The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: IRA

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Osnabruck Mortar Attack – 29 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Osnabruck mortar attack, made during an interview in Lyon held on Saturday 29th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the IRA were behind the Osnabruck attack].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The presumption must be that it is the IRA, but that is not yet confirmed. But the nature of attack – mortar from a small van – suggests very strongly that it was them. Thankfully no-one was injured. I think what this does yet again, if it proves to be the IRA, as I suspect it is, is indicate that they are becoming more and more isolated.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had information from the security services or his own instincts about such an attack].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we unsurprised that there has been more, and it is conceivable there will be yet more. But one can never be certain quite when and how they will attempt this sort of exercise.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein/IRA had given up on the peace process].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is very difficult to say. The psychology of the way they work is always very difficult to judge. Certainly there are different views prevailing within the IRA, of that we are certain, and at the moment the predominant view seems to be that they believe they will make some progress by this sort of terrorist attack. That is a fatal misjudgement on their behalf, it is a misjudgement of the British Government, it is a misjudgement of the British people and it is a misjudgement of international opinion as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether internment would be considered].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a range of alternatives, I don’t wish to run through them and I am sure you will understand why not. But as far as matters like internment have been concerned, we have never ruled those out.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein could still re-enter the peace talks at this stage].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Every activity, every single attack divorces them further from the mainstream political parties and their willingness to accept them into the talks process. So the concept that they could enter into a range of bombing atrocities of the sort we have seen at Manchester, and now I think at Osnabruck, and then walk in the talks is plainly nonsense, nonsense because it wouldn’t be acceptable to the British and Irish governments, and nonsense because it would not be acceptable to the other parties either.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he felt personal despair at the situation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not despair, certainly not, because the gains that have been made I think are very real. For the first time, the IRA are really becoming isolated in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, they have lost the support that they had internationally, that certainly means they will losing a very large part of the funding. They are shrinking in the view of many people who previously supported them. That I think is extremely good news and from the IRA’s point of view they must be extremely worried about that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein and the IRA needed to be separate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Sinn Fein take a rather curious position. On one hand they say we are nothing to do with the IRA – well that is patent nonsense – there is a great intermingling of membership right at the top, they are both sides of the same coin and anyone with the slightest knowledge of Northern Ireland and the whole affair knows that they well. If Sinn Fein say they are nothing to do with the IRA then really they are a very small part of the Northern Ireland political process and have no real influence. Their important is the fact that many people believe they do have influence over the IRA. Well if they do have influence over the IRA, they had better use it, and if they don’t use their influence then it is most unlikely that anyone is going to wish to see them enter into the talks.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Florence – 22 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Florence, held on Saturday 22nd June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, bar getting your deal on beef, is this summit all over apart from the usual shouting?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there are quite a few other things still to be determined, but I don’t anticipate any real difficulties on any other issues.

    QUESTION:

    On the jobs question, do you believe that politicians really can do much to create jobs?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Essentially business creates jobs, not politicians. But I think the economic policies that politicians follow, whether they place extra burdens on business or not, clearly makes it possible for business to create jobs, or inhibits business in creating jobs. So politicians don’t create them directly, but indirectly their policies have a dramatic effect.

    QUESTION:

    And does that mean you support the proposals on jobs that are going to be discussed here in Florence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Some of them yes, I mean some of the proposals, some of those discussions that we had at Essen for example on supply side reforms, I very much support those. Some of the others are I think less worthwhile.

    QUESTION:

    What about the agenda on further European integration and EMU, do you think much progress is going to be made here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think there is going to be any practical progress made here, that is going to be in the negotiations that have now begun and will carry on throughout the next year or so. We have set out our position in a White Paper, and everyone is aware of that, but there will be no decisions made today.

    QUESTION:

    The big arms find that has been made in the Irish Republic, have you been able to have discussions with Mr Bruton here and to take the process forward?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I spoke to John Bruton about that yesterday, it is extremely good news. It clearly is a very big arms find and very worthwhile and I congratulate the Irish on having achieved it. It also seems that there is now such distaste for Sinn Fein and the IRA that the public are increasingly inclined to give information, and I think that is very helpful.

    QUESTION:

    Does it suggest that the ceasefire is well and truly over?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is very difficult to understand the psychology of the IRA. They don’t judge matters in the same way that anybody else does. So I think it is very difficult to make a judgment about what they will do. Certainly their actions recently are despicable, there is no other word for it. What they did at Manchester was inhuman. That bomb was left there in a shopping centre, on a day when it could have been expected to have been crowded, and it is astonishing that very large numbers of people were not killed.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to be able to watch the football today, which is the best thing for 30 years?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well they certainly played magnificently earlier in the week. I hope the European Council will finish in time to watch the whole match before we leave, I doubt that it will, but I hope to watch the second half before we leave, certainly.

    QUESTION:

    And you wish them the best of luck?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I most certainly do. Like everyone else in England I shall have my fingers crossed for them.

    QUESTION:

    You have said that the non-cooperation policy has shown itself to be successful, does that mean you have got an appetite for blocking now, that you might use this tactic again?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were special circumstances, weren’t there? This wasn’t a question where there was just an agreement or a disagreement. This was a question where we had tried for some weeks to make progress, where progress had not been forthcoming, where one nation state was facing a particular problem and did not to me seem to be getting the cooperation from our partners that we should have deserved. But I hope that no such circumstances will arise again.

    QUESTION:

    Some of your fellow Prime Ministers say that this demonstrates the national veto must be limited at the Intergovernmental Conference for all future decision-making. This strengthens their hand, doesn’t it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it doesn’t because the Intergovernmental Conference is by unanimity. And there is no question of us giving up the national veto. It would not be appropriate for us to do so and I have no intention of doing so.

  • PMQT – 18 June 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Berry: Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation on Friday when he said that he had had “a bellyful” of the Tory party?

    The Prime Minister: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his quotation is inaccurate, but it could certainly be applied to questions such as that.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more and more people in Germany wish that their economy was run like ours–with low inflation, steady economic growth, flexible labour markets and falling unemployment? Will he take an early opportunity to invite the leaders of the German opposition parties to Britain so that they can see what can be achieved with Conservative policies?

    Mr. Faulds: More, more.

    The Prime Minister: I am glad to see that it evokes such approval on the Opposition Benches.

    It is certainly true that we have at the moment the most competitive economy in western Europe, that we are in a very good position on inflation, and that unemployment is a good deal lower–and we are at the top of the growth league. That, as my hon. Friend says, is an enviable position, and I know that it is envied by many of my European partners.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the appalling outrage of Saturday in Manchester and send our thanks to the emergency services and our sympathy to the victims? Is this not a moment of truth for Sinn Fein? Does it not show the wisdom of demanding a ceasefire before Sinn Fein participates in any talks? Does not the responsibility now lie squarely on it if it is to play any part in the future progress of peace?

    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Saturday’s bomb in Manchester was a callous and inhuman act. It is a miracle that many more people were not injured and that many people were not killed. What is so startling is the total indifference of the people who left that bomb to what could well have happened to many people who have no connection whatever with the disputes in Ireland or the disputes that the IRA may have with the British Government or others.

    The right hon. Gentleman is right. The time has come for Sinn Fein to make up its mind. Either it will be a democratic organisation taking part in democratic politics or it will stay side by side as the reverse side of the coin to the IRA, with intermingled membership, in which case it has no part in democratic politics whatever. I believe that, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the moment of truth is here, it is for Mr. Adams and his colleagues, and everybody wishes to hear precisely what their views are–and let us have no more of the measly nonsense that we have had from them in recent years.

    Mr. Blair: I join with that entirely.

    Does the Prime Minister also agree that there has been progress in Northern Ireland? The British and Irish Governments are agreed on the way forward; all nationalist parties in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, apart from Sinn Fein, are agreed on peaceful means to achieve their ends; and the United States and others abroad may have been given a telling lesson on the realities of the IRA. Is not the only course now open to Sinn Fein to ensure that the IRA ceases its violence? If it cannot–or will not–the process should proceed with the democratic parties, and an agreement should be reached and put to a ballot of the people.

    The Prime Minister: It is entirely right that the talks must continue. We have no intention of allowing the search for a political settlement for Northern Ireland to be derailed by the activities of the IRA and Sinn Fein. I hope that all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will continue to demonstrate the leadership and courage necessary to make rapid progress, and to show the IRA that it cannot stop the process with bombs in Manchester, London or anywhere else.

    If the IRA and Sinn Fein wish to have any future interest in this process, they will clearly need to declare an unequivocal ceasefire. They will need to declare it immediately. They will also have to show that that ceasefire is credible and lasting, and is not just a tactical device to enable them to enter the talks until such time as it is convenient for them to leave. It is now up to them to demonstrate their credibility; it is not up to us or anyone else. They must demonstrate their credibility–but the talks will continue.

    Mrs. Roe: In the light of falls in unemployment, interest rates and inflation, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is now one of the most competitive economies in Europe? Does he accept, however, that much more still needs to be done to raise standards in our schools? Although things are improving, far too many children still leave school without the basic skills.

    The Prime Minister: Both the premise of my hon. Friend’s question and her substantive point are important. She knows that the British economy is in very sound shape; we intend to keep it so. As for education and basic standards, the Government have introduced a programme of reforms that is more comprehensive than any that we have seen at any stage in the past, designed to raise standards in schools, build on the national curriculum and ensure regular inspection and the publication of performance information.

    We have made substantial progress in recent years in raising standards, but there is no doubt that there is a great deal more that we wish to do to ensure that the quality of education for all our children is the equal of the quality of education anywhere else in the world. That is our intention, and we will continue to pursue it, despite the failures of so many Labour-controlled education authorities whose records have held back many children in inner London and elsewhere. [Hon. Members: “Seventeen years.”] It is no good hon. Members below the Gangway muttering in this fashion, when it is their party, in control in local government, that could act now to improve education, but does not.

     

    Q2. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Livingstone: Given the funds that the Government have made available to the Russian Government and organisations in Russia in recent years to help to establish democracy, has the Prime Minister had time to read today’s statement by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe expressing the CSCE’s regret and concern at the extensive bias in the coverage of the presidential election? Will the right hon. Gentleman now use his contacts with President Yeltsin to point out to him the value of the British precedent of television and radio providing equal time for candidates, to legitimise this final stage of the Russian election?

    The Prime Minister: I have not yet seen the particular statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In view of what he says, I shall certainly consider it, but the very fact of the Russian presidential elections, and the way in which they have been carried, out would have seemed inconceivable just a few years ago. It is a welcome sign that Russia is settling into the normal pattern of democracy, and we must give great credit to President Yeltsin for that. I hope that the second round will be conducted well and that there will be a clear-cut and satisfactory result.

    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the control of business rates under the Government has been of immense benefit to businesses, large and small, throughout Britain and, therefore, to jobs? Will he ask the relevant Government Departments to analyse the consequences for jobs and for prosperity of taking off these controls and handing decisions back to loony Labour councils, as is advocated by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider any mechanism that tries to restrain on-costs on British business. It is clear that the fact that British business as a whole pays less over and above wages in on-costs is one of the principal reasons why are more citizens are in work in Britain than in any other country of similar size throughout western Europe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Welsh: Did the Prime Minister see last night’s “Panorama” programme, which catalogued 10 years of evasion and incompetence by the Government on the BSE issue? What does he have to say to Scotland’s hill farmers, now awaiting being dragged into the general economic catastrophe created by the Government, while he postures to no effect in Europe?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I did not waste my time watching “Panorama” last night–[Interruption.] I have much more productive things to do with my time than waste it watching nonsense from “Panorama”. We have taken account of the scientific advice that we have had throughout this affair, and that is what we will continue to do in the interests of British agriculture and of the British beef consumer.

     

    Q4. Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall the exchanges that he and I had in the House last October, when I raised the question of closed circuit television for security purposes in our towns and cities? Is he aware that the initiative that he announced last year is one of the most practical ways of dealing with crime and of introducing crime prevention measures? Although he may not be able to confirm to me today whether my constituency of Cleethorpes is to benefit from the forthcoming announcement, will he guarantee that he will have a word with our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and advise him that we in Cleethorpes are very supportive of that initiative?

    The Prime Minister: Bringing closed circuit television to all corners of the United Kingdom is a practical effort to create a safer Britain in future. We are investing around £50 million, and our target is to fund 10,000 new cameras in the next three years. I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend about the Cleethorpes bid. Knowing my hon. Friend, I would have been surprised if there had not been a Cleethorpes bid, but he is right–I cannot confirm to him today whether it has been successful, but I hope that announcements will be made before too long.

    Mr. Litherland: The Prime Minister will understand that there are no words to describe the loathing that Manchester people have for the perpetrators of the crime against our city last Saturday, but it has happened and we must now begin to rebuild Manchester. Mancunians are resilient people, but they require help. Will the Prime Minister today give the assurance to the House that the Government will offer every support, including financial aid, for the restoration of businesses, buildings, jobs and homes in Manchester? Sympathy will not pay the bills.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has commented on three matters of importance. I entirely share his initial remarks about Manchester, and I have no doubt about the courage and determination of the people of that city in recovering from last week’s incident. Individuals injured by the bomb are eligible to apply for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Government-backed terrorism insurance scheme will ensure that participating insurers can meet claims by companies that purchased full terrorism cover. Businesses that have not done so are likely to receive limited reimbursement and should contact their insurance companies.

    The financial implications for local authorities are not yet clear. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider carefully any application for assistance by an authority affected by the incident, and he will certainly do so. In Manchester in the past–and I am sure that this will be so in future–an effective partnership between the Government, the private sector and the city council has delivered remarkable regeneration in many parts of the city. That partnership provides an excellent basis for rebuilding, and we look forward to working with the people concerned.

     

    Q5. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to a great man now gone, the late Sir Fitzroy Maclean? Was there not much to admire in that soldier, diplomat, Conservative Member of Parliament and patriot, who had an enviable ability for getting out of tight corners?

    The Prime Minister: Sir Fitzroy Maclean was a remarkable man with many qualities to admire–from being a founder of the Special Air Services to a Minister of the Crown at this Dispatch Box. In all his many roles, Sir Fitzroy made a remarkable contribution. He also played a crucial role in work with Tito’s partisans in the second world war. People will think of Sir Fitzroy Maclean as a man who lived life to the full. From what I know of him, I believe that he would regard that as a satisfactory epitaph.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Manchester Bomb – 15 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s account, from his book, John Major – The Autobiography, relating to the Manchester bombings.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Confounding the sceptics, we were able to hold elections in 30 May [1996]. Having wavered over a boycott, Sinn Fein not only took part, but recorded its best-ever result, with over 15 per cent of the vote (against 24 per cent for Trimble’s UUP [Ulster Unionist Party], 21 per cent for Hume’s SDLP [Social Democratic and Labour Party] and nearly 19 per cent for Paisley’s DUP [Democratic Unionist Party]). Pundits were divided over whether Sinn Fein’s vote was an endorsement of the IRA’s bombing campaign or an encouragement for them to call another ceasefire and join the negotiating forum. The IRA gave their answer when they demolished the centre of Manchester with a massive bomb on 15th June [1996], only days after the opening of the all-party talks under George Mitchell’s chairmanship. They were evidently not applying for admission. John Bruton hardened his stance, and demanded an unconditional and irrevocable ceasefire before they could enter.

    The Manchester bomb, deliberately placed in a crowded city centre, injured two hundred people and provoked deep revulsion. It confirmed that the IRA was stuck in a groove. Even more depressing in its political message was a reversion to wider sectarianism during the July-August marching season, despite the talks. As in 1995, Drumcree was against the flashpoint. To avoid clashes, the Chief Constable of the RUC Hugh Annesley routed an Orange Order march away from the Catholic Garvaghy Road. This decision provoked a risk of even greater violence, and had to be reversed. The reversal then triggered riots, and heightened tension between the two communities over several weeks.

  • Mr Major’s Statement Following Manchester Bomb – 15 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on 15th June 1996 following the bomb explosion in Manchester.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was a dreadful act. I condemn utterly those responsible. My first thoughts are with the injured and their families.

    This explosion looks like the work of the IRA. It is the work of a few fanatics and, as John Bruton has already made clear, causes absolute revulsion in Ireland, as it does here. This callous act of terrorism while the Queen was reviewing the colour of the Irish Guards is an insult to both nations.

    Sinn Fein have been clamouring to attend the Northern Ireland peace talks which began last week. If they are really serious about wanting peace, they must condemn this act and demand an unequivocal IRA ceasefire now.

    We shall spare no effort to bring those responsible to justice.

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They could come into the talks.

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • 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.

  • PMQT – 2 May 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Arnold: During his busy evening, did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to watch television last night, as an interesting broadcast demonstrated conclusively that people get better value for their council tax from Conservative councils? Does he not think that people will get better value by voting Conservative today?

    The Prime Minister: They can certainly see that, by voting Labour in the past, they have had to pay high council tax. Southwark, Islington, Wellingborough and probably any Labour authority one can mention has had a significantly higher council tax in the previous year, and a higher tax than a comparable Conservative authority. That is the nature of the Labour beast–vote for it, and then pay for it.

    Mr. Blair: What most people recall is that they did vote for the Conservative party and they did pay for it, with 22 tax increases.

    However, is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday that the cattle slaughter scheme would be fully operational today? In view of the widespread reports of confusion from all around the country today, can he give a factual account of what is happening?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the information should now be available to people. My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the National Farmers Union with details of the scheme, and information was published in the farming press last week. Guidance on the scheme was distributed on Monday evening to the abattoirs and markets that have been designated to operate it. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear yesterday, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will issue detailed guidance to farmers, and that will be sent out tomorrow. In the meantime, the Intervention Board and MAFF are operating a helpline to provide information to farmers, and that will continue throughout the weekend.

    Mr. Blair: Is not the difference between theory and practice the problem here? The scheme is supposed to be operational today, but does not appear to be operational in many parts of the country. In particular, people are saying, first, that there are insufficient collection centres; secondly, that there may be inadequate capacity for incinerating the carcases; and, thirdly, that many farmers appear to be in the dark both about the details of compensation and how it will operate. I know that this is difficult, but can the Prime Minister ask the Agriculture Minister to respond with even greater urgency to the situation, because at the moment the response appears pretty inept?

    The Prime Minister: I have already made my own inquiries to ensure that such information as is necessary is distributed and made available to farmers speedily. The scheme is large and will involve the slaughter of 15,000 to 20,000 animals a week. The scheme has been finalised and we moved immediately to ensure that farmers had the information they needed. Most of them should have. If some have not, the matter is now being examined and investigated, and I hope that farmers will have the information speedily.

    Sir Cranley Onslow: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter about the EC ban on British beef exports which a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends sent yesterday to all the EC ambassadors in London? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to call in those ambassadors to ensure that they report accurately to their Governments on the great damage that is being done in terms of British confidence in the European Union as a result of the way in which the EC is handling the matter?

    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly draw that interesting suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, who is already in touch with his fellow Foreign Ministers across the European Union. I share the view expressed by my right hon. Friend. The evidence shows that British beef is safe, as both the Commission President and the Agriculture Commissioner have acknowledged. I am delighted to see this afternoon that the Wimpy chain has lifted the ban on British beef with immediate effect and I have no doubt whatever that that is the right decision.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mrs. Prentice: Three times on Tuesday the Prime Minister failed to give a direct answer to questions about discussions he had had with the Deputy Prime Minister. I ask him now whether he has ever discussed with the Deputy Prime Minister the possibility–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must listen to the hon. Lady.

    Mrs. Prentice: Has the Prime Minister ever discussed with the Deputy Prime Minister the possibility that he would stand aside and allow his deputy to take over if, by tomorrow, Conservative party fortunes have not improved?

    The Prime Minister: The last Labour politician who was that smug about elections is now earning his living elsewhere in Europe.

     

    Q3. Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that another vital election is about to take place–the one in Northern Ireland leading to negotiations on 10 June when the people of Northern Ireland will be able to decide their future for themselves through peaceful and democratic means? Does he agree that the time has come for the IRA to stop trying to coerce and blackmail the people of Northern Ireland and to abandon terrorism?

    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is no absolutely no credible reason for the IRA not to stop its violence immediately. The all-party negotiations will be serious and they will start on 10 June. Sinn Fein can play a part in them if there is an unequivocal IRA ceasefire. In that case, Sinn Fein will find itself in the same position as other political parties. As I have said many times, the choice is for the IRA to make and I hope that it will make it. It will certainly gain nothing by waiting, still less by more violence, which can only call even further into question its readiness to adopt peaceful methods. Whether there is a ceasefire or not, the talks will go ahead.

    Mr. Soley: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland right to refuse to distribute European Union posters on Europe day?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is a very proud Scot and the flag that he wishes to see flying in Scotland is the Union flag–so do I.

     

    Q4. Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the satisfaction in my constituency that unemployment has fallen to 4.5 per cent? Is he aware that there is particular satisfaction this week because Labour lost control of St. Edmundsbury borough council? Does my right hon. Friend share the view of the Labour councillor who defected to the Conservatives that, underneath a thin veneer, all those tawdry old socialist instincts of Labour remain alive and well?

    The Prime Minister: Clearly, the lady concerned is a councillor with great insight. There is no doubt about what the fate is of those parts of the country that are unfortunate enough to have Labour councils: they pay higher council taxes. The 10 councils with the highest council tax are all Labour-controlled, and that is the message that every voter should remember. If voters want to pay an extra £225 a week on band D, all they have to do is to vote Labour, and it will be guaranteed.

     

    Q5. Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Gapes: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that economic and monetary union is no threat to the nation state?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at what my right hon. and learned Friend has said–he would then not misrepresent him.

    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a misrepresentation to allege that Euro-realists urge that Britain leave the European Union? Does he agree that we have now reached a position at which we should be having a proper discussion in the intergovernmental conference on all the fundamental issues? As I said at the end of last year’s leadership contest, we should be talking to one another–in Europe and in the United Kingdom–rather than at one another.

    The Prime Minister: I am very much in favour of that type of dialogue. There is no doubt that it is the right position for the United Kingdom to play a leading role in the European Union, but it is equally right to say that that does not mean that we shall necessarily agree with our colleagues on many issues. We are as entitled to fight our corner and disagree as any other nation state in Europe.

    I intend to stay at the centre of the European debate, assessing, on each issue, what is best for the British national interest–in precisely the same way in which other heads of Government will assess what is right for their countries–and always arguing for the sort of Europe that the Government believe is right for the whole of Europe.

     

    Q6. Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Chisholm: Given the unsatisfactory replies given on bovine spongiform encephalopathy earlier to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), is it not time that we have a Government who are taken seriously in Europe? Will he condemn the infantile and counter-productive gesture politics of the Secretary of State for Scotland in refusing to allow the European flag to fly for one day next week?

    The Prime Minister: I answered that question some moments ago. I do not know quite where the hon. Gentleman was then, but the answer I gave then still stands.

    Mr. David Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation and thanks of my constituents because the Government went further than they were originally prepared to go on the Housing Bill, which received its Third Reading earlier this week, in giving special control provisions to local authorities to deal with the seedy bedsits and squalid landlords that were threatening our towns with decline and decay? Does he agree that those provisions will need political will and determination to be implemented effectively, and will he remind our voters of that as they go to the polls today?

    Mr. Mackinlay: He is not one of us.

    The Prime Minister: That is certainly true, nor, as my hon. Friend is a man of taste and discretion, would he wish to be one of them. As for the legislation that my hon. Friend mentioned, there has been a problem in recent years with many people moving, particularly to seaside towns. It is right to have taken the measures that we have. I hope that those measures will stop the abuse of the social security system and the difficulties faced recently by many seaside towns.

     

    Q7. Mr. Beggs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Beggs: Does the Prime Minister share the view of Fergus Finley, who thinks for Dick Spring, that if Sinn Fein does not attend the talks in Northern Ireland, the talks will be a waste of time? Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that the participation of democratic parties in the forthcoming talks will have influence?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. What we need to see in the forthcoming talks is the democratic parties meeting, talking and seeking to reach a position that will enable there to be agreement in Northern Ireland. I emphasise the point that it is for the democratic parties. If there is no credible, clear-cut and certain ceasefire, Sinn Fein in no sense can claim to be a democratic party and it will not be there, as other parties will.

     

    Q10. Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May.

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

    Mr. Luff: Will my right hon. Friend seize this opportunity to remind the House once again that the superior management and policies of Conservative councils deliver better services and lower taxes for council tax payers–some £225 lower, I believe, for the average band D household?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that. One only has to see the performance of Labour councils to illustrate it. I see that the shadow Environment Secretary is not here. If he were, he could explain why bad debts cost Camden tax payers £2.95 for every dwelling every week. Perhaps Opposition Members can explain why the highest band D council tax is in Labour Liverpool and why the highest amounts of council tax are in Labour Lambeth. I could stretch the list from here until next Tuesday, so bad and so inefficient are Labour councils.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Prime Minister Klaus – 18 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Prague with Prime Minister Klaus, given in Prague on Thursday 18th April 1996.

    MR KLAUS:

    Good Morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Allow me to use this opportunity to thank Prime Minister John Major for his visit to Prague. We have had very long, very substantial and indeed very friendly, important, talks which took several hours. I believe we both are convinced that meetings like this are indeed very important in terms of building of confidence, in terms of development of mutual knowledge which is of very great importance, especially in today’s Europe. And my last news, the great majority of the content of our talks was concerned with international policy, foreign policy, although we also informed each other about our domestic affairs. We have talked on such subjects as the European Union and NATO. I believe the United Kingdom is one of the countries which supports our admission to these organisations and with which we also share our ideas about the time schedule of these admissions.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly thank the Prime Minister and the Czech nation for their hospitality not just to me over the last day, but to the enormously warm and friendly reception that The Queen received on her recent visit. I know from my conversations subsequently to that visit how much she enjoyed coming here and what a remarkable experience she found it. We regard the Czech Republic as an old and valued friend and I think that visit helped to cement the relationship.

    The Prime Minister and I have met on a number of occasions in recent years and the opportunity for lengthy discussions over the last 24 hours has enabled us to look in detail at several areas of particular interest, most obviously the Czech Republic’s determination to become a member of the European Union and also of NATO. As the Prime Minister indicated, we look forward to the Czech Republic joining us in both these organisations, and we took the opportunity over the last day of discussing in detail what that might mean and in particular, as far as the European Union is concerned, what is likely to come out of the intergovernmental conference and what that will mean for the organisation when negotiations for new membership begin. Although other issues sometimes seem to dominate the European Union agenda, there is no doubt that the prospect of widening the European Union and carrying it across central Europe towards East Europe is the most important issue facing the European Union at the present time, and an opportunity that has not occurred in the past, and may not occur in the future, unless the present opportunity is taken to widen the Union. And the sort of matter we discussed was how we could look at the individual stepping stones from the application to join, to the date of joining, to steadily meld together the interests both of the Union and the Czech Republic.

    Although we spent most of our time on those two subjects, we did also look at a number of bilateral matters as well. We both noted with some satisfaction the growth in trade between our two countries and we both agree that the scope for further improvement still remains. This was very much a working discussion, not in broad generalities but looking at the details of matters that will concern both of us in the future. I found it a very useful and worthwhile occasion and I hope that the Prime Minister did as well.

    Let me just say finally that the only disappointment on this trip is that President Havel, whom I have met on many occasions in recent years, was abroad on this particular occasion and I was unable to see him, but I hope that will be rectified before too long.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    With regard to the fact that you are travelling to Moscow, and with regard to another fact that Moscow would like to promote something like participation in the political part of NATO, are you of the same opinion as Mr Solana that there is no such thing as a political participation only in NATO?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the purpose of NATO expansion is perfectly clear. We are looking at NATO expansion, but of course NATO expansion is not going to come rapidly over a long distance, clearly that will concentrate in the first instance on central Europe and I think will concentrate on the Czech Republic and adjacent countries. And we will need to take that in a measured and cautious way. NATO will expand, of that I am certain. But it will need to be taken in a measured and cautious way for two reasons. Firstly because the expansion of NATO involves obligations by NATO that cannot lightly be entered into, it cannot just be a paper exercise. If NATO is going to expand, the same obligations to new members must be extended as are extended to the present membership of NATO. And secondly of course, the new members have their own obligations to NATO as well and they will need to be discussed and examined. So I think discussions beyond that on other matters, political elements of NATO, I think they are really not remotely for the present time.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can I ask you for your reaction to the IRA bomb that went off in London last night? And also [indistinct] Mr Santer today on the continued ban on British beef?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I can turn to the IRA bomb, at least I assume it was an IRA bomb but I don’t believe they have yet confirmed that that is the case. It seems to have been an exercise for no apparent purpose other than to remind people that they still have the capacity to mount terrorist exercises. The implications of the bomb are clear. It is an indication from the IRA that they continue to be prepared to threaten the peace process and to threaten the prospects of a better future for all the people in Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

    The implications for them are equally clear. Unless there is a ceasefire, a verifiable ceasefire, that is clear cut, then there will be no part in the peace process for Sinn Fein.

    It seems to me to be a very odd time to have mounted this exercise when at this very moment in the United Kingdom we are introducing the legislation that will lead to elections and will lead to the prospect of all-party talks on the question of Northern Ireland, a particularly futile time for them to behave in this fashion. But what they must understand is what we have done – the British government, the Irish government, political parties – in the process we have set in train, is to open up the possibility for Sinn Fein to join the democratic process. But if they thumb their noses at the democratic process, they will not be able to stop it. The legislation will go ahead, the talks will go ahead, the process of seeking a permanent peace in Northern Ireland will go ahead, and those discussions will go ahead without the participation of Sinn Fein and those people who support bombing exercises like last night. That must be crystal clear to them and I hope that they don’t misunderstand that in the slightest.

    And I think there is just one other point to make. All around the world people recognise what has been done to try and bring a permanent peace to Northern Ireland. If Sinn Fein and the IRA want to turn themselves completely into pariahs in every part of the world, then this sort of continued exercise is precisely the way to do it. But they will not derail the plans that we have in mind.

    On the second point about BSE and the European ban, the European ban is unjustified, there is not a shred of doubt in my mind about that. The national bans were imposed, then a European ban was imposed, and since then we have the evidence of the scientists that British beef is safe. We have the assertion from the World Health Organisation that British beef is safe; we have the assertion from the Agriculture Commissioner that he would eat British beef and British beef is safe; we have the same assertion from President Santer that British beef is safe. And on the back of that it defies logical belief that the ban continues in the way that it does. And I will express to President Santer and my other European partners, whom I will see in the next few days, precisely the sentiments that I have expressed over the last few moments.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] NATO and the EU [indistinct] was it an exchange of information or are there any concrete results?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it was not just a question of exchanging information, it was a question of looking at the practical measures that will need to be taken as the Czech Republic move towards membership of the European Union. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding about precisely what needs to be done and how we move from the present situation, where the Czech Republic is an aspiring member of the European Union, and the date when they become a full member. And the sort of thing that the Prime Minister and I looked at in detail was how we can deepen and improve the relationship in that intervening period. Are there ways in which the European market can progressively be opened to the Czech Republic? That is but one illustration of a number that we looked at. How can the economic and political dialogue between the Czech Republic and their partners in the European Union be improved before full membership. So these were practical issues.

    It was a working meeting, it wasn’t a meeting to take final decisions, that is a matter for the European Union as a whole, not just for one member state. But it was an opportunity to exchange views on how the United Kingdom, who strongly supports the widening of the Community and in particular the membership of the Czech Republic, how we can help to play a role to speed that up, to bring that about, and how we can work with the Czech Republic to deal with improving the relationship between the European Union and the Czech Republic in the interregnum before there is full membership. So very much a working meeting along those lines.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Elective Process in Northern Ireland – 21 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the elective process in Northern Ireland, made on 21st March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the arrangements leading to all-party negotiations in Northern Ireland.

    In my statement to the House on 28 February,I announced that all-party negotiations would commence on 10 June. In a communique issued on the same day, the British and Irish Governments also agreed on intensive multilateral consultations with the Northern Ireland political parties. The purpose of those was to help the British Government to draw up proposals for a broadly acceptable elective process, including the possibility of a referendum, and to try to reach agreement on the format and agenda of all-party negotiations.

    During those consultations, the Government have met all the major parties and most minor parties in Northern Ireland on several occasions. Sinn Fein has of course excluded itself. There have been several meetings between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Tanaiste, Mr. Spring, including a review of the outcome of the consultations. The Irish Government have also had a number of meetings with the Northern Ireland parties.

    In some areas, we have seen encouraging signs of convergence between the parties’ views. In others, sharp differences have remained. The form of elections has been one of the main areas of disagreement between the parties.

    Three main systems have been proposed: an election in 18 constituencies, each electing five members by single transferable vote; an election on a party list system across one single Northern Ireland constituency; and a single constituency election across Northern Ireland with votes for parties, but not for named candidates. None of those systems has secured the clear support of major parties representing each of the main communities. Some parties have even threatened not to participate in the process and thus abort the possibility of all-party negotiations should one of the other systems be chosen.

    I made it clear in my statement on 28 February that,if no agreement proved possible, the Government would come forward with proposals based on a judgment of what is most likely to be broadly acceptable to the parties and to the people of Northern Ireland. Whatever the merits of each of the three main systems, it is clear that none, on its own, meets that criterion of broad acceptability.

    We have therefore considered how to proceed. We have decided to propose a new system, including the most attractive elements of other proposals. We will therefore introduce legislation, immediately after the Easter recess, providing for an election on 30 May using a list system rather than individual candidates, organised in 18 constituencies, but not by single transferable vote, and supplemented by Northern Ireland-wide party preference.

    Briefly, electors will have to register just one vote which they will cast, in the constituency, for the party of their choice. Five seats in each of the 18 constituencies will be allocated from party constituency lists of candidates, published in advance, in proportion to each party’s share of the vote. In addition, the votes in all the constituencies will be aggregated and the 10 most successful parties across the whole of Northern Ireland will secure two elected representatives each, from party lists published in advance.

    I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome. The Province-wide element should help to achieve the widely shared objective of making the negotiating process as inclusive as possible through representation of the smaller parties.

    The elections will create a pool of 110 elected representatives. The successful parties will be invited by the Secretary of State to select, from among their representatives, negotiating teams for the negotiations to begin on 10 June. The transition from the elections to the negotiations will be automatic and immediate.

    Our aim is to see inclusive negotiations. Sinn Fein has, however, currently excluded itself from negotiations by the ending of the IRA ceasefire. That is its choice. But it can make itself eligible to participate through the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire. That, too, is its choice.

    The negotiations need to take place in an atmosphere of confidence. As I told the House on 28 February,all parties will need to make clear at the beginning of negotiations their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report and to address, also at the beginning of negotiations, Senator Mitchell’s proposals on decommissioning. There can be no backing away from that. Equally, there must be confidence that, as the negotiations proceed, they will be comprehensive and address all legitimate issues.

    As well as furnishing negotiating teams, the elected representatives will be members of an elected forum to meet in Belfast on a regular basis when negotiations are not in session. The purpose of discussion in that forum will be to promote dialogue and mutual understanding within Northern Ireland.

    The forum will not engage in the negotiations, which will be free-standing, but could interact with and inform the process at the request of the participants in negotiations. For example, the negotiators might agree to commission discussions, studies or reports from the forum. The legislation will also provide for the forum to be able to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies or individuals can be made.

    The forum’s life will be time limited to 12 months, renewable for up to a maximum of a further 12 months. It will not continue in existence if negotiations are no longer in process. In its procedures, it will be required to proceed by broad consensus.

    We have also looked at proposals for referendums.We agree that the people of Northern Ireland must have full ownership of the negotiation process and its outcome. The electoral legislation will give the Government powers to hold referendums in Northern Ireland. That will enable us to meet our undertaking to put the outcome of negotiations to the people of Northern Ireland before submitting it to Parliament.

    It has also been argued that a referendum now could be valuable, for example, on the use of violence for political ends. Our judgment at present is that the case for such a referendum has not yet been conclusively made, but we have not ruled out the option of holding a referendum with an appropriate question or questions on the same day as the elections.

    There is one other important area that needs to be settled before negotiations can begin: the ground rules for the negotiations. At the end of last week, a consultation paper was issued to the parties. It sets out what an acceptable approach might be, drawing on the experience of the 1991-92 talks round and preliminary consultation with the parties. Further consultation with the parties will continue to ensure that the maximum common ground can be identified.

    I have outlined today what I believe to be a viable and a reasonable way forward. Everyone in this process has had to make compromises, some of them difficult compromises. Everyone has needed to exercise patience, and I am grateful to those who have done so. But the basis of our approach has remained unchanged–namely, the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Downing street declaration, and the need for an approach that can build confidence and lead to an agreement capable of winning the allegiance of both main communities.

    I therefore urge the Northern Ireland parties to look carefully at the announcement that I have made today, and the short paper giving more detail which we are publishing in parallel. No party has got all that it wanted. Equally, I see no issue of principle that could reasonably cause any party to walk away from the democratic process that I have set out. I do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland would understand if any party did.

    Let us also not forget that the threat of terrorism continues to hang over the process. That is why the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence, and parallel decommissioning, remain so important. The IRA used the lack of a fixed date for all-party negotiations as an excuse to break its ceasefire. There was never any justification for its actions. Now, its excuses are running out.

    What I have set out today represents a clear and direct route to all-party negotiations. The prospects for a just and lasting settlement are better than they have been for a generation if all parties take advantage of the opportunities that lie before us. Let me make it clear yet again that, while we want to see all parties round the table, the process will go on with or without Sinn Fein. If it excludes itself from taking part in democratic negotiations, it will not be able to exercise a veto against others doing so.

    Once again, the people of Northern Ireland are watching the latest steps along the road to negotiations with bated breath. Their hopes for peace could not be clearer or more overwhelming. We need to move beyond procedures to the substance of negotiations as speedily as we can. The chance is there–no one who stands unreasonably in the way of a settlement will be readily forgiven.

    I therefore commend to the House the approach that I have set out and the hope that the House will today send a clear signal of support for this democratic process. That would be the best answer to the terrorists who continue to threaten it and the people of every part of our islands.