up of the issue once and for all?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly happy to congratulate Mrs. Humphreys on her award. I was not aware that that was the case, but I give her my warmest congratulations. As the hon. Gentleman will know–for I am aware that he has taken a great interest in the matter–the migration schemes to Australia and other countries were run at the time by respected national voluntary bodies. The Government’s concern now is to ensure that former child migrants who want to make contact with their families are able to do so. Any concern about the treatment of the children in another country is essentially a matter for the authorities in that country.

    Dame Jill Knight : In the light of the broadcast by Gerry Adams last week and the offence that it caused to a great number of people, will my right hon. Friend consider whether the arrangements for the broadcasting on our television screens of self-confessed terrorists and supporters of mass murderers should be revised?

    The Prime Minister : Many people felt that the incident to which my hon. Friend refers stretched the present guidelines to the limit and perhaps beyond. That is a matter that perhaps we should examine.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister agree that, while it must be right for both parents to contribute properly to the maintenance of their children, the Child Support Agency is causing widespread anxiety and dismay by imposing a rigid and inflexible financial formula that often ignores the realities of people’s lives? Will he institute an immediate review of the operation of the Child Support Act 1991?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House recognises the need for both parents to contribute to the bringing up of their children–that is not a point of dispute between myself and the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The purpose of the Child Support Agency is to ensure that fathers who desert their children face up to their responsibilities. I know of the concerns that have been raised about that matter and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is examining them.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, in any examination of the system, account is taken of the fact that the formula appears to disregard a property settlement, which provides a home for children, and also the cost of exercising access? Should not those factors, at the least, be taken into account and will they be encompassed in any further considerations of the operation of the Child Support Act?

    The Prime Minister : There are a number of matters to be considered, including the maintenance formula to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. My right hon. Friend is aware, as I indicated a moment ago, of the concerns that have been raised and he will examine them.

    Mr. John Smith : If further consideration is to be given, will the right hon. Gentleman look into what appears to be another possible fault in the system? Is it right that out of the £530 million that the agency is to raise in its first year, £480 million should go to the Treasury and only £50 million to the benefit of children? While recognising, of course, the legitimate interest of the taxpayer, does not that show a lack of balance in what is supposed to be a Child Support Act?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the main purpose of the Child Support Agency is to ensure that assistance is given by both parents towards their children. That is the purpose of the agency and that will continue to be its purpose in the future.

    Mr. Lidington : In view of this morning’s press comments about the attitude of Her Majesty’s Government towards possible payments from the European social fund, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to make the Government’s position clear?

    The Prime Minister : I have seen suggestions in the press in recent weeks that sums due from the social fund would not be paid. Those reports are misguided. It is my expectation that the £300 million figure that has been mentioned in those press reports will be taken up by authorities within the calendar year.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Mr. Hoyle : Is the Prime Minister aware that the imposition of a guillotine on the Railways Bill is an affront to democracy– [Interruption.] –which has caused disquiet not only on Opposition Benches, but on his Benches, too, because it will curtail discussion of vital subjects such as pensions, railcards, and British Rail’s bid for franchises? Does not he realise that it will be seen by the public as a cheap, gerrymandering attempt to get an unpopular measure, which was introduced by his Government, through the House when it could have been debated fully in the two weeks up to the Queen’s Speech?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long time and I congratulate him on keeping a straight face while he asked that question. When the arrangements for consideration of Lords amendments to the Railways Bill were announced, no one suggested that the two days proposed were insufficient. The majority of the amendments that have been brought from another place are uncontroversial, many of them demonstrate the Government’s positive responses to the points made in the Lords and all aspects of the proposals have been discussed exhaustively at all stages.

    The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that so far there have been more than 186 hours of debate, including 130 hours in this House alone–hardly a negation of democracy.

     

    Q3. Mr. Brandreth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Mr. Brandreth : May I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal involvement in encouraging the Maryland bank of North America to bring its European headquarters to the city of Chester and with it the prospect of 1,000 new jobs for my constituents? Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment and employment prospects must now go to the top of the European agenda and that the British approach gets the right results–less regulation means more jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the relationship between regulation and jobs. The greater the extent to which we can reduce both regulation from Brussels and domestic regulation, the greater will be the likelihood of increasing the number of jobs in the United Kingdom. I am delighted at the excellent news from Chester and I congratulate my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Ministry for Industry on their part in obtaining that institution.

    Mr. Galloway : Will the Prime Minister find time today to call for the court reports referred to in early-day motion 2534, standing in my name and that of other hon. Members, on the torture of a British citizen, Sulaiman Al-Adsani, by Sheikh Jabar Al-Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal house? That matter is now to go before the courts in Kuwait. The torture, which consisted of the burning of 25 per cent. of the body of that British citizen and of his being held repeatedly under water in a swimming pool that was floating with dead bodies and being pistol-whipped and brutally beaten, is a serious matter. Given that the Al-Sabah family business was reinstated to power at the point of British arms and at much British sacrifice, does the Prime Minister think that it would be a worthwhile subject of discussion between him and the Government of Kuwait?

    The Prime Minister : My understanding is that the matter is being dealt with by the courts of Kuwait, but in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall look at the information available to us.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hawkins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Mr. Hawkins : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his desire to get back to basics in education? Does he agree that it is essential to keep A-levels as a beacon of excellence at the top of secondary education, to concentrate on reading and writing in primary schools and to ensure that there is strong discipline in schools?

    The Prime Minister : I want to see us get back to basics in education, as in other subjects. We want to hear a good deal more of common sense and traditional values and rather less of the fashionable views that have so often offended parents and damaged education. I know that many teachers are concerned about the problem of discipline in schools and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education wishes to discuss with teachers what action can be taken.

    Mr. Stevenson : In view of the collapse of the Government’s policy on law and order, which has led to rocketing crime figures and equally record prison populations, does the Prime Minister agree with Mr. Derek Lewis that a return to that Victorian value, the prison ship, would be regrettable?

    The Prime Minister : There is an internal contradiction in the hon. Gentleman’s question. If he is right and our policy has collapsed, we would not be catching villains and our prisons would not be crowded. He should listen to what the chairman of the Police Federation said just eight days ago :

    “There has been a lot of comment about prison in the last few days One fact is clear. Society must be protected from the small but vociferous minority who put two fingers up to the criminal justice system. They are cautioned or bailed simply to be let out again and to reoffend and reoffend again These criminals should be behind bars. By locking them up they will be unable to ruin other people’s lives.”

    Those are my views as well.

     

    Q6. Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell : May I urge my right hon. Friend to be sceptical about the siren voices predictably suggesting to him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a major contribution can be made towards reducing the public sector borrowing requirement by relying on the future growth of our economy? That is the fairy gold school of economics, greatly beloved by Opposition politicians all over the world. Does he agree that it is important that, on Budget day, it should be seen that we are making an immediate, substantial and steady movement towards a reduction of our fiscal deficit?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the need to make a steady and consistent move to reduce our fiscal deficit. We have been looking at the range of Government expenditure to find out whether it is necessary; if it is, whether it is being spent effectively; and whether there is waste that we can cut. Those are propositions behind which all my right hon. and hon. Friends can unite, in stark contrast to the Opposition, who would throw taxpayers’ money at every problem. There will be a series of ways to reduce the fiscal deficit : withholding public expenditure is one; and growth and other factors will make a contribution.

     

    Q7. Mr. O’Hara : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 November.

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

    Mr. O’Hara : Yesterday in the House, the Government failed to refute a figure in a Department of Transport working paper of £1.15 billion extra subsidy that would be needed for British Rail after privatisation. That is considerably in excess of the sum that would be raised were VAT imposed on domestic fuel bills at a rate of 8 per cent. next year. Will the Prime Minister apologise to pensioners who will be shivering through next winter when he tells them that they will be contributing to the placing of not one more train on our rail tracks or one more passenger on those trains, but to a semblance of profitability in a sham of privatised railways?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is talking total nonsense, as the House will have expected of him. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are looking at assistance to help vulnerable people with their heating costs during the winter. I remind the hon. Gentleman that matters such as special cold weather payments were never raised, provided or thought about by previous Governments.